text
stringlengths 47
469k
| meta
dict | domain
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|
---
abstract: |
We show that every Abelian group satisfying a mild cardinal inequality admits a pseudocompact group topology from which all countable subgroups inherit the maximal totally bounded topology (we say that such a topology satisfies property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$).
Every pseudocompact Abelian group $G$ with cardinality $|G|\leq 2^{2^{\mathfrak{c}}}$ satisfies this inequality and therefore admits a pseudocompact group topology with property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$. Under the Singular Cardinal Hypothesis (SCH) this criterion can be combined with an analysis of the algebraic structure of pseudocompact groups to prove that every pseudocompact Abelian group admits a pseudocompact group topology with property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$.
We also observe that pseudocompact Abelian groups with property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$ contain no infinite compact subsets and are examples of Pontryagin reflexive precompact groups that are not compact.
address:
- |
Departmento de Matemáticas\
Universitat Jaume I\
Campus Riu Sec, 12071\
Castellón Spain
-
author:
- Jorge Galindo and Sergio Macario
date:
-
-
title: Pseudocompact group topologies with no infinite compact subsets
---
Introduction
============
A topological space $X$ is pseudocompact if every real-valued continuous function on $X$ is bounded. Pseudocompactness is greatly enhanced by the addition of algebraic structure. This fact was discovered in 1966 by Comfort and Ross [@comfross66] who proved that pseudocompact topological groups are totally bounded or, what is the same, that they always appear as *subgroups* of compact groups. They went even further and precisely identified pseudocompact groups among subgroups of topological groups: a subgroup of a compact group is pseudocompact if, and only if, it is ${G_{\delta}}$-dense in its closure (i.e., meets every nonempty ${G_{\delta}}$-subset of its closure).
A powerful tool to study totally bounded topologies on Abelian groups is Pontryagin duality. This is because a totally bounded group topology is always induced by a group of characters [@comfross64] and Pontryagin duality is based on relating a topological group with its group of continuous characters. We recall here that a character of a group $G$ is nothing but a homomorphism of $G$ into the multiplicative group ${{\mathbb T\,}}$ of complex numbers of modulus one.
If $G$ is an Abelian topological group, the topology of uniform convergence on compact subsets of $G$ makes the group of continuous characters of $G$, denoted $G^\wedge$, into a topological group. Evaluations then define a homomorphism $\alpha_G\colon G\to G^{\wedge\wedge}
$ between $G$ and the group of all continuous characters on the dual group, the so-called *bidual* group $G^{\wedge \wedge}$. When $\alpha_G$ is a topological isomorphism we say that $G$ is Pontryagin reflexive. It will be necessary for the development of this paper to keep in mind that character groups of discrete groups are compact groups. Even if it is not relevant for our purposes we cannot resist here to add that character groups of compact groups are again discrete, and that the Pontryagin van-Kampen theorem proves that all locally compact Abelian groups (discrete and compact ones are thus comprised) are reflexive.
In the present paper Pontryagin duality will appear both as a tool for constructing pseudocompact group topologies and as an objective itself. To be precise, this paper is motivated by the following two questions
\[Qref\] Is every Pontryagin reflexive totally bounded Abelian group a compact group?
\[Qcomp\] Does every pseudocompact Abelian group admit a pseudocompact group topology with no infinite compact subsets?
In this paper we obtain a negative answer to Question \[Qref\] and a positive answer, valid under the Singular Cardinal Hypothesis (SCH), to Question \[Qcomp\]. The focus of the paper will be on Question \[Qcomp\] with the analysis of Question \[Qref\] and its relation with Question \[Qcomp\] deferred to Section 6.
It should be noted, in a direction opposite to Question \[Qcomp\], that every pseudocompact group admits pseudocompact group topology with nontrivial convergent sequences, see [@galigarctomi09].
Our approach to Question \[Qcomp\] consists in combining techniques that can be traced back at least to [@tkac88] with the ideas of [@galigarc07]. Our construction actually produces pseudocompact Abelian groups with all countable subgroups $h$-embedded. This is stronger (see Section 2) that finding pseudocompact group topologies with no infinite compact subsets. With the aid of results from [@hernmaca03] this construction will yield a wide range of negative answers to Question \[Qref\]. As pointed to us by M. G. Tkachenko, Question \[Qref\] has been answered independently in [@ardaetal].
On notation and terminology {#on-notation-and-terminology .unnumbered}
---------------------------
All groups considered in this paper will be Abelian. So, the specification *Abelian group* to be found at some points will respond only to a matter of emphasis. To further avoid the cumbersome use of the word “Abelian”, free Abelian groups will simply be termed as *free groups*.
The symbol ${{\mathbb P}}$ will denote the set of all prime numbers. *Faute de mieux*, we will use the unusual symbol $\mathbb{P}^{\uparrow}$ to denote the set of all prime powers, i.e., an integer $k\in \mathbb{P}^{\uparrow}$ if, and only if, $k=p^n$ for some $p\in {{\mathbb P}}$ and some positive integer $n$.
For a set $X$ and a cardinal number $\alpha$, $[X]^{\alpha}$ stands for the collection of all subsets of $X$ with cardinality $\alpha$.
Following Tkachenko [@tkac88], we say that a subgroup $H$ of a topological group $G$ is $h$-embedded if every homomorphism of $H$ to the unit circle ${{\mathbb T\,}}$ can be extended to a *continuous* homomorphism of $G$ to ${{\mathbb T\,}}$. If $G$ is totally bounded and $H$ is $h$-embedded in $G$, then the topology of $H$ must equal the maximal totally bounded topology of $H$ (or, using van Douwen’s terminology, $H=H^\sharp$).
The cardinal function $m(\alpha)$ will be often used. The cardinal $m(\alpha)$ is defined for every infinite cardinal $\alpha$ as the least cardinal number of a ${G_{\delta}}$-dense subset of a compact group $K_\alpha$ of weight $\alpha$. It is proved in [@comfrobe85] that this definition does not depend on the choice $K_\alpha$ and therefore makes sense. The same reference contains proofs of the following basic essential features of $m(\alpha)$: $$\log(\alpha)\leq m(\alpha)\leq (\log(\alpha))^\omega \quad \mbox{
and }\quad \cf(m(\alpha))>\omega, \quad \mbox{ for every
}\alpha\geq \omega.$$ These inequalities have a much simpler form if *Singular Cardinal Hypothesis* (SCH) is assumed. SCH is a condition consistent with ZFC that follows from (but is much weaker than) the *Generalized Continuum Hypothesis* (GCH). Under SCH every infinite cardinal $\alpha$ satisfies $$m(\alpha)=(\log(\alpha))^\omega.$$ It is well known that every compact group has cardinality $2^\kappa$ for some cardinal $\kappa$. The question on which cardinals can appear as the cardinal of a pseudocompact group is not so readily answered. We will say that a cardinal $\kappa$ is *admissible* provided there is a pseudocompact group of cardinal $\kappa$. The first obstructions to admissibility were found by van Douwen [@douw80], the main one being that the cardinality $|G|$ of a pseudocompact group cannot be a strong limit cardinal of countable cofinality; see [@dikrshak98 Chapter 3] for more information on admissible cardinals.
Most of our results concern constructing pseudocompact group topologies on a given Abelian group $G$. As indicated in the introduction, every pseudocompact group topology is totally bounded and a totally bounded group topology $\mathcal{T}$ on an Abelian group $G$ is always induced by a unique group of characters $H\subset Hom(G,{{\mathbb T\,}})$, [@comfross64; @comfross66]. To stress this latter fact we will usually refer to $\mathcal{T}$ as $\mathcal{T}_{_{H}}$. Recall that the topology $\mathcal{T}_{_{H}}$ is Hausdorff if, and only if, the subgroup $H$ separates points of $G$.
We have also introduced above the symbol $G^\wedge$ to denote the group of all continuous characters of a topological Abelian group equipped with the compact-open topology. We will use in this context the subscript $_d$ to indicate that $G$ carries the discrete topology. Thus $(G_d)^\wedge$ equals the set $Hom(G,{{\mathbb T\,}})$ of all homomorphisms into ${{\mathbb T\,}}$. Being a closed subgroup of ${{\mathbb T\,}}^G$, $(G_d)^\wedge$ is always a compact group.
Several purely algebraic notions from the theory of infinite Abelian groups will be necessary, as for instance the notion of basic subgroup and the related one of pure subgroup. We refer to [@fuchs] for the meaning and significance of these properties. As usual, the symbol $t(G)$ stands for the torsion subgroup of the group $G$ and $r_0(G)$ denotes the torsion-free rank of $G$.
The dual property to pseudocompactness
======================================
The following theorem is at the heart of the relationship between questions \[Qcomp\] and \[Qref\].
\[hernmaca\] Let $(G,{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})$, $H\subset \ho(G,{{\mathbb T\,}})$, be a Hausdorff Abelian totally bounded group. $(G,{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})$ is pseudocompact if, and only if, every countable subgroup of $(H,\mathcal{T}_{_{G}})$ is $h$-embedded in $(G_d)^\wedge$.
We say that a topological group $G$ has property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$ if every countable subgroup of $G$ is $h$-embedded in $G$.
Thus property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$ is, in the terminology of [@hernmaca03], the dual property of pseudocompactness.
The relation between property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$ and Question \[Qcomp\] is clear from the following Lemma. Although a combination of Propositions 3.4 and 4.4 of [@hernmaca03] would provide an indirect proof, we offer a direct proof for the reader’s convenience.
\[nocompact\] Let $(G,{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})$ denote a totally bounded group with property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$. Then $(G,{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})$ has no infinite compact subsets.
We first see that all countable subgroups of $G$ are ${\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}}$-closed. Suppose otherwise that $x\in \cl_{(G,{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})}N\setminus N$ with $N$ a countable subgroup of $G$. The subgroup $\widetilde{N}={\langle\,}N\cup
\{x\}{\,\rangle}$ is also countable and, by hypothesis, inherits its maximal totally bounded group topology from $(G,{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})$. Since subgroups are necessarily closed in that topology, it follows that $N$ is closed in $\widetilde{N}$, which goes against $x\in \widetilde{N}\setminus N$.
Now suppose $K$ is an infinite compact subset of $G$ and let $S\subset K$ be a countable subset of $K$. Define $\widetilde{G}={\langle\,}S{\,\rangle}$ and denote by $\widetilde{G}$ and $\overline{(\widetilde{G},{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})}$ the completions of $\widetilde{G}^\sharp$ and $(\widetilde{G},{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})$ respectively. Since ${\langle\,}S{\,\rangle}$ is $h$-embedded the identity function $j\colon \widetilde{G}^\sharp \to (\widetilde{G},{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})$, extends to a topological isomorphism $\bar{\j}\colon
b\widetilde{G}\to \overline{(\widetilde{G},{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})}$. Then $\bar{\j}(\cl_{b\widetilde{G}}S)=\cl_{\overline{(\widetilde{G},{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})}}j(S)\subset
K$, therefore $\cl_{\overline{(\widetilde{G},{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})}}j(S)=\cl_{(\widetilde{G},{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})}
S$ and, it follows from the preceding paragraph that $\cl_{b\widetilde{G}}S=\bar{\j}(\cl_{b\widetilde{G}}S)\subset {\langle\,}S{\,\rangle}$.
But a well known theorem of van Douwen [@douw90] (see also [@galihern98] and [@arhatkac Theorem 9.9.51] for different proofs and [@galihern99fu] for extensions of that result) states that $|\cl_{b(\widetilde{G})} S|=2^{\mathfrak{c}}$ and therefore it is impossible that $\bar{\j}(\cl_{b\widetilde{G}}S)S\subset {\langle\,}S {\,\rangle}$.
We establish next some easily deduced permanence properties.
\[prop:h-prod\] The class of groups having property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$ is closed for finite products.
Let $G_1$ and $G_2$ be two topological Abelian groups with property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$ and let $N$ be a countable subgroup of $G_1\times G_2$. Let $h$ be a homomorphism from $N$ to $\mathbb{T}$. By considering an arbitrary extension of $h$ to $G_1\times G_2$ we may assume that $h$ is actually defined on $G_1\times G_2$. Since both $\pi_1(N)$ and $\pi_2(N)$ are countable there will be continuous homomorphisms $h_i\colon G_i \to {{\mathbb T\,}}$, $i=1,2$, with $h_1(x)=h(x,0)$ and $h_2(y)=h(0,y)$ for all $x\in \pi_1(N)$ and $y \in \pi_2(N)$. The homomorphism $\bar{h}\colon G_1\times G_2\to {{\mathbb T\,}}$ given by $\bar{h}(x,y)=h_1(x)\cdot h_2(y)$ is then a continuous extension of $h$.
\[lem:quotients\] Let $\pi:K\to L$ be a continuous surjection between two compact Abelian groups $K$ and $L$ and suppose that $N$ is a subgroup of $L$ that, as subspace of $L$, carries the maximal totally bounded topology. If $M$ is a subgroup of $K$ such that $\pi_{\upharpoonleft_M}$ is a group isomorphism between $M$ and $N$, then $M$ also inherits from $K$ the maximal totally bounded topology.
Denote by $\mathcal{T}_{_{K}}$ and $\mathcal{T}_{_{L}}$ the topologies that $M$ inherit from $K$ and $L$ respectively (the latter obtained through $\pi_{\upharpoonleft_M}$). Since $\pi$ is continuous, the topology $\mathcal{T}_{_{K}}$ is finer than $\mathcal{T}_{_{L}}$, but $\mathcal{T}_{_{K}}$ is the maximal totally bounded topology, therefore $\mathcal{T}_{_{K}}=\mathcal{T}_{_{L}}$.
Property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$ on torsion-free and bounded groups
================================================================
We will make a heavy use of powers of groups in the sequel. If $\sigma$ is a cardinal number, $K^\sigma$ stands for such powers. We use calligraphical letters, to denote sets of coordinates, that is, subsets of $\sigma$. If $\mathcal{D}\subset \sigma$, we will denote by $\pi_{\mathcal{D}}^{K}$ the projection from $K^\sigma$ to $K^{\mathcal{D}}$, if no confusion is possible we will simply use $\pi_{\mathcal{D}}$.
\[room\] Let $G$ be a metrizable group and let $\sigma \geq {\mathfrak{c}}$ and $\alpha$ be cardinal numbers with $m(\sigma)\leq \alpha$, and $\alpha^\omega\leq \sigma$.
Then there exists an independent ${G_{\delta}}$-dense subset $D\subseteq
G^\sigma$ with cardinality $m(\sigma)$, $D=\{d_\eta \colon \eta
<m(\sigma)\}$, and two families of sets of coordinates $\{
\mathcal{S}_\theta \colon \theta \in [\alpha]^\omega\}, \{
\mathcal{N}_\eta\colon \eta< \alpha\}\subset \sigma$ such that:
1. $|\mathcal{S}_\theta|=\sigma$.
2. $\mathcal{S}_\theta\cap\mathcal{S}_{\theta^\prime}=\emptyset$, if $\theta\neq \theta^\prime$.
3. ${\displaystyle \left|\mathcal{S_\theta}\setminus
\bigcup_{\eta \in \theta}\mathcal{N}_\eta\right|=\sigma}$ for every $\theta\in [\alpha]^{ \omega}$.
4. Every subset $\{g_\eta \colon \eta <\alpha\}$ of $G^\sigma$ with $\pi_{_{\mathcal{N}_\eta}}(g_\eta)=\pi_{_{\mathcal{N}_\eta}}(d_\eta)$, for all $\eta <\alpha$ is ${G_{\delta}}$-dense.
Let $\mathcal{A}_\beta=\{a_{\gamma}\colon \gamma<\sigma\}$ be a set with $|\mathcal{A}_\beta|=\sigma$ and consider the disjoint union $\mathcal{A}=\bigcup_{\beta<{\mathfrak{c}}} \mathcal{A}_\beta$. We identify $G^\sigma$ with $G^\mathcal{A}$ and $\alpha$ with $[{\mathfrak{c}}]^\omega
\times \alpha$. Since $\alpha^\omega \leq \sigma$, we can as well decompose each $\mathcal{A}_\beta$ as a disjoint union ${\displaystyle \mathcal{A}_\beta= \bigcup_{\widetilde{\theta}\in
[[{\mathfrak{c}}]^\omega\times \alpha]^\omega}
\mathcal{A}_{\beta,\widetilde{\theta}}}$ of sets of cardinality $|\mathcal{A}_{\beta,\widetilde{\theta}}|=\sigma$.
For each $N\in [{\mathfrak{c}}]^\omega$, let next $F_N=\{f_{(N,\eta)}\colon
\eta<\alpha\}$ be an independent ${G_{\delta}}$-dense subset of the product ${\displaystyle G^{\cup_{\gamma\in N} \mathcal{A}_\gamma}}$ (note that $m(\sigma)\leq \alpha$ and that $G$ is metrizable). Assume that each $f_{(N,\eta)}$ actually belongs to $G^\mathcal{A}$ by putting $\pi_{\mathcal{A}_\gamma}(f_{(N,\eta)})=0$ if $\gamma\notin N$.
We now order $\alpha=[{\mathfrak{c}}]^\omega \times \alpha$ lexicographically and define the sets $N_{\widetilde{\eta}}$, $\widetilde{\eta} \in
[{\mathfrak{c}}]^\omega \times \alpha$ and $\mathcal{S}_{\widetilde{\theta}}$, $\widetilde{\theta} \in [[{\mathfrak{c}}]^\omega \times \alpha]^\omega$. For $\widetilde{\eta}=(N,\eta)\in [{\mathfrak{c}}]^\omega \times \alpha$ define $\mathcal{N}_{(N,\eta)}=\bigcup_{\gamma\in N}
\mathcal{A}_{\gamma,\widetilde{\eta}}$ and given $\widetilde{\theta}=\{(N_k,\eta_k)\colon k<\omega,\;\:
(N_k,\eta_k)\in [{\mathfrak{c}}]^\omega \times\alpha\}$, we define $\mathcal{S}_{\widetilde{\theta}}=\mathcal{A}_{\beta_0,\widetilde{\theta}}$ where $\beta_0$ is such that $\beta \in N_k$ for some $k$, implies $\beta<\beta_0$ (recall that ${\mathfrak{c}}$ has uncountable cofinality). By construction of the sets $\mathcal{A}_{\beta,\widetilde{\theta}}$, we have $\mathcal{S}_{\widetilde{\theta}}\cap\mathcal{S}_{\widetilde{\theta}^\prime}=\emptyset$, when $\widetilde{\theta}\neq \widetilde{\theta}^\prime$. Condition (3) obviously holds, since $S_{\widetilde{\theta}}$ and $\bigcup_{\widetilde{\eta}\in\widetilde{\theta}}\mathcal{N}_{\widetilde{\eta}}$ are even disjoint.
Define finally $D=\{ f_{\widetilde{\eta}}\colon \widetilde{\eta}\in
[{\mathfrak{c}}]^\omega \times \alpha\}=\cup_{N\in[{\mathfrak{c}}]^\omega}F_N$.
Suppose $\widetilde{D}=\{g_{\widetilde{\eta}}\colon
\widetilde{\eta}\in [{\mathfrak{c}}]^\omega \times \alpha\}$ is such that $\pi_{_{\mathcal{N}_{\widetilde{\eta}}}} (g_{\widetilde{\eta}})=
\pi_{_{\mathcal{N}_{\widetilde{\eta}} } } (f_{\widetilde{\eta}})$, for all $\widetilde{\eta} \in [{\mathfrak{c}}]^\omega \times \alpha$.
To check that $\widetilde{D}$ is indeed ${G_{\delta}}$-dense we choose a ${G_{\delta}}$-subset $U$ of $G^\mathcal{A}$ . There will be then $N=\{\alpha_n \colon n<\omega\}\in [{\mathfrak{c}}]^\omega$ and a ${G_{\delta}}$-set $V \subset G^{\cup\mathcal{A}_{\alpha_n}}$ such that $\{ \bar{x}\in G^{\mathcal{A}}\colon
\pi_{\cup_n\mathcal{A}_{\alpha_n}} (\bar{x})\in V \mbox{ for each
}n<\omega\}\subset U$. Since $F_N$ is ${G_{\delta}}$-dense in $G^{{\displaystyle \cup_{\gamma\in N}}
\mathcal{A}_\gamma}=G^{{\displaystyle \cup_n
\mathcal{A}_{\alpha_n}}}$, there will be an element $f_{(N,\eta)}\in F_N$ with $\pi_{\cup_n \mathcal{A}_{\alpha_n}}(f_{(N,\eta)})\in V$ for every $\alpha_n \in N$.
As $ g_{(N,\eta)}$ and $f_{(N,\eta)}$ have the same $\cup_{\gamma
\in N}\mathcal{A}_\gamma$-coordinates, we conclude that $g_{(N,\eta)}\in U\cap \widetilde{D}$.
If $\chi$ is a homomorphism between two groups $G_1$ and $G_2$ and $\sigma$ is a cardinal number, we denote by $\chi^{\sigma}$ the product homomorphism $\chi^\sigma \colon G_1^{\sigma}\to G_2^{\sigma}$ defined by $\chi^{\sigma}((g_\eta)_{\eta<\sigma})=(\chi(g_\eta))_{\eta<\sigma}$. It is easily verified that, for any $\mathcal{D}\subseteq\sigma$, the projections $\pi_{\mathcal{D}}^{G_i}:G_i^{\sigma}\to
G_i^{\mathcal{D}}$, $i=1,2$ satisfy $$\pi_{\mathcal{D}}^{G_2}\circ\chi^{\sigma}=\chi^{\mathcal{D}}\circ \pi_{\mathcal{D}}^{G_1}$$
\[cor:room\] Let $\chi \colon G_1\to G_2$ be a surjective homomorphism between two metrizable groups $G_1$ and $G_2$. If $\sigma$ and $\alpha$ are cardinal numbers with $m(\sigma)\leq \alpha$ and $\alpha^\omega\leq \sigma$, then it is possible to find an independent ${G_{\delta}}$-dense subset $D$ of $G_1^\sigma$ satisfying the properties of Proposition \[room\] such that in addition $\chi^\sigma(D)$ is an independent subset of $G_2^\sigma$.
It suffices to repeat the proof of Lemma \[room\] taking care to choose the sets $F_N$ in such a way that $\chi^{\cup_{\gamma \in
N}\mathcal{A}_\gamma}(F_N)$ is also independent.
\[prop:freetorsion\] Let $\chi \colon G\to {{\mathbb T\,}}$ be a surjective character of a compact metrizable group $G$. If $\sigma $ and $\alpha$ are cardinal numbers with $m(\sigma)\leq \alpha$, and $\alpha^\omega\leq \sigma$, then the topological group $G^\sigma$ contains an independent ${G_{\delta}}$-dense subset $F$ of cardinality $\alpha$ such that $F$ and $\chi^\sigma (F)$ generate isomorphic groups with property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$.
We begin with a ${G_{\delta}}$-dense subset of $G^\sigma$, $D=\left\{
d_\eta \colon \eta<\alpha\right\}$, with the properties of Lemma \[room\] and Corollary \[cor:room\]. We have thus two families of sets $\{\mathcal{S}_\theta,\: \colon\: \theta\in[\alpha]^{\omega}\}$, $\{\mathcal{N}_\eta,\: \colon\: \eta<\alpha\}\subset\sigma$ with the properties (1) through (4) of that Lemma.
Next, for every $\theta\in [\alpha]^{\omega} $, we choose and fix a set of coordinates $\mathcal{D}_\theta \subseteq \sigma$ of cardinality $|\mathcal{D}_\theta|=\sigma$ in such a way that $$\mathcal{D}_\theta\subseteq \mathcal{S}_\theta
\setminus {\displaystyle\bigcup_{\eta \in \theta}
\mathcal{N}_\eta}$$ (recall that by Lemma \[room\], $\left|\mathcal{S_\theta}\setminus \bigcup_{\eta \in
\theta}\mathcal{N}_\eta\right|=\sigma$)
Given each $\theta\in[\alpha]^{\omega}$, we consider the free subgroup $\left\langle \chi^\sigma(d_{\eta})
\colon \eta \in \theta \right\rangle$ and equip it with its maximal totally bounded topology. Denoting the resulting topological group as $\left\langle \chi^\sigma( d_{\eta}) \colon \eta \in \theta
\right\rangle^\sharp$, and taking into account that it has weight ${\mathfrak{c}}$, we can find an embedding $$\label{(1)}
j_{\theta} \colon \left\langle
\chi^\sigma(d_{\eta}) \colon \eta \in \theta \right\rangle^{\sharp}
\hookrightarrow {{\mathbb T\,}}^{\mathcal{D}_\theta}.$$
For each $\theta \in [\alpha]^\omega$ and each $\eta\in \theta$, let $g_{\eta,\theta}$ denote an element of $G^\mathcal{D_\theta}$ with $\chi^{\mathcal{D}_\theta}(g_{\eta,\theta})=j_\theta(\chi^\sigma(d_\eta))$. Observe that the set $\{ g_{\eta,\theta}\colon \eta \in \theta\}$ is independent.
We finally define the elements $f_\eta$, $\eta<\alpha$, by the rules: $$\begin{aligned}
&\pi_{\mathcal{D}_\theta}^G(f_\eta)=
g_{\eta,\theta} \mbox{, if } \theta \in [\alpha]^\omega \mbox{ is
such that } \eta \in \theta, \qquad \mbox{ and }\\ &
\pi_{\gamma}^G(f_\eta)=\pi_\gamma^G(d_\eta) \mbox{ if } \gamma
\notin \mathcal{D}_\theta \mbox{ for any } \theta \in
[\alpha]^{\omega} \mbox{ with } \eta \in \theta. \end{aligned}$$
Let us see that $F=\{f_\eta\colon\eta<\alpha\}$ satisfies the desired properties:
1. *$F$ and $\chi^\sigma(F)$ are independent.* Suppose that $\sum_{k=1}^m n_k f_{\eta_k}=0$ with $n_k\in {{\mathbb Z}}$. Choose then $\theta \in [\alpha]^\omega$ with $\eta_1,\ldots , \eta_{m}, \in
\theta$. Since $\pi_{\mathcal{D}_\theta}^G(f_{\eta_k})=g_{{\eta_k},\theta}$ and the set $\{g_{\eta,\theta} \colon \eta \in \theta\}$ is independent, the independence of $F$ follows. Since $\pi_{\mathcal{D}_\theta}(\chi^\sigma(f_{\eta}))=\chi^{\mathcal{D}_\theta}(g_{\eta,\theta})$, $\chi^\sigma(F)$ is also independent. It is easy to see, now, that $\langle F\rangle$ and $\langle\chi^\sigma(F)\rangle$ are isomorphic.
2. *The subgroup $\langle \chi^\sigma(F)\rangle$ has property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$.* Let $N$ be a countable subgroup of ${\langle\,}\chi^\sigma(F){\,\rangle}$. Let $\theta\in [\alpha]^\omega$ be such that $N\subseteq {\langle\,}\chi^\sigma(f_\eta) \colon \eta \in \theta{\,\rangle}$ and define $N_\theta:={\langle\,}f_\eta \colon \eta \in \theta {\,\rangle}$.
Observe finally that $\pi_{\mathcal{D}_\theta}^{{{\mathbb T\,}}}(N)=
\chi^{\mathcal{D}_\theta}(\pi_{\mathcal{D}_\theta}^G(N_\theta))$. This last subgroup is just $j_\theta\left(\left\langle \chi^\sigma(
d_{\eta}) \colon \eta \in \theta \right\rangle\right)$ and the latter carries by construction its maximal totally bounded topology, since the restriction of $\pi_{\mathcal{D}_\theta}^{{{\mathbb T\,}}}\colon
{{\mathbb T\,}}^{\sigma}\to{{\mathbb T\,}}^{\mathcal{D}_\theta}$ to $N$ is a group isomorphism onto $\pi_{\mathcal{D}_\theta}^{{{\mathbb T\,}}}(N)
=\chi^{\mathcal{D}_\theta}(\pi_{\mathcal{D}_\theta}^G(N_\theta))$, Lemma \[lem:quotients\] applies.
3. *$\langle F\rangle $ has property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$.* Take $\pi=\chi^{\sigma}$, $K=G^\sigma$ and $ L={{\mathbb T\,}}^\sigma$. Bearing in mind that the restriction to ${\langle\,}F{\,\rangle}$ is an isomorphism because $F$ and $\chi^{\sigma}(F)$ are independent sets, Lemma \[lem:quotients\] applies again.
4. *$F$ is a $G_\delta$-dense subset of $G^\sigma$.* Observe that, for every $\eta<\alpha$, $f_\eta$ coincides with $d_\eta$ on the set of coordinates $\mathcal{N}_\eta $, for $\mathcal{D}_\theta\subseteq \mathcal{S}_\theta
\setminus {\displaystyle\bigcup_{\eta \in \theta} \mathcal{N}_\eta}$. Since $D$ has the properties of Lemma \[room\], we conclude that $F$ is ${G_{\delta}}$-dense.
\[prop:boundedtorsion\] Let $\sigma $ and $\alpha$ be cardinal numbers with $m(\sigma)\leq
\alpha$, and $\alpha^\omega\leq \sigma$. The topological group ${{\mathbb Z}}(p)^{\sigma}$ contains an independent ${G_{\delta}}$-dense subset $H$ with property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$.
Proceed exactly as in Proposition \[prop:freetorsion\] and construct an embedding into ${{\mathbb Z}}(p)^\sigma$. To obtain the ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$-property we identify countable subgroups with Bohr groups of the form $\left(\oplus_{\omega} {{\mathbb Z}}(p)\right)^\sharp$.
The algebraic structure of pseudocompact Abelian groups
=======================================================
We obtain here some results on the algebraic structure of pseudocompact that will be useful in the next section. The first of them is inspired (and shares a part of its proof) from the first part of the proof of Lemma 3.2 of [@galigarc07]. We sketch here the proof for the reader’s convenience. We thank Dikran Dikranjan for pointing a misguiding sentence in a previous version of this proof.
\[descomp\] Every Abelian group admits a decomposition $$G=\left(
\bigoplus_{p^k \in {{\mathbb P}}_0^\uparrow} \bigoplus_{\gamma(p^k)}{{\mathbb Z}}(p^k)
\right)\bigoplus H$$ where $ {{\mathbb P}}_0^\uparrow $ is a finite subset of ${{\mathbb P}}^\uparrow$ and $H$ is a subgroup of $G$ with $$\left| n H\right|=|H|, \mbox{ for all }n\in {{\mathbb N}}.$$
Decompose $t(G)=\bigoplus_p G_p$ as a direct sum of $p$-groups $G_p$ and let $B_p$ denote a basic subgroup of $G_p$ for each $p$. This in particular means that $B_p$ is a direct sum of cyclic $p$-groups, $$B_p = \bigoplus_{n < \omega} B_{p,n} \mbox{ with }
B_{p,n} \cong \bigoplus_{\beta_{p^n}}{\textbf}Z(p^n)$$ and that $G_p/B_p$ is divisible. Define $\mathcal{D}=\{|B_{p,n}|\colon p^n \in
\mathbb{P}^\uparrow\}$. If $\mathcal{D}$ has no maximum or $\beta_0=\max \mathcal{D}$ is attained at an infinite number of $|B_{p,n}|$’s we stop here. If, otherwise, $\beta_0=\max
\mathcal{D}=|B_{p_1,n_1}|=\ldots=|B_{p_r,n_r}|$ and $|B_{p_j,n_j}|<\beta_0$ for all the remaining $p_j^{n_j}\in
{{\mathbb P}}^\uparrow$ we repeat the process with the set $\mathcal{D}\setminus |B_{p_1,n_1}|$. After a finite number of steps we obtain in this manner a finite collection of cardinals $F\subset
\mathcal{D}$ such that either:
1. *Case 1:* the supremum $\beta:=\sup\left( \mathcal{D}\setminus F\right)$ is not attained, or
2. *Case 2:* the supremum $\beta:=\sup \left(\mathcal{D}\setminus F\right)$ is attained infinitely often, i.e., there is an infinite subset $I\subset {{\mathbb P}}^{\uparrow}$ with $|B_{p,n}|=\beta$ for all $p^n \in I$.
Define ${{\mathbb P}}_0^{\uparrow}=\{ p^n \in {{\mathbb P}}^\uparrow \colon |B_{p,n}|\in
F\}$ (observe that ${{\mathbb P}}_0^\uparrow$ is necessarily finite), and set $\gamma(p_k^{n_k})=|B_{p_k,n_k}|$ if $p_k^{n_k}\in {{\mathbb P}}_0^{\uparrow}$. Since the subgroups $B_{p_k,n_k}$ are bounded pure subgroups, there will be [@fuchs Theorem 27.5] a subgroup $H$ of $G$ such that $$G=\left(\bigoplus_{p_k^{n_k}\in {{\mathbb P}}_0^{\uparrow}}
\bigoplus_{\gamma(p_k^{n_k})}B_{p_k,n_k}\right) \bigoplus H,$$
For each prime $p$, consider a $p$-basic subgroup $B_{p,H}=\oplus_{n} B_{p,n,H}$ of $H_p$, the $p$-part of $t(H)$, it is immediately checked that either $B_{p,H}$ itself (if $p\not \in
{{\mathbb P}}_0^\uparrow$) or $B_{p,H} \bigoplus \left(\bigoplus
_{\overset{p_k^{n_k}\in {{\mathbb P}}_0^{\uparrow}}{p_k=p}}
\bigoplus_{\gamma(p_k^{n_k})}B_{p_k,n_k}\right)$ (if $p \in
{{\mathbb P}}_0^\uparrow$) is also $p$-basic in $G$.
Since different basic subgroups are necessarily isomorphic [@fuchs Theorem 35], we have that $B_{p,H}$ or $B_{p,H}
\bigoplus \left(\bigoplus_{\overset{p_k^{n_k}\in
{{\mathbb P}}_0^{\uparrow}}{p_k=p}}
\bigoplus_{\gamma(p_k^{n_k})}B_{p_k,n_k}\right)$ is isomorphic to $B_p$. We have therefore that, for each $p$, either $\sup
|B_{p,n,H}|$ is not attained (case 1 above) or attained at infinitely many $p^n$’s (case 2).
Let now $n$ be any natural number. Then $|n
B_{p_k,n_k,H}|=|B_{p_k,n_k,H}|$ unless $p_k^{n_k}$ divides $n$. Since this will only happen for finitely $p_k^{n_k}$’s, we conclude, in both cases 1 and 2 that $|nB_{p,H}|=|B_{p,H}|$.
Using that $B_{p,H}$ is pure in $H_p$ and that $H_p/B_{p,H}$ is divisible we have that, $$\begin{aligned}
|nH_p|&=\left|\frac{nH_p}{nB_{p,H}}\right|+\left|nB_{p,H}\right| \\
&=
\left|n\left(\frac{H_p}{B_{p,H}}\right)\right|+\left|B_{p,H}\right|\\
&=
\left|\frac{H_p}{B_{p,H}}\right|+\left|B_{p,H}\right|=|H_p|.\end{aligned}$$ Since $ |H|=\sum_p H_p + r_0(H)|$ for every infinite group $H$ and $r_0(nH)=r_0(H)$ we have finally that $|H|=|nH|$, for every $n\in
{{\mathbb Z}}$.
The terminology introduced in the next definition is motivated, in the present context, by Theorem \[estrpseu\] below.
\[def:split\]If $G$ is an Abelian group, the set ${{\mathbb P}}_0^\uparrow$ of Lemma \[descomp\] can be partitioned as ${{\mathbb P}}_0^\uparrow={{\mathbb P}}_1^\uparrow\cup{{\mathbb P}}_2^\uparrow$ with $p_i^{n_i}\in
{{\mathbb P}}_1^\uparrow$ if, and only if, $\gamma(p_i^{n_i})> r_0(G)$.
The cardinal numbers $\gamma(p_i^{n_i})$ with $p_i^{n_i} \in
{{\mathbb P}}_1^\uparrow$ will be called the *dominant ranks* of $G$.
\[estrdikgio\] If $G$ is a nontorsion pseudocompact group, then there is a positive integer such that: $$\label{ineqwd}m(w(nG))\leq r_0(nG)\leq 2^{w(nG)}.$$
If $nG$ is metrizable for some $n\in {{\mathbb N}}$, then $nG$ is a compact metrizable group. Therefore $r_0(nG)= {\mathfrak{c}}$ and the inequalities in hold for this $n$.
If $nG$ is not metrizable for any $n\in {{\mathbb N}}$, then $G$ is, in the terminology of [@dikrgior08], *nonsingular*. Combining Lemma 3.3 and Theorem 1.15 of [@dikrgior08], there must be $n\in
N$ such that $r_0(nG)$ is the cardinal of a pseudocompact group of weight $w(nG)$. Therefore $$m(w(nG))\leq r_0(nG)\leq 2^{w(nG)}.$$
\[estrpseu\] Let $G$ be an Abelian group. If $G$ admits a pseudocompact group topology, then $G$ can be decomposed as $$G=
\left(\bigoplus_{ p^k \in {{\mathbb P}}_1^\uparrow} \bigoplus_{\gamma(p^k)}
{{\mathbb Z}}(p^k)\right) \oplus G_0$$ where $\gamma(p_i^{k_i})$, $p_i^{k_i} \in
{{\mathbb P}}_1^\uparrow$, are the dominant ranks of $G$ and there is a cardinal $\omega_d(G)$ such that $$\label{eq:estr}
m(\omega_d(G))\leq r_0(G)\leq |G_0|\leq 2^{\omega_d(G)}.$$
Since every pseudocompact torsion group must be of bounded order, the theorem is trivial (and vacuous) for such groups, we may assume that $G$ is nontorsion.
Decompose $G$ as in Lemma \[descomp\]: $$\left( \bigoplus_{p^k \in {{\mathbb P}}_0^\uparrow} \bigoplus_{\gamma(p^k)}{{\mathbb Z}}(p^k) \right)\bigoplus H$$ with ${{\mathbb P}}_0^{\uparrow}$ a finite subset of ${{\mathbb P}}^\uparrow$ and $$\left| n H\right|=|H| \mbox{ for all }n\in {{\mathbb N}}.$$
Split ${{\mathbb P}}_0^\uparrow={{\mathbb P}}_1^\uparrow\cup {{\mathbb P}}_2^\uparrow$ as in Definition \[def:split\] and define $$G_0=\bigoplus_{p_i^{k_i} \in {{\mathbb P}}_2^\uparrow}
\bigoplus_{\gamma(p_i^{k_i})}{{\mathbb Z}}(p_i^{k_i})\bigoplus H.$$ We will prove that the inequalities \[eq:estr\] hold for $w_d(G)=w(nG_0)$.
Lemma \[estrdikgio\] proves that there is some $n\in {{\mathbb N}}$ with $$\label{inwd} m(w(nG_0))\leq r_0(G_0)\leq
2^{w(nG_0)}.$$ If $|G_0|=\gamma(p_i^{k_i})$ for some $p_i^{k_i} \in {{\mathbb P}}_2^\uparrow$, it follows from the definition of $P_2^\uparrow$ that $|G_0|=
r_0(G)$ and is deduced from . If, otherwise, $|G_0|=|H|$, then $|nG_0|\geq |nH|=|H|= |G_0|$ and we deduce that $|G_0|=|nG_0|$ and thus that $|G_0|\leq 2^{w(nG_0)}$. This together with gives again with $w_d(G)=w(nG_0)$.
The cardinal $w_d(G)$ used in Theorem \[estrpseu\] is precisely the *divisible weight* of $G$ that was introduced and studied by Dikranjan and Giordano-Bruno [@dikrgior08]. We refer the reader to that paper to get an idea of the important role played by the divisible weight in the structure of pseudocompact groups. One of its applications (Theorem 1.19 loc. cit.) is to prove that $r_0(G)$ is an admissible cardinal for every pseudocompact group $G$, a fact first proved by Dikranjan and Shakhmatov in [@dikrshak09].
Pseudocompact groups with property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$
=======================================================
The results of the previous sections will be used here to obtain sufficient conditions for the existence of pseudocompact group topologies with property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$.
\[enumer\] Let $\pi \colon G_1\to G_2$ be a quotient homomorphism between two Abelian topological groups $G_1$ and $G_2$ and let $L$ be a compact Abelian group. Assume that the following conditions hold:
1. $G_1$ contains a free ${G_{\delta}}$-dense subgroup $H_1$ such that $H_1$ and $\pi(H_1)$ are isomorphic and have property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$.
2. $G_1$ contains another free subgroup $H_2$ such that $H_1\cap H_2=\{0\}$, $H_1+H_2$ and $\pi(H_1+H_2)$ are isomorphic and have property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$.
3. $m(w(L))\leq |H_2|$.
Under these conditions the product $G_1\times L$ contains a ${G_{\delta}}$-dense subgroup $\widetilde{H}$ such that both $\widetilde{H}$ and $\pi\left(p_1(\widetilde{H})\right)$ have property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$, where $p_1\colon G_1\times L\to G_1$ denotes the first projection.
We first enumerate the elements of $H_1$ and $H_2$ as $H_1=\{f_\beta\colon \kappa <\beta\}$ and $H_2=\{ g_\eta \colon \eta
<\alpha\}$. Since $m(w(L))\leq \alpha=|H_2|$, we can also enumerate a ${G_{\delta}}$-dense subgroup $D$ of $L$ (allowing repetitions if necessary) as $D=\{d_\eta \colon \eta <\alpha\}$. We now define the subgroup $\widetilde{H}$ of $G_1\times L$ as $$\widetilde{H}= \left\langle \,(f_\kappa + g_\eta,d_\eta)
\colon \eta <\alpha, \kappa<\beta\,\right\rangle.$$ It is easy to check that $\widetilde{H}$ is a ${G_{\delta}}$-dense subgroup of $G_1\times L$ with $\widetilde{H}\cap \{0\}\times
L=\{(0,0)\}$.
Since the homomorphism $p_1$ is continuous and establishes a group isomorphism between $\widetilde{H}$ and $H_1+H_2$, Lemma \[lem:quotients\] shows that $\widetilde{H}$ has property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$. The same argument applies to the group $\pi\left(
p_1(\widetilde{H})\right)=\pi(H_1+H_2)$.
Let $\alpha\geq \omega$ be a cardinal. We say that *$\alpha$ satisfies property $(\ast)$ if:* $$\tag{*}\label{*} \mbox{there is a cardinal $\kappa$ with }
\kappa^\omega \leq \alpha\leq 2^\kappa$$
Every cardinal $\alpha$ with $\alpha^\omega = \alpha$ satisfies property . This condition is equivalent to the condition $(m(\alpha))^\omega \leq \alpha$.
To apply Lemma \[enumer\] we need the following result:
\[comfgali\] Let $G=(G,\mathcal{T}_1)$ be a pseudocompact Abelian group with $w(G)=\alpha>\omega$, and set $$\sigma=\min\{r_0(N):N \text{ is a closed ${G_{\delta}}$-subgroup of $G$}\}.$$ If $\alpha^\omega\leq\sigma$ and if $\lambda\geq\omega$ satisfies $m(\lambda)\leq\sigma$, then $G$ admits a pseudocompact group topology $\mathcal{T}_2$ such that $w(G,\mathcal{T}_2)=\alpha+\lambda$ and $\mathcal{T}_1\bigvee\mathcal{T}_2$ is pseudocompact. Moreover, every closed ${G_{\delta}}$-subgroup of $(G,\mathcal{T}_1)$ is ${G_{\delta}}$-dense $(G,\mathcal{T}_2)$.
\[cor:comfgali\] Let $\sigma,\alpha$ and $\lambda$ be cardinals with $\alpha^\omega\leq \sigma$ and $m(\lambda)\leq \sigma$. If $H$ is a free, dense subgroup of ${{\mathbb T\,}}^\sigma$ with property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$ and cardinality $\alpha$, then ${{\mathbb T\,}}^\sigma $ contains another subgroup $H_2$ with $H\cap H_2=\{0\}$, $|H_2|=\lambda+\alpha$ and such that $H+H_2$ has property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$.
Let $F(\sigma)$ denote the free Abelian group of rank $\sigma$. We apply Theorem \[comfgali\] to the pseudocompact group $(F(\sigma),{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})$ defined by $H$. We obtain thus a pseudocompact topology $\mathcal{T}_{_{H_2}}$ on $F(\sigma)$ induced by a subgroup $H_2$ of ${{\mathbb T\,}}^\sigma$ of cardinality $|H_2|=\alpha+\lambda$ such that ${\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}}\bigvee \mathcal{T}_{_{H_2}}=\mathcal{T}_{_{H+H_2}}$ is pseudocompact. By Theorem \[hernmaca\] the subgroup $H+H_2$ has property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$ and, since closed ${G_{\delta}}$-subgroups of ${\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}}$ are ${G_{\delta}}$-dense in $\mathcal{T}_{_{H_2}}$, we also have that $H\cap
H_2=\{0\}$.
\[main\] Let $G$ be a pseudocompact Abelian group with dominant ranks $\gamma(p_1^{n_1}),\ldots, \gamma(p_k^{n_k})$ and suppose that $\gamma(p_i^{n_i})$, $1\leq i\leq k$, satisfy property . If $r_0(G)$ also satisfies property for some $\kappa$ with $m(|G_0|)\leq 2^\kappa$, then $G$ admits a pseudocompact topology with property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$.
Decompose, following Theorem \[estrpseu\], $G$ as a direct sum $$G=\left(\bigoplus_{\gamma(p_1^{n_1})}{{\mathbb Z}}(p_1^{n_1})\bigoplus \cdots
\bigoplus_{\gamma(p_k^{n_k})}{{\mathbb Z}}(p_k^{n_k})\right) \bigoplus G_0$$ Let $F$ denote a free Abelian group of cardinality $r_0(G)$ contained in $G_0$ and denote by $D(F)$ and $D(t(G_0))$ divisible hulls of $F$ and $t(G_0)$, respectively. There is then a chain of group embeddings (here we use [@fuchs Lemmas 16.2 and 24.3])
$$\label{basicemb}
F \overset{j_1}{\to} G_0 \overset{j_2}{\to} D(F)\oplus D(t(G_0))$$
Denote by $\chi$ the quotient homomorphism obtained as the dual map of the canonical embedding ${{\mathbb Z}}\to{{\mathbb Q}}$. Observe that identifying $F$ with $\oplus_{r_0(G)}{{\mathbb Z}}$ and $D(F)$ with $\oplus_{r_0(G)}{{\mathbb Q}}$, the dual map of $j_2\circ j_1$ is exactly $\chi^{r_0(G)}$.
Taking $\sigma=r_0(G)$, $G={{\mathbb Q}}_d^\wedge$ and $\alpha=\kappa^{\omega}$, we can apply Proposition \[prop:freetorsion\] to get a ${G_{\delta}}$-dense subgroup $H_1$ of $\left(D(F)_d\right)^\wedge=\Bigl({{\mathbb Q}}_d^\wedge\Bigr)^{r_0(G)}$ with $|H_1|=\kappa^\omega$ and such that $H_1$ and $\chi^{r_0(G)}(H_1)$ are isomorphic and have property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$ (notice that $\kappa^\omega $ and $r_0(G)$ satisfy the hypothesis of that Proposition).
We now apply Corollary \[cor:comfgali\] to $\chi^{r_0(G)}(H_1)$ to obtain another free subgroup $H_2^\prime$ of ${{\mathbb T\,}}^{r_0(G)}$ with $\chi^{r_0(G)}(H_1)\cap H_2^\prime=\{0\}$, $|H_2^\prime|=2^\kappa$ and such that $\chi^{r_0(G)}(H_1)+H_2^\prime$ has property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$. By lifting (through $\chi^{r_0(G)}$) the free generators of $H_2^\prime$ to $(D(F)_d)^\wedge$, we obtain a free subgroup $H_2$ of $(D(F)_d)^\wedge$ such that $H_1\cap H_ 2=\{0\}$ and $|H_2|=
2^\kappa$. Clearly $H_1+H_2$ is isomorphic to $\chi^{r_0(G)}(H_1)+H_2^\prime$ and therefore $H_1+H_2$ has property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$ by Lemma \[lem:quotients\].
We finally apply Lemma \[enumer\]. The role of $G_1\times L$ is played by $(D(F)_d)^\wedge\times \biggl(D(t(G_0))_d\biggr)^\wedge$; $G_2$ is here identified with ${{\mathbb T\,}}^{r_0(G)}$ and $\pi$ is $\chi^{r_0(G)}$. Lemma \[enumer\] then provides a ${G_{\delta}}$-dense subgroup $\widetilde{H}$ of $\biggl(D(F)_d\biggr)^\wedge\times \biggl(D(t(G_0))_d\biggr)^\wedge$ such that both $\widetilde{H}$ and $\chi^{r_0(G)}(p_1(\widetilde{H}))$ have property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$. This subgroup generates a pseudocompact topology $\mathcal{T}_{_{\widetilde{H}}}$ on $D(F)\oplus D(t(G_0))$ with property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$ that makes $F$ pseudocompact (the induced topology on $F$ is just the topology inherited from $\chi^{r_0(G)}(p_1(\widetilde{H}))$). Since $G_0$ sits between $F$ and $D(F)\oplus D(t(G_0))$, it follows that the restriction of $\mathcal{T}_{_{\widetilde{H}}}$ to $G_0$ is pseudocompact and has property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$.
By Proposition \[prop:boundedtorsion\] the bounded group ${\displaystyle \bigoplus_{\alpha(p_1^{n_1})}{{\mathbb Z}}(p_1^{n_1})\bigoplus
\cdots \bigoplus_{\alpha(p_k^{n_k})}{{\mathbb Z}}(p_k^{n_k})}$ also admits a pseudocompact group topology with property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$ and the theorem follows.
Dikranjan and Shakmatov [@dikrshak05] prove under a set-theoretic axiom called $\nabla_\kappa$ (that implies ${\mathfrak{c}}=\omega_1$ and $2^{\mathfrak{c}}=\kappa$ with $\kappa$ being any cardinal $\kappa\geq \omega_2$) that every pseudocompact group of cardinality at most $2^{\mathfrak{c}}$ has a pseudocompact group topology with no infinite compact subsets. It follows from Theorem \[main\] that the result is true in ZFC, even for larger cardinalities.
Let $G$ be a pseudocompact Abelian group of cardinality $|G|\leq 2^{2^{\mathfrak{c}}}$. Then $G$ admits a pseudocompact topology with property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$ (and thus a pseudocompact topology with no infinite compact subsets).
Since a pseudocompact group with $ r_0(G)<{\mathfrak{c}}$ is a bounded group it will suffice to check that every cardinal $\alpha$ with $\alpha\leq 2^{2^{{\mathfrak{c}}}}$ satisfies property . Theorem \[main\] will then be applied. We consider the following two cases:
*Case 1: ${\mathfrak{c}}\leq \alpha \leq 2^{\mathfrak{c}}$*. In this case we put $\kappa ={\mathfrak{c}}$.
*Case 2: $\alpha>2^{\mathfrak{c}}$*. Choose $\kappa =2^{\mathfrak{c}}$ for this case.
Observe that in both cases $|m(|G|)|\leq 2^\kappa$ and hence that all hypothesis of Theorem \[main\] are fulfilled.
By van Douwen’s theorem [@douw80], a strong limit admissible cardinal must have uncountable cofinality. Under mild set-theoretic assumptions this implies that admissible cardinals must have property . It suffices, for instance, to assume the *Singular Cardinal Hypothesis* SCH.
\[th:SCH\] If SCH is assumed, then every admissible cardinal has property .
Combining Theorem \[estrpseu\] and Theorem \[main\], it turns out that, under SCH, every pseudocompact group admits a pseudocompact group topology with property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$.
\[maingch\] Every pseudocompact Abelian group $G$ admits a pseudocompact group topology with property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$.
Let $\gamma(p_1^{n_1})\geq\cdots\geq \gamma(p_k^{n_k})$ be the dominant ranks of $G$. Then $|G|=\gamma(p_1^{n_1})$ and, $ \gamma(p_1^{n_1})$ is admissible. Since we can assume that $n_i<n_j$ when $j>i$ and $p_i=p_j$, $p_1 G$ will be a pseudocompact group of cardinality $|p_1 G|=\gamma(p_2^{n_2})$. Proceeding in the same way we obtain that the dominant ranks are admissible cardinals. By Theorem \[th:SCH\] all these cardinals must satisfy property . Theorem \[estrpseu\] shows, on the other hand, that the cardinal $r_0(G)$ is also admissible and, actually: $$m(w_d(G_0))\leq r_0(G_0)=r_0(G)\leq |G_0|\leq 2^{w_d(G_0)}$$ In order to apply Theorem \[main\] and finish the proof, we must show that $r_0(G)$ also satisfies property for some cardinal $\kappa$ with $m(|G_0|)\leq 2^{\kappa}$.
We have two possibilities:
*Case 1: $m(w_d(G_0)) \leq r_0(G)\leq (w_d(G_0))^{\omega}$*. In this case, we put $\kappa =\log(w_d(G_0))$. Then, bearing in mind that, under SCH, we have $m(\alpha)=(\log(\alpha))^{\omega}$ for every infinite cardinal $\alpha$, we get: $$\kappa^{\omega}=\biggl(\log\bigl(w_d(G_0)\bigr)\biggr)^{\omega}=
m\bigl(w_d(G_0)\bigr)\leq r_0(G)$$ and $$r_0(G)\leq \bigl(w_d(G_0)\bigr)^{\omega}\leq \biggl(2^{\log\bigl(w_d(G_0)\bigr)}\biggr)^{\omega}=(2^{\kappa})^{\omega}= 2^{\kappa}.$$ So property is checked. On the other hand, $$m(|G_0|)\leq m\bigl(2^{w_d(G_0)}\bigr)=\biggl(\log\bigl(2^{w_d(G_0)}\bigr)\biggr)^{\omega}\leq \bigl(w_d(G_0)\bigr)^{\omega}\leq 2^{\kappa}$$
*Case 2: $\bigl(w_d(G_0)\bigr)^{\omega}\leq r_0(G)\leq 2^{w_d(G_0)}$*. In this case, property and condition $m(|G_0|)\leq 2^{\kappa}$ are obviously fulfilled with $\kappa =w_d(G_0)$.
Theorem \[maingch\] relies quite strongly on SCH. It uses the construction of Theorem \[main\] made applicable to all admissible cardinals by Theorem \[th:SCH\]. We do not know whether SCH is essential for Theorem \[maingch\], i.e., whether the theorem is true for pseudocompact groups whose cardinal does not satisfy property .
Indeed, admissible cardinals not satisfying property are hard to find in the literature. The following (consistent) example, suggested to us by W.W. Comfort and based on a construction due to Gitik and Shelah, produces one such cardinal. We refer to Remark 3.14 of the forthcoming paper [@comfgotc] for additional remarks concerning the Gitik-Shelah models. This same paper contains related results concerning the cardinals $m(\alpha)$ and, more generally, the density character of powers of discrete groups in the $\kappa$-box topology.
\[gitikshel\] A pseudocompact group $G$ whose cardinality does not satisfy property .
Gitik and Shelah, [@gitikshel], construct a model where $m(\aleph_\omega)=\aleph_{\omega+1}$ while $2^{\aleph_\omega}=(\aleph_{\omega})^\omega=\aleph_{\omega+2}$. This means that the compact group $\{1,-1\}^{\aleph_\omega}$ has a ${G_{\delta}}$-dense subgroup $G$ of cardinality $|G|=\aleph_{\omega +1}$. Let us denote for simplicity $\alpha=\aleph_{\omega +1}$.
Suppose that $\alpha$ satisfies property . There is then a cardinal $\kappa$ with $$\label{2}\kappa^\omega\leq \alpha \leq 2^\kappa.$$ Since $\alpha^\omega \geq( \aleph_\omega)^\omega=
\aleph_{\omega+2}>\alpha$, we see that $\kappa^\omega\neq \alpha$. It follows then from that $\kappa^\omega \leq
\aleph_{\omega} \leq 2^\kappa$. But then $m(\aleph_\omega)\leq
m(2^\kappa)\leq \kappa^\omega\leq \aleph_\omega$, whereas, by construction, $m(\aleph_\omega)=\aleph_{\omega+1}$. This contradiction shows that $\alpha$ does not satisfy property .
Property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$ and the duality of totally bounded Abelian groups
===============================================================================
Pontryagin duality was designed to work in locally compact Abelian groups and usually works better for complete groups. This behaviour raised the question (actually our first motivating Question \[Qref\]) as to whether all totally bounded reflexive group should be compact, [@chasmart08]. We see next that this is not the case.
If a pseudocompact Abelian group contains no infinite compact subsets, then it is Pontryagin reflexive.
Let $G=(G,{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})$ be a pseudocompact group with no infinite compact subsets. The group of continuous characters of $G$ is then precisely $H$ and since $G$ has no infinite compact subsets, the topology of this dual group will equal the topology of pointwise convergence on $G$, therefore $G^\wedge=(H,\mathcal{T}_{_{G}})$ (see in this connection [@racztrig01]). By Theorem \[hernmaca\], $(H,\mathcal{T}_{_{G}})$ must be again a totally bounded group with property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$ and hence with no infinite compact subsets, the same argument as above then shows that $G^{\wedge\wedge}=
\left(H,\mathcal{T}_{_{G}}\right)^{\wedge}=(G,{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})$ and therefore that $G$ is reflexive.
This last theorem combined with Lemma \[nocompact\] and the results of Section 5 provides a wide range of examples that answer negatively Question \[Qref\]. This question has also been answered independently in [@ardaetal] where another collection of examples has been obtained.
Every infinite pseudocompact Abelian group $G$ supports a noncompact, pseudocompact group topology ${\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}}$ such that $(G,{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})$ is reflexive.
Every infinite pseudocompact Abelian group $G$ with $|G|\leq 2^{2^{\mathfrak{c}}}$ supports a noncompact, pseudocompact group topology ${\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}}$ such that $(G,{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})$ is reflexive.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
We heartily thank M.G. Tkachenko for sharing with us a preprint copy of [@ardaetal] and D. Dikranjan for his remarks on a previous version of this paper and for making us aware of Lemma \[estrdikgio\]. We are also indebted to W. W. Comfort and to D. Dikranjan for their help concerning Example \[gitikshel\]. \#1[0=]{} \#1[0=]{}
[10]{} S. Ardanza-Trevijano, M.J. Chasco, X. Domínguez, and M. G. Tkachenko. Precompact noncompact reflexive abelian groups. *Forum Mathematicum*. To appear.
A. Arhangelskii and M. G. Tkachenko. , volume 1 of [ *Atlantis Studies in Mathematics*]{}. Atlantis Press, Paris, 2008.
M. J. Chasco and E. Martín-Peinador. An approach to duality on abelian precompact groups. , 11:5:635–643, 2008.
W. W. Comfort and J. Galindo. Pseudocompact topological group refinements of maximal weight. , 131(4):1311–1320 (electronic), 2003. W. W. Comfort and I. Gotchev. Cardinal invariants for $\kappa$-box products: weight, density, character and Souslin number. Preprint., 2010.
W. W. Comfort and D. Remus. Imposing pseudocompact group topologies on abelian groups. , 142(3):221–240, 1993.
W. W. Comfort and L. C. Robertson. Cardinality constraints for pseudocompact and for totally dense subgroups of compact topological groups. , 119(2):265–285, 1985.
W. W. Comfort and K. A. Ross. Topologies induced by groups of characters. , 55:283–291, 1964.
W. W. Comfort and Kenneth A. Ross. Pseudocompactness and uniform continuity in topological groups. , 16:483–496, 1966.
D. Dikranjan and A. Giordano Bruno. w-divisible groups. , 155(4):252–272, 2008.
D. Dikranjan and D. Shakhmatov. Algebraic structure of pseudocompact groups. , 133(633):x+83, 1998.
D. Dikranjan and D. Shakhmatov. Forcing hereditarily separable compact-like group topologies on abelian groups. , 151(1-3):2–54, 2005.
D. Dikranjan and D. Shakhmatov. Selected topics from the structure theory of topological groups. In Elliott Pearl, editor, [*Open problems in topology*]{}, pages 389–406. Elsevier, 2007.
D. Dikranjan and D. Shakhmatov. Algebraic structure of pseudocompact abelian groups. Preprint, 2008.
E. K. van Douwen. The weight of a pseudocompact (homogeneous) space whose cardinality has countable cofinality. , 80(4):678–682, 1980.
E. K. van Douwen. The maximal totally bounded group topology on ${G}$ and the biggest minimal ${G}$-space, for abelian groups ${G}$. , 34(1):69–91, 1990.
L. Fuchs. . Academic Press, New York, 1970.
J. Galindo and S. García-Ferreira. Compact groups containing dense pseudocompact subgroups without non-trivial convergent sequences. , 154(2):476–490, 2007.
J. Galindo, S. García-Ferreira, and A. H. Tomita. Pseudocompact group topologies with prescribed topological subspaces. , 70(3):269–279, 2009.
J. Galindo and S. Hernández. On a theorem of van [D]{}ouwen. , 13(1):115–123, 1998.
J. Galindo and S. Hernández. The concept of boundedness and the [B]{}ohr compactification of a [MAP]{} abelian group. , 159(3):195–218, 1999.
M. Gitik and S. Shelah. On densities of box products. , 88:219–237, 1998.
S. Hernández and S. Macario. Dual properties in totally bounded abelian groups. , 80(3):271–283, 2003.
S. U. Raczkowski and F. Javier Trigos-Arrieta. Duality of totally bounded abelian groups. , 7(1):1–12, 2001.
M. G. Tka[č]{}enko. Compactness type properties in topological groups. , 38(113)(2):324–341, 1988.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
title: Analysis of the Schrödinger Functional with Chirally Rotated Boundary Conditions
---
QCD and tmQCD continuum actions in infinite volume {#sec:tmQCD}
==================================================
In the continuum, the QCD action with $N_{f}=2$ mass degenerate quarks in euclidean space and at tree-level of PT takes the form $$S_{F}[\bar{\psi},\psi]=\int d^{4}x \,
\bar{\psi}(x) \, D\, \psi(x) \quad ; \quad D := \gamma_{\mu}\partial_{\mu} + m.$$ Performing the non-singlet axial rotation on the quark fields, $$\label{eq:axialrotation}
\psi(x) = e^{i\frac{\alpha}{2}\gamma_{5}\tau^{3}}\, \chi(x)\; , \qquad \bar{\psi}(x) = \bar{\chi}(x)\, e^{i\frac{\alpha}{2}\gamma_{5}\tau^{3}},$$ which relates the so called physical, $\{\psi,\bar{\psi}\}$, and twisted bases, $\{\chi,\bar{\chi}\}$, the form of the tmQCD action is obtained $$S_{F}^{tm}[\bar{\chi},\chi]=\int d^{4}x \,
\bar{\chi}(x) \, D_{tm} \, \chi(x) \quad ; \quad D_{tm} := \gamma_{\mu}\partial_{\mu} + m_{q} + i\mu_{q}\gamma_{5}\tau^{3}$$ $$m_{q} := m \cos(\alpha) \quad \mu_{q} := m \sin(\alpha).$$ The mass term is now given by the sum of two terms, the untwisted, $m_{q}$, and the twisted, $\mu_{q}$, quark mass. QCD and tmQCD are equivalent in the continuum, in the sense that they describe the same physics. This is due to the invariance of the functional integral under the axial rotation given in Eq. . They share all the symmetries and in particular, $\mathcal{C}\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T}$ is a symmetry.\
The choice of the rotation angle $\alpha = \frac{\pi}{2}$ (or equivalently $m_{q}=0, m=\mu_{q}$), so called maximal twist, is of particular interest since, when regularizing the theory on the lattice with the standard Wilson term, tmLQCD, the observables will be automatically O$(a)$-improved [@FR1].
Motivating chirally rotated Schrödinger functional boundary conditions {#sec:SFbc}
======================================================================
The Schrödinger functional (SF) is a finite volume scheme which allows in principle for a non-perturbative (when a lattice regulator is chosen) and mass-independent renormalization of the theory [@luescher1; @karl]. When appropriate boundary conditions are chosen, it enables to perform lattice simulations at or close to the chiral point. Moreover, it allows to study non-perturbatively the scale dependence of the coupling or renormalization constants over a wide range of energies, connecting perturbative and non-perturbative regimes of QCD. The SF for pure gauge theory has been introduced in [@luescher1], and for QCD in [@sint1]. The theory is defined in a four dimensional Euclidean space where in one of the four directions, which is conventionally chosen to be the time direction, Dirichlet boundary conditions (b.c.) are imposed. In the remaining spatial directions periodic boundary conditions (up to a phase) are chosen.\
The drawback of SF schemes is the presence of O$(a)$ boundary effects, even when the lattice theory with e.g. periodic b.c. is O$(a)$-improved. In the case of Wilson quarks, also bulk O$(a)$ effects will be present if standard SF boundary conditions are considered, even in the chiral limit which is expected to be O$(a)$-improved at finite volume. The desire to retain bulk automatic O$(a)$-improvement with Wilson fermions [@FR1] has motivated a chiral rotation of the SF b.c. Two proposals for chirally rotated SF b.c. are at the moment in the literature, the twisted SF b.c. of ref. [@sint2] (tSF) and the twisted SF b.c. of ref. [@FR2] ($\gamma_{5}$SF).\
To scrutinize the different proposals, the first step should be to analyze the continuum target theory at tree-level of PT. In the following we present our results from the study of the eigenvalue problem and the quark propagator in the presence of the different SF b.c. See also the contributions from S. Sint and B. Leder to Lattice 2008.
Standard and twisted SF boundary conditions {#sec:boundariesSint}
===========================================
The standard SF boundary conditions [@sint1; @luescher2] are given by the equations [^1] $$\begin{aligned}
P_{+}\psi(x)|_{x_{0} = 0}& =0&
P_{-}\psi(x)|_{x_{0} = T}& =0 \quad \textrm{via }\mathcal{T}\\
\bar{\psi}(x)P_{-}|_{x_{0} = 0}& =0 \quad \textrm{via }\mathcal{C}&
\bar{\psi}(x)P_{+}|_{x_{0} = T}& =0 \quad \textrm{via }\mathcal{T}\textrm{ and }\mathcal{C}\end{aligned}$$ where, ‘via $\mathcal{C}$ or $\mathcal{T}$’ means that this b.c. are obtained from the b.c. for the quark field $\psi(x)$ at $x_{0}=0$ using the transformations $\mathcal{C}$ and/or $\mathcal{T}$ and $$P_{\pm} = \frac{1}{2}\, \left( \mathbbm{1} \pm \gamma_{0} \right).$$ Performing the axial rotation on the quark fields, in the continuum, the SF b.c. are twisted to the form [@sint2] $$\begin{aligned}
P_{+}(\alpha)\chi(x)|_{x_{0} = 0}& =0&
P_{-}(\alpha)\chi(x)|_{x_{0} = T}& =0\\
\bar{\chi}(x)\gamma_{0}P_{-}(\alpha)|_{x_{0} = 0}& =0&
\bar{\chi}(x)\gamma_{0}P_{+}(\alpha)|_{x_{0} = T}& =0\end{aligned}$$ $$P_{\pm}(\alpha) = \frac{1}{2}\, \left( \mathbbm{1} \pm \gamma_{0}\, e^{i\alpha\gamma_{5}\tau^{3}} \right)$$ which for maximal twist setup, $\alpha = \frac{\pi}{2}$, take the form (tSF b.c.) $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{+}\chi(x)|_{x_{0} = 0}& =0&
Q_{-}\chi(x)|_{x_{0} = T}& =0 \quad \textrm{via }\mathcal{T}_{F}^{1,2}\\
\bar{\chi}(x)Q_{+}|_{x_{0} = 0}& =0 \quad \textrm{via }\mathcal{C}&
\bar{\chi}(x)Q_{-}|_{x_{0} = T}& =0 \quad \textrm{via }\mathcal{T}_{F}^{1,2}\textrm{ and }\mathcal{C}\end{aligned}$$ with projector $$Q_{\pm} := P_{\pm}(\pi/2) = \frac{1}{2}\, \left( \mathbbm{1} \pm i\gamma_{0}\gamma_{5}\tau^{3} \right).$$ It is important to notice the correspondence between the relation SF-tSF and QCD-tmQCD. The discrete symmetries of the SF are the same as those of QCD while the discrete symmetries of the tSF correspond to the ones of tmQCD at maximal twist.
Eigenvalue Spectrum {#sec:eigenvaluesStandardSint}
-------------------
In this section we summarize the work done in [@sint1] for SF b.c. and we perform the same study for the tSF b.c. proposed in [@sint2]. In particular, we want to analyze whether the newly proposed SF b.c. retain the gap in the eigenvalue spectrum.
### Standard SF boundary conditions {#sec:eigenvaluesStandard}
Due to the presence of the SF b.c., $\psi$ and $\bar{\psi}^{\dagger}$ belong to different vector spaces. In order to be able to write the action as a quadratic form and have a well defined eigenvalue problem, the complementary components of the quark fields must satisfy Neumann b.c. $$\begin{aligned}
(\partial_{0} - m)P_{-}\psi(x)|_{x_{0} = 0}=0,\quad (\partial_{0} + m)P_{+}\psi(x)|_{x_{0} = T}=0\\
\bar{\psi}(x)P_{+}(\partial_{0} + m)|_{x_{0} = 0}=0,\quad \bar{\psi}(x)P_{-}(\partial_{0} - m)|_{x_{0} = T}=0.\end{aligned}$$ The finite size of the space imply a discrete spectrum of the Dirac operator $D^{\dagger}D$, which due to the structure of these particular b.c. has a non-zero lower bound \_[0]{}\^[2]{}(m=0)= ()\^[2]{}. It can be seen from this equation how the bound in the spectrum originates from the b.c. in the time direction since it is the time extent of the system, $\textrm{T}$, which provides the spectral gap. The existence of this bound is a crucial point if we are interested in a mass independent scheme and regularizing the theory on the lattice, where the numerical inversion of $D^{\dagger}D$ is required even in the massless limit.
### Twisted SF boundary conditions {#sec:eigenvaluesSint}
The tSF b.c. imply in this case that $u$ and $d$ fields belong to different vector spaces while $u$ and $\bar{u}^{\dagger}$ ($d$ and $\bar{d}^{\dagger}$) belong to the same space. Requiring a quadratic form of the action will need the complementary components of the quark fields to satisfy also Neumann b.c. $$(\partial_{0} - \mu_{q})Q_{-}\chi(x)|_{x_{0} = 0}=0,
\quad (\partial_{0} + \mu_{q})Q_{+}\chi(x)|_{x_{0} = T}=0.$$ Again, the discrete spectrum of the Dirac operator, $D_{tm}^{\dagger}D_{tm}$, has a non-zero lower bound \[eq:eigenvaluessint\] \_[0]{}\^[2]{}(\_[q]{}=0)=()\^[2]{} + m\_[q]{}\^[2]{}. It is important to note that the eigenvalue problem with tSF b.c. has an identical structure compared with the SF b.c.; only the role of the twisted and untwisted quark masses has been switched (and the twisted projectors have been used). Therefore, looking at Eq. it can be seen that the only effect of the untwisted mass term is to lift the eigenvalues, while all mass dependence of the structure of the eigenvalue is given by the twisted mass term.\
Only at maximal twist, i.e. at zero untwisted quark mass, the eigenvalues have exactly the same form as with the standard SF b.c. (with of course $\mu_q$ instead of $m$), $\lambda_{n}^{2}(m) = \lambda_{n}^{2}(\mu_{q}) \quad \forall n$. This is the expected result since the tSF b.c. are obtained from a maximal twist rotation of the SF b.c.
Quark propagator {#sec:spectrumStandardSint}
----------------
Due to the b.c. on the quark fields, the quark propagator in the theory with SF b.c. is a solution of the equations $$\begin{aligned}
&D\left(x \right)\,S^{\textrm{SF}}\left( x,y \right) = \delta^{4}\left( x-y\right) \; , \qquad 0 < x_{0},y_{0} < T\\
&P_{+}S^{\textrm{SF}}(x,y)|_{x_{0} = 0} =0 \; , \qquad P_{-}S^{\textrm{SF}}(x,y)|_{x_{0} = T} =0
\label{eq:boundariesSstandard}\end{aligned}$$ while the quark propagator in the theory with tSF b.c. is obtained from $$\begin{aligned}
&D\left(x \right)\,S^{\textrm{tSF}}\left( x,y \right) = \delta^{4}\left( x-y\right) \; , \qquad 0 < x_{0},y_{0} < T\\
&Q_{+}S^{\textrm{tSF}}(x,y)|_{x_{0} = 0} =0 \; , \qquad Q_{-}S^{\textrm{tSF}}(x,y)|_{x_{0} = T} =0
\label{eq:boundariesSsint}\end{aligned}$$ with $D(x)$ the corresponding Dirac operator in each case.\
Additionally, the b.c. on the right side must be satisfied which are given, respectively, by $$S^{\textrm{SF}}(x,y)P_{-}|_{y_{0} = 0} =0 \; , \qquad S^{\textrm{SF}}(x,y)P_{+}|_{y_{0} = T} =0$$ $$S^{\textrm{tSF}}(x,y)Q_{+}|_{y_{0} = 0} =0 \; , \qquad S^{\textrm{tSF}}(x,y)Q_{-}|_{y_{0} = T} =0.$$ Unique and non-trivial propagators exist in each case. The propagator for standard SF b.c., $S^{\textrm{SF}}(x,y)$, is given in ref. [@luescher3]. The corresponding propagator $S^{\textrm{tSF}}(x,y)$ is related to the standard one by the non-singlet axial rotation at maximal twist ($\alpha=\pi/2$) S\^(x,y) = e\^[-i\_[5]{}\^[3]{}]{} S\^(x,y) e\^[-i\_[5]{}\^[3]{}]{}.
$\gamma_{5}$SF boundary conditions {#sec:boundariesFR}
==================================
The $\gamma_{5}$SF b.c. proposed in [@FR2] are also defined for a two-flavour theory and are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{+}\phi(x)|_{x_{0} = 0}& =0&
\Pi_{-}\phi(x)|_{x_{0} = T}& =0 \quad \textrm{via }\mathcal{T}\\
\bar{\phi}(x)\Pi_{-}|_{x_{0} = 0}& =0 \quad \textrm{via }\mathcal{C}_{F}^{1,2}&
\bar{\phi}(x)\Pi_{+}|_{x_{0} = T}& =0 \quad \textrm{via }\mathcal{T}\textrm{ and }\mathcal{C}_{F}^{1,2}\end{aligned}$$ $$\Pi_{\pm} = \frac{1}{2}\, \left( \mathbbm{1} \pm \gamma_{5} \tau^{3} \right).$$ Although $\mathcal{C}\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T}$ is still a symmetry, the discrete symmetries separately, $\mathcal{C}_{F}^{1,2}$, $\mathcal{P}_{F}^{1,2}$ and $\mathcal{T}$, with $$\mathcal{C}_{F}^{1,2}:\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\phi(x)\rightarrow i\tau^{1,2}C^{-1}\, \bar{\phi}(x)^{T}\\
\bar{\phi}(x)\rightarrow \phi(x)^{T}\, i\tau^{1,2}C
\end{array} \right.$$ are now different from the discrete symmetries of both QCD and tmQCD. Moreover, in this case there is no transformation in the continuum which brings SF to $\gamma_{5}$SF.
Eigenvalue Spectrum {#sec:eigenvaluesFR}
-------------------
Due to the boundaries, the $u$ and $d$ fields belong to different vector spaces and the $u$($d$) and $\bar{d}^{\dagger}$($\bar{u}^{\dagger}$) fields are in the same space. In this case, differently to what happens with the two previous SF b.c., to demand a quadratic form of the action (for each flavour) and a well defined eigenvalue problem does *not* imply Neumann b.c. for the complemantary components of the quark fields but $$\begin{aligned}
&\left( m_{q} + i\mu_{q}\gamma_{5}\tau_{3} \right)\Pi_{-}\phi(x)|_{x_{0} = 0} = 0\label{eq:1}\\
&\left( m_{q} + i\mu_{q}\gamma_{5}\tau_{3} \right)\Pi_{+}\phi(x)|_{x_{0} = T} = 0\label{eq:2}.\end{aligned}$$ For a non-zero value of the quark mass, homogeneous Dirichlet b.c. are satisfied thus implying that the quark field is zero everywhere, $\phi(x)=\bar{\phi}(x)=0 \: \forall x$. Therefore, the only possible non trivial solution could be obtained at zero mass. However, in the chiral limit no additional b.c. for the quark fields occur. Due to the lack of additional b.c. there is no condition which constraints the possible values of $p_{0}$ and it leads to a gapless spectrum. We conclude that the eigenvalue problem with $\gamma_5$SF b.c. has either the trivial solution or, if both $m_q$ and $\mu_{\rm q}$ vanish, a gapless spectrum.\
There are two important remarks which have to be made here. The first is that from Eqs. - we would arrive to the same conclusion independently of the form of the mass term. The second is that, this result is a consequence of the fact that there is no distinction between the normal ($\gamma_{0}$) and the tangential ($\gamma_{k}$) components of the fields at the boundaries ($x_{0}=0,T$), with respect to the projector here considered (note that the projector does not contain $\gamma_{0}$ in this case).
Quark propagator {#sec:spectrumFR}
----------------
The equations for the quark propagator are in this case $$\begin{aligned}
&D\left(x \right)\,S\left( x,y \right) = \delta^{4}\left( x-y\right) \qquad 0 < x_{0},y_{0} < T\\
&\Pi_{+}S(x,y)|_{x_{0} = 0} =0 \qquad \Pi_{-}S(x,y)|_{x_{0} = T} =0.
\label{eq:boundariesSfr}\end{aligned}$$ However, the propagator obtained from these equations [@ajk] does not satisfy the corresponding b.c. on the right side, S(x,y)\_[-]{}|\_[y\_[0]{} = 0]{} 0 S(x,y)\_[+]{}|\_[y\_[0]{} = T]{} 0. This means the only solution for the quark propagator, with quark fields obeying $\gamma_{5}$SF b.c. is the trivial one.\
On the contrary, it satisfies different b.c. which are obtained from the b.c. on the left using charge conjugation $$S(x,y)\Pi_{+}|_{y_{0} = 0} =0 \qquad S(x,y)\Pi_{-}|_{y_{0} = T} =0.$$ The corresponding b.c. for the quark fields would be \[eq:bdfrc2\] |(x)\_[+]{}|\_[x\_[0]{} = 0]{} =0 |(x)\_[-]{}|\_[x\_[0]{} = T]{} =0, inducing a theory with b.c. which violate $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{C}\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T}$.\
To conclude, continuum QCD at tree-level of P.T. with the original $\g5$SF b.c. proposed in [@FR2] has a quark propagator which vanishes everywhere. A non vanishing solution can be found only if we preserve charge conjugation symmetry among the b.c. Given the fact that the $\gamma_5$SF b.c. violate parity and preserve time reversal, we end up with a QCD theory with boundaries which violates $\mathcal{C}\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T}$.\
We remark that for the tSF b.c. of ref. [@sint2] the situation is different. It is sufficient to consider parity and time-reversal symmetries in the twisted basis to see that they actually preserve separately $\mathcal{C}$, $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{T}$.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusion}
===========
In this proceedings contribution we have investigated, at tree-level of perturbation theory in the continuum, important aspects of three different ways to implement Schrödinger functional boundary conditions by analyzing the eigenvalue spectrum and the quark propagator.\
Our conclusion is that the standard [@luescher1; @sint1] and twisted [@sint2] SF b.c are a sound definition of QCD with SF boundaries, while the lattice formulation proposed in [@FR2] has still open questions which need to be further investigated before these type of b.c. can be used in practical simulations.
We thank R. Frezzotti, G. C. Rossi and S. Sint for valuable discussions. J.G.L. thanks the SFB-TR9 for financial support.
[99]{}
M. Lüscher et al., *The Schrödinger functional: A Renormalizable probe for non Abelian gauge theories*, *Nucl. Phys.* [**B384**]{} (1992) 168 \[[hep-lat/9207009]{}\].
S. Sint, *On the Schrödinger functional in QCD*, *Nucl. Phys.* [**B421**]{} (1994) 135 \[[hep-lat/9312079]{}\].
K. Jansen et al., *Non-perturbative renormalization of lattice QCD at all scales*, *Phys. Lett.* [**B372**]{} (1996) 275 \[[hep-lat/9512009]{}\].
R. Frezzotti and G.C. Rossi, *Chirally improving [Wilson]{} fermions. [I]{}: [O(a)]{} improvement*, *JHEP* [**08**]{} (2004) 007 \[[hep-lat/0306014]{}\].
R. Frezzotti and G.C. Rossi, *Chirally improving [Wilson]{} fermions. [III]{}: The Schrödinger functional*, [hep-lat/0507030]{}.
S. Sint, *The Schrödinger functional with chirally rotated boundary conditions*, \[[hep-lat/0511034]{}\].
M. Lüscher, *The Schrödinger functional in lattice QCD with exact chiral symmetry*, *JHEP* [**05**]{} (2006) 042 \[[hep-lat/0603029]{}\].
A. Shindler, *Twisted mass lattice QCD*, *Phys.Rept.* [**461**]{} (2008) 37 \[[arXiv:0707.4093]{}\].
M. Lüscher and P. Weisz, *O(a) improvement of the axial current in lattice QCD to one-loop order of perturbation theory*, *Nucl. Phys.* [**B479**]{} (1996) 429 \[[hep-lat/9606016]{}\].
J. Gonzalez Lopez, K. Jansen and A. Shindler, *Unpublished notes*.
[^1]: All the definitions concerning the discrete symmetries can be found in ref. [@andrea].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Lead perchlorate, part of the OMNIS supernova neutrino detector, contains two nuclei, $^{208}$Pb and $^{35}$Cl, that might be used to study nucleon decay. Both would produce signatures that will make them especially useful for studying less-well-studied neutron decay modes, *e.g.*, those in which only neutrinos are emitted.'
author:
- 'R. N. Boyd'
- 'T. Rauscher'
- 'S. D. Reitzner'
- 'P. Vogel'
title: Observing Nucleon Decay in Lead Perchlorate
---
Introduction
============
Studies of nucleon decay (see, *e.g.*, [@pati73; @georgi74; @babu00; @babu01; @applequist01]) are among the most important in physics, in that they provide direct tests of fundamental theories of particle physics. The different particle theories make rather different predictions as to what the nucleon decay half-lives might be, and even which decay modes would be expected to dominate. Although a number of searches for nucleon decay have been performed in the large detectors that exist, no convincing evidence has yet been presented for its existence. The best limits from these studies have involved decay modes in which protons decay to relativistic charged leptons (see, *e.g.*, [@pdg]), either as individual protons or as protons in nuclei, as the resulting Cherenkov radiation would produce definitive signatures, typically of order 10$^{33}$ y. However, nucleon decays in composite nuclei [@totsuka86; @ejiri93; @suzuki93; @kamyshkov02] might produce clear evidence for the existence of such effects that could not be obtained from decay of isolated protons. Furthermore, these might allow extension of the existing limits of the decay branches in some instances, even with relatively small detectors.
In this study we focus on the n $\rightarrow$ $\nu \ + \ \bar{\nu} \ + \
\nu$ decay, which has a less well-known half-life because its decay can often be masked by backgrounds, and would in any event be difficult to detect via the means used to observe nucleon decay into relativistic leptons. It is not necessarily expected to be the dominant mode of decay, but it is the least-well-determined mode, so is the primary limitation to the mode-independent half-life. Moreover, there are non-standard models in which unusual decay modes may turn out to be the dominant ones (see, [*e.g.*]{}, [@pati83]). In some models the three neutrino decay mode can emerge naturally as the dominant one [@mohapatra02].
Decays of the three neutrino mode were searched for a decade ago, [@berger91], then their limit was improved to its current experimental value of 5x10$^{26}$ y [@pdg]. Recent suggestions for studying this decay mode have included signatures that would result from decay of a neutron in the O in H$_2$O [@suzuki93] of Super-Kamiokande and in the C in the CH$_2$ [@kamyshkov02] of KamLAND. These suggestions both involve signals that would be generated by rather weak branches resulting from nucleon decay.
Signals from Lead Perchlorate
=============================
In this paper we study two nuclides, $^{208}$Pb and $^{35}$Cl which, we show, would produce special responses to neutron decay. We present the signatures that might result in the n $\rightarrow$ $\nu \ \bar{\nu} \ \nu$ decay. We find that $^{208}$Pb would have good sensitivity to this mode, but $^{35}$Cl, while not producing as strong a limit, would exhibit an unusually definitive signature. Both nuclei are part of a planned detector, lead perchlorate, LPC, Pb\[ClO$_4$\]$_2$, that will be part of OMNIS, the Observatory for Multiflavor NeutrInos from Supernovae [@boyd02]. LPC is a colorless liquid that is highly soluble in water. The properties of such a mixed liquid have been studied extensively [@elliott00]; it was found that the LPC will produce Cherenkov light from relativistic particles, e.g., electrons and muons, that might be produced in many nucleon decays. In addition, each neutron produced by neutron emission from a nucleus within the detector will be captured on the $^{35}$Cl within tens of $\mu$s, producing 8.6 MeV of $\gamma$-rays. An energetic $\gamma$-ray will also produce Cherenkov light, with a pattern that is indistinguishable from that from the relativistic leptons in LPC.
In general we can write the following expression for the neutron decay lifetime, $\tau_n$, as $$\tau_n/Br > N_n \epsilon_n R_{det} \epsilon_1 \epsilon_2^n,$$ where N$_n$ is the number of neutrons in, *e.g.*, $^{208}$Pb or $^{35}$Cl, $\epsilon_n$ is the fraction of those that can decay into detectable signatures, R$_{det}$ is the observed event rate, and $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$ are the detection efficiencies for the two (or more) signatures of the decay. The factor $\epsilon_2^n$ accounts for the possibility of multiple neutron emission from decay of a neutron in $^{208}$Pb, each with detection efficiency $\epsilon_2$. The factor Br is the branching ratio for the decays that go to the specific decay mode being studied. In $^{208}$Pb decay, this could, *e.g.*, refer to the branching ratio for producing one neutron and a subsequent $\gamma$-ray with sufficient energy to be observed; we have assumed E$_{ex}$ $<$ 3 MeV in the daughter nucleus for this criterion to be satisfied, as virtually every level with excitation energy above that will produce at least one 3 MeV $\gamma$-ray [@nucdatasheets]. In $^{35}$Cl decay, Br refers to a decay to states that will produce a $\gamma$-ray with at least 3 MeV of energy together with decay to the $^{34}$Cl ground state. ($^{34}$Cl has an isomeric state at 0.146 MeV, to which roughly half of the highly excited states will ultimately decay. However, it has a much longer half-life than the 1.5 s half-life of the ground state, so will be assumed not to be useful for the present discussion.)
In order to estimate the probability of observing decays from $^{208}$Pb and $^{35}$Cl we will have to consider the probability of population of sufficiently highly excited states in the daughter nuclei: $^{207}$Pb and $^{34}$Cl. Generally the more deeply bound the nucleon that decays the larger will be the excitation energy in the daughter nuclide. The nuclide that decays will be a nuclide in the parent nucleus, so the resulting “state" of the initial nucleus, $^{208}$Pb or $^{35}$Cl, minus one neutron will map onto actual states in the daughter nuclide (assuming the neutron decay leaves the resulting nucleus intact; a reasonable assumption for the decay mode that produces three particles that interact only through the weak interaction). However, consider the energy $E_{decay}$ of the neutron decay products (e.g. the 3 neutrinos) when the final nucleus A-1 is excited to the excitation energy $E_{exc}$. Then $E_{decay} = M_n - (S_n +
E_{exc})$, where $S_n$ is the neutron separation energy in the parent nucleus A. The energy in parentheses is just the binding energy of the neutron that decayed. Then, all other things being equal, extremely large values of $E_{exc}$ will be suppressed by the decrease of the phase space of the 3 neutrinos. This will tend to favor the excitation energies of the states in the daughter being similar to the binding energy of the neutron that decayed. Of course, this argument also assumes that the recoil kinetic energy of the residual nucleus will be negligible.
The n $\rightarrow \ \nu \ \bar{\nu} \ \nu$ decay mode in $^{208}$Pb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, the signature of this nucleon decay would be given by the specific properties of the residual nuclei resulting from the decay. In this case, $^{208}$Pb would first become $^{207}$Pb. What would happen next would depend on the excitation energy of the states in $^{207}$Pb that were populated compared to the one-neutron emission threshold, the two-neutron emission threshold, etc., in $^{207}$Pb. Subsequent neutron emissions will be much more rapid than electromagnetic de-excitations, so subsequent neutron emissions would occur instead of de-excitations of the daughter nuclei as long as the states populated were above the neutron-decay threshold. The excitation energy in the post-decay $^{207}$Pb will depend on the binding energy of the nucleon that decayed. This energy would be expected to be as much as several tens of MeV in lead, but would be weighted toward lower values by the preponderance of higher spin nuclear orbits, hence higher occupation numbers, near the Fermi surface. Thus a reasonable range to assume for the excitation energy in $^{207}$Pb might be an asymmetric distribution ranging from essentially zero (if a valence neutron decayed) to as much as 20 MeV, with an even higher-energy tail of the distribution extending to several more tens of MeV, but with the highest energies suppressed. The one-neutron (two-neutron) emission threshold in $^{207}$Pb is 6.74 MeV (14.83 MeV). Decays of neutrons in the highest-energy occupied shells would presumably primarily populate states below the one-neutron-emission threshold in $^{207}$Pb. Although these states would decay by emitting $\gamma$-rays, $^{207}$Pb is stable. Thus the $\gamma$-rays would be the only signature of the neutron decays to the low-lying states, providing a less-than-compelling signature of nucleon decay. However, a fairly large fraction of the neutron decays in $^{208}$Pb would produce at least one neutron emission. These states would produce $^{207-j}$Pb plus j neutrons, with j being at least one.
The branchings into the particle and $\gamma$-ray emission channels at a given excitation energy of the daughter nucleus $^{207}$Pb have been calculated. The relevant transmission coefficients were determined with the same inputs used in the NON-SMOKER statistical model code [@rath00; @rath01], which is often used for astrophysical calculations, and has been found to be accurate over a wide mass range [@kola92; @rath97]. In addition to single-particle emission, two-particle emission can be calculated, specifically for the case at hand, the two-neutron emission. For two-particle emission each transition was followed from a level with given spin and parity in $^{207}$Pb to a definite level with given spin and parity in $^{206}$Pb, then probabilities for subsequent neutron emission were determined by summing over neutron emission to all possible final states in $^{205}$Pb. Up to 20 low-lying experimentally known levels were used in each nucleus involved, and a theoretical level density [@rath97] was employed above the last known state. The relative probability of one- and two-neutron emission as a function of excitation energy in $^{207}$Pb is shown in Fig.\[fig:pb207\]. Spins from $\frac{1}{2}$ to $\frac{29}{2}$ and both parities were considered in $^{207}$Pb. The transitions to the states of different spin were weighted only with $2J+1$. In order to obtain the correct decay probability, the calculated probabilities have to be folded with the function that describes how the $^{207}$Pb levels of a given excitation energy are populated in the primary decay event, as described above. The basic features of the present results will remain although the actual distribution of strength would be expected to be distorted somewhat due to the folding with the population derived from $\nu \bar{\nu} \nu$ decay.
As can be seen from Fig. \[fig:pb207\], the neutron channel dominates the possible decays above the neutron emission threshold. Only up to about 9 MeV is the decay governed by photon emission. Although the proton emission threshold is at 7.5 MeV, there is no significant proton emission up to 40 MeV in excitation due to the high Coulomb barrier; it is still only 20% of all decays at 48 MeV of excitation energy. Although the two-neutron emission channel opens at 14.83 MeV, it remains insignificant up to 30 MeV in excitation energy reaching 40% of all transitions at 48 MeV. It should be noted that the solid curve in Fig. \[fig:pb207\] contains the sum of one- and two-neutron emission. Therefore, emissions of single and double neutrons contribute equally at the highest calculated energy, each comprising 40% of all decay possibilities. Thus the population of excitation energies close to the neutron separation energy can be probed by measuring $\gamma$-rays, whereas higher excitation energies are accessible by two-neutron decay.
The lowest lying 82 neutrons in $^{208}$Pb would be sufficiently strongly bound that their decay would be very likely to populate states at least above the one-neutron emission threshold. Some of the remaining 44 neutrons would also be likely to produce daughter states above that threshold. Their ordering is h$_{9/2}$, f$_{7/2}$, f$_{5/2}$, p$_{3/2}$, i$_{13/2}$, and p$_{1/2}$, and their approximate binding energies are 12, 11, 8, 8, 8, and 7 MeV respectively [@beref]. It seems reasonable to assume that decay of the neutrons in the last three orbitals would populate states below the one-neutron emission threshold. Thus 106 of the 126 neutrons in $^{208}$Pb would be expected to populate states above the one-neutron emission threshold in $^{207}$Pb. An additional concern, though, is that the decays of neutrons in the most tightly bound states, *i.e.*, those dominated by the 1s$_{1/2}$, 1p$_{3/2}$, 1p$_{1/2}$, 1d$_{5/2}$, 2s$_{1/2}$, and 1d$_{3/2}$ orbitals, might result in states in $^{207}$Pb that would decay by proton or $\alpha$-particle emission. Their binding energies are 40, 35, 35, 32, 31, and 29 MeV respectively [@beref]. However, our emission probability calculations described above suggest that only the states having 1s$_{1/2}$ neutrons would be expected to exhibit such decays; we have subtracted the two neutrons in that orbital from consideration. Thus 104 neutrons in $^{208}$Pb can decay to produce detectable signatures.
The upshot is that this nucleon decay mode would have a high probability, roughly 104/126 (so that $\epsilon_n$ (see eq. 1) is 104/126=0.825), for producing at least one neutron in coincidence with a fairly high-energy $\gamma$-ray, but emission of several neutrons in coincidence with a $\gamma$-ray would also have a relatively high probability. We have assumed 50% for the sum of the probabilities of events in which at least one neutron and a detectable ($>$ 3 MeV) $\gamma$-ray are emitted. We note that states above 4 MeV of excitation in $^{207}$Pb have a high probability, at least 50% [@nucdatasheets], of producing a $\gamma$-ray of at least 3 MeV in energy.
We assume 1 kT of lead perchlorate admixed with 20% water (0.41 kT of lead); that has 5.9x10$^{29}$ $^{208}$Pb nuclei, or 6.1x10$^{31}$ neutrons in $^{208}$Pb that would be expected to populate states above the one-neutron emission threshold of $^{207}$Pb and decay subsequently by neutron emission. If the fraction of the 104 neutrons assumed that decay by single or multiple neutron emission is 100%, the probability for detection of at least one neutron is 50% (it will be considerably higher for multiple neutron emission), the probability for producing a detectable $\gamma$-ray is 50% and its detection efficiency is 50%, then the probability that a neutron decay event from one of the 104 neutrons assumed to be detectable will be observed is 12.5%. If the lifetime for this decay branch is 10$^{30}$ years then, under these circumstances, 7-8 events per year would be observed. Note that we have assumed that only the $^{208}$Pb would contribute; it is likely that the other lead isotopes would produce similarly detectable decays, producing up to a factor of 2 enhancement. Furthermore, the assumed efficiencies are conservative. Thus this mode could have its lifetime extended by searching for these decays in lead, provided the background events could be managed.
The most obvious background signal that has several neutrons that wouldn’t be vetoed by a cosmic ray shield would involve production of those neutrons by an energetic cosmic ray in the surrounding rock. One might then get a $\gamma$-ray if one of the neutrons could inelastically excite a nucleus. However, this background could be eliminated easily, as the LPC detector could be surrounded by moderator, so that none of the neutrons getting into it would have enough energy to inelastically excite a nucleus.
A more serious background would result from neutrinos produced in the Earth’s upper atmosphere inelastically exciting $^{208}$Pb via the neutral-current interaction to levels from which it could emit one or more neutrons, going to nuclei that might themselves emit more neutrons. This background would be impossible to reject on an event-by-event basis. However, its yield could be estimated as a function of the energy of the incident neutrino by measuring the number of charged-current interactions as a function of energy (as determined by the energy of the recoiling lepton) that would produce similar numbers of neutrons in coincidence with the $\gamma$-ray. One could then infer the yield from the neutral-current interactions on the basis of the relative magnitudes of the two types of cross sections and the energy distribution of the charged-current interactions.
The n $\rightarrow \ \nu \ \bar{\nu} \ \nu$ decay mode in $^{35}$Cl.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The abundance of $^{35}$Cl is 75% of natural Cl, and there are 2 Cl atoms per Pb atom in LPC. Thus it is also useful to see if nucleon decay in $^{35}$Cl might produce a definitive signature. Neutron decay in $^{35}$Cl would sometimes produce $^{34}$Cl in a highly excited state. However, the one-proton emission threshold for $^{34}$Cl is at 5.14 MeV, far below the one-neutron emission threshold at 11.51 MeV. Indeed, there are apparently no bound levels in $^{34}$Cl even close to 11.51 MeV. Thus the result of neutron decay to $^{34}$Cl will be $\gamma$-ray decays to the ground state of $^{34}$Cl. Note, though, that $^{34}$Cl has an isomeric state at 0.146 MeV; so roughly half of the energetic $\gamma$-rays would go to that state.
The relative branchings into different decay channels of $^{34}$Cl were calculated using the same methods as described above for $^{207}$Pb. The results are shown in Fig. \[fig:cl35\]. The situation for $^{34}$Cl is different than for $^{207}$Pb, however, because of the lower Coulomb barrier and a proton separation energy that is lower than the neutron separation energy. Neutron emission is relatively unimportant at all calculated excitation energies. The excited nucleus $^{34}$Cl will de-excite via $\gamma$-transitions for excitation energies up to about 9.5 MeV, where proton emission accounts for 50% of all emissions. Proton emission quickly rises to nearly 100% by 11.9 MeV and the falls off at high energies due to increased $\alpha$ emission. Two-neutron emission is completely negligible at all calculated energies. As with $^{207}$Pb, a quantitative description of the emission requires the knowledge of the population of the excited states by the decay, but would not be expected to differ qualitatively from the results shown here.
The ground state of $^{34}$Cl, however, $\beta$-decays with a half-life of 1.53 s. Thus a coincidence between the energetic $\gamma$-rays (assumed detection efficiency = 50%) and the $\beta^+$-decay would identify a candidate event for neutron decay in $^{35}$Cl. The end point energy of the $\beta^+$ is 4.47 MeV, so most of the $\beta^+$s will be produced with sufficient energy to be detected from their Cherenkov radiation (assumed detection efficiency = 70%). The isomeric state has a much longer half-life (32 m), so we have assumed that would not produce a useful coincidence for determining nucleon decay (reducing the useful event yield by half). None the less, nucleon decay in $^{35}$Cl could be identified by observing $\beta$ and $\gamma$s in coincidence, with enough events detected to confirm the half-life of $^{34}$Cl. The relatively long half-life of $^{34}$Cl would demand that the materials used in OMNIS LPC modules be as pure as possible to minimize accidental coincidences.
Again assuming 1 kT of lead perchlorate admixed with 20% water, there will be 1.8x10$^{30}$ $^{35}$Cl nuclei. Of the 18 neutrons in $^{35}$Cl those in the 1s$_{1/2}$, 1p$_{3/2}$, and 1p$_{1/2}$ orbits (binding energies = 36, 27, and 23 MeV respectively [@beref]), would probably decay to sufficiently highly-excited states in $^{34}$Cl that they would emit a proton, neutron, or $\alpha$-particle, and not end up in $^{34}$Cl. The remaining three orbitals, d$_{5/2}$, s$_{1/2}$, and d$_{3/2}$ have binding energies of roughly 17, 14, and 10 MeV [@beref]. The one-neutron separation energy in $^{35}$Cl is 12.64 MeV; removal of a valence neutron, presumably from a d$_{3/2}$ dominated state, would require that much energy, and would tend to populate the ground state of $^{34}$Cl. Thus, presumably, decay of neutrons in $^{35}$Cl states having strong 1d$_{5/2}$ or 2s$_{1/2}$ neutron configurations would tend to populate states in $^{34}$Cl of sufficient excitation energy to emit a detectable, $>$ 3 MeV, $\gamma$-ray. Thus, about 8 neutrons per $^{35}$Cl nucleus, or 1.4x10$^{31}$ neutrons in the $^{35}$Cl, (the product N$_n$ $\epsilon_n$ in eq. 1) would have appropriate binding energy to decay to states in $^{34}$Cl that could produce a $\gamma$-ray above 3 MeV in energy, so would have a high probability of being detected. If the detection efficiency for the $\beta$ is assumed to be 70%, and the lifetime for this decay process is 10$^{30}$ years, one would expect to observe 3-4 events per year from neutron decay in $^{35}$Cl. Although this decay mode would not produce as strong a limit on nucleon decay as would the lead, its signature would be considerably more definitive than that from the lead, because its backgrounds are so much more readily identifiable.
The primary background for decay of a neutron in $^{35}$Cl comes from neutrinos produced in the Earth’s atmosphere, but such events would not be able to simulate nucleon decay events. Although once the neutron was knocked out of the $^{35}$Cl, the resulting $\gamma-\beta$ coincidence would be the same as for the neutron decay event, the atmospheric neutrino would emit a neutron, which would be detected to give its characteristic 8.6 MeV $\gamma$-ray. This is a considerably greater energy than could be produced by any of the $\gamma$-rays resulting from the de-excitations in $^{34}$Cl; thus that neutron could be used to veto this type of background event.
Monte-Carlo simulations of detectors to determine detection efficiencies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The limit that can be achieved from any process such as the decays described above clearly depends on the detection efficiency. Thus we have run simulations of the events from decays of $^{35}$Cl based on the GEANT [@geant] detector simulation software. As planned, the LPC detector will consist of multiple independent cylindrical modules having radii of 2 m and heights, which are adjustable in the simulations, ranging from 1 to 2 m. The GEANT simulations were based on a single module. The interior of the cylinder was assumed to be viewed by photomultiplier tubes (PMTs) at both ends. Current design plans are to use an LPC solution of concentration, also adjustable in the simulations, of 75% to 80% LPC by weight.
From the decay of a neutron in $^{35}$Cl, GEANT generated both the $\gamma$-rays from the de-excitation of the $^{34}$Cl nucleus and the resultant $\beta^+$ from the decay of the $^{34}$Cl. The initial starting state for $^{34}$Cl was randomly chosen from the energy levels that were below the proton separation energy. $\gamma$-rays were then generated to simulate the de-excitation of the $^{34}$Cl nucleus from the selected starting state down to either the ground state or the isomer. The number and energies of the generated $\gamma$-rays were based on data on the levels and $\gamma$-rays for the $^{34}$Cl nucleus. Events that decayed to the isomeric state were rejected. The fraction of the events that de-excite down to the ground state was found to be $57.6 \pm
0.2$%.
The $^{34}$Cl decay time is chosen by randomly selecting whether a decay will occur during the 1 ms time unit, and was repeated until a decay occurred. The chance for a decay within a time unit was based on the half-life of $^{34}$Cl. If the decay time took longer than 40 s, the total accumulated time was set to zero and the decay test continued.
The kinematics for the $\beta^+$ were generated after the $\gamma$-rays were generated and tracked. The initial energy of the $\beta^+$ was selected from a lookup table and the decay time was added to the initial time of flight. A Gaussian profile was used for the initial energy distribution of the positron. The parameters for the Gaussian were derived from a fit to the $\beta^+$ energy spectrum calculated using the RADLST program [@radlst].
Upon entering a PMT, a photon’s energy and time of flight were stored. As $\beta^+$s and $\beta^-$s have a large RMS multiple scattering in LPC, any patterns in the Cherenkov radiation are destroyed. However, an event can be identified by the number of PMTs that have fired in a localized area within a specified time window. The requirement imposed to identify $\gamma$-rays and $\beta^+$s required three PMTs to fire in a localized cluster within a 20 ns window.
To estimate the efficiency for detecting neutron decay in the $^{35}$Cl in LPC, 10,000 events were generated in a 100 cm deep tank with an 80% solution of LPC by weight. The attenuation length of the LPC was taken to be 4.2 m [@elliott00]. The mean efficiency for detecting the $\gamma$-rays from the de-excitation of the $^{34}$Cl nucleus over the volume of the detector was found to be $57.0 \pm 0.8$%. For detecting the $\beta^+$s, the mean efficiency was found to be $75.2 \pm 0.9$%, making the mean efficiency for detecting a coincidence between the $\gamma$s and the $\beta$s to be $42.6 \pm
0.8$%. For a 200 cm deep tank with an 80% LPC solution, the mean detection efficiency for $\gamma$s, $\beta^+$s, and coincidences was found to be $42.6
\pm 0.7$%, $60.6 \pm 0.9$%, and $25.6 \pm 0.5$% respectively. Thus the efficiencies assumed above are consistent with those determined from the Monte-Carlo simulations. For the 200 cm deep tank, the neutron detection efficiency was found to be $87.6\pm 0.9$%.
The position of a nucleon decay event can be deduced from the time difference $\Delta$t between hits at the two ends of the tank. $\Delta$t can be defined in a variety of ways, *e.g.* by taking it to be the time difference between the peaks of the signals, either from the $\gamma$s or the $\beta^+$s, from the two sides of the module, or by attempting to average early hits to utilize the leading edges of the signals on the two sides to do the timing. The first approach can be confused somewhat by the arrival of photons scattered from the opposite side, whereas the latter can be complicated by limited statistics. Either approach seems to allow localization of events to about $\pm 10$ cm. Spatial localization is important, as it allows use of a position dependent neutron detection efficiency, so can allow greater emphasis on events that occur in the center of the detector, which will have a greater efficiency for detecting the veto neutron, than those at the edges, which will have a lesser efficiency.
Conclusions
===========
Given that the suggested searches for nucleon decay would be conducted in a supernova neutrino detector, these searches would have a long time, probably more than 20 years, to run. Thus the suggested experiments have the potential to improve greatly the existing limits on the n $\rightarrow \ \nu
\ + \bar{\nu} \ + \nu$ decay mode.
This work began at an Aspen Institute summer workshop. It has continued under the support of US Department of Energy grant DE-FG03-88ER40397, NSF grant PHY-0099476, and the Swiss NSF (grant 2000-061031.02). TR acknowledges support by a PROFIL professorship by the Swiss NSF (grant 2024-067428.02).
J.C. Pati and A. Salam, Phys. Rev. D **8**, 1240 (1973); Phys. Rev. Lett. **31**, 661 (1973); Phys. Rev. D **10**, 275 (1974). H. Georgi and S.L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. Lett. **32**, 438 (1974). K.S. Babu, J.C. Pati, and F. Wilczek, Nucl. Phys. **B566**, 33 (2000). K.S. Babu and R.N. Mohapatra, Phys. Lett. **B518**, 269 (2001). T. Appelquist, B.A. Dobrescu, E. Ponton, and H.-U. Yee, Phys. Rev. Letters **87**, 181802 (2001). H. Hagiwara *et al.*, Particle Data Group, Phys. Rev. D **66**, 010001 (2002); http://pdg.lbl.gov Y. Totsuka, in *Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Grand Unification/ICOBAN, 1986*, edited by J. Arafune (World Scientific, Singapore, 1986), p. 118 H. Ejiri, Phys. Rev. C **48**, 1442 (1993). Y. Suzuki *et al.*, Phys. Lett. **B311**, 357 (1993). Y. Kamyshkov and E. Kolbe, Phys. Rev. D **67**, 076007 (2003). J. Pati, A. Salam, and U. Sarker, Phys. Letters **B133**, 330 (1983). R.N. Mohapatra and A. Perez-Lorenzana, Phys. Rev. D **67**, 075015 (2003). C. Berger *et al.*, Phys. Letters **B269**, 227 (1991). R.N. Boyd, A. StJ. Murphy, and R.L. Talaga, Nucl. Phys. **A718**, 222c (2003). S.R. Elliott, Phys. Rev. C **62**, 065802 (2000). Evaluated Nuclear Structure Data File, http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/nndc/ensdf T. Rauscher and F.-K. Thielemann, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables **75**, 1 (2000) T. Rauscher amd F.-K. Thielemann, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables **79**, 47 (2001) E. Kolbe, K. Langanke, S. Krewald, and F.-K. Thielemann, Nucl. Phys. **A540**, 599 (1992) T. Rauscher, F.-K. Thielemann, and K.-L. Kratz, Phys. Rev. **C56**, 1613 (1997) A. Bohr and B.R. Mottelson, *Nuclear Structure*, (World Scientific, Singapore,1998), p. 239 GEANT 3.21, CERN Program Library, Long Writeup W5013 (1993). T.W. Burrows, computer code RADLST, Brookhaven National Laboratory Report No. BNL-NCS-52142, 1988 (unpublished).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'Eung Jin Chun,'
- 'Sunghoon Jung,'
- 'Jong-Chul Park'
title: Very Degenerate Higgsino Dark Matter
---
Introduction
============
The pure Higgsino (with the electroweak-radiative mass splitting $\Delta m=355$ MeV between its lightest neutral and charged components) is an attractive candidate of thermal dark matter (DM) for its mass around 1 TeV [@ArkaniHamed:2006mb]. As null results at Large Hadron Collider (LHC) experiments push supersymmetry (SUSY) to TeV scale, such Higgsino as the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) has recently become an important target for future collider [@Low:2014cba; @Acharya:2014pua; @Gori:2014oua; @Barducci:2015ffa; @Badziak:2015qca; @Bramante:2015una] and DM search experiments [@Barducci:2015ffa; @Badziak:2015qca; @Bramante:2015una; @Cirelli:2007xd; @Chun:2012yt; @Fan:2013faa; @Chun:2015mka]. *A priori*, the Higgsino mass $\mu$ and gaugino masses $M_1, M_2$ for the Bino and Wino are not related; thus, the pure Higgsino scenario with much heavier gauginos is possible and natural by considering two distinct Peccei-Quinn and R symmetric limits.
It is, however, difficult to test the pure Higgsino LSP up to 1–2 TeV at collider experiments (including future 100 TeV options) and dark matter detections. Standard collider searches of jet plus missing energy are insensitive because of the small mass splitting of 355 MeV [@Low:2014cba; @Acharya:2014pua; @Gori:2014oua]; but the splitting is large enough for charginos to decay promptly at collider so that disappearing track and stable chargino searches are not sensitive [@Low:2014cba; @Thomas:1998wy]. The purity of the Higgsino states suppresses DM direct detection signals. DM indirect detection signals are not large enough because of relatively weak interactions and negligible Sommerfeld enhancements [@Hisano:2003ec; @Hisano:2004ds; @Cirelli:2007xd; @Chun:2012yt; @Fan:2013faa; @Chun:2015mka]. In contrast, the pure Wino DM with the radiative mass splitting of 164 MeV, another thermal DM candidate for its mass $\sim$ 3 TeV, provides several ways to test: monojet plus missing energy due to more efficient recoil and larger cross-section [@Low:2014cba; @Gori:2014oua; @Cirelli:2014dsa; @Bhattacherjee:2012ed], disappearing track due to longer-lived charged Wino [@Low:2014cba; @Cirelli:2014dsa; @Bhattacherjee:2012ed], and indirect detection due to somewhat stronger interaction and larger enhancement [@Hisano:2004ds; @Cirelli:2007xd; @Chun:2012yt; @Fan:2013faa; @Cohen:2013ama; @Chun:2015mka]. One of the key features of the Wino DM affecting all of these signals is the smaller mass splitting.
It has been noticed that the non-perturbative effects can be sizable for the heavy electroweak dark matter annihilation, leading to not only the Sommerfeld enhancement [@Hisano:2003ec; @Hisano:2004ds] but also the Ramsauer-Townsend (RT) suppression [@Chun:2012yt; @Chun:2015mka; @Cirelli:2015bda; @Garcia-Cely:2015dda] that become more evident for smaller mass splitting (or equivalently heavier DM) and higher multiplets (or stronger electroweak interactions) [@Chun:2012yt; @Chun:2015mka]. The Higgsino-gaugino system, consisting of the weak singlet, doublet and triplet, with variable mass splitting provides a natural framework realizing drastic Sommerfeld-Ramsauer-Townsend (SRT) effects in dark matter annihilation.
This motivates us to investigate a possibility of a very degenerate Higgsino DM whose mass splitting is much smaller than the electroweak-induced 355 MeV, realized in the limit of $\mu \ll M_{1, 2}$ admitting slight gaugino mixtures. The Higgsino is more susceptible to nearby gauginos than the gaugino is to others as heavier gaugino effects on the Higgsino decouple less quickly: their effects are captured by dimension-5 operators, while effects on the gaugino DM is captured by dimension-6 operators [@Fan:2013faa]. Thus, it leads to a plausible situation that heavier gauginos are almost decoupled leaving some traces only in the Higgsino DM sector in spite of a large hierarchy between them. The Very Degenerate Higgsino DM turns out to produce distinct features in indirect detection signals from the galactic center (GC) and dwarf spheroidal satellite galaxies (DG), which can be observed in the near future.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we look for the Higgsino-gaugino parameter space realizing the Very Degenerate Higgsino LSP. In Section 3, indirect signals of DM annihilation are studied to feature the SRT effect, which leads to distinct predictions for the GC and DG. In Section 4, we consider other constraints from direct detection, collider searches, and cosmology. We finally conclude in Section 5.
Very Degenerate Higgsino DM
===========================
We discuss the SUSY parameter space of the Very Degenerate Higgsino DM, which involves the Higgsino mass parameter $\mu$, the Bino and Wino masses $M_{1,2}$, the ratio of the Higgs vacuum expectation values $t_\beta\equiv \tan\beta=v_u/v_d$, the weak mixing angle given by $s_W\equiv \sin\theta_W \approx 0.23$, and the $W$ gauge boson mass $m_W$. We assume the limit $|M_1 \pm M_2|, |M_2 \pm \mu|, |\mu \pm M_1| \gg m_W$. We keep the signs of mass eigenvalues and make eigenvectors real. Later on, we will assume $M_2, \mu >0$ and $M_1<0$ for the Very Degenerate Higgsino DM, but we will be agnostic about how such signs can be obtained.
Higgsino mass eigenvalues at tree-level are [@Drees:1996pk], m\_[\^+]{} && || - [sgn]{}(M\_2) s\_[2]{} > 0,\
m\_[\^0\_[S, A]{}]{} && - (1 s\_[2]{}) \_K, \_K ( 1 + t\_W\^2 ), where $s_{2\beta} = \sin 2\beta$ and so on. The subscripts $S, A$ imply that the mass eigenstates are $\chi^0_{S, A} \sim (\widetilde{H}_d^0 \pm \widetilde{H}_u^0)/\sqrt{2}$. Which of $\chi^0_{S}$ or $\chi^0_A$ is the LSP depends on the relative sign of $\mu$ and $\epsilon_K M_2$: the $\chi^0_A$ is the LSP if the relative sign is positive, and vice versa. Expressing both possibilities, we write the LSP mass as m\_[\^0\_1]{} [sgn]{}(\_K M\_2) ( || - ( 1+ [sgn]{}(\_K M\_2) s\_[2]{} ) | \_K | ). Higgsino mass splitting at tree-level is then m\_[tree]{} && m\_[\^+]{} - | m\_[\^0\_1]{} |\
&& - [sgn]{}(M\_2) s\_[2]{} ( 1 + [sgn]{}(\_K M\_2) s\_[2]{} ) |\_K|. \[eq:deltam\] The physical mass splitting is $\Delta m = \Delta m_{\rm tree} + \Delta m_{\rm loop}$, where the model-independent electroweak loop corrections give $\Delta m_{\rm loop} \approx 355$ MeV for the Higgsino [@Thomas:1998wy].
Notably, the $\Delta m_{\rm tree}$ can be negative, so that the resulting physical mass splitting $\Delta m$ can be smaller than the $\Delta m_{\rm loop}$.[^1] From the above approximations, we find that one way to obtain negative $\Delta m_{\rm tree}$ is to satisfy the following conditions:
- sign($\mu M_2)>0$ because only the first term in [Eq. (\[eq:deltam\])]{} can be negative. Assuming $\mu, \, M_2 >0$ from now on, we rewrite m\_[tree]{} && { - ( s\_[2]{} ( 1 + s\_[2]{} ) ) && [for]{} \_K>0\
- ( s\_[2]{} ( 1 - s\_[2]{} ) ) && [for]{} \_K<0 .. \[eq:deltam2\] Thus, $\Delta m_{\rm tree}<0$ if masses satisfy - \_K 1. \[eq:cond-epk\]
- $M_1 <0$ is preferred so that $\epsilon_K<1$.
- Small $t_\beta$ is preferred.
- In the limit of $M_2 \to \infty$ or $M_1 \to \infty$, no solutions exist.
We apply this set of approximate conditions to our full numerical calculation to narrow down solution finding procedure.
![Very Degenerate Higgsino DM parameter space with $M_2$=10 TeV and $t_\beta=1.8$. Contours of the mass splitting $\Delta m = m_{\chi^+} - |m_{\chi_1^0}|$ (solid), $\delta m^0 = |m_{\chi_2^0}| - |m_{\chi^0_1}|$ (dashed), and spin-independent direct detection rate $\sigma^{\rm SI}$ (dotted; see [Sec. \[sec:dd\]]{}) are shown. We consider the two benchmark models along the $\Delta m=$ 2, 10 MeV contours throughout. []{data-label="fig:mu-m1-masseigen"}](mu-m1-masseigen.pdf){width="65.00000%"}
In [Fig. \[fig:mu-m1-masseigen\]]{}, we show one set of numerical solutions of $\Delta m_{\rm tree} <0$ for the range of $\mu \leq 2$ TeV and $-2.5 \geq M_1 \geq -5$ TeV with fixed $M_2 = 10$ TeV and $t_\beta = 1.8$. In most of the parameter space shown, $\Delta m$ is smaller than the radiative mass splitting of 355 MeV. Although approximate equations above do not depend on $\mu$, the full numerical solution does a bit. We will consider two benchmark cases of $\Delta m=$2, 10 MeV in this parameter space throughout. Later, we will also comment on the case with smaller $M_2 = 5$ TeV. The solutions for $\Delta m=$2, 10 MeV and our most discussions do not strongly depend on the value of $M_2$, but direct detection signal does as will be discussed. The neutralino mass splitting, $\delta m^0 \equiv |m_{\chi_2}^0| - |m_{\chi_1}^0|$, is somewhat larger $\sim {\cal O}(100)$ MeV, and it also does not strongly affect our discussion.
Indirect Detection of Annihilation Signals
==========================================
Non-perturbative effects in DM pair annihilation can lead to Sommerfeld enhancement [@Hisano:2003ec; @Hisano:2004ds] or Ramsauer-Townsend suppression [@Chun:2012yt; @Chun:2015mka]. The pure Higgsino DM with $\mu \sim 1$ TeV and $\Delta m\approx 355$ MeV does not experience large SRT effects. Only Higgsinos as heavy as $\sim 7$ TeV can experience sizable effects, but they are too heavy to be relevant to collider experiments. On the other hand, 1–3 TeV pure Wino DM with $\Delta m \approx 164$ MeV experiences much larger SRT effects with a resonance appearing at around 2.4 TeV [@Hisano:2003ec; @Hisano:2004ds; @Cirelli:2007xd; @Chun:2012yt; @Chun:2015mka; @Fan:2013faa; @Cohen:2013ama]. Since the SRT effects on the pure Wino DM saturate at relatively high velocity $v/c \sim 10^{-2}$, Wino annihilation cross-sections at various astronomical sites with different velocity dispersions are same.
We will discuss that the very small splitting of the Higgsino DM can make the relevant Higgsino mass scale down to $\sim 1$ TeV and allow different annihilation cross-sections at various astronomical sites, postponing the saturation to lower velocities. Furthermore, there can appear not only Sommerfeld enhancements but also RT suppressions.
SRT Effects with Very Small Mass Splitting
------------------------------------------
We focus on today’s DM annihilation cross-sections into $WW, ZZ, \gamma\gamma, Z\gamma$ channels. Thus, we do not consider co-annihilation channels. Pair annihilations with SRT effects can proceed via various intermediate two-body states with the same charge $Q=0$ and spin $S=0, 1$ as those of the initial LSP pair, which are exchanged by photons and on/off-shell $W, Z$ gauge bosons. We take into account all two-body states formed among Higgsino states; in addition, we add heavier gauginos if their masses are within 10 GeV of the Higgsino in order to accommodate non-zero effects from them, but this rarely happens in our study. We follow a general formalism developed for SUSY in Ref. [@Beneke:2012tg; @Hellmann:2013jxa; @Beneke:2014gja; @Beneke:2014hja] to calculate absorptive Wilson coefficients and non-relativistic potentials between various two-body states, and we numerically solve resulting Schr$\ddot{\rm o}$dinger equations to obtain SRT effects.
![Contours of annihilation cross-section into photon-line signals $\sigma v_{\gamma \gamma + \frac{1}{2}\gamma Z}$ for $\Delta m=2$ (top-left), 10 (top-right), 355 (bottom) MeV. Both enhancements from threshold resonances and RT suppressions are visible; far below the excitation threshold (blue-dashed), SRT effects become velocity-independent. As $\Delta m$ increases, peaks and dips move to heavier masses and larger velocities, and they become more separated. Some irregularities in contours are owing to lack of resolution in parameter scanning. Very Degenerate Higgsino DM parameters are as in [Fig. \[fig:mu-m1-masseigen\]]{}. []{data-label="fig:contour-S"}](Contour-mu-vexp-dm2mev.pdf "fig:"){width="48.90000%"} ![Contours of annihilation cross-section into photon-line signals $\sigma v_{\gamma \gamma + \frac{1}{2}\gamma Z}$ for $\Delta m=2$ (top-left), 10 (top-right), 355 (bottom) MeV. Both enhancements from threshold resonances and RT suppressions are visible; far below the excitation threshold (blue-dashed), SRT effects become velocity-independent. As $\Delta m$ increases, peaks and dips move to heavier masses and larger velocities, and they become more separated. Some irregularities in contours are owing to lack of resolution in parameter scanning. Very Degenerate Higgsino DM parameters are as in [Fig. \[fig:mu-m1-masseigen\]]{}. []{data-label="fig:contour-S"}](Contour-mu-vexp-dm10mev.pdf "fig:"){width="50.20000%"} ![Contours of annihilation cross-section into photon-line signals $\sigma v_{\gamma \gamma + \frac{1}{2}\gamma Z}$ for $\Delta m=2$ (top-left), 10 (top-right), 355 (bottom) MeV. Both enhancements from threshold resonances and RT suppressions are visible; far below the excitation threshold (blue-dashed), SRT effects become velocity-independent. As $\Delta m$ increases, peaks and dips move to heavier masses and larger velocities, and they become more separated. Some irregularities in contours are owing to lack of resolution in parameter scanning. Very Degenerate Higgsino DM parameters are as in [Fig. \[fig:mu-m1-masseigen\]]{}. []{data-label="fig:contour-S"}](Contour-mu-vexp-dm355mev.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![Contours of annihilation cross-section into photon-line signals $\sigma v_{\gamma \gamma + \frac{1}{2}\gamma Z}$ for $\Delta m=2$ (top-left), 10 (top-right), 355 (bottom) MeV. Both enhancements from threshold resonances and RT suppressions are visible; far below the excitation threshold (blue-dashed), SRT effects become velocity-independent. As $\Delta m$ increases, peaks and dips move to heavier masses and larger velocities, and they become more separated. Some irregularities in contours are owing to lack of resolution in parameter scanning. Very Degenerate Higgsino DM parameters are as in [Fig. \[fig:mu-m1-masseigen\]]{}. []{data-label="fig:contour-S"}](Contour-legend.pdf "fig:"){width="19.00000%"}
We study two benchmark models with $\Delta m = 2, 10$ MeV presented in [Fig. \[fig:mu-m1-masseigen\]]{}. For the given $\mu \in \{ 600, 2000 \}$ GeV (and other parameters as described), a unique solution for $M_1$ is found. As long as gaugino mixtures are small, the exact value of $M_2$ ($\gtrsim |M_1|$) does not matter much in annihilation signals. It is because leading contributions to annihilations and SRT effects already exist in the pure Higgsino model with vanishing gaugino mixings: for example, direct annihilation $\chi^0 \chi^0 \to WW$ and SRT effect $\chi^0 \chi^0 \to \chi_1^+ \chi^-$ can be mediated by the Higgsino-Higgsino-$W$ interaction without need for any gaugino mixtures. Thus, we set $M_2=10$ TeV (and $t_\beta =1.8$) in this section.
In [Fig. \[fig:contour-S\]]{}, we show contours of annihilation cross-section into photon-line signals, $\sigma v_{\gamma \gamma + \tfrac{1}{2}\gamma Z} \equiv \sigma v_{\gamma \gamma} + \frac{1}{2}\sigma v_{\gamma Z}$, for the benchmark models with $\Delta m = 2, 10$ MeV and the usual pure Higgsino model with $\Delta m =355$ MeV for comparison. Similar features exist in photon-continuum signals from $\sigma v_{WW+ZZ} \equiv \sigma v_{WW} + \sigma v_{ZZ}$, and similar discussions apply.
Two types of enhancements are observed, most clearly from the $\Delta m=2$ MeV result. First, a series of threshold zero-energy resonances form just below the excitation threshold of $\chi^0 \chi^0 \to \chi^+ \chi^-$ with $\tfrac{1}{2} \mu v^2 \simeq \Delta m$ (blue-dashed line) [@Slatyer:2009vg; @Beneke:2014hja; @MarchRussell:2008tu], depicted as diagonal bands of enhancement. Photon exchanges between chargino pairs are responsible for the series of closely-located resonances, but not all of them are captured and shown in the figure; see Ref. [@Beneke:2014hja] for demonstration of many closely-located threshold resonances. Well below the threshold, SRT effects are independent on velocity as the $W$-boson exchange in $\chi^0 \chi^0 \to \chi^+ \chi^-$ becomes governed by the $W$-mass rather than DM momentum [@Hisano:2003ec; @Hisano:2004ds; @Beneke:2014hja], depicted as vertical regions of enhancements. The SRT effect saturates at finite enhancement in the $v\to0$ limit because of the finite-ranged $W$-exchange Yukawa potential.
As $\Delta m$ increases, the excitation $\chi^0 \chi^0 \to \chi^+ \chi^-$ becomes harder and the attractive potential becomes effectively shallower [@Hisano:2004ds]. A heavier DM with a smaller Bohr radius can compensate this trend and can form zero-energy bound states. Thus, the larger $\Delta m$, the heavier Higgsino Sommerfeld peaks. From $\mu \sim 1.1$ TeV for $\Delta m=2$ MeV, the Sommerfeld peak moves to a heavier $\mu \sim 1.3$ TeV for $\Delta m=10$ MeV and to much heavier $\mu \sim 7$ TeV for the pure Higgsino with $\Delta m=355$ MeV. Moreover, the threshold velocity becomes higher with larger $\Delta m$, making the SRT effects saturate at higher velocities. All such behaviors are clearly shown in [Fig. \[fig:contour-S\]]{}.
Another remarkable is that RT dips are formed near Sommerfeld peaks [@Chun:2012yt; @Chun:2015mka; @Cirelli:2015bda; @Garcia-Cely:2015dda] both in the excitation threshold and in the small-velocity saturation regimes. RT dips are located at slightly heavier Higgsino masses and/or larger velocities. As $\Delta m$ increases, dips and peaks become more separated in $\mu$ and $v$.
Annihilations at GC and DG
--------------------------
We calculate annihilation cross-sections at GC and DG, main candidate sites for DM indirect detection. GC is expected to support huge DM density but also plenty of contaminations from baryons, whereas DG is a very clean DM source in spite of smaller DM density. In addition, velocity dispersions are order of magnitude different, often further differentiating annihilation signals at DG and GC.
We convolute the annihilation cross-section calculated in the previous subsection with Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distributions for GC and DG [@Feng:2010zp; @Essig:2010em; @Chun:2012yt; @Cannoni:2013bza] v = dv (v) , which we write in terms of DM velocity $v=v_{\rm DM}$ (in accordance with the SRT calculation in the previous subsection) instead of relative velocity $v_{\rm rel} = 2 v_{\rm DM}$. The velocity dispersions are chosen to be $v_0 = 210$ km/s for GC and 20 km/s for DG. Most relevant velocity ranges are $\log_{10} v = -3.2 \sim -3.5$ for GC and $\log_{10} v = -4.1 \sim -4.6$ for DG.
![Annihilation cross-sections convoluted with Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distributions. Velocity dispersions for GC (blue-solid) and DG (red-dashed) are $v_0 = 210$ and 20 km/s. Panels are for $\Delta m=2$ (top), 10 MeV (bottom) and photon-line cross-section $\sigma v_{\gamma \gamma+ \frac{1}{2}\gamma Z}$ (left), photon-continuum cross-section $\sigma v_{WW+ZZ}$ (right). For comparison, perturbative results are also shown (dotted). Some irregularities are owing to lack of resolution in parameter scanning.[]{data-label="fig:ann-crx"}](S-vave-dm2mev-rr.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Annihilation cross-sections convoluted with Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distributions. Velocity dispersions for GC (blue-solid) and DG (red-dashed) are $v_0 = 210$ and 20 km/s. Panels are for $\Delta m=2$ (top), 10 MeV (bottom) and photon-line cross-section $\sigma v_{\gamma \gamma+ \frac{1}{2}\gamma Z}$ (left), photon-continuum cross-section $\sigma v_{WW+ZZ}$ (right). For comparison, perturbative results are also shown (dotted). Some irregularities are owing to lack of resolution in parameter scanning.[]{data-label="fig:ann-crx"}](S-vave-dm2mev-pp.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Annihilation cross-sections convoluted with Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distributions. Velocity dispersions for GC (blue-solid) and DG (red-dashed) are $v_0 = 210$ and 20 km/s. Panels are for $\Delta m=2$ (top), 10 MeV (bottom) and photon-line cross-section $\sigma v_{\gamma \gamma+ \frac{1}{2}\gamma Z}$ (left), photon-continuum cross-section $\sigma v_{WW+ZZ}$ (right). For comparison, perturbative results are also shown (dotted). Some irregularities are owing to lack of resolution in parameter scanning.[]{data-label="fig:ann-crx"}](S-vave-dm10mev-rr.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Annihilation cross-sections convoluted with Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distributions. Velocity dispersions for GC (blue-solid) and DG (red-dashed) are $v_0 = 210$ and 20 km/s. Panels are for $\Delta m=2$ (top), 10 MeV (bottom) and photon-line cross-section $\sigma v_{\gamma \gamma+ \frac{1}{2}\gamma Z}$ (left), photon-continuum cross-section $\sigma v_{WW+ZZ}$ (right). For comparison, perturbative results are also shown (dotted). Some irregularities are owing to lack of resolution in parameter scanning.[]{data-label="fig:ann-crx"}](S-vave-dm10mev-pp.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
![Latest constraints from Fermi-LAT (cyan), HESS (light green), MAGIC (orange) and projections from Fermi-LAT (cyan) and CTA (dark green); more details in text. Panels are for $\Delta m=2$ (top) and 10 MeV (bottom), and photon-line (left) and photon-continuum (right). Solid lines are for GC and dashed for DG. Full DM relic density is assumed for all masses; for reference, usual thermal Higgsino DM mass range is shown as green bands.[]{data-label="fig:ind-const"}](photon-line-dm2.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Latest constraints from Fermi-LAT (cyan), HESS (light green), MAGIC (orange) and projections from Fermi-LAT (cyan) and CTA (dark green); more details in text. Panels are for $\Delta m=2$ (top) and 10 MeV (bottom), and photon-line (left) and photon-continuum (right). Solid lines are for GC and dashed for DG. Full DM relic density is assumed for all masses; for reference, usual thermal Higgsino DM mass range is shown as green bands.[]{data-label="fig:ind-const"}](photon-cont-dm2.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Latest constraints from Fermi-LAT (cyan), HESS (light green), MAGIC (orange) and projections from Fermi-LAT (cyan) and CTA (dark green); more details in text. Panels are for $\Delta m=2$ (top) and 10 MeV (bottom), and photon-line (left) and photon-continuum (right). Solid lines are for GC and dashed for DG. Full DM relic density is assumed for all masses; for reference, usual thermal Higgsino DM mass range is shown as green bands.[]{data-label="fig:ind-const"}](photon-line-dm10.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Latest constraints from Fermi-LAT (cyan), HESS (light green), MAGIC (orange) and projections from Fermi-LAT (cyan) and CTA (dark green); more details in text. Panels are for $\Delta m=2$ (top) and 10 MeV (bottom), and photon-line (left) and photon-continuum (right). Solid lines are for GC and dashed for DG. Full DM relic density is assumed for all masses; for reference, usual thermal Higgsino DM mass range is shown as green bands.[]{data-label="fig:ind-const"}](photon-cont-dm10.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
Resulting velocity-convoluted annihilation cross-sections at GC and DG are shown in [Fig. \[fig:ann-crx\]]{}. Sommerfeld enhancements and RT suppressions are both clearly observed near 1 TeV Higgsino. Near Sommerfeld peaks and RT dips, annihilation cross-sections at GC and DG are different in general. The difference is larger for the $\Delta m=2$ MeV case because SRT effects saturate at lower velocity. Meanwhile, overall enhancements and suppressions are larger for the $\Delta m=10$ MeV case because peaks and dips are more separated in $\mu$ and $v$ so that they lead to less cancellation in velocity convolution. We also comment that GC cross-sections are not as sharp as DG ones in the figure because we had to average over very closely-separated peaks and dips appearing just below the excitation threshold (where GC signal is most sensitive too) and not all well captured in our parameter scanning.
Another remarkable feature in [Fig. \[fig:ann-crx\]]{} is that, owing to RT dips, DG annihilation cross-section can be smaller than that of GC. It is a counter-example to the typical result that DG annihilation cross-section is similar or larger than GC annihilation because DM velocity dispersion is smaller. The existence of RT dips is (accidentally) more clear in the photon-line signal than in the photon-continuum signal; as RT dips are produced from cancellations between various contributions (not necessarily related to resonances), their appearance and strength can depend on annihilation channels.
The exact peak heights shown in the figure may be subject to uncertainties; our parameter scanning resolution very close to peak centers is limited and perturbative corrections that may become important in this regime are not added. The perturbative corrections are most important when unitarity is broken by unphysically enhanced cross-section [@Blum:2016nrz]. However, our annihilation cross-sections are well below the unitarity bound $\sigma v \leq 4 \pi/(\mu^2 v) \simeq 10^{-20} \times \left(\frac{1\, {\rm TeV}}{\mu} \right)^2 \left( \frac{10^{-2}}{v} \right) {\rm cm}^3 / {\rm sec}$; and indeed, the regularizing velocity $v_c \sim 10^{-6}$ [@Blum:2016nrz] is much smaller than our saturation velocity. Also, our scanning resolution is good enough just away from peak centers. Thus, we do not attempt to further improve peak height calculation.
In [Fig. \[fig:ind-const\]]{}, we finally overlay the latest constraints and some projection limits of indirect detections. Datasets presented include: HESS 2013 [@Abramowski:2013ax] and Fermi-LAT 2015 [@Ackermann:2015lka] for photon-line from GC, MAGIC 2013 [@Aleksic:2013xea] for photon-line from DG, Fermi-LAT+MAGIC combination [@Ahnen:2016qkx] for photon-continuum from DG, and HESS 254h [@Lefranc:2015vza; @Abazajian:2011ak; @Abramowski:2011hc] for photon-continuum from GC. Projection studies include: CTA 5h [@Bergstrom:2012vd; @Ibarra:2015tya; @Chun:2015mka] for photon-line from GC, CTA 500h [@Carr:2015hta; @Lefranc:2015pza] for photon-continuum from GC, and Fermi-LAT 15 years for photon-continuum from 16 DGs [@Charles:2016pgz]. Current and future DES constraints from DG photon-continuum [@Drlica-Wagner:2015xua] are similar or weaker than the results shown, so we do not show them. Full DM relic density is assumed for all Higgsino masses in interpreting the constraints.
Currently, Sommerfeld peaks in both $\Delta m=2, 10$ MeV models are constrained by DG searches. Also, GC searches constrain Sommerfeld peaks of the $\Delta m=10$ MeV case, while smaller peaks of the $\Delta m=2$ MeV are not yet constrained by GC searches. In the future, a large part of Sommerfeld enhanced parameter space can be probed by CTA GC and Fermi DG searches. On the other hand, RT dips in photon-line signals are well below future sensitivities although RT dips in photon-continuum signals are less significant and only midly below the CTA GC projection.
For reference, we also show as green bands the mass range where the thermal Higgsino DM with $\Delta m=355$ MeV can explain the full DM relic density. Although SRT effects on the Very Degenerate Higgsino model can alter the relic density somewhat, the pure Higgsino result is still a useful guide as SRT effects on relic density may not be so significant. Not only nearby Sommerfeld peaks and RT dips may cancel each other during thermal history, but also some co-annihilation channels may have opposite SRT effects (as for the pure Higgsino DM [@Beneke:2014hja]) that can also nullify impacts on relic density. Without dedicated relic density calculation, we are content with assuming the full DM relic density, and in any case our signals can be scaled in proportion to true relic density.
Other Constraints
=================
Direct Detection {#sec:dd}
----------------
The spin-independent direct detection (SIDD) signal of the nearly degenerate Higgsino DM depends on the mass splitting between the neutral states $\delta m^0$, and the amount of the gaugino mixture. The neutral mass gap $\delta m^0$ should be larger than ${\cal O}(0.1)$ MeV, otherwise its inelastic scattering mediated by $Z$ exchange should have been already observed [@Chun:2012yt]. For sufficiently large $\delta m^0$ as in our study (see [Fig. \[fig:mu-m1-masseigen\]]{}), the elastic scattering rate is controlled by gaugino mixtures (via Higgsino-gaugino-Higgs coupling), that is, the signal vanishes in the pure Higgsino limit. Therefore, we consider two benchmark values of $M_2 = 10$ and 5 TeV in this subsection, representing the cases with relatively small and large gaugino mixings and SIDD signals. For each $M_2$ benchmark, the value of $M_1$ is fixed (as a function of other parameters) to obtain the desired $\Delta m=2, 10$ MeV, and thus SIDD rates are determined.
The SIDD cross-section is approximately given by [@Cheung:2012qy] \_[SI]{} 810\^[-47]{} ( )\^2 [cm]{}\^2, g\_[h]{} \^0\_1 h g\_[h]{} = g ( N\_[12]{} - t\_W N\_[11]{} ) ( N\_[14]{} s\_- N\_[13]{} c\_) g ( 1 s\_[2]{} ) (\_K (1+t\_W\^2) ), \[eq:hxx\] where the sign $\mp$ implies the sign(-$\epsilon_K$) and we assume the Higgs alignment limit. We obtain $\sigma_{\rm SI} \= (3 \sim5) \times 10^{-48}, \, (4\sim9) \times 10^{-47} \, {\rm cm}^2$ for $M_2 = 10, \, 5$ TeV with the range spanned by $\mu = 600 \sim 1500$ GeV (see [Fig. \[fig:mu-m1-masseigen\]]{} for $M_2=10$ TeV result). The dependence on the $\Delta m $ (indirectly via Bino mixtures) is not significant for $\Delta m \lesssim 10$ MeV. The former range of $\sigma_{\rm SI}$ with $M_2=10$ TeV is close to the coherent neutrino scattering background floor so that searches will be very difficult in the near future, while the latter range with $M_2=5$ TeV is expected to be probed at future experiments such as DarkSide-G2 [@Cushman:2013zza; @Aalseth:2015mba] and LZ [@Cushman:2013zza; @Akerib:2015cja]. Although indirect detection signals are sizable for both $M_2$ benchmark values, the absence or existence of detectable SIDD signal still depends on the Wino mixture (hence, the Wino mass) and is not a necessary consequence of the Very Degenerate Higgsino DM.
Collider Searches
-----------------
With very small mass splitting, the charged Higgsino can be long-lived at LHC experiments. If it decays outside or outer part of LHC detectors, stable chargino searches apply, that is, characteristic ionization pattern of traversing massive charged particles can be identified. If it decays in the middle of detectors, disappearing charged track searches apply as soft charged decay products are not efficiently reconstructed.
For $\Delta m$ much smaller than the pion mass, the dominant chargino decay mode is $\chi^+ \to e^+ \nu_e \chi^0$ [@Thomas:1998wy; @Chen:1996ap; @Martin:2000eq; @Jung:2014bda]: ( \^+ e\^+ \_e \^0 ) = (m)\^5 P( m\_e / m) \[eq:chargino-width\] with the function $P(x)$ given in Ref. [@Thomas:1998wy]. For $\Delta m \sim {\cal O}(1-10)$ MeV, the decay length is very long, $c\tau \sim 10^{7} - 10^{12}$ m (equivalently $\tau \sim 10^{-1} - 10^4$ sec), so that almost all charginos traverse LHC detectors and thus only stable chargino searches apply.
Reinterpreting the CMS 8 TeV constraints on the stable charged pure Wino [@Khachatryan:2015lla], we obtain the constraint $\mu \gtrsim 400-600$ GeV for $\Delta m$ much smaller than the pion mass. The uncertainty range quoted is partly owing to our lack of knowledge of $r_{\rm min}$, the minimum decay length of the chargino for the stable chargino search to be applied; it is needed because CMS considered the range of charged Wino decay length $c\tau = {\cal O}(0.1-10)$ m where only a fraction of charged Winos traverse detectors and become stable charginos. From the CMS acceptance curve in Ref. [@Khachatryan:2015lla], we choose to vary $r_{\rm min} = c\tau_{\rm min} \simeq 1.5 - 6$ m ($\tau_{\rm min} = 5-20$ ns) to obtain the constraint and uncertainty.
We conclude that the $\sim$ 1 TeV Very Degenerate Higgsino DM is currently allowed, but future LHC searches of stable charginos will better constrain the model.
Cosmological Constraints
------------------------
The long-lived charged Higgsino can be cosmologically dangerous. The above quoted lifetime in our model $\tau \sim 10^{-1} - 10^4$ sec could endanger the standard bing-bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) prediction. Although the chargino decay releases only soft leptons not directly affecting BBN, its metastable existence can form a bound state with a helium and can catalyze the $^6$Li production. The lifetime limit $\tau \lesssim 5000$ sec of such a metastable charged particle [@Pospelov:2006sc] constrains the Higgsino mass splitting to be $\Delta m \gtrsim 1.2$ MeV.[^2] The $(\Delta m)^5$ dependence of the decay width in [Eq. (\[eq:chargino-width\])]{} makes the BBN constraints quickly irrelevant to larger $\Delta m$ cases that we focus on.
As the enhancement is saturated at modestly small velocity, early-universe constraints from the era with very small DM velocity such as recombination and DM protohalo formation are not strong. For example, $\sigma v_{WW} \lesssim 10^{-24} \, {\rm cm}^3/ {\rm sec}$ is generally safe from such considerations (see, e.g., Refs. [@Kamionkowski:2008gj; @Galli:2009zc; @Slatyer:2009yq]), so that the model is not constrained possibly except for a very small parameter space close to Sommerfeld peaks.
Summary and Discussions
=======================
We have studied the Very Degenerate Higgsino DM model with ${\cal O}(1)$ MeV mass splitting, which is realized by small gaugino mixing and leads to dramatic non-perturbative effects. Owing to the very small mass splitting, SRT peaks and dips are present at around 1 TeV Higgsino mass, and velocity saturation of SRT effects is postponed to lower velocities $ v/c \sim 10^{-3}$. As a result, indirect detection signals of $\sim 1$ TeV Higgsino DM can be significantly Sommerfeld-enhanced (to be constrained already or observable in the near future) or even RT-suppressed. Annihilation cross-sections at GC and DG are different in general: either of them can be larger than the other depending on the location of Sommerfeld peaks and RT dips. Other observable signature is also induced in stable chargino collider searches, which can probe the 1 TeV scale in the future. However, the rates of direct detection signals depend on the $M_2$ value (the smaller $M_2$, the larger signal) so that $M_2 \sim 5$(10) TeV can(not) produce detectable signals. Because of various unusual aspects of indirect detection signals at DG and GC, well featured by our two benchmark models of $\Delta m=2$ and 10 MeV, future searches and interpretations on Higgsino DM models shall be carefully done.
The Very Degenerate Higgsino DM also provides an example where “slight” gaugino mixing can have unexpectedly big impacts on the observation prospects of the Higgsino DM. The mixing is slight in the sense that direct detection, whose leading contribution is induced by gaugino mixing, can still be small (for heavy enough Winos). At the same time, however, phenomenology is unexpectedly interesting because such slight mixing could significantly change indirect detection signal, which is present already in the zero mixing limit so that usually thought not to be so sensitive to small mixing. In all, *nearly* pure Higgsino DM can have vastly different phenomena and discovery prospects from the pure Higgsino DM, and we hope that more complete studies can be followed.
We thank Kyu Jung Bae and Ranjan Laha for discussions on cosmological constraints and Kfir Blum on regulating Sommerfeld peaks. The work of SJ is supported by the US Department of Energy under contract DE-AC02-76SF00515 and in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. NSF PHY11-25915. JCP is supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2013R1A1A2061561, 2016R1C1B2015225). SJ thanks KITP for their hospitality during the completion of the work.
[99]{}
N. Arkani-Hamed, A. Delgado and G. F. Giudice, “The well-tempered neutralino,” Nucl. Phys. B [**741**]{}, 108 (2006) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.02.010 \[hep-ph/0601041\].
M. Low and L. T. Wang, “Neutralino dark matter at 14 TeV and 100 TeV,” JHEP [**1408**]{}, 161 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2014)161 \[arXiv:1404.0682 \[hep-ph\]\]. B. S. Acharya, K. Bozek, C. Pongkitivanichkul and K. Sakurai, “Prospects for observing charginos and neutralinos at a 100 TeV proton-proton collider,” JHEP [**1502**]{}, 181 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2015)181 \[arXiv:1410.1532 \[hep-ph\]\]. S. Gori, S. Jung, L. T. Wang and J. D. Wells, “Prospects for Electroweakino Discovery at a 100 TeV Hadron Collider,” JHEP [**1412**]{}, 108 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2014)108 \[arXiv:1410.6287 \[hep-ph\]\]. D. Barducci, A. Belyaev, A. K. M. Bharucha, W. Porod and V. Sanz, “Uncovering Natural Supersymmetry via the interplay between the LHC and Direct Dark Matter Detection,” JHEP [**1507**]{}, 066 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2015)066 \[arXiv:1504.02472 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Badziak, A. Delgado, M. Olechowski, S. Pokorski and K. Sakurai, “Detecting underabundant neutralinos,” JHEP [**1511**]{}, 053 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2015)053 \[arXiv:1506.07177 \[hep-ph\]\]. J. Bramante, N. Desai, P. Fox, A. Martin, B. Ostdiek and T. Plehn, “Towards the Final Word on Neutralino Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, no. 6, 063525 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.063525 \[arXiv:1510.03460 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Cirelli, A. Strumia and M. Tamburini, “Cosmology and Astrophysics of Minimal Dark Matter,” Nucl. Phys. B [**787**]{}, 152 (2007) \[arXiv:0706.4071 \[hep-ph\]\]. E. J. Chun, J. C. Park and S. Scopel, “Non-perturbative Effect and PAMELA Limit on Electro-Weak Dark Matter,” JCAP [**1212**]{}, 022 (2012) \[arXiv:1210.6104 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. J. Fan and M. Reece, “In Wino Veritas? Indirect Searches Shed Light on Neutralino Dark Matter,” JHEP [**1310**]{}, 124 (2013) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2013)124 \[arXiv:1307.4400 \[hep-ph\]\]. E. J. Chun and J. C. Park, “Electro-Weak Dark Matter: non-perturbative effect confronting indirect detections,” Phys. Lett. B [**750**]{}, 372 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.09.046 \[arXiv:1506.07522 \[hep-ph\]\]. S. D. Thomas and J. D. Wells, “Phenomenology of Massive Vectorlike Doublet Leptons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 34 (1998) \[hep-ph/9804359\]. J. Hisano, S. Matsumoto and M. M. Nojiri, “Explosive dark matter annihilation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 031303 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.031303 \[hep-ph/0307216\]. J. Hisano, S. Matsumoto, M. M. Nojiri and O. Saito, “Non-perturbative effect on dark matter annihilation and gamma ray signature from galactic center,” Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 063528 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.063528 \[hep-ph/0412403\]. M. Cirelli, F. Sala and M. Taoso, “Wino-like Minimal Dark Matter and future colliders,” JHEP [**1410**]{}, 033 (2014) Erratum: \[JHEP [**1501**]{}, 041 (2015)\] doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2015)041, 10.1007/JHEP10(2014)033 \[arXiv:1407.7058 \[hep-ph\]\]. B. Bhattacherjee, B. Feldstein, M. Ibe, S. Matsumoto and T. T. Yanagida, “Pure gravity mediation of supersymmetry breaking at the Large Hadron Collider,” Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, no. 1, 015028 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.015028 \[arXiv:1207.5453 \[hep-ph\]\]. T. Cohen, M. Lisanti, A. Pierce and T. R. Slatyer, “Wino Dark Matter Under Siege,” JCAP [**1310**]{}, 061 (2013) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/10/061 \[arXiv:1307.4082\]. M. Cirelli, T. Hambye, P. Panci, F. Sala and M. Taoso, “Gamma ray tests of Minimal Dark Matter,” JCAP [**1510**]{}, no. 10, 026 (2015) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/10/026 \[arXiv:1507.05519 \[hep-ph\]\]. C. Garcia-Cely, A. Ibarra, A. S. Lamperstorfer and M. H. G. Tytgat, “Gamma-rays from Heavy Minimal Dark Matter,” JCAP [**1510**]{}, no. 10, 058 (2015) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/10/058 \[arXiv:1507.05536 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Drees, M. M. Nojiri, D. P. Roy and Y. Yamada, “Light Higgsino dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D [**56**]{}, 276 (1997) \[Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 039901 (2001)\] \[hep-ph/9701219\]. G. D. Kribs, A. Martin and T. S. Roy, “Supersymmetry with a Chargino NLSP and Gravitino LSP,” JHEP [**0901**]{}, 023 (2009) \[arXiv:0807.4936 \[hep-ph\]\]. S. Jung and H. S. Lee, “Untracked Signals of Supersymmetry at the LHC,” arXiv:1503.00414 \[hep-ph\]. M. Beneke, C. Hellmann and P. Ruiz-Femenia, “Non-relativistic pair annihilation of nearly mass degenerate neutralinos and charginos I. General framework and S-wave annihilation,” JHEP [**1303**]{}, 148 (2013) Erratum: \[JHEP [**1310**]{}, 224 (2013)\] doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2013)224, 10.1007/JHEP03(2013)148 \[arXiv:1210.7928 \[hep-ph\]\]. C. Hellmann and P. Ruiz-Femen�a, “Non-relativistic pair annihilation of nearly mass degenerate neutralinos and charginos II. P-wave and next-to-next-to-leading order S-wave coefficients,” JHEP [**1308**]{}, 084 (2013) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2013)084 \[arXiv:1303.0200 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Beneke, C. Hellmann and P. Ruiz-Femenia, “Non-relativistic pair annihilation of nearly mass degenerate neutralinos and charginos III. Computation of the Sommerfeld enhancements,” JHEP [**1505**]{}, 115 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2015)115 \[arXiv:1411.6924 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Beneke, C. Hellmann and P. Ruiz-Femenia, “Heavy neutralino relic abundance with Sommerfeld enhancements - a study of pMSSM scenarios,” JHEP [**1503**]{}, 162 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2015)162 \[arXiv:1411.6930 \[hep-ph\]\]. T. R. Slatyer, “The Sommerfeld enhancement for dark matter with an excited state,” JCAP [**1002**]{}, 028 (2010) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2010/02/028 \[arXiv:0910.5713 \[hep-ph\]\]. J. D. March-Russell and S. M. West, “WIMPonium and Boost Factors for Indirect Dark Matter Detection,” Phys. Lett. B [**676**]{}, 133 (2009) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2009.04.010 \[arXiv:0812.0559 \[astro-ph\]\]. J. L. Feng, M. Kaplinghat and H. B. Yu, “Sommerfeld Enhancements for Thermal Relic Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 083525 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.083525 \[arXiv:1005.4678 \[hep-ph\]\]. R. Essig, N. Sehgal, L. E. Strigari, M. Geha and J. D. Simon, “Indirect Dark Matter Detection Limits from the Ultra-Faint Milky Way Satellite Segue 1,” Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 123503 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.123503 \[arXiv:1007.4199 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. M. Cannoni, “Relativistic $<\sigma v_\text{rel}>$ in the calculation of relics abundances: a closer look,” Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{}, no. 10, 103533 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.103533 \[arXiv:1311.4494 \[astro-ph.CO\], arXiv:1311.4508 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. K. Blum, R. Sato and T. R. Slatyer, “Self-consistent Calculation of the Sommerfeld Enhancement,” JCAP [**1606**]{}, no. 06, 021 (2016) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/06/021 \[arXiv:1603.01383 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. Abramowski [*et al.*]{} \[HESS Collaboration\], “Search for Photon-Linelike Signatures from Dark Matter Annihilations with H.E.S.S.,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, 041301 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.041301 \[arXiv:1301.1173 \[astro-ph.HE\]\]. M. Ackermann [*et al.*]{} \[Fermi-LAT Collaboration\], “Updated search for spectral lines from Galactic dark matter interactions with pass 8 data from the Fermi Large Area Telescope,” Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, no. 12, 122002 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.122002 \[arXiv:1506.00013 \[astro-ph.HE\]\]. J. Aleksic [*et al.*]{}, “Optimized dark matter searches in deep observations of Segue 1 with MAGIC,” JCAP [**1402**]{}, 008 (2014) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/02/008 \[arXiv:1312.1535 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. L. Ahnen [*et al.*]{} \[MAGIC and Fermi-LAT Collaborations\], “Limits to dark matter annihilation cross-section from a combined analysis of MAGIC and Fermi-LAT observations of dwarf satellite galaxies,” JCAP [**1602**]{}, no. 02, 039 (2016) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/02/039 \[arXiv:1601.06590 \[astro-ph.HE\]\]. V. Lefranc [*et al.*]{} \[HESS Collaboration\], “Dark matter search in the inner Galactic halo with H.E.S.S. I and H.E.S.S. II,” arXiv:1509.04123 \[astro-ph.HE\]. K. N. Abazajian and J. P. Harding, “Constraints on WIMP and Sommerfeld-Enhanced Dark Matter Annihilation from HESS Observations of the Galactic Center,” JCAP [**1201**]{}, 041 (2012) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/01/041 \[arXiv:1110.6151 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. Abramowski [*et al.*]{} \[HESS Collaboration\], “Search for a Dark Matter annihilation signal from the Galactic Center halo with H.E.S.S,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 161301 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.161301 \[arXiv:1103.3266 \[astro-ph.HE\]\].
L. Bergstrom, G. Bertone, J. Conrad, C. Farnier and C. Weniger, “Investigating Gamma-Ray Lines from Dark Matter with Future Observatories,” JCAP [**1211**]{}, 025 (2012) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/11/025 \[arXiv:1207.6773 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. Ibarra, A. S. Lamperstorfer, S. L�pez-Gehler, M. Pato and G. Bertone, “On the sensitivity of CTA to gamma-ray boxes from multi-TeV dark matter,” JCAP [**1509**]{}, no. 09, 048 (2015) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/09/048 \[arXiv:1503.06797 \[astro-ph.HE\]\].
J. Carr [*et al.*]{} \[CTA Consortium Collaboration\], “Prospects for Indirect Dark Matter Searches with the Cherenkov Telescope Array (CTA),” arXiv:1508.06128 \[astro-ph.HE\]. V. Lefranc, E. Moulin, P. Panci and J. Silk, “Prospects for Annihilating Dark Matter in the inner Galactic halo by the Cherenkov Telescope Array,” Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, no. 12, 122003 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.122003 \[arXiv:1502.05064 \[astro-ph.HE\]\]. E. Charles [*et al.*]{} \[Fermi-LAT Collaboration\], “Sensitivity Projections for Dark Matter Searches with the Fermi Large Area Telescope,” Phys. Rept. [**636**]{}, 1 (2016) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2016.05.001 \[arXiv:1605.02016 \[astro-ph.HE\]\]. A. Drlica-Wagner [*et al.*]{} \[Fermi-LAT and DES Collaborations\], “Search for Gamma-Ray Emission from DES Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy Candidates with Fermi-LAT Data,” Astrophys. J. [**809**]{}, no. 1, L4 (2015) doi:10.1088/2041-8205/809/1/L4 \[arXiv:1503.02632 \[astro-ph.HE\]\].
C. Cheung, L. J. Hall, D. Pinner and J. T. Ruderman, “Prospects and Blind Spots for Neutralino Dark Matter,” JHEP [**1305**]{}, 100 (2013) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2013)100 \[arXiv:1211.4873 \[hep-ph\]\]. P. Cushman [*et al.*]{}, “Working Group Report: WIMP Dark Matter Direct Detection,” arXiv:1310.8327 \[hep-ex\]. C. E. Aalseth [*et al.*]{}, “The DarkSide Multiton Detector for the Direct Dark Matter Search,” Adv. High Energy Phys. [**2015**]{}, 541362 (2015). doi:10.1155/2015/541362
D. S. Akerib [*et al.*]{} \[LZ Collaboration\], “LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Conceptual Design Report,” arXiv:1509.02910 \[physics.ins-det\].
C. H. Chen, M. Drees and J. F. Gunion, “A Nonstandard string / SUSY scenario and its phenomenological implications,” Phys. Rev. D [**55**]{}, 330 (1997) \[Erratum-ibid. D [**60**]{}, 039901 (1999)\] \[hep-ph/9607421\]. S. P. Martin, “Collider signals from slow decays in supersymmetric models with an intermediate scale solution to the mu problem,” Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 095008 (2000) \[hep-ph/0005116\]. S. Jung, “Resolving the existence of Higgsinos in the LHC inverse problem,” JHEP [**1406**]{}, 111 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2014)111 \[arXiv:1404.2691 \[hep-ph\]\]. V. Khachatryan [*et al.*]{} \[CMS Collaboration\], “Constraints on the pMSSM, AMSB model and on other models from the search for long-lived charged particles in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV,” Eur. Phys. J. C [**75**]{}, no. 7, 325 (2015) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3533-3 \[arXiv:1502.02522 \[hep-ex\]\].
M. Pospelov, “Particle physics catalysis of thermal Big Bang Nucleosynthesis,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 231301 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.231301 \[hep-ph/0605215\]. M. Kamionkowski and S. Profumo, “Early Annihilation and Diffuse Backgrounds in Models of Weakly Interacting Massive Particles in Which the Cross Section for Pair Annihilation Is Enhanced by 1/v,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 261301 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.261301 \[arXiv:0810.3233 \[astro-ph\]\]. S. Galli, F. Iocco, G. Bertone and A. Melchiorri, “CMB constraints on Dark Matter models with large annihilation cross-section,” Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 023505 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.023505 \[arXiv:0905.0003 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. T. R. Slatyer, N. Padmanabhan and D. P. Finkbeiner, “CMB Constraints on WIMP Annihilation: Energy Absorption During the Recombination Epoch,” Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 043526 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.043526 \[arXiv:0906.1197 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
[^1]: The negative $\Delta m_{\rm tree}$ has been used in exotic collider phenomenology of Higgsinos [@Kribs:2008hq; @Jung:2015boa].
[^2]: The limit on stau-neutralino mass splitting, 70 MeV, reported in Ref. [@Pospelov:2006sc] is much stronger because the stau has four-body decays and is thus longer-lived.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- |
[ Vivek Sharma$^{1,3}$, Makarand Tapaswi$^{2,4}$ and Rainer Stiefelhagen$^{1}$]{}\
\
{firstname.lastname}@kit.edu, makarand@cs.toronto.edu, vvsharma@mit.edu
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
title: Deep Multimodal Feature Encoding for Video Ordering
---
**Acknowledgments.** This work is supported by the DFG (German Research Foundation) funded PLUMCOT project.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract:
- 'This work presents an approach for category-based action recognition in video using sparse coding techniques. The proposed approach incorporates a new method to h andle intra-class variations by decomposing each input video using a reduced set of atomic action acts or key-sequences. We achieve this by introducing a loss function that leads to the identification in each video of a sparse set of representative key-frames that simultaneously capture both, relevant particularities arising in the input video, as well as, generalities arising in the complete class collection. Additionally, the proposed approach presents a new video descriptor that we refer to as ITRA: [*Inter-Temporal Relational Act Descriptor*]{}. ITRA exploits the power of comparative reasoning by using sparse coding techniques to capture relative local similarity relations among key-sequences. These relations demonstrate to be highly effective for action recognition. As a result, the proposed approach reaches remarkable action recognition performance on several popular benchmark datasets, outperforming alternative state-of-the-art techniques by a large margin.'
- 'This work presents an approach to category-based action recognition in video using sparse coding techniques. The proposed approach includes two main contributions: i) A new method to handle intra-class variations by decomposing each video into a reduced set of representative atomic action acts or key-sequences, and ii) A new video descriptor, ITRA: Inter-Temporal Relational Act Descriptor, that exploits the power of comparative reasoning to capture relative similarity relations among key-sequences. In terms of the method to obtain key-sequences, we introduce a loss function that, for each video, leads to the identification of a sparse set of representative key-frames capturing both, relevant particularities arising in the input video, as well as relevant generalities arising in the complete class collection. In terms of the method to obtain the ITRA descriptor, we introduce a novel scheme to quantify relative intra and inter-class similarities among local temporal patterns arising in the videos. The resulting ITRA descriptor demonstrates to be highly effective to discriminate among action categories. As a result, the proposed approach reaches remarkable action recognition performance on several popular benchmark datasets, outperforming alternative state-of-the-art techniques by a large margin.'
author:
- |
Analí Alfaro\
P. Universidad Catolica de Chile\
Santiago, Chile\
[ajalfaro@uc.cl]{}
- |
Domingo Mery\
P. Universidad Catolica de Chile\
Santiago, Chile\
[dmery@ing.puc.cl]{}
- |
Alvaro Soto\
P. Universidad Catolica de Chile\
Santiago, Chile\
[asoto@ing.uc.cl]{}
bibliography:
- 'BibliografiaAnali.bib'
title: Action Recognition in Video Using Sparse Coding and Relative Features
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
We consider a self-adjoint two-dimensional Schrödinger operator $H_{\alpha\mu}$, which corresponds to the formal differential expression $$-\Delta - \alpha\mu,$$ where $\mu$ is a finite compactly supported positive Radon measure on $\dR^2$ from the generalized Kato class and $\alpha >0$ is the coupling constant. It was proven earlier that $\sigma_{\rm
ess}(H_{\alpha\mu}) = [0,+\infty)$. We show that for sufficiently small $\alpha$ the condition $\sharp\sigma_{\rm d}(H_{\alpha\mu})
= 1$ holds and that the corresponding unique eigenvalue has the asymptotic expansion $$\lambda(\alpha) = -(C_\mu +
o(1))\exp\Big(-\tfrac{4\pi}{\alpha\mu(\dR^2)}\Big), \qquad
\alpha\rightarrow 0+,$$ with a certain constant $C_\mu > 0$. We obtain also the formula for the computation of $C_\mu$. The asymptotic expansion of the corresponding eigenfunction is provided. The statements of this paper extend Simon’s results, see [@Si76], to the case of potentials-measures. Also for regular potentials our results are partially new.
author:
- Sylwia Kondej and Vladimir Lotoreichik
title: 'Weakly coupled bound state of 2D Schrödinger operator with potential-measure'
---
Introduction
============
Let us consider a non-relativistic quantum particle living in a two-dimensional system and moving under the influence of the potential $V\colon \dR^2\rightarrow \dR$ such that there exists $\delta
>0$ for which $$\label{a1} \int_{\dR^2} |V(x)|^{1+\delta} <
\infty\quad\text{and}\quad\int_{\dR^2}|V(x)|(1+|x|^\delta) <
\infty\,.$$ The operator $$H_{\alpha V}=-\Delta - \alpha V\,:\, {\mathrm{dom}\,}H_{\alpha V} \to L^2
(\dR^2)$$ is self-adjoint with ${\mathrm{dom}\,}H_{\alpha V} =H^2 (\dR^2)$ and it determines the Hamiltonian of our system. This operator represents the sesquilinear form $$\frt_{\alpha V}[f,g] := (\nabla f,\nabla g)_{L^2(\dR^2;\dC^2)} -
\alpha (V f,g)_{L^2(\dR^2)},\qquad {\mathrm{dom}\,}\frt_{\alpha V} :=
H^1(\dR^2).$$ The spectrum of $H_{\alpha V}$ can not be computed explicitly for an arbitrary potential. For this reason spectral estimates and asymptotic expansions of spectral quantities related to $H_{\alpha V}$ attract a lot of attention. Weak coupling asymptotic regime belongs to this line of research. It was shown by Simon in [@Si76] that under the assumptions $$\label{eq-potetial}
\int_{\dR^2} V(x) \ge 0\quad\text{and} \quad V\neq 0$$ the operator $H_{\alpha V}$ has at least one bound state for any $\alpha >0$; moreover for $\alpha $ small the corresponding lowest eigenvalue asymptotically behaves as $$\lambda(\alpha )\sim -\exp \Big(\Big[ \frac{\alpha }{4\pi}
\int_{\dR^2} V(x)\Big] ^{-1} \Big),
\qquad \alpha\rightarrow 0+,$$ provided inequality is sharp; cf. [@Si76 Theorem 3.4].
The problem we study in this paper, is addressed in a certain respect to a more general class of potentials which, for example, includes so-called *singular interactions*. To sketch the physical context suppose that a particle in confined by a quantum wire with possibility of tunnelling. Consequently, the whole space $\dR^2$ is available for the particle. On the other hand, if the wire is very thin we can make an idealization and assume that the particle is localized in the vicinity of the set $\Sigma
\subset \dR^2$ of a lower dimension. The Hamiltonian of such a system can be formally written as $$-\Delta -\alpha\, \delta_\Sigma\,,\qquad \alpha >0 \,,$$ where $\delta_\Sigma $ denotes the Dirac measure supported on $\Sigma$, see [@E08] for the review on such Hamiltonians. More generally, one can speak of $$-\Delta -\alpha\, \mu \,, \qquad \alpha >0 \,,$$ where $\mu $ is a positive finite Radon measure on $\dR^2$. In order to give a mathematical meaning to the above formal expression we assume that $\mu $ belongs to the generalized Kato class as in Definition \[dfn:Kato\]. Under this assumption the embedding of $H^1 (\dR^2 )$ into $L^2 (\dR^2;d\mu)$ is well defined and the following closed, densely defined, symmetric and lower-semibounded sesquilinear form $$\frt_{\alpha\mu}[f,g] := (\nabla f,\nabla g)_{L^2(\dR^2;\dC^2)} -
\alpha \int_{\dR^2} f(x){\overline}{g(x)}d\mu(x),\quad {\mathrm{dom}\,}\frt_{\alpha
\mu} := H^1(\dR^2),$$ induces the uniquely defined self-adjoint operator $H_{\alpha
\mu}$ in $L^2(\dR^2)$. It is known that $\sigma_{\rm
ess}(H_{\alpha\mu}) = [0,+\infty)$, see [@BEKS94 Theorem 3.1]. The following theorem contains all the main results of the paper.
Let $\mu $ be a compactly supported positive finite Radon measure on $\dR^2$ from the generalized Kato class and $H_{\alpha\mu}$ be the self-adjoint operator defined above. Then the following statements hold.
- For $\alpha > 0$ sufficiently small we have $$\sharp\sigma_{\rm d}(H_{\alpha\mu}) = 1\,.$$ Denote this unique eigenvalue by $\lambda(\alpha) < 0$ and the corresponding eigenfunction by $f_\alpha\in L^2(\dR^2)$.
- The asymptotic expansion of $\lambda (\alpha )$ takes the form $$\label{asymp1} \lambda(\alpha) = -(C_\mu +
o(1))\exp\big(-\tfrac{4\pi}{\alpha \mu(\dR^2)}\big), \qquad\alpha
\rightarrow 0+\,,$$ where the constant $C_\mu$ is given in .
- Set $k_\alpha = (-\lambda (\alpha ))^{1/2}$. Then the corresponding eigenfunction admits the following expansion $$f_\alpha(\cdot) = \frac{k_\alpha}{2\pi} \int_{\dR^2 }K_0 (
k_\alpha |\cdot-y| )d\mu (y) +O \Big( \frac{1}{\ln k_\alpha
}\Big),\qquad \alpha\rightarrow 0+,$$ where $K_0(\cdot)$ is the Macdonald function, the norm of the first summand has non-zero finite limit as $\alpha\rightarrow 0+$, and the error term is understood in the strong sense.
The reader may note that in the asymptotic expansion of $\lambda
(\alpha ) $ the dominating term depends only on the total measure of $\dR^2$ and does not depend on the distribution character of the measure $\mu$. This stays in consistency with Simon’s result and reflects the property that in the weak coupling regime spectral quantities “forget" about local properties of the potential.
The statements of this paper constitute the extensions and generalizations of the results obtained in [@Si76]. Firstly, the class of perturbations that we admit contains, for example, singular measures as $\delta$-distributions supported on sets of lower dimensions. Secondly, for regular compactly supported potentials our class is slightly larger than that of [@Si76]. In order to give the reader an idea of that, let us only mention that radially symmetric potential $$V(r) = \frac{\chi(r)}{r^2|\ln(r)|^{\gamma
}}\,,$$ with $\chi(r)$ being the characteristic function of the interval $[0,1/2]$ and $\gamma > 2$, is compactly supported and belongs to the generalized Kato class, however it does not satisfy assumptions , which are imposed in [@Si76]. One should say that the formula for the constant $C_\mu$ given in is derived formally by physicists [@Pa80] in the case of regular potentials, but without a rigorous mathematical proof.
Analogous asymptotic expansions of the bound state with respect to a small parameter appear in various spectral problems. It is worth to mention such results for two-dimensional waveguides with weak local perturbations [@BGRS97] as well as for coupled waveguides with a small window [@P99] and also with a semi-transparent window [@EKr01]. Recently a “leaky waveguide” with a small parameter breaking the symmetry was considered in [@KK13]. For the similar problems in the one-dimensional case see [@BGS77; @Kl77; @LL58; @Si76]. The analogous results for quantum graphs were obtained in [@EEK10; @E96; @K07]. See also recent developments for Pauli operators [@FMV11]. Our list of references is far from being complete, however many of significant related works are mentioned.
In order to prove the main statements we will apply the Birman-Schwinger principle. Precisely saying, we use its generalization for potentials-measures from the generalized Kato class, which is rigorously established in [@BEKS94], see also [@Br95] and [@P01; @BLL13] for further modifications. We also use some simple results of perturbation theory of linear operators, where the standard reference is [@Kato], however we require some extensions of the classical results.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec-preliminaries\] we complete some mathematical tools useful for further spectral analysis. Namely, we provide a rigorous definition of the Hamiltonian $H_{\alpha \mu}$, formulate the Birman-Schwinger principle, develop a perturbation method for a particular class of non-analytic operator families and analyze the properties of the operators involved into the Birman-Schwinger principle. In Section \[sec-weakly\] we formulate and prove main results of the paper concerning the uniqueness of the bound state in the weak coupling regime, obtain its asymptotic behavior and derive the behavior of the corresponding eigenfunction.
In the remaining part of the paper we employ the following abbreviations:
- we set $L^2 := L^2(\dR^2)$ (norm $\|\cdot\|$), $L^1 := L^1(\dR^2)$, $H^k\equiv H^k (\dR^2)$ with $k\in\dZ$ (norm $\|\cdot\|_{k}$) and $\mathbb{L}^2 := L^2 (\dR^2; \dC^2 ) $;
- the notation $\mathcal{S} := \mathcal{S}(\dR^2)$ stands for the Schwartz class, moreover we set $\mathcal{S}' :=
\mathcal{S}'(\dR^2)$ for the space dual to $\mathcal{S}$, i.e. $\mathcal{S}'$ is the space of linear continuous functionals on $\mathcal{S}$;
- we set $L^2_\mu := L^2 (\dR^2 ; d\mu )$ and $L^1_\mu :=
L^1 (\dR^2 ; d\mu )$;
- for the positive Radon measure $\mu$ on $\dR^2$ we denote $\mu_{\rm T} : =\mu(\dR^2 )$.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
V.L. gratefully acknowledges financial support by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), project P 25162-N26.
Preliminaries {#sec-preliminaries}
=============
This section plays an auxiliary role and consists of four subsections. In Subsection \[ssec:prelim1\] we provide necessary facts from [@BEKS94; @Br95] on self-adjoint free Laplacians perturbed by Kato-class measures. In Subsection \[ssec:prelim2\] we prove some statements on non-analytic perturbation theory, which are hard to find in the literature. In Subsections \[ssec:prelim3\] and \[ssec:prelim4\] we complement known results on the operators related to Birman-Schwinger principle.
Self-adjoint Laplacians perturbed by Kato-class measures {#ssec:prelim1}
--------------------------------------------------------
We start with recalling the definition of the generalized Kato class of positive Radon measures on $\dR^2$.
\[dfn:Kato\] A positive Radon measure $\mu$ on $\dR^2$ belongs to the generalized Kato class if $$\lim\limits_{\varepsilon\rightarrow
0+}\sup_{x\in\dR^2}\int_{D_\varepsilon(x)}
\big|\ln|x-y|\big|d\mu(y) = 0,$$ where $D_\varepsilon(x)$ is the disc of radius $\varepsilon > 0$ with the center at $x\in\dR^2$.
Let $\mu$ be a positive Radon measure from the generalized Kato class. Then for arbitrarily small $\varepsilon
>0$ there exists a constant $C(\varepsilon) > 0$ such that $$\int_{\dR^2}|f(x)|^2 d\mu(x) \le \varepsilon \|\nabla
f\|^2_{\mathbb{L}^2} + C(\varepsilon)\|f\|^2_{L^2}\,$$ holds for every $f\in {\mathcal S}$; see [@BEKS94; @SV96]. For the measure $\mu$ the embedding operator $J_\mu \colon H^1 \rightarrow L^2_\mu $ is well-defined as the closure of the natural embedding defined on the Schwartz class, see [@BEKS94 Section 2]. Consequently, the above inequality has a natural extension, i.e. for arbitrarily small $\varepsilon
>0$ there exists a constant $C(\varepsilon) > 0$ such that $$\label{J} \|J_\mu f\|^2_{L^2_\mu } \le \varepsilon \|\nabla
f\|^2_{\mathbb{L}^2 } + C(\varepsilon)\|f\|^2_{L^2},$$ for all $f\in H^1$.
[ Suppose that the measurable function $V\colon \dR^2\rightarrow
[0,+\infty)$ satisfies the condition $$\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow
0+}\sup_{x\in\dR^2}\int_{D_\varepsilon(x)}|\ln|x-y||V(y)dy = 0.$$ Then the measure $$\mu_V(\Omega) := \int_{\Omega} V(x)dx$$ belongs to the generalized Kato class.]{}
[@V09 Example 2.3 (c)][ Given a family $\{\Gamma_i\}_{i=1}^N$ of Lipschitz curves in the plane. Suppose that each curve in the family is parameterized by its arc length $\gamma_i\colon [0,|\Gamma_i|]\rightarrow \dR^2$ and $\gamma_i([0,|\Gamma_i|]) = \Gamma_i$ with $i=1,2,\dots, N$. Assume that there exist $c\in(0,1]$ such that for all $s,t\in [0,
|\Gamma_i|]$ the condition $|\gamma_i(s) - \gamma_i(t)| \ge 1/2
|s-t|$ holds with $i=1,2,\dots, N$. So that each curve can not have cusps and can not intersect itself, whereas different curves can intersect each other. Now let $\Gamma := \cup_{i=1}^N \Gamma_i$. Then the Dirac measure supported on $\Gamma$ belongs to the generalized Kato class.]{}
Let the self-adjoint operator $$-\Delta \,:\, {\mathrm{dom}\,}(-\Delta )\rightarrow L^2\,,\qquad {\mathrm{dom}\,}(-\Delta
)= H^2 \,,$$ define the unperturbed Hamiltonian of our system. In fact, $-\Delta $ represents closed, densely defined, symmetric and lower-semibounded sesquilinear form $$\label{frhfee} \frt[f,g]= (\nabla f,\nabla g)_{\mathbb{L}^2},\quad
{\mathrm{dom}\,}\frt = H^1.$$ Let $\mu$ be a positive Radon measure from the generalized Kato class. By means of $\mu$ we define the sesquilinear form $$\label{frhmu} \frt_{\alpha\mu}[f,g] := \frt[f,g] - (\alpha J_\mu
f, J_\mu g)_{L^2_\mu},\quad {\mathrm{dom}\,}\frt_{\alpha\mu} := H^1,$$ which, in view of and KLMN-theorem, cf. [@RS2 Theorem X.17], is symmetric, closed and lower-semibounded.
\[dfn:operator\] Let $H_{\alpha\mu}$ be a self-adjoint operator acting in $L^2$ and defined as the operator associated with $\frt_{\alpha\mu}$ via the first representation theorem, [@Kato Chapter VI, Theorem 2.1].
Denote $R(\lambda) := (-\Delta - \lambda)^{-1}$ with $\lambda\in\dC\setminus\dR_+$. Then $R(\lambda )$ is an integral operator with the kernel $$G (x,y;\lambda) = \frac{1}{2\pi} K_0(i\sqrt{\lambda}|x-y|),\quad
x,y\in\dR^2,$$ where $K_0(\cdot)$ is the Macdonald function, see [@AS64 §9.6]. Following the notations of [@BEKS94] we introduce the integral operator $$\label{Rmu} R_{\mu\, dx } (\lambda ) \colon L^2_\mu \rightarrow
L^2 \,,\quad R_{\mu\, dx }f :=
\int_{\dR^2}G(x,y;\lambda)f(y)d\mu(y),$$ and define the “bilateral" embedding of $R(\lambda )$ to $L^2_\mu$ by $$\label{Q} Q(\lambda) := J_\mu R_{\mu\, dx }(\lambda) \colon
L^2_\mu \rightarrow L^2_\mu \,.$$ Note that $$\label{Qkernel} Q(-k^2)f := \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\dR^2} K_0(k|\cdot
-y|)f(y)d\mu(y).$$ The Birman-Schwinger principle takes the following form.
[@Br95 Lemma 1], [@BEKS94] \[prop:BS\] Let $R_{\mu\, dx } (\cdot)$, $Q(\cdot)$ and $H_{\alpha\mu}$ be as above. For $\lambda \in\dR_-$ the mapping $$h\mapsto R_{\mu\, dx }(\lambda )h$$ is a bijection from $\ker(I - \alpha Q(\lambda))$ onto $\ker(H_{\alpha\mu} - \lambda)$, and $$\dim\ker(I - \alpha Q(\lambda)) = \dim\ker(H_{\alpha\mu} -
\lambda).$$
We will also use the fact that the essential spectrum is stable under a perturbation of a finite measure.
[@BEKS94 Theorem 3.1] Let $\mu$ be a positive Radon measure on $\dR^2$ from the generalized Kato class. Assume that $\mu_{\rm T} <\infty$ and $H_{\alpha\mu}$ is as in Definition \[dfn:operator\]. Then $${\sigma_{\rm ess}}(H_{\alpha\mu} )= [0,+\infty)$$ holds.
Note that also more singular perturbations are considered. For example, $\delta$-interactions supported on curves in $\dR^3$, see [@EK02; @EK03; @EK08; @K12; @P01], and $\delta'$-interactions supported on hypersurfaces, see [@BEL13; @BLL13; @EJ13]. These perturbations do not belong to the generalized Kato class and therefore they require different approaches.
Elements of non-analytic perturbation theory {#ssec:prelim2}
--------------------------------------------
Putting in mind later purposes we analyse a family of self-adjoint operators $k\mapsto T(k) $, $k \in\dR_+$, acting in a Hilbert space ${\mathcal H}$ and taking the form $$T(k) := T_0 + \tfrac{1}{\ln k}T_1 +
O\big(\tfrac{1}{\ln^2k}\big),\qquad k\rightarrow 0+,$$ where $T_0=\varphi (\cdot , \varphi )$ with $\varphi \in {\mathcal H}$ being a normalized function, $T_1$ is a bounded self-adjoint operator in ${\mathcal H}$ and the error term is understood in the operator norm sense. The family $T(\cdot )$ is not analytic and consequently we can not apply directly the results of [@Kato Chapters II and VII]. In the following theorem we investigate the spectra and the eigenfunctions of $T(k)$ in the limit $k\rightarrow 0+$.
\[thm:perturbation\] Let $k\mapsto T(k)$ be defined as above. For sufficiently small $k > 0$ the spectrum $\sigma(T(k))\subset\dR$ of $T(k)$ consists of two disjoint components $\sigma_0(k)$ and $\sigma_1(k)$.
- The part $\sigma_0(k)$ is located in the small neighborhood of zero and its diameter can be estimated as $${\rm diam\,}\sigma_0(k) \le \tfrac{1}{|\ln k|}\|T_1\| +
O\big(\tfrac{1}{\ln^2 k}\big),\qquad k\rightarrow 0+.$$
- The part $\sigma_1(k)$ consists of exactly one eigenvalue $\omega(k)$ of multiplicity one, which depends on $k$ continuously.
- The normalized eigenfunction $\varphi_k$ corresponding to the eigenvalue $\omega(k)$ has the following expansion $$\label{eq-ef}
\varphi_k =\varphi + O\big(\tfrac{1}{\ln k}\big),\qquad
k\rightarrow 0+,$$ in the norm of ${\mathcal H}$.
- The eigenvalue $\omega(k)$ admits the asymptotics $$\label{eq-asymptev}
\omega(k) = 1 + \tfrac{1}{\ln k}(T_1\varphi,\varphi) +
O\big(\tfrac{1}{\ln^2k}\big),\qquad k\rightarrow 0+.$$
\(i) Note that $\sigma(T_0) = \{0,1\}$ and that $\varphi$ is an eigenfunction of the operator $T_0$ corresponding to the eigenvalue $1$. The separation of the spectra of $T(k)$ into two parts $\sigma_0(k)$ and $\sigma_1(k)$ for sufficiently small $k
>0$ follows from [@Kato Theorem V.4.10]. The component $\sigma_0(k)$ is located in the neighborhood of $0$ and the component $\sigma_1(k)$ is located in the neighborhood of $1$. Note that again by [@Kato Theorem V.4.10] the diameter of $\sigma_0(k)$ satisfies $${\rm diam\,}\sigma_0(k) \le \tfrac{1}{|\ln k|}\|T_1\| +
O\big(\tfrac{1}{\ln^2 k}\big),\qquad k\rightarrow 0+.$$
\(ii) Let $E_i(k)$, $i=0,1$, be the orthogonal projectors onto the spectral subspaces of the operator $T(k)$ corresponding to $\sigma_i(k)$. Then $E_0(0) = I - T_0$ and $E_1(0) =T_0$ hold. Since $\|T(k)-T_0\|$ tends to $0$ for $k\to 0+$, relying on [@DD87 Theorem 3] we have $\dim\ran E_1(k) = 1$ for sufficiently small $k
>0$. Therefore $E_1(k) = {\widetilde}\varphi_k(\cdot,{\widetilde}\varphi_k)$, where ${\widetilde}\varphi_k$ is the normalized eigenfunction corresponding to the eigenvalue $\omega(k)$ of $T(k)$ with multiplicity one. According to [@Kato Theorem VIII.1.14] the eigenvalue $\omega(k)$ depends on $k$ continuously.
\(iii) By [@KMM07 Proposition 2.1], see also [@BDM83], the estimate $${\rm dist}(\sigma_0(k),\sigma_1(k))\|E_0(k)E_1(0)\| \le
\frac{\pi}{2}\|T(k) - T(0)\|$$ holds, which yields the asymptotic property $$\| E_1(0) - E_1(k)E_1(0)\| = O\Big(\tfrac{1}{\ln k}\Big),\qquad k
\rightarrow 0+,$$ where we have used $E_0(k) = I - E_1(k)$. The above expansion implies the following $$\label{estimate1} \|\varphi -{\widetilde}\varphi_k(\varphi,{\widetilde}\varphi_k)\|
= O\Big(\tfrac{1}{\ln k}\Big),\qquad k \rightarrow 0+.$$ A straightforward calculation yields $$\begin{split}
\|\varphi -{\widetilde}\varphi_k(\varphi,{\widetilde}\varphi_k)\|^2 &=\big(\varphi -{\widetilde}\varphi_k(\varphi,{\widetilde}\varphi_k),\varphi -{\widetilde}\varphi_k(\varphi,{\widetilde}\varphi_k)\big)\\
& = 1 - ({\widetilde}\varphi_k,\varphi)(\varphi,{\widetilde}\varphi_k) - (\varphi,{\widetilde}\varphi_k){\overline}{(\varphi,{\widetilde}\varphi_k)} + |(\varphi,{\widetilde}\varphi_k)|^2\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad = 1 -
|({\widetilde}\varphi_k,\varphi)|^2\,.
\end{split}$$ Combining the above result with the estimate we arrive at $$\label{estimate1.5} 1 - |({\widetilde}\varphi_k,\varphi)|^2 =
O\Big(\tfrac{1}{\ln^2 k}\Big),\qquad k \rightarrow 0+.$$ Consequently, we obtain $$\label{estimate2} 1 - |({\widetilde}\varphi_k,\varphi)| =
O\big(\tfrac{1}{\ln^2 k}\big),\qquad k \rightarrow 0+.$$ Suppose that $(r(k), \theta(k))$ determine the polar representation of $({\widetilde}\varphi_k,\varphi)$, i.e. $({\widetilde}\varphi_k,\varphi) = r(k)e^{i\theta(k)}$. According to we claim that $$\label{rk} r(k) = 1 + O\big(\tfrac{1}{\ln^2 k}\big),\qquad k
\rightarrow 0+.$$ Since ${\widetilde}\varphi_k$ is the normalized eigenfunction of $T(k)$ corresponding to the eigenvalue $\omega(k)$ the function $$\label{rotation} \varphi_k := e^{i\theta(k)}{\widetilde}\varphi_k$$ is as well. Thence, by and we get $$\label{eigenfunction}
\begin{split}
\|\varphi - \varphi_k\| &= \|\varphi -
e^{i\theta(k)}{\widetilde}\varphi_k\| \le \|\varphi -
r(k)e^{i\theta(k)}{\widetilde}\varphi_k\|
+ \|r(k)e^{i\theta(k)}{\widetilde}\varphi_k - e^{i\theta(k)}{\widetilde}\varphi_k\|\\
& = \|\varphi - (\varphi,{\widetilde}\varphi_k){\widetilde}\varphi_k\| + |r(k)-1| =
O\big(\tfrac{1}{\ln k}\big),\qquad k \rightarrow 0+,
\end{split}$$ which proves the expansion .
\(iv) Moreover, $\omega(k)\in \sigma_1(k)$ as an eigenvalue of $T(k)$ with multiplicity one admits the representation $$\omega(k) = \Big( T(k)\varphi_k, \varphi_k \Big)= \Big(T_0
\varphi_k, \varphi_k \Big) +\tfrac{1}{\ln k} \Big (T_1 \varphi_k,
\varphi_k \Big)
+ O\Big(\tfrac{1}{\ln^2
k}\Big),\qquad k \rightarrow 0+.$$ Applying and the fact that $T_1$ is bounded, we get $$\omega(k)= |(\varphi,\varphi_k)|^2 + \tfrac{1}{\ln
k}(T_1\varphi,\varphi) + O\big(\tfrac{1}{\ln^2k}\big),\qquad k
\rightarrow 0+.$$ Using and we get the asymptotics of $\omega
(\cdot) $ given in .
Properties of the $Q(\cdot)$-function {#ssec:prelim3}
-------------------------------------
In this subsection we analyze the operator-valued function $Q(\cdot)$ defined in . Our aim is to describe certain basic properties of $Q(\cdot)$ and to derive its asymptotic expansion in the neighborhood of zero. The following lemma provides the first auxiliary tool.
\[lem:bounded\] Let $\mu$ be a compactly supported positive finite Radon measure on $\dR^2$ belonging to the generalized Kato class and $C\in\dR$ be a constant. Then the integral operator acting as $$R f := \int_{\dR^2}\big(-\ln|\cdot-y| +C\big)f(y)d\mu(y)$$ is bounded in $L^2_\mu$.
The operator $R$ can be decomposed into the sum of two integral operators: $$R_1f = \int_{\dR^2}\big(-\ln|\cdot-y|\big)f(y)d\mu(y)\,,\qquad
R_2f :=C\int_{\dR^2}f(y)d\mu(y)\,.$$ According to the definition of the generalized Kato class (Definition \[dfn:Kato\]) for any constant $A > 0$ one can find $\varepsilon >0$ such that for every $x_0\in{\rm supp}\,\mu$ the estimate $$\int_{D_\varepsilon(x_0)}\big|\ln|x_0-y|\big|d\mu(y) \le A$$ holds. Hence for any $x_0\in{\rm supp}\,\mu$ we get $$\begin{split}
&\int_{\dR^2}\big|\ln|x_0-y|\big|d\mu(y) \\
&\qquad = \int_{D_\varepsilon(x_0)}\big|\ln|x_0-y|\big|d\mu(y)+\int_{\dR^2\setminus{\overline}{D_\varepsilon(x_0)}}\big|\ln|x_0-y|\big|d\mu(y)\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\le A +
\max\big\{\big|\ln|\varepsilon|\big|,\big|\ln|{\rm diam}\,{\rm
supp}\,\mu|\big|\big\}\mu_{\rm T}.
\end{split}$$ Note that the bound above is independent of the choice of $x_0$ and therefore by the Schur criterion [@Teschl Lemma 0.32] and the symmetry of the integral kernel the operator $R_1$ is bounded. Let ${\mathbbm 1}_\mu$ stand for the identity function from $L^2_\mu$. Note that the integral operator $R_2$ is a rank-one operator $C{\mathbbm 1}_\mu(\cdot,{\mathbbm
1}_\mu)_{L^2_\mu}$. Consequently, $R_2$ is also bounded. Now boundedness of $R$ follows from decomposition $R= R_1 +R_2$ and boundedness of $R_1$ and $R_2$ separately.
After these preliminaries we are ready to analyze the operator-valued function $\dR_+ \ni k\mapsto Q(-k^2)$. First, let us note that for a given $k$ the operator $Q(-k^2)$ is bounded in $L^2_\mu$. The proof of this fact can be done via repeating the argument from [@BEKS94 Corollary 2.2]. Now our aim is to expand $Q(\cdot )$ in a neighbourhood of zero.
\[prop:expansion\] \[prop-decomposition\] Let $\mu$ be a compactly supported positive Radon measure on $\dR^2$ from the generalized Kato class, and the operator-valued function $Q(\cdot)$ be defined as in . Then $Q(\cdot)$ admits the expansion $$\label{eq-Qdecomposition}
Q(-k^2) = -\ln(k)P + R + O(k^2\ln(k)),\qquad ~k\rightarrow 0+\,,$$ in the operator norm, where $P$ is a rank-one operator given by $$\label{P} P := \frac{1}{2\pi}{\mathbbm 1}_\mu\big(\cdot,{\mathbbm
1}_\mu\big)_{L^2_\mu}$$ and $R$ is a bounded operator in $L^2 _\mu$ defined by $$\label{R} R f :=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\dR^2}\Big(-\ln\big|\cdot -
y\big| + C_{\rm E}+ \ln 2\Big)f(y)d\mu(y)\,;$$ $C_{\rm E}$ stands for the Euler-Mascheroni constant[^1], i.e. $C_{\rm E} = 0.57721...$.
To prove the statement we employ the following expansion of the Macdonald function $$K_0(x) = -\ln(x/2) + C_{\rm E} + s(x),\qquad x\rightarrow 0+\,,$$ where $s(x) = O(x^2\ln(x))$, see [@AS64 Equation 9.6.13]. In view of and the compactness of the support of $\mu$ the operator $Q(-k^2)$ can be expanded into the sum of the rank-one operator $-\ln(k)P$, the operator $R$ and the remaining operator $S(k)$ with the integral kernel $s(k|x-y|)$. Since $Q(-k^2)$, $P$ and $R$ are bounded the operator $S(k)$ is bounded as well. Further, note that for sufficiently small $k > 0$ $$\big|s(k|x-y|)\big|\le A_\mu k^2|\ln(k)|,\qquad x,y\in{\rm supp}\,\mu,$$ with some constant $A_\mu > 0$, which depends on $\mu$. Thus by Schur criterion the operator $S(k)$ in $L^2_\mu$ with the integral kernel $s(k|x-y|)$ satisfies $$\|S(k)\| = O(k^2\ln k),\qquad k\rightarrow 0+,$$ which completes the proof.
Similar decomposition of the function $Q(\cdot)$ is employed in [@CK11] for some other purposes in the case of Dirac measure supported by a non-compact curve.
In the next lemma we gather some useful properties of the operator-valued function $Q(\cdot)$.
\[lem:Q\] Let the operator-valued function $Q(\cdot)$ be defined as in . Then the following statements hold.
- $Q(-k^2) \ge 0$ for all $k > 0$.
- $Q(-k_1^2)\le Q(-k_2^2)$ for $k_1 \ge k_2$.
- For any $\varepsilon >0$ there exists sufficiently small $k > 0$ such that the spectrum $\sigma(Q(-k^2))$ decomposes into two disjoint parts $$\sigma_0(Q(-k^2))\subset (0,\|R\| +\varepsilon)$$ with $R$ as in and $$\sigma_1(Q(-k^2)) = \{\gamma(k)\},$$ where $\gamma(k)$ is the eigenvalue of $Q(-k^2)$ with multiplicity one.
- The function $\gamma(\cdot)$ is continuous, strictly decaying, and $\gamma(k)\rightarrow +\infty$ as $k\rightarrow 0+$.
The item (i) follows directly from the non-negativity of the Macdonald function and the representation of the integral kernel of $Q(-k^2)$ given by .
The Macdonald function is monotonously decaying function of its argument, which yields the statement of (ii).
Note that according to Proposition \[prop:expansion\] the function $ k\mapsto T(k)$, $k>0$ defined by $$T(-k^2) := -\frac{2\pi}{\mu_{\rm T}\ln k}Q(-k^2)$$ determines a realization of the operator family considered in Theorem \[thm:perturbation\] with ${\mathcal H}= L^2_\mu$, $\varphi =
\tfrac{\mathbbm 1_\mu}{\sqrt{\mu_{\rm T}}}$ and $T_1 =
-\tfrac{2\pi}{\mu_{\rm T}}R$ with $R$ as in . Thus for sufficiently small $k > 0$ the spectrum of the operator $Q(-k^2)$ can be separated into two parts as claimed in (iii) and the function $\gamma(\cdot)$ is continuous. In view of (ii) the function $\gamma(\cdot)$ is non-increasing. Suppose that for some $k_1 < k_2$ the condition $\gamma(k_1) = \gamma(k_2)$ holds, that implies $\gamma(k) = c >0$ for $k\in[k_1,k_2]$. Hence, by Proposition \[prop:BS\] we have $[-k_1^2,-k_2^2]\subset\sigma_{\rm p} (H_{(1/c)\mu})$, which is a contradiction, because the point spectrum of any self-adjoint operator should be a countable set. This proves strict decay of $\gamma(\cdot)$.
Properties of the $R_{\mu\,dx}(\cdot)$-function {#ssec:prelim4}
-----------------------------------------------
In this subsection we investigate some properties of the operator-valued function $R_{\mu\,dx}(\cdot )$ defined by . The unitary Fourier transform $\mathcal{F}\,:\, L^2 \to L^2$ is defined as the extension by continuity of the integral transform $$({\mathcal F}f)(p) := \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\dR^2}e^{-ipx}f(x)dx,\qquad f\in L^2\cap L^1.$$ It is well-known that ${\mathcal F}$ can be further extended by continuity up to the space $\mathcal{S}'$, cf. [@AH91 Chapter 1.1.7]. Without a danger of confusion we keep the same notation $\mathcal{F}\,:\,
\mathcal{S}'\to \mathcal{S}'$ for this extension. In the following we will use also the abbreviation $\mathcal{F}f= {\widehat}f$, $f\in
\mathcal{S}'$. Applying again the standard results concerning the Sobolev spaces, see [@AH91 Chapter 1.2.6], we can write $$\label{eq-Sobolev}
H^k =\{f \in \mathcal{S}' \,:\, {\widehat}f (p){(p^2+1)^{k/2}} \in L^2
\}\,,$$ where the norm $\|\cdot \|_k$ in $H^k$ is defined by $\|f\|_k =
\| {\widehat}f (p){(p^2+1)^{k/2}} \|$. We define the functional $\varphi\mu$ for $\varphi\in L^2_\mu$ as $$(\varphi\mu)(f) := \int_{\dR^2} (J_\mu f)(x){\overline}{\varphi(x)}d\mu(x),\qquad f\in H^1,$$ with $J_\mu$ as in Subsection \[ssec:prelim1\]. Let us show that $\varphi\mu\in H^{-1}$. Indeed for any $f\in H^1$ we get $$|(\varphi\mu)(f)| \le
\int_{\dR^2}|(J_\mu f)(x)||\varphi(x)|d\mu(x) \le
\|J_\mu f\|_{L^2_\mu}\|\varphi\|_{L^2_\mu} \le
C\|f\|_1\|\varphi\|_{L^2_\mu}$$ with some constant $C >0 $, where we applied Hölder inequality in between and used that the embedding $J_\mu$ of $H^1$ into $L^2_\mu$ is continuous. We have shown that the functional $\varphi\mu$ is continuous on $H^1$ and hence $\varphi\mu\in H^{-1}$. Further, we define $$\label{whvarphi} {\widehat}\varphi(p) := ({\mathcal F}(\varphi\mu))(p) = \frac{1}{2 \pi}
\int_{\dR^2}e^{-ipx}\varphi(x)d\mu(x),\qquad
\varphi \in L^2_\mu.$$ In the next lemma we explore basic properties of the above transform.
\[lem:whphi\] Let $\mu$ be a compactly supported positive finite Radon measure on $\dR^2$ from the generalized Kato class. Then for any $\varphi\in L^2_\mu$ its Fourier transform ${\widehat}\varphi$ given by is a bounded and Lipschitz continuous function.
Let $\varphi \in L^2_\mu $. Since the measure $\mu$ is finite the inclusion $L^2_\mu\subset L^1_\mu$ holds. The boundedness of ${\widehat}\varphi$ follows from the estimate $$\|{\widehat}\varphi\|_{L^\infty } \le
\tfrac{1}{2\pi}\|\varphi\|_{L^1_\mu} <\infty\,.$$ It remains to show that ${\widehat}\varphi$ is Lipschitz continuous. Let us choose arbitrary $p_1,p_2\in\dR^2$. Applying (\[whvarphi\]) we obtain $$\label{Lip1} |{\widehat}\varphi(p_1) -{\widehat}\varphi(p_2)|\le
\frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{\dR^2}|e^{-ip_1x} -
e^{-ip_2x}|\cdot|\varphi(x)|d\mu(x).$$ Using the fact that the function $\dR\ni t\mapsto e^{it}$ is Lipschitz continuous we estimate $$\label{Lip2} |e^{-ip_1x} - e^{-ip_2x}| = |1 - e^{-i(p_2 - p_1)x}|
\le L|x||p_2 -p_1|$$ with some constant $L > 0$. Plugging into and using compactness of $\mu$ we get $$|{\widehat}\varphi(p_1) -{\widehat}\varphi(p_2)|\le L'|p_2-p_1|$$ with some constant $L' > 0$.
\[re-extension\] [Using the representation (\[eq-Sobolev\]) of the Sobolev spaces we can extend operator $R(-k^2)$ to a larger space. To derive this extension we apply $$\label{eq-RFour}
R(-k^2) = \mathcal{F}^{-1}\frac{1}{|p|^2+k^2}\mathcal{F}\,:\,L^2 \to L^2\,,$$ cf. [@AH91]. Operator $\frac{1}{|p|^2+k^2}\mathcal{F}$ is bounded as the map acting from $H^{-1}$ to $L^2$ and, consequently, it can be extended by continuity to the whole space $H^{-1}$. This means that $R(-k^2)$ admits the analogous extension. Note that $R_{\mu \, dx}(-k^2)\varphi$ with $\varphi\in L^2_\mu$ can be identified with the extension of $R(-k^2)$ defined above applied to $\varphi \mu \in H^{-1}$. ]{}
In the next lemma we provide the Fourier representation of $R_{\mu\, dx}(-k^2)$.
\[lem:Rmu\] Let $\mu$ be a compactly supported positive finite Radon measure on $\dR^2$ from the generalized Kato class. The operator $R_{\mu\, dx}(-k^2)\colon L^2_\mu\rightarrow L^2$ defined by admits the representation $$\label{eq-Fourier}
R_{\mu\,dx}(-k^2)\varphi= {\mathcal F}^{-1}\frac{{\widehat}\varphi(p)}{|p|^2+k^2}\,, \qquad \varphi\in L^2_\mu\,,$$ where ${\widehat}\varphi$ is given by and ${\mathcal F}^{-1}$ is the inverse Fourier transform on $\dR^2$.
Combining the statements of Remark \[re-extension\] and (\[whvarphi\]) we get the claim.
Having in mind later purpose we investigate in the next proposition the properties of $R_{\mu\,dx}(-k^2)$ as $k\rightarrow 0+$.
\[prop:Rmu\] Let $\mu$ be a compactly supported positive finite Radon measure on $\dR^2$ from the generalized Kato class. Let the operator-valued function $R_{\mu\, dx}(-k^2)\colon
L^2_\mu\rightarrow L^2$ be as in . Then for any $\varphi \in L^2_\mu$ the following asymptotics holds $$k^2\|R_{\mu\,dx}(-k^2)\varphi\|^2_{L^2} = \pi|{\widehat}\varphi(0)|^2 +
O(\sqrt{k}),\qquad k\rightarrow 0+,$$ where ${\widehat}\varphi$ is the transform of $\varphi$ defined by .
Let $\varphi\in L^2_\mu$ and $k >0$. Using Lemma \[lem:Rmu\] and applying the fact that ${\mathcal F}^{-1}$ is unitary in $L^2$ we obtain $$\label{eq-norm0}k^2\|R_{\mu\, dx } (-k^2)\varphi \|^2
=k^2\int_{\dR^2}
\frac{|\widehat{\varphi}(p)|^2}{(|p|^2
+k^2)^2}dp = \int_{\dR^2}\frac{|\widehat{\varphi}(kt)|^2}{(|t|^2
+1)^2}dt\,.$$ For given $\varepsilon >0$ we disjoin the last integral in onto regions $$\mathcal{B}_{k}=\{t\in\dR^2\colon |t|<\tfrac {1}{\sqrt{k}}
\}\quad\text{and}\quad\mathcal{B}^{\rm c}_{k}=\dR^2 \setminus
{\overline}{\mathcal{B}_{k}}.$$ Using boundedness of ${\widehat}\varphi$ we obtain that $$\label{eq-norm2}
\begin{split}
\int_{\mathcal{B}^c_{ k} }
\frac{|\widehat{\varphi}(k t)|^2}{(|t|^2 +1 )^2}
dt& \le C\int_{\mathcal{B}^c_{ k} }
\frac{1}{(|t|^2 +1 )^2}dt \\
&= C'\int_{\frac{1}{\sqrt{k}}}^{+\infty}\frac{r}{(r^2+1)^2}dr = O(k),\qquad k\rightarrow 0+.
\end{split}$$ Using boundedness and continuity of ${\widehat}\varphi$, and applying mean-value theorem we arrive at $$\label{eq-norm-a}
\int_{\mathcal{B}_{k} }
\frac{|\widehat{\varphi}(kt)|^2}
{(|t|^2 +1)^2}dt =
|{\widehat}\varphi(\theta)|^2
\int_{\mathcal{B}_{k} }
\frac{dt} {(|t|^2 +1)^2},$$ where $\theta\in\dR^2$ and $|\theta| \le \sqrt{k}$. Applying the asymptotic behaviour $$\int_{\mathcal{B}_{k} }
\frac{dt}
{(|t|^2 +1)^2} =
\int_{\dR^2}\frac{dt}{(|t|^2+1)^2} + O(k)
= \pi + O(k),\qquad k\rightarrow 0+,$$ to the formula we obtain $$\int_{\mathcal{B}_{k} }
\frac{|\widehat{\varphi}(kt)|^2}
{(|t|^2 +1)^2}dt = \pi|{\widehat}\varphi(\theta)|^2 + O(k),\qquad k\rightarrow 0+.$$ Lipschitz continuity of ${\widehat}\varphi$ combined with the above formula, , and $|\theta|\le \sqrt{k}$ imply that $$k^2 \|R_{\mu\, dx } (-k^2)\varphi \|^2_{L^2} =
\pi|{\widehat}\varphi(0)|^2 + O(\sqrt{k}),\qquad k\rightarrow 0+,$$ and the claim is proven.
Weakly coupled bound state {#sec-weakly}
==========================
In Subsection \[ssec:main1\] we show that for sufficiently small coupling constant $\alpha
>0$ the discrete spectrum of the self-adjoint operator $H_{\alpha\mu}$ consists of exactly one negative eigenvalue of multiplicity one and we compute the asymptotics of this eigenvalue as $\alpha\rightarrow 0+$. Moreover, in Subsection \[ssec:main2\] we compute the asymptotics of the corresponding eigenfunction in the same limit.
Asymptotics of weakly coupled bound state {#ssec:main1}
-----------------------------------------
In this subsection we compute the asymptotcs of weakly coupled bound state. The technique we employ here is slightly different than the one applied in [@Si76]. As a benefit it allows to include also regular potentials with stronger singularities.
\[thm:existence\] Let $\mu$ be a compactly supported positive finite Radon measure on $\dR^2$ from the generalized Kato class. Let the self-adjoint operator $H_{\alpha\mu}$ be as in Definition \[dfn:operator\]. Then for all sufficiently small $\alpha >0$ the condition $$\sharp\sigma_{\rm d}(H_{\alpha\mu}) = 1$$ holds and the corresponding unique eigenvalue $\lambda(\alpha) <
0$ satisfies $$\label{eq-limitev}
\lambda(\alpha) \rightarrow 0-\quad \mathrm{for} \quad
\alpha\rightarrow 0+.$$
We rely on the Birman-Schwinger principle from Proposition \[prop:BS\]. In order to recover the eigenvalues of $H_{\alpha \mu }$ we will investigate the following condition $1\in\sigma_{\rm p}(\alpha Q(-k^2))$. Let $\sigma_i(Q(-k^2))$, $i=0,1$ be as in Lemma \[lem:Q\](iii). The possibility $1/\alpha\in\sigma_{ 0}(Q(-k^2))$ for $k > 0$ small enough is excluded due to Lemma \[lem:Q\](iii). On the other hand, $1/\alpha\in\sigma_{1}(Q(-k^2))$ is equivalent to the equation $$\gamma(k) = 1/\alpha,$$ which in view of Lemma \[lem:Q\](iv) has exactly one solution $k(\alpha )$ for $\alpha >0 $ small enough and moreover $k(\cdot
)$ satisfies $$k(\alpha) \rightarrow 0+, \qquad \alpha\rightarrow 0+.$$ Consequently, $\lambda(\alpha) = -k(\alpha)^2$ gives the unique negative simple eigenvalue of $H_{\alpha\mu}$ and the limiting property holds.
Our next aim is to derive asymptotics of $\lambda
(\alpha )$ for $\alpha \rightarrow 0+$.
\[thm:main\] Let $\mu$ be a compactly supported positive finite Radon measure on $\dR^2$ from the generalized Kato class, and let $H_{\alpha\mu}$ be the self-adjoint operator as in Definition \[dfn:operator\]. Then the eigenvalue of $H_{\alpha
\mu}$ admits the following asymptotics $$\label{eq-evexp}
\lambda(\alpha) = -\big(C_\mu + o(1)\big)
\exp\Big(-\tfrac{4\pi}{\alpha \mu_{\rm T}}\Big)\,,\quad
\alpha\rightarrow 0+\,,$$ with $$\label{Cmu} C_\mu = \exp\Big(\frac{4\pi}{\mu_{\rm T}^2} (R
{\mathbbm 1}_\mu, {\mathbbm 1}_\mu)_{L^2_\mu }\Big),$$ where $R$ is defined in .
Let us consider the operator-valued function $$\label{def:T} T(k) := -\frac{2\pi }{\mu_{\rm T} \ln k}
Q(-k^2),\qquad k
>0,$$ where $Q(\cdot)$ is defined by . Comparing the expansion from Proposition \[prop:expansion\] and the definition one can see that the operator-valued function $T(\cdot)$ reflects the structure assumed in Theorem \[thm:perturbation\]; precisely ${\mathcal H}= L^2_\mu$ and $$T_0 = \varphi_\mu \big(\cdot, \varphi_\mu \big)_{L^2_\mu}\,, \qquad \label{T1} T_1 = -\frac{2\pi}{\mu_{\rm
T}} R\,,$$ where $\varphi \equiv \varphi_\mu
:=\frac{{\mathbbm{1}}_\mu}{\sqrt{\mu_{\rm T} }}$. Therefore, for sufficiently small $k > 0$ the spectrum of $T(k)$ can be separated into two disjoint parts: $\sigma_0(k)$ located in the neighborhood of $0$ and $\sigma_1(k)$ consisting of exactly one simple eigenvalue $\omega(k)$ located in the neighborhood of $1$ and admitting the asymptotic expansion $$\omega(k) = 1 +\tfrac{1}{\ln k} (T_1\varphi_\mu,\varphi_\mu
)_{L^2_\mu} + O\big(\tfrac{1}{\ln^2 k}\big), \qquad k\rightarrow
0+.$$ Applying the definition of $T_1$ to the last expansion, we arrive at $$\label{omega} \omega(k) = 1 - \tfrac{2\pi}{\mu_{\rm T} ^2\ln k}(R
{\mathbbm 1}_\mu, {\mathbbm 1}_\mu)_{L^2_\mu} +
O\big(\tfrac{1}{\ln^2k}\big),\qquad k\rightarrow 0+.$$ Suppose that $\alpha >0$ is sufficiently small, so that $\sharp
\sigma_{\rm d}(H_{\alpha\mu}) =
1$, cf. Theorem \[thm:existence\]. Let $\lambda(\alpha) =
-k^2(\alpha)$ standardly denote the corresponding unique eigenvalue of $H_{\alpha\mu}$ which in view of Theorem \[thm:existence\] converges as $\lambda(\alpha)\rightarrow 0-$ for $\alpha\rightarrow 0+$. Combining the Birman-Schwinger principle together with the definition of $T(\cdot)$ we obtain the following condition $$-\frac{1}{2\pi} \alpha\mu_{\rm T} \omega(k(\alpha)) \ln k(\alpha)
=1$$ for the value $k(\alpha)$. Applying to the above equation the asymptotic expansion of $\omega(\cdot)$ given by we get $$-\frac{\alpha\mu_{\rm T} \ln k(\alpha)}{2\pi} +
\frac{\alpha}{\mu_{\rm T} }(R {\mathbbm 1}_\mu, {\mathbbm
1}_\mu)_{L^2_\mu } + O\big(\tfrac{\alpha}{\ln k(\alpha)}\big) =
1,\qquad\alpha\rightarrow 0+.$$ The latter is equivalent to $$\label{eq-lnconv}
\ln k(\alpha) = -\frac{2\pi}{\alpha \mu_{\rm T} } +
\frac{2\pi}{\mu_{\rm T} ^2}(R {\mathbbm 1}_\mu, {\mathbbm
1}_\mu)_{L^2_\mu } + o(1),\qquad \alpha\rightarrow 0+,$$ which yields $$\lambda(\alpha) = -k(\alpha)^2 = -\big(C_\mu
+ o(1)\big)e^{ -\frac{4\pi}{\alpha \mu_{\rm T} }},\qquad \alpha\rightarrow 0+,$$ with $C_\mu$ as in .
We will test the above theorem on a special model. Namely, let $\mu$ be defined via a Dirac measure supported on a circle $C_r$ of radius $r$; precisely $$\label{muc} \mu (\Omega ) =l (\Omega \cap C_r)\,,$$ where $l(\cdot )$ is the one-dimensional measure defined by the length of the arc. This example was already studied in [@ET04], where the authors compute negative spectrum of $H_{\alpha\mu}$ (with $\mu$ as above) using separation of variables.
In order to recover the asymptotic behavior of the eigenvalue of $H_{\alpha \mu }$ with $\alpha $ small and $\mu$ defined by , we will compute the constant $C_\mu$ given in . According to [@KV12 Lemma 3.2] we obtain $$\label{eq0} (Q(-k^2 )\mathbbm{1}_\mu , \mathbbm{1}_\mu)_{L^2_\mu}
=2\pi r^2\int_0^\infty\frac{|J_0(y)|^2y}{(kr)^2 + y^2}dy,$$ where $J_0(\cdot)$ is the Bessel function of order $0$. Applying [@GR Equation 6.535] in the above formula we arrive at $$\label{eq1} (Q(-k^2 )\mathbbm{1}_\mu ,
\mathbbm{1}_\mu)_{L^2_\mu}= 2\pi r^2 I_{0}(k r) K_0 (k r).$$ Using the asymptotic expansions [@AS64 9.6.12, 9.6.13] $$\begin{split}
I_0(x) &= 1 + O(x^2),\qquad x\rightarrow 0+,\\
K_0(x) &= \big(-\ln(x/2) + C_{\rm E}\big) + O(x^2\ln x),\qquad
x\rightarrow 0+,
\end{split}$$ of $I_0 (\cdot )$ and $K_0 (\cdot )$ in the neighbourhood of zero, we obtain $$\label{eq2} I_0 (k r)K_0 (kr)= -\ln \frac{k r}{2} +C_{\rm E}
+O(k),\qquad k\to 0+.$$ Combining equations and we get $$\label{eq-Q}
(Q(-k^2 )\mathbbm{1}_\mu , \mathbbm{1}_\mu)_{L^2_\mu}= 2\pi
r^2\Big( -\ln \frac{k r}{2} +C_{\rm E} + O(k ) \Big),\quad
k\rightarrow 0+.$$ The decomposition stated in Proposition \[prop-decomposition\] yields $$\label{eq-R}
(R {\mathbbm 1}_\mu , {\mathbbm 1}_\mu )_{L^2_\mu }= (Q (-k^2 )
{\mathbbm 1 }_\mu ,{\mathbbm 1}_\mu )_{L^2_\mu}+2\pi r^2 \ln k +O
(k^2 \ln k ),\quad k\rightarrow 0+.$$ In fact, the left hand side of does not depend on $k$. Consequently, inserting into and taking the limit $k\to 0+$ we get $$(R \mathbbm{1}_\mu , \mathbbm{1}_\mu )_{L^2_\mu }= 2\pi r^2 \Big(
-\ln \frac{r}{2} +C_{\rm E} \Big)\,.$$ In view of this implies that $C_\mu = \frac{4}{r^2
}\exp(2C_{\rm E})$ and finally $$\lambda (\alpha )=-\frac{4}{r^2} \mathrm{e}^{2C_{\rm E} }
\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{2}{\alpha r}}(1+o(1)),\qquad \alpha\rightarrow
0+,$$ which is fully consistent with a result of [@ET04 Subsection 2.1] and furthermore refines that result.
Following the line of [@BEKS94] one can introduce a sign changing weight in $\gamma\in L^\infty(\dR^2)$ and consider more general operators defined via quadratic forms $${\mathfrak q}_{\alpha\gamma\mu}[f] := \|\nabla f\|^2_{{\mathbb L}^2} -
\alpha\int_{\dR^2}\gamma(x)|f(x)|^2d\mu(x),\quad {\mathrm{dom}\,}{\mathfrak q}_{\alpha\gamma\mu} = H^1.$$ In this case one can get the asymptotics similar to with $\gamma$ involved. Instead of $\mu(\dR^2)$ in the exponent there will be $I := \int_{\dR^2}\gamma(x) d\mu(x)
> 0$. The asymptotics could be different if $I = 0$. This case requires special analysis.
Asymptotics of the eigenfunction corresponding to the weakly coupled bound state {#ssec:main2}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we have shown in the previous section the operator $H_{\alpha\mu}$ has exactly one negative eigenvalue for sufficiently small $\alpha > 0$. The aim of this section is to recover the asymptotic behaviour of the corresponding eigenfunction in the limit $\alpha \to 0 +$.
Let $\mu$ be a compactly supported positive finite Radon measure on $\dR^2$ from the generalized Kato class. Let $\lambda (\alpha)$ be the unique eigenvalue of $H_{\alpha \mu }$ for $\alpha \to 0+$ and $-k_\alpha ^2 =\lambda (\alpha )$. Then the corresponding eigenfunction has the form $$f_\alpha(\cdot) = \frac{k_\alpha}{2\pi} \int_{\dR^2} K_0
(k_\alpha| \cdot - y|) d\mu (y) + O\Big( \frac{1}{\ln k_\alpha}
\Big),\qquad\alpha\rightarrow 0+,$$ where the error term is understood in the sense of $L^2$-norm; moreover the $L^2$-norm of $f_\alpha$ has non-zero finite limit as $\alpha\rightarrow 0+$.
In the proof of this theorem we rely on Proposition \[prop:BS\]. For non-trivial $\phi_\alpha \in \ker(I-\alpha Q(-k_\alpha ^2 ))$ the function $$\label{eq-normout}
g_\alpha(\cdot) := R_{\mu\, dx } (-k_\alpha^2)\phi_\alpha =
\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\dR^2} K_0(k_\alpha|\cdot-y|)\phi_\alpha (y)
d\mu(y),$$ reproduces the eigenfunction of $H_{\alpha \mu}$. Similarly as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\] we conclude that $\phi_\alpha$ is an eigenfunction of the operator $$T(k_\alpha) = -\frac{2\pi}{\mu_{\rm T}\ln(k_\alpha)}Q(-k^2_\alpha)$$ corresponding to the eigenvalue $-\tfrac{2\pi}{\mu_{\rm
T}\ln(k_\alpha)\alpha}$. Recall that the family $\dR_+\ni k\mapsto
T(k)$ is a realization of the operator family considered in Theorem \[thm:perturbation\] with ${\mathcal H}= L^2_\mu$, $\varphi :=
\tfrac{\mathbbm{1}_\mu}{\sqrt{\mu_{\rm T}}}$, $T_0 :=
\varphi(\cdot,\varphi)$, $T_1 := -\tfrac{2\pi}{\mu_{\rm T}}R$ and $R$ as in . Hence, by Theorem \[thm:perturbation\](iii) we obtain that $\phi_\alpha$ can be chosen in the form $$\label{eq-phi}
\phi_\alpha = \mathbbm{1}_\mu +\varsigma_\alpha,
\qquad\text{where}\quad \|\varsigma_\alpha \|_{L^2_\mu }=
O\Big(\tfrac{1}{\ln k_\alpha }\Big)\quad\text{as}\quad
\alpha\rightarrow 0+.$$ By Proposition \[prop:Rmu\] we obtain $$\label{kRmu}
k^2_\alpha \|R_{\mu\,dx} (-k^2_\alpha)\mathbbm{1}_\mu \|^2 =
\frac{\mu_{\rm T}^2}{4\pi}
+ O(\sqrt{k_\alpha}),\qquad \alpha\rightarrow 0+,$$ where we used that ${\widehat}{\mathbbm{1}}_\mu(0) =
\tfrac{1}{2\pi}\mu_{\rm T}$. Hölder inequality yields $$\label{kRmu2} |{\widehat}\varsigma_\alpha(0)| \le
\tfrac{1}{2\pi}\|\varsigma_\alpha\|_{L^1_\mu} \le \tfrac{1}{2\pi}
\|\varsigma_\alpha\|_{L^2_\mu}\sqrt{\mu_{\rm T}}.$$ Hence, using Proposition \[prop:Rmu\], and we get $$\label{kRmu1} k_\alpha^2 \|R_{\mu\, dx } (-k^2_\alpha
)\varsigma_\alpha \|^2 = O\Big( \tfrac{1}{\ln^2 k_\alpha
}\Big)\qquad \alpha\rightarrow 0+,$$ According to , , and $$f_\alpha := k_\alpha R_{\mu\,dx}\phi_\alpha$$ is an eigenfunction of $H_{\alpha\mu}$ and satisfies $$\|f_\alpha\|_{L^2}\rightarrow \frac{\mu_{\rm
T}}{2\sqrt{\pi}},\qquad\text{as}\quad \alpha\rightarrow 0+,$$ moreover $$f_\alpha(\cdot) = \frac{k_\alpha}{2\pi}
\int_{\dR^2}K_0(k_\alpha|\cdot-y|)d\mu(y) + O\Big(\frac{1}{\ln
k_\alpha}\Big),\qquad \alpha\rightarrow 0+,$$ holds, and the claim is proven.
Concluding remarks.
-------------------
The asymptotics of the unique eigenvalue as well as the corresponding eigenfunction were proved for the compactly supported measure $\mu$. The assumption of the compactness was essential, for example, for the decomposition which was the fundamental tool for the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\]. It seems that the most natural way is to apply approaching of non-compactly supported measure $\mu$ by an appropriate sequence $\mu_n$ of compactly supported measures. However, we face the problem that the error term $o(1)$ appearing in is not, generally, uniform with respect to $n$.
[100]{}
M. Abramowitz and I. Stegun, *Handbook of mathematical functions with formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables*, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1964.
D. Adams and L. Hedberg, *Function spaces and potential theory*, Springer, 1991.
J. Behrndt, P. Exner, and V. Lotoreichik, Schrödinger operators with $\delta$- and $\delta'$-interactions on Lipschitz surfaces and chromatic numbers of associated partitions, *arXiv:1307.0074*.
J. Behrndt, M. Langer and V. Lotoreichik, Schrödinger operators with $\delta$ and $\delta'$-potentials supported on hypersurfaces, *Ann. Henri Poincaré* **14** (2013), 385–423.
R. Bhatia, C. Davis, and A. McIntosh, Perturbation of spectral subspaces and solution of linear operator equations, *Linear Algebra Appl.* **52/53** (1983), 45–67.
R. Blankenbecler, M.L. Goldberger, and B. Simon, The bound states of weakly-coupled long-range one-dimensional quantum Hamiltonians, *Ann. Phys.* **108** (1977), 69–78.
J.F. Brasche, On the spectral properties of singular perturbed operators, in: *Dirichlet forms and stochastic processes*, de Gruyter, Berlin, 1995.
J.F. Brasche, P. Exner, Yu.A. Kuperin and P. Šeba, Schrödinger operators with singular interactions, *J. Math. Anal. Appl.* **184** (1994), 112–139.
W. Bulla, F. Gesztesy, W. Renger, and B. Simon, Weakly coupled bound states in quantum waveguides, *Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.* **125** (1997), 1487–1495.
J. Cis[ł]{}o and S. Kondej, Upper bound for the number of bound states induced by the curvature of singular potential, *Rep. Math. Phys.* **68** (2011), 225–240.
J. Dancis and Ch. Davis, An interlacing theorem for eigenvalues of selfadjoint operators, *Linear Algebra Appl.* **88/89** (1987), 117–122. T. Ekholm, A. Enblom, and H. Kova[ř]{}[í]{}k, Schrödinger operators on regular metric trees with long range potentials: weak coupling behaviour, *J. Differential Equations* **248** (2010), 850–865.
P. Exner, Weakly coupled states on branching graphs, *Lett. Math. Phys.* **38** (1996), 313–320.
P. Exner, Leaky quantum graphs: a review, in: *Analysis on graphs and its applications*, *Proc. Symp. Pure Math.* **77** (2008), 523–564.
P. Exner and I. Ichinose, Geometrically induced spectrum in curved leaky wires, *J. Phys. A* **34** (2001), 1439–1450.
P. Exner and M. Jex, Spectral asymptotics of a strong $\delta'$ interaction on a planar loop, *J. Phys. A* **46** (2013), 345201.
P. Exner and S. Kondej, Curvature-induced bound states for a $\delta$-interaction supported by a curve in $\dR^3$, *Ann. Henri Poincaré*, **3** (2002), 967–981.
P. Exner and S. Kondej, Strong-coupling asymptotic expansion for Schrödinger operators with a singular interaction supported by a curve in $\dR^3$, *Rev. Math. Phys.* **16** (2003), 559–582
P. Exner and S. Kondej, Hiatus perturbation for a singular Schrödinger operator with an interaction supported by a curve in $\dR^3$, *J. Math. Phys.*, **49** (2008) 032111-1–032111-19.
P. Exner and D. Krejčiřík, Waveguides coupled through a semitransparent barrier: a Birman-Schwinger analysis, *Rev. Math. Phys.* **13** (2001), 307–334.
P. Exner and K. Pankrashkin, Strong coupling asymptotics for a singular Schroedinger operator with an interaction supported by an open arc, *arXiv:1207.2271*.
P. Exner and M. Tater, Spectra of soft ring graphs. Special section on quantum graphs. *Waves Random Media* **14** (2004), 47�60.
P. Exner and K. Yoshitomi, Asymptotics of eigenvalues of the Schrödinger operator with a strong $\delta$-interaction on a loop, *J. Geom. Phys.* **41** (2002), 344–358.
P. Exner and K. Yoshitomi, Persistent currents for 2D Schrödinger operator with a strong $\delta$-interaction on a loop, *J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.* **35** (2002), 3479–3487.
R.L. Frank, S. Morozov, and S. Vugalter, Weakly coupled bound states of Pauli operators, *Calc. Var. PartialDifferential Equations* **40** (2011), 253–271.
I.S. Gradshteyn and I.M. Ryzhik, *Table of integrals, series, and products*, Elsevier/Academic Press, Amsterdam, 2007. T. Kato, *Perturbation theory for linear operators*, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1995.
M. Klaus, On the bound state of Schrödinger operators in one dimension, *Ann. Phys.* **108** (1977), 288–300.
S. Kondej, Resonances induced by broken symmetry in a system with a singular potential, *Ann. Henri Poincaré* **13** (2012), 1451–1467.
S. Kondej and D. Krejčiřík, Spectral analysis of a quantum system with a double line singular interaction, *Publ. RIMS, Kyoto University* **49** (2013).
S. Kondej and J. Vaz, Fractional Schrödinger operator with delta potential localized on circle, *J. Math. Phys.* **53** (2012), 11 pp.
V. Kostrykin, K.A. Makarov, and A.K. Motovilov, Perturbation of spectra and spectral subspaces, *Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.* **359** (2007), 77–89.
H. Kova[ř]{}[í]{}k, Weakly coupled Schrödinger operators in regular metric trees, *SIAM J. Math. Anal.* **39** (2007/08), 1135–1149.
L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, *Quantum mechanics: non-relativistic theory. Course of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 3.*, Pergamon Press Ltd., London-Paris, 1958. S.H. Patil, Ground-state energy of two-dimensional weakly coupled Hamiltonians, *Phys. Rev. A* **80** (1980), 2400–2402.
I.Yu. Popov, Asymptotics of bound state for laterally coupled waveguides. *Rep. Math. Phys.* **43** (1999), 427–437.
A. Posilicano, A Krein-like formula for singular perturbations of self-adjoint operators and applications, *J. Funct.Anal.* **183** (2001), 109–147.
M. Reed and B. Simon, *Methods of modern mathematical physics II. Fourier analysis, self-adjointness.* Academic Press, New York-London, 1975.
B. Simon, The bound state of weakly coupled Schrödinger operators in one and two dimensions, *Ann. Phys.* **97** (1976), 279–288.
P. Stollmann and J. Voigt, Perturbation of Dirichlet forms by measures, *Potential Anal.* **5** (1996), 109–138.
G. Teschl, *Mathematical methods in quantum mechanics. With applications to Schrödinger operators*, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 2009.
H. Vogt, A lower bound on the first spectral gap of Schrödinger operators with Kato class measures, *Ann. HenriPoincaré* **10** (2009), 395–414.
[^1]: This constant can be computed as $C_{\rm E} =
\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}\Big(\sum_{k=1}^n\tfrac{1}{k}
-\ln(n)\Big)$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The paper presents a software architecture to optimize the process of prototyping and deploying robot controllers that are synthesized using model-based design methodologies. The architecture is composed of a framework and a pipeline. Therefore, the contribution of the paper is twofold. First, we introduce an open-source actor-oriented framework that abstracts the common robotic uses of middlewares, optimizers, and simulators. Using this framework, we then present a pipeline that implements the model-based design methodology. The components of the proposed framework are generic, and they can be interfaced with any tool supporting model-based design. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the approach describing the application of the resulting synchronous dataflow architecture to the design of a balancing controller for the YARP-based humanoid robot iCub. This example exploits the interfacing with Simulink and Simulink Coder.'
author:
- |
Diego Ferigo[^1] ${}^{\ ,}$ [^2]\
`diego.ferigo@iit.it`\
Silvio Traversaro ${}^{*}$\
`silvio.traversaro@iit.it`\
Francesco Romano ${}^{*}$\
`francesco.romano@iit.it`\
Daniele Pucci ${}^{*}$\
`daniele.pucci@iit.it`
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: A Generic Synchronous Dataflow Architecture to Rapidly Prototype and Deploy Robot Controllers
---
Introduction
============
In the past few decades, robotics has experienced a continuous shift from applications in constrained industrial environments to those involving autonomy, interaction, and collaboration with external agents. The adaptation of the robotic devices to new tasks often presents big challenges in both cost and time. Thus, the capability of prototyping a new controller and rapidly deploying it to the target robotic device is becoming more and more paramount. The canonical approach to develop a robotic controller can be summarized in two distinct phases[@schlegelDesignAbstractionProcesses2010]. In the first phase, the robotic controller is synthesized, tuned, analyzed, and possibly tested in a simulated environment. Arbitrarily complex models of the controlled system are typically exploited. In the second phase, the controller is ported to the real device, tuned again and executed. Each minor change to the controller requires iterating this entire process from start, and a lot of effort is spent to minimize manual operations.
Model-based design[@smithBestPracticesEstablishing2007] ([<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mbd</span>]{}) is a methodology that emerged to deal with the challenges introduced by the need to continuously improve complex systems. [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mbd</span>]{} aims to simplify the development by providing a common environment shared by people of different disciplines involved in the the different design phases[@lennonModelbasedDesignMechatronic2008]. Later changes of the original design either due to early mistakes or requirements modifications are easier to propagate, therefore time and cost of the development can be reduced[@brugaliModelDrivenSoftwareEngineering2015]. A characteristic of the model-based design is that the iterative process of the continuous improvement is performed with unified visual tools, typically based on dataflow programming languages and frameworks. The dataflow naming originates from the view of programs as directed graphs of computations, where the data flow between their components[@johnstonAdvancesDataflowProgramming2004]. Controllers are usually described and analyzed using block diagrams, and the view offered by dataflow programming, composed of nodes and edges, naturally translates to blocks and signals. The analogy between graphs and block diagrams makes [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mbd</span>]{} particularly appropriate for controller design. A typical implementation of model-based design consists of the following stages:
1. *Plant modelling*: creation of a mathematical description of both the dynamics of the controlled system and its environment.
2. *Controller prototyping*: implementation of the operational aim of the controller acting on the plant model.
3. *System simulation*: assessment of the controller performance in a simulated environment containing the plant model.
4. *Controller deployment*: adaptation of the resulting controller to run online on the controlled system operating in the real environment.
In the market there are many available open-source and commercial software that implement the specifications of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mbd</span>]{}. Most of them belong to a broader category of tools that fulfill the paradigm of actor-oriented programming[@aghaFoundationActorComputation1997] ([<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">aop</span>]{}). Contrarily to object-oriented programming ([<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">oop</span>]{}), where data structures interact via procedure calls, in actor-oriented languages concurrent objects are the first-class citizens. These objects are also called *actors* and they communicate with each other via predefined *channels*. Actors have well-defined interfaces that abstract their internal state and define constraints on how they can interact with the outside. The interaction between actors is never direct as the channel mediates it. In this way, the actors are independent entities that are not directly connected with other actors. The definition of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">aop</span>]{} is very broad and many *models of computation*[@leeActorOrientedDesignEmbedded2003] can be identified to categorize the nature of the interaction between actors and channels. Each of these models are characterized by constraints in their execution, typically in the form of internal computation, internal state update, external computation, and type of communication between actors. Among all the available models, *synchronous dataflow*[@leeSynchronousDataFlow1987] is particularly suited for the design of robotic controllers. The computations performed by this model are triggered by the availability of new input data and the connections between actors are buffered. Examples of tools belonging to this domain are [Simulink^^]{}[@SimulinkSimulationModelBased], [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Xcos</span>]{}[@XcosWwwScilab], [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Modelica</span>]{}^^[@tillerIntroductionPhysicalModeling2012] and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Labview</span>]{}[@LabVIEW2018National].
The application of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mbd</span>]{} to robotic controllers development can narrow the gap between control engineers, used to approach systems with block diagrams, and software engineers, used to procedural and object-oriented programming. However, this approach is not exempt from the complications introduced by system integration, which often introduces time-consuming obstacles. Particularly for what concern robotics, actor-oriented programming languages by themselves are not the final solution. In fact, object-oriented programming still has a central role in the development of low-level algorithms. The aim of these actor-oriented languages is not substituting [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">oop</span>]{}, but complementing it. In fact [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">aop</span>]{} is more suitable to target the creation of applications that belong to higher abstraction layers, implementing a design principle compatible with the *separation of concerns*[@mensSeparationConcernsSoftware2002; @vanthienen5CbasedArchitecturalComposition2014]. It represents a valid choice to ease the interconnection of self-contained black-box functionalities, which represent the building blocks of any robotic controller.
In this work, we propose a software architecture composed of a framework inspired by [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">aop</span>]{} and a pipeline for its application to robot controllers design. The framework intends to reduce the effort spent on system integration while minimizing both code and functionality duplication. The pipeline implements all the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mbd</span>]{} stages and it aims to minimize the controllers lead time while automatizing as much as possible the prototyping and deployment processes. Rapid prototyping and continuous deployment are achieved interfacing the framework respectively with [Simulink]{} and [Simulink^^ Coder]{}[@SimulinkCoder]. [Simulink]{} provides out-of-the-box a wide library of black-box functionality exposed as blocks and also allows to be extended and integrated with external algorithms. Its status of visual programming and debugging is very mature and well documented. [Simulink Coder]{} provides the automatic code generation capability that aid the implementation of the deployment stage of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mbd</span>]{}, removing the need to port or adapt the controller to another domain before being executed in the target platform[@bruyninckxBRICSComponentModel2013].
Despite our tools selection, the framework has been designed in such a way to simplify the integration with other existing actor-oriented frameworks. The logic of the presented black-box functions (developed in [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">oop</span>]{}) is independent of them. This design allows to effectively separate the two programming domains while exploiting the best features from both.
More specifically, the work presented in this paper is based on a previously introduced framework[@romanoWholeBodySoftwareAbstraction2017]. From the status described in that work, the underlying software architecture considerably changed, but a big effort was spent to maintain as much as possible the same user experience. The whole-body interface layer proposed in the original work has been entirely removed, moving the responsibility of the robot abstraction to the middleware layer. Moreover, most of the improvements detailed in the same study have been adapted to the new architecture and implemented. Beyond a radical architectural advancement, the main extension presented in this work is the fulfillment of the automatic code generation support, fundamental to complete the implementation of model-based design.
The paper is structured as follows. First, we list tools and frameworks belonging to actor-oriented programming and implementing the model-based design pattern, and define a common terminology used throughout the paper. Then, we present the architecture of the proposed software framework and outline how we implemented [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">aop</span>]{} for robotic controllers design. Successively, we describe how the proposed framework can be exploited to obtain a pipeline that implements the typical stages of model-based design. We present a development cycle example for a balancing controller that targets a humanoid robot. We proceed by discussing the current limitations of this workflow and future improvements. Finally, we draw conclusions.
Background
==========
Related Software
----------------
Model-based design is a methodology that covers many software layers. Following a top-down view, the conventional unified tools typical of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mbd</span>]{} usually share the following features:
- Support to automatically generate real-time code from a model
- Present a graphical interface to visualize a model
- Serve an engine to initialize the directed graph of computation
- Provide a set of solvers to compute the output of each model element
- Include a library of default black-box functions
- Offer a set of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">api</span>s]{} for interfacing with its engine
Providing a complete taxonomy of the existing tools and frameworks is not a trivial task. To simplify the analysis, we limit the overview to frameworks that use the synchronous dataflow model of computation, ignoring those that also support concurrent actors. Considering the scope of the current work, we separate the existing solutions in two categories: *hybrid* and *discrete-only*.
Hybrid tools are the most generic and complete, they typically allow performing both continuous and discrete simulations. Since they provide solvers for each of the two domains, hybrid tools can execute both offline simulations of continuous <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ode</span> systems and their discrete equivalent which is compatible with real-time usage.
Discrete-only tools, instead, target only discrete-time systems, and their execution is limited to call an equivalent `step` function. Given their discrete nature, this second category is compatible by design with real-time usage.
Given these definitions, engines that belong to the hybrid group are Drake[@tedrakeDrakePlanningControl2016], OpenModelica[@OpenModelica], and the commercial software [Simulink]{}, Dymola^^[@dassaultsystemesrDymola] and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Labview</span>]{}[@LabVIEW2018National]. Excluding Drake, all the others are unified visual tools which fully enter into the model-based design framework. [Simulink]{}, in particular, is the engine that became the de-facto standard for model-based design. It implements all the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mbd</span>]{} stages providing great flexibility and very simple user experience.
Other available engines are represented by those that emerged in the context of software engineering for robotics, all belonging to the category of the discrete-only tools. These type of engines are typically designed to support the development of software that runs in real-time on a robotic platform, and so they do not support simulation-specific features such as continuous time system modeling. Examples of this software are Stack of Task’s Dynamic Graph[@mansardVersatileGeneralizedInverted], Genom3[@malletGenoM3BuildingMiddlewareindependent2010], OpenRTM[@andoSoftwarePlatformComponent2008] and Orocos[@bruyninckxRealtimeMotionControl2003]. A features comparison of the tools listed in this section is shown in Table \[tab:comparison\].
[1.0]{}[lYYYYY]{} Software & Hybrid & Visual Tool & Code Generation & Real-time Native & Open Source\
Drake & [$\times$]{}& & & [$\times$]{}& [$\times$]{}\
OpenModelica & [$\times$]{}& [$\times$]{}& [$\times$]{}& & [$\times$]{}\
[Simulink]{}& [$\times$]{}& [$\times$]{}& [$\times$]{}& &\
Dymola & [$\times$]{}& [$\times$]{}& [$\times$]{}& &\
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Labview</span>]{}& [$\times$]{}& [$\times$]{}& [$\times$]{}& &\
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Xcos</span>]{} & [$\times$]{}& [$\times$]{}& [$\times$]{}& & [$\times$]{}\
Dynamic Graph & & & & [$\times$]{}& [$\times$]{}\
Genom3 & & & & [$\times$]{}& [$\times$]{}\
OpenRTM & & & & [$\times$]{}& [$\times$]{}\
Orocos & & & & [$\times$]{}& [$\times$]{}\
For what concerns the deployment stage of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mbd</span>]{}, we can identify few suitable frameworks that provide support of automatically generate code. The scope of this process is to convert a model prototyped as a directed graph to a low-level procedural representation. Nowadays, automatic code generation is a standard feature of the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">matlab</span>]{} system. The [Simulink Coder]{} toolbox allows generating optimized C and [[C]{}]{} code from a [Simulink]{} model, and it provides support to customize the sources injecting custom code during the generation process. Other frameworks that are worth mentioning are most of the software suites based on the Modelica[@tillerIntroductionPhysicalModeling2012] language, which typically support generating low-level code from their models.
The Functional Mock-up Interface [@FunctionalMockupInterface] ([<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">fmi</span>]{}), despite being outside the categorization described above, is still relevant to this overview. [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">fmi</span>]{} is a standardized interface widely used in industry for model-based development. It is a feature-rich and production-grade tool with a clear standard, constantly improving at each release but, as most of the tools listed in this section, it was not available when we started the development of our software stack. In any case, its adoption in its current form would not be possible due to the lack of the support of vector messages between actors, shortcoming that will be removed in the upcoming version of the standard.
Other interesting frameworks for controllers design which are related to the cited engines are the Robotic Toolbox[@corkeRoboticsVisionControl2017] and the Robotic System Toolbox[@RoboticsSystemToolbox]. The latter, particularly, is one of the few unified framework that fully implements [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mbd</span>]{} specifically for robotic controllers. It is based on the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ros</span>]{}[@quigleyROSOpensourceRobot] middleware and it implements many of its features. However, the support of kinematics and dynamics has been added only recently and it lacks the possibility to be extended to interfacing with third-party robotic libraries.
Terminology
-----------
The majority of the hybrid and discrete-only software listed in the previous section share a software architecture composed of similar components. In view of the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">aop</span>]{} architecture used in this work, we will make use of the following terminology, illustrated in Figure \[fig:block\]:
Blocks
: are elements that provide self-contained functionality. They wrap algorithms exposing a black-box interface composed of inputs, outputs, and parameters.
Ports
: are virtual elements associated to block inputs and outputs. They store information to identify which kind of data is supported by the block (typically size and type).
Signals
: are the elements that connect ports of different blocks. When two ports are connected, the share their data.
Engines
: control the channel through which the blocks communicate. Engines typically create the computational graph and assign the blocks execution order. They also collect the block outputs and propagate them to the handled channel. They usually provide graphical tools to visualize blocks and help their interconnection by creating signals between them.
These terms naturally translate to the definitions of the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">aop</span>]{} framework: blocks map to actors, signals map to channels, and ports represent the interface between actors and channels.
Framework Software Architecture
===============================
This section describes the software architecture of the proposed framework. Firstly, the factory pattern and the plugins concepts are introduced. Their combined usage has direct applicability within an [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">aop</span>]{} context. Secondly, we describe in details the two components that form the framework: [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">blockfactory</span>]{}[@dynamicinteractioncontrolBlockfactoryTinyFramework2019] and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">whole-body toolbox</span>]{}[@dynamicinteractioncontrolWholeBodyToolboxSimulink2019]. [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">blockfactory</span>]{} provides the support to actor-oriented programming and the interfacing with third-party frameworks. [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">whole-body toolbox</span>]{} provides a plugin library containing the actors that expose the robotic stack used for controllers design: robotic middlewares, rigid-body dynamics libraries, and robotic simulators. An overview of the main classes of these two projects is shown in Figure \[fig:uml\]. In other terms, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">whole-body toolbox</span>]{} provides the algorithms, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">blockfactory</span>]{} provides the back-end of the software infrastructure that abstracts blocks and engines. The solvers and the front-end are instead provided by the selected engine.
Factory pattern and plugin libraries
------------------------------------
Third-party engines typically offer a set of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">api</span>s]{} that can be used to integrate external software inside their framework. In order to detach effectively the block implementations from the third-party engine, the combination of the factory pattern and dynamically loaded plugins represents one of the canonical solution[@gammaDesignPatternsElements1995]. With the factory pattern, objects are created from a factory function without the need to specify their class. Typically a label or identifier is associated with this kind of objects, and only this information is required during their instantiation. Unfortunately, this is not enough to achieve the separation between engines and blocks, because the factory function only hides their allocation and the engine still needs to link against their implementation. This shortcoming can be overcome with plugin libraries dynamically loaded during runtime. In this case, the engine needs to have two information: the label associated with the implementation of the block and the name of the shared library that contains it. Once the plugin is dynamically loaded, the engine can instantiate block objects using a factory function without knowing anything about the class that implements them. Then, it can call their functionality through the common interface. The implementation of block classes is not constrained to any model of computation of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">aop</span>]{}. In the most general form they can be asynchronous and concurrent.
The combined architecture of factory and plugins represents a natural implementation of actor-oriented programming. In fact, the limitation of the engine to access the functionality of the blocks through their exposed abstraction layer enforces one of the key characteristic of actors: the exposure of a well-defined interface.
For what concerns robotic controllers, the separation layer introduced by the plugin-based factory pattern provides a great help in system integration. In fact, since the plugin libraries containing the blocks are engine-agnostic, they can be loaded from each engine without the need to recompile them. This means that a controller prototyped with one engine can load the same library of the deployed controller. The code duplication is hence minimized and the robustness of the system is improved because the logic of the blocks is shared. Another benefit of this architecture to the system integration is about dependencies. The standalone plugins can link against any third-party library without the need to operate on the layer specific to the engine.
BlockFactory
------------
The concepts defined by actor-oriented programming are implemented in a tool called [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">blockfactory</span>]{}. It allows creating blocks (the *actors*) that exchange data between each other through the signals connected to their exposed ports, as illustrated in Figure \[fig:block\]. The entities of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">aop</span>]{} are mapped to [[C]{}]{} classes and interfaces, reported in Figure \[fig:uml\]. [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">blockfactory</span>]{} also implements the factory pattern and provides support to dynamically load during runtime plugins that contain block objects.
In order to obtain engine-agnostic blocks, the information exchanged between blocks and engines needs to be abstracted. For this scope, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">blockfactory</span>]{} provides an abstraction layer called `BlockInformation` placed between blocks and engines. As shown in Figure \[fig:architecture\], blocks can query information from the engine only through the `BlockInformation` interface, and engines can only call block functionalities through the `Block` interface.
The interfacing with third-part engines can be achieved in two steps. Firstly, their own [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">api</span>]{} or callbacks need to be implemented for loading during runtime the plugins containing the block logic. Secondly, in order to provide blocks the information from the engine they need, the `BlockInformation` interface needs to be implemented for the selected engine. In the current version of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">blockfactory</span>]{}, we provide support of the [Simulink]{} and [Simulink Coder]{} engines. In this case, the implementation of their [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">api</span>]{} corresponds in developing respectively a <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">c mex s</span>-function and a Target Language Compiler (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">tlc</span>). [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">blockfactory</span>]{} provides these two files that are independent from the block implementation, and can load generic objects implementing the `Block` interface.
The actor-oriented applications that can be built with [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">blockfactory</span>]{} are universal, and not related by any means to robotic controllers. [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">blockfactory</span>]{} is engine-agnostic, and can be interfaced with engines specific to the target application. System integration is simplified since it contains only a small number of classes and it has no dependencies. Beyond the scope of the presented work, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">blockfactory</span>]{} can find applicability in fields such as electrical drives, communication systems, power converters, etc. Generally, it can cover all use-cases that need exposing to the engines custom logic (either inlined in the block or wrapping external libraries) or interfacing with external devices while exposing only a simple and unified interface.
Whole-Body Toolbox
------------------
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">whole-body toolbox</span>]{} is a [[C]{}]{} plugin library that exposes canonical algorithms and utilities commonly used to develop robotic controllers, such as rigid-body dynamics algorithms and communication capabilities with robotic devices mediated by middlewares. These functionalities are wrapped as block entities and they can be loaded independently by all the third-party engines supported by [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">blockfactory</span>]{}. In order to use the blocks in a [Simulink]{} model, the toolbox also provides a [Simulink]{} library that exposes the [[C]{}]{} classes as visual blocks, which can be imported by drag-and-drop and configured through text boxes and drop-down menus.
For historical reasons the middleware we actively support is [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">yarp</span>]{}[@mettaYARPAnotherRobot2006]. Our main target platform is the iCub humanoid robot[@mettaICubHumanoidRobot2010], even though all [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">yarp</span>]{}-compatible real and simulated robots are supported out-of-the-box. As an example, a previous work[@romanoWholeBodySoftwareAbstraction2017] showed a simulated whole-body controller running on both iCub and Walkman[@ferratiWalkManRobotSoftware2016] robots.
Historically [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">whole-body toolbox</span>]{} was developed for whole-body control[@WholeBodyControlIEEE], hence the name. In its last revisions, it became a generic robotic toolbox that can be used for any type of controller. The blocks implementing dynamics and kinematics algorithms are mainly based on iDynTree[@noriICubWholeBodyControl2015] and do not depend on any middleware. They can be used also with robots which are not [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">yarp</span>]{}-based, outsourcing, in this case, the interfacing with the target platform to third-party plugin libraries. The only requirement for using the provided algorithms is the availability of an <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">urdf</span>[^3] description of the robot to control.
A complete software stack for robotic controllers typically involves the interaction with a physic simulator. The robotic simulator we chose to support is Gazebo[@koenigDesignUseParadigms2004]. The interaction between [Simulink]{} and Gazebo follows a co-simulation pattern, where the former is the master that issues forward step commands to the physic engine at each simulation step. The controller transparency between the real and the simulated robot is achieved by exposing the same network interface exploiting the abstraction layers provided by the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">yarp</span>]{} middleware. In the case of the simulated robot, the implementation of these interfaces are provided by Gazebo Yarp Plugins[@mingohoffmanYarpBasedPlugins2014].
The toolbox also provides generic utilities for robotic applications, such as discrete filters, cartesian trajectory controllers[@pattaciniExperimentalEvaluationNovel2010], and quadratic programming solvers based on QpOASES[@ferreauQpOASESParametricActiveset2014].
The Pipeline
============
In the previous section, we introduced the proposed framework, described its architecture, and discussed how its components interact with each other. In this section, we will describe the pipeline that implements [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mbd</span>]{} from the point of view of the control engineer, detailing how the it is practically used and how the components of the framework relate to each step of the development.
The proposed pipeline implements all the four stages on which the model-based design pattern is derived. We will demonstrate a practical usage showing the steps to rapidly prototype and deploy a balancing controller[@navaExploitingFrictionTorque2018; @pucciHighlyDynamicBalancing2016], executed on the humanoid robot iCub[@mettaICubHumanoidRobot2010]. A simplified overview of the theory behind the controller is reported in the preceding work[@romanoWholeBodySoftwareAbstraction2017]. Since we managed to maintain the compatibility of the controllers designed with the previous architecture, the experimental results of that study that use [Simulink]{} correspond to the prototyping phase of this pipeline. As explained more in detail below, thanks to the abstraction between the controller and the robot provided by the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">yarp</span>]{} interfaces, the pipeline includes few intermediate steps in addition to the stages defined by [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mbd</span>]{}.
The first stage of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mbd</span>]{} is *plant modeling*. For controllers applications, the plant is typically composed by the robot and the environment where it operates. In our case, the model of iCub is represented by an <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">urdf</span> file, which stores its kinematic and dynamic properties. The model of the robot is generated semi-automatically from its <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">cad</span> design, solution that allows obtaining a very detailed description of the robot. For what concern the environment, we use the default empty world provided by the physic engine running inside the simulator. The same applies to the interaction between the robot and the environment.
The implementation of the remaining stages of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mbd</span>]{} is illustrated in Figure \[fig:pipeline\]. The first row shows the prototyping phase of the pipeline and the second one shows the deploying phase. Referring to the figure, the depicted steps serve as follows:
1. This first step implements the *controller prototyping* stage of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mbd</span>]{}. The controller is designed in [Simulink]{} using the default system blocks and the blocks provided by [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">whole-body toolbox</span>]{}. In this case, when the user drops a block in the model, the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">s</span>-function contained in [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">blockfactory</span>]{} loads the plugin library and, using the factory method, it allocates the object that implements its logic.
2. When the controller is ready, it can be executed on the simulated robot model. [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">whole-body toolbox</span>]{} provides a block for interfacing with Gazebo, synchronizing it with the simulation loop running in [Simulink]{}. This step provides the means of the *system simulation* stage.
3. In this additional third step, the control designer has the possibility to connect the controller, still running in [Simulink]{} from an external machine, to the real robot. Since the controller now needs to run in a real-time setting, the block used to interface with the simulator is substituted with a block that enforces the simulation loop to be synchronized with the real clock. Measurements and reference signals are gathered and streamed in real-time.
4. Reached this point, the controller is already functional on both the simulated and real robot. The last *controller deployment* stage starts with step 4. Exploiting the capabilities of [Simulink Coder]{}, the oriented graph visually created in [Simulink]{} is translated to an automatically generated [[C]{}]{} class. In our software architecture, [Simulink Coder]{} is handled as another engine (as reported in Figure \[fig:uml\]), and a different implementation of the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">blockfactory</span>]{} interface that abstracts the engine is used. A very important detail of this process is that the logic implemented by the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">whole-body toolbox</span>]{} blocks is not inlined in the autogenerated class. In fact, analogously to the behavior of any engine supported by [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">blockfactory</span>]{}, the plugin-based factory pattern is used. This means that the autogenerated [[C]{}]{} class loads the same plugin containing the logic of the robotic blocks that was used in the [Simulink]{} engine. Firstly, this helps to keep the behavior of the controllers running in different engines aligned. Secondly, assuming a constant controller graph, it simplifies the delivery of updates and fixes of the logic of the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">whole-body toolbox</span>]{} blocks. In fact, updated blocks can be deployed to the target platform by only distributing an updated plugin library, removing the need to regenerate the sources and rebuild the application. As last comment, it is worth noting that once the class has been generated and compiled, the presence of [Simulink]{} is no longer necessary.
5. This step corresponds to step 2. In this case, though, the automatically generated controller is executed on the simulated robot.
6. Similarly, this step corresponds to step 3 with the automatically generated controller.
7. The real deployment to the target platform is represented by this last step. Until now, the controller always ran from the external machine, communicating to the real robot through the network, exploiting the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">yarp</span>]{} observer pattern[@gammaDesignPatternsElements1995]. The automatically generated class of the controller and the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">blockfactory</span>]{} plugin are now compiled (or cross-compiled) for the on-board machine of the robot and, lastly, deployed. The comments about the choice of the plugin-based factory pattern of step 4 are even more central reached this last stage.
In this example, the controlled robots -simulated and real- refer to the same kinematic structure. One may wonder which modifications are necessary in this new architecture in order to run the controller on a robot endowed with a different number of degrees-of-freedom. One of the new features of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">whole-body toolbox</span>]{} is the presence of a configuration block, where it is possible to specify runtime information such as the name of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">urdf</span> model, the names of the controlled joints, and the name of the robot used to set up the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">yarp</span>]{} context. Excluding edge cases, this is enough to make controllers independent from the robot.
Limitations and future work
===========================
Blockfactory
------------
The dataflow framework [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">blockfactory</span>]{} represents, as described in the previous sections, the abstraction layers between engines and black-box functions, supplied e.g. by plugins such as [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">whole-body toolbox</span>]{}. This means that [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">blockfactory</span>]{} is responsible for exposing blocks in such a way that they can be properly configured by the solvers included in the engines. Currently, it only supports engines that provide discrete solvers with fixed-step. This is the only requirement for models that have to be executed on a real-time system. However, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">blockfactory</span>]{} was born as a generic dataflow framework and, when the deployment is not the final target, it should provide compatibility with continuous solvers which typically need to operate on the derivatives of the block state.
At its current state, the block interface is modeled to be a stateless system. The engine can only trigger the evolution of a block state by calling its `output` method since they are akin to instantaneous functions. However, stateful blocks can be extremely convenient in some use cases. Indeed, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">whole-body toolbox</span>]{} already contains blocks that hold an internal state, but it is hidden inside the implementation. One of the consequences of the presence of this hidden state is that blocks that need to know the step size cannot gather it directly from the engine, and this information must be passed as a parameter. This behavior can be not very intuitive for the end user. Furthermore, is it more error prone since every time the user changes the step size, also the parameters of all blocks requiring it must be updated accordingly. This would not be necessary if the blocks would be modeled in such a way to expose their hidden state and rely on the engine features to address this shortcoming.
The Functional Mock-up Interface [@FunctionalMockupInterface] represents a common standard as an alternative to the provided interfaces. Instead of a complete substitution, though, being able to expose blocks in their counterparts called Functional Mock-up Units can be a valuable addition. This would open the interoperability with a plethora of tools that already support [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">fmi</span>]{}, improving the integration of the models designed with [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">blockfactory</span>]{} in complex co-simulation environments.
Whole-Body Toolbox
------------------
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">whole-body toolbox</span>]{} currently grounds the interfacing with robots on the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">yarp</span>]{} middleware, and we are aware that there are not many existing [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">yarp</span>]{}-based robots. Despite implementing the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">yarp</span>]{} interfaces for a new platform is not an insuperable task, it might limit the applicability of this pipeline. Going in this direction, a native implementation of the more common [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ros</span>]{} middleware would enlarge the adoption of the proposed tools. A proof-of-concept of a [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ros</span>]{} plugin implementing its publisher-subscriber pattern is already available[@ferigoBlockfactorydemorosProofofconceptPlugin2019]. On the same line, allowing to install the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">whole-body toolbox</span>]{} without its [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">yarp</span>]{} component would be another possible improvement. In fact, the majority of the blocks are middleware-agnostic, and they could be already used in systems without any middleware installed. For instance, many use-cases might benefit from the included algorithms for rigid body dynamics.
The current support of simulating a kinematic structure consists of a co-simulation setup between [Simulink]{} and Gazebo that communicate through [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">yarp</span>]{} messages thanks to the Gazebo Yarp Plugins. This entire system worked well for us in the past, however, its use is not as straightforward as it could be. In fact, in order to obtain a correct synchronization between the two simulators, all the components of this system should be started passing extra options. In order to simplify this process, it would be beneficial embedding the physic simulator inside a new block, treating it as a regular node of the graph. In this way, the synchronization could be greatly simplified taking advantage of the information available from being executed as part of the computational graph. This would also enable to execute headless simulations and allow to open the graphical user interface only if visual feedback is required.
A limitation of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">whole-body toolbox</span>]{} that might restrict its applicability to generic tasks is the lack of maturity of the robotic perception stack. The main scope of our applications are balancing and locomotion, therefore we always ignored perception and focused mainly on dynamics. Our controllers currently operate only on flat terrain, where perception is not required. However, creating new specific blocks to retrieve sensory data would be straightforward. An improved perception can then allow controllers to handle more structured scenarios, that can be already simulated in Gazebo inserting the robot model into a structured world.
In the long run, we would like to add the support of existing machine-learning frameworks in order to embed networks and function approximators into our robotic controllers. Furthermore, we are planning to introduce the possibility to export controllers with an interface that exposes a set of parameters which would allow applying reinforcement learning algorithms.
Pipeline
--------
The description of the pipeline reported in the previous section offers a general overview of its functionalities. However, it hides few caveats which might not be straightforward. In step 2, obtaining a model that can be effectively actuated in Gazebo requires tuning its <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">pid</span> gains. Finding a proper configuration is not straightforward and many iterations are necessary. Furthermore, this process has to be repeated again in step 3, when the controller is executed on the real robot. Once the right gains have been properly found, they can be reused in steps 5 and 6. However, these low-level configurations are not strictly specific to this pipeline. In fact, they are related to the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">yarp</span>]{} implementation of the robot and these parameters are meant to be abstracted by [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">yarp</span>]{} interfaces.
Similarly, it is interesting to analyze the factors that might differ between running the autogenerated controller from the external machine and from the on-board device of the robot. The communication between the controller and the robot —typically consisting of sensor measurements and references— are mediated in both cases by the transport layer handled by [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">yarp</span>]{}. In the first case, since the controller is running in an external machine, the exchange of data occurs through the network transport layer. This type of data transfer introduces overhead and delays that might affect the performance of the controller. Deploying the controller to the on-board machine provides a great opportunity to mitigate this problem. However, this is not exempt to side effects. In fact, controllers are very sensitive to time delays and dealing with them is yet an open problem in many applications. Assuming that the same gains can be applied might hold surprises. In our experience though, controllers did not need any tuning. In any case, moving the computation of fundamental tasks such as motion control as close as possible to the actuators offers a tremendous possibility to enhance system robustness. Furthermore, the deployed controller is an optimized version of the one executed in [Simulink]{}. If the rate of the controller is slower than the rate of the robot measurements and the actuation bandwidth, the gain of speed might allow increasing the controller frequency, which is typically related to better performances.
A current limitation of the autogeneration process is how controller parameters stored in [Simulink]{} are handled. With the current [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">blockfactory</span>]{} version, due to how the code is generated, accessing them from the code is not very intuitive. As a consequence, it is not yet possible to obtain an autogenerated controller that, without the need of regenerating the sources, can be used on different [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">yarp</span>]{}-based robots.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we presented a rapid prototyping and deployment architecture for robotic controllers based on the principles of model-based design. The architecture is composed of a framework and a pipeline.
Developing and maintaining a controller in pure [[C]{}]{} is typically extremely demanding, and even minor architectural changes might require a considerable effort. In light of the fast prototyping aims, developing controllers using visual tools and then automatically generate optimized [[C]{}]{} code represents a great speedup.
As first component of the framework, we presented the actor-oriented tool [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">blockfactory</span>]{}. It abstracts generic algorithms and allows embedding them in generic applications modeled as directed graphs. The black-box functions that [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">blockfactory</span>]{} exposes are modeled as blocks with a predefined interface, and are stored in collections as shared libraries. These libraries can then be loaded from third-party software that implement the model-based design pattern. Among all the available possibilities, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">blockfactory</span>]{} allows interfacing with [Simulink]{} and [Simulink Coder]{}. However, it streamlines the extension to other frameworks by providing a second interface that abstracts the engines from the block implementations.
Different kind of robotic controllers are typically based on a limited set of elemental functionalities, and complex logic can be achieved by their composition. In this work, as second component of the framework, we presented [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">whole-body toolbox</span>]{}, a collection of black-box functions for robotics representing the building elements of generic robotic controllers. This toolbox wraps a number of existing open-source projects belonging to the categories of robotic middlewares, rigid-body dynamic libraries, and mathematical optimization tools.
These two projects serve as the primary components of the proposed pipeline to rapidly prototype and deploy robotic controllers. In particular, the presented pipeline implements the rapid prototyping capability —idiomatic feature of model-based design— by interfacing with the [Simulink]{} engine. The rapid deployment, instead, is achieved exploiting the automatic code generation support provided by [Simulink Coder]{}. We explained step by step how the entire process works, detailing how the stages of model-based design have been implemented.
Ultimately, we explained the shortcomings of the current status of both the components of the presented framework and the resulting pipeline, and our plans to address them. The present condition of these projects is the outcome of many years of development, during which the architecture often changed and gave us the possibility to learn from our mistakes. Despite these continuous changes, a big effort has been spent to keep the experience of the control engineers that use this framework as consistent as possible. As attempted in the previous papers, we tried to be as critic as possible to our choices, being aware that the presented pipeline still has a big room of improvements.
To conclude, we would like to remark that the development of all the presented tools followed from their beginning an open-source and community-driven approach. From one hand, we could have never achieved the current development status and our results if we couldn’t interface with existing open-source software such as middlewares, simulators, and libraries. We are grateful to the entire robotic community to provide and maintain them over time. From the other hand, collaborations with other research institutes — mainly belonging to the community built around the iCub humanoid robot — helped us to improve the robustness of the entire framework by using it within different contexts. A great contribution, as an example, regards the interfacing with [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">matlab</span>]{}. In fact, due to licensing limitation, we cannot test the pipeline thoroughly with many versions, and also the application of continuous integration pipelines presents many restrictions. A wider user-base with diverse setup helped us debugging problems we would probably have never encountered.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 731540 (An.Dy).The content of this publication is the sole responsibility of the authors. The European Commission or its services cannot be held responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.
[^1]: Dynamic Interaction Control, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genova, IT, 16163
[^2]: University of Manchester, Machine Learning and Optimisation, Manchester, UK, M13 9PL
[^3]: http://www.ros.org/wiki/urdf
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We consider the viscous Camassa-Holm equation subject to an external force, where the viscosity term is given by second order differential operator in divergence form. We show that under some mild assumptions on the viscosity term, one has global well-posedness both in the periodic case and the case of the whole line. In the periodic case, we show the existence of global attractors in the energy space $H^1$, provided the external force is in the class $L^2(I)$. Moreover, we establish an asymptotic smoothing effect, which states that the elements of the attractor are in fact in the smoother Besov space $B^2_{2,\infty}(I)$. Identical results (after adding an appropriate linear damping term) are obtained in the case of the whole line.'
address:
- |
Milena Stanislavova\
Department of Mathematics\
University of Kansas\
1460 Jayhawk Blvd\
Lawrence, KS 66045–7523
- |
Atanas Stefanov\
Department of Mathematics\
University of Kansas\
1460 Jayhawk Blvd\
Lawrence, KS 66045–7523
author:
- Milena Stanislavova
- Atanas Stefanov
title: 'Attractors for the viscous Camassa-Holm equation'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
The failure of weakly nonlinear dispersive equations, such as the celebrated Korteweg-de Vries equation, to model interesting physical phenomena like wave breaking, existence of peaked waves etc., was a motivation for transition to full nonlinearity in the search for alternative models for nonlinear dispersive waves ([@Whitham]). The first step in this direction was the derivation of the Green-Naghdi system of equations (see [@GN]), which is a Hamiltonian system that models fluid flows in thin domains. Writing the Green-Naghdi equations in Hamiltonian form and using asymptotic expansion which keeps the Hamiltonian structure, Camassa and Holm ([@Camassa]) derived the Camassa-Holm equation in 1993. They obtained the strongly nonlinear equation $$u_t-\frac{1}{4} u_{xxt}+\frac{3}{2} (u^2)_x-\frac{1}{8} (u_x^2)_x-\frac{1}{4} (u u_{xx})_x=0,$$ which was also found independently by Dai ([@Dai]) as a model for nonlinear waves in cylindrical hyper elastic rods and had been originally obtained by Fokas and Fuchsteiner ([@FF]) as an example of bi-Hamiltonian equation. The equation possesses a Lax pair and is completely integrable in terms of the inverse scattering transform, see [@Cam1],[@Camassa]. For recent and extensive treatments of the case of solutions on the real line, decaying at infinity, we refer to [@con5], [@con1], [@kaup], while for the periodic case, one should consult [@con2], [@con4] .
A dictinct feature of the Camassa-Holm equations is that it exhibits orbitally stable soliton solutions, which are weak solutions in the shape of a peaked waves, [@Co2], [@Co1], see also [@lenells] for the most complete description of traveling waves available as of this writing. Camassa and Holm, [@Camassa] have found that two solitary waves keep their shape and size after interaction while the ultimate position of each wave is affected only with a phase shift by the nonlinear interaction, see also [@Beals], [@Co3]. Finally we mention the presence of breaking waves for this equation ([@Camassa], [@Co],[@McKean], [@con3]), as well as the occurrence of global solutions ([@Co], [@Co2], [@Co3],[@Co4]).
Our main object of investigation will be the initial value problem for the Camassa-Holm equation, which takes the form $$\label{eq:1}
(CH) \ \ \left|\begin{array}{l}
u_t-u_{txx}=2u_x u_{xx}+u u_{xxx}-3 u u_x\\
u(x,0)=u_0(x)
\end{array}\right.$$ By reorganizing the terms, one sees that this is equivalent to $$\label{eq:10}
u_t+{\frac{1}{2}}{\partial}_x(u^2)+{\partial}_x{(1-{\partial}_x^2)^{-1}}[u_x^2/2+u^2]=0,$$ where the Helmholtz operator ${(1-{\partial}_x^2)^{-1}}$ is standardly defined in Section \[sec:helm\]. Denote here and for the rest of the paper the nonlinearity of $F(u,u_x)= {\frac{1}{2}}{\partial}_x(u^2)+{\partial}_x{(1-{\partial}_x^2)^{-1}}[u_x^2/2+u^2]$.
The viscous Camassa-Holm equation in one and more dimensions[^2] was studied extensively in the recent years. This was done in parallel with the non viscous one, so we refer to the papers, quoted above. In [@Stanislavova], we have shown in particular that for $$\label{eq:11}
u_t+{\frac{1}{2}}{\partial}_x(u^2)+{\partial}_x{(1-{\partial}_x^2)^{-1}}[u_x^2/2+u^2]={\varepsilon}{\partial}_x^2 u,$$ one has global and unique solution in the energy class $H^1({\mathbf R^1})$.
In [@Helge], the authors have taken a more general type of viscosity and forcing terms. They have shown (among other things) global well-posedness for the equation $$\label{eq:2}
u_t+{\frac{1}{2}}{\partial}_x(u^2)+{\partial}_x{(1-{\partial}_x^2)^{-1}}[u_x^2/2+u^2]={\partial}_x(a(t,x){\partial}_x u)+g(t,x,u),$$ with initial data $u_0\in H^2({\mathbf R^1})$. Here $a$ is bounded, positive and bounded away from zero, with number of additional technical assumptions on $a$, $g$.
In this article, we shall consider similar type of viscosity terms ${\partial}_x(a {\partial}_x u)$, which is motivated by recent works in conservation laws and which seem to better model the underlying physical situations. We will however stick to the case of [*time independent*]{} $a=a(x)$, although our arguments work in the time dependent case as well, subject to some minor modifications. This is done to reduce the unnecessary technicalities and it is also dictated by our interest in the dynamical system (rather than the cocycle) properties of .
It is also our goal to consider the question for global well-posedness of both on the whole line ${\mathbf R^1}$ and on any finite interval. As we shall see, the methods that we employ in the two cases are slightly different, but not conceptually so. The main difficulty for the case of ${\mathbf R^1}$ as usual will be the non compactness of the embedding $H^1({\mathbf R^1})\hookrightarrow L^2({\mathbf R^1})$.
Let us take a moment to explain our results. First, under standard assumptions[^3] on $a$ and $g$, [*we show that the dynamical system has an unique global solution*]{}, whenever $u_0\in H^1({\mathbf R^1})$ or $u_0\in H^1(0, 1)$ respectively.
For the case of finite interval, we are able to show [*the existence of global attractor*]{}. This is done under a smallness assumption on the Lipschitz norm of $a$.
In addition, the attractor (which is initially a subset of $H^1(0, 1)$) turns out to be a subset of the smoother space $H^{2-{\sigma}}(0, 1)$, [*that is the semigroup associated with exhibits asymptotic smoothing effect*]{}. More precisely, we show that for every ${\sigma}>0$, the attractor is a bounded subset of $H^{2-{\sigma}}(0,1)$.
For the case of considered as a integro differential equation on the whole line ${\mathbf R^1}$, the existence of an attractor is not clear, although we have not explicitly found a counterexample. The main difficulty is that nothing seems to prevent a low-frequency buildup, which may cause an unrestricted growth of $\|u(t, \cdot)\|_{H^1}$. That is, we expect that for a wide class of initial data $u_0$ and right hand side $g$, $\limsup_{t\to \infty} \|u(t, \cdot)\|_{H^1({\mathbf R^1})}=\infty$. This clearly would prevent the existence of an attractor.
On the other hand, if one adds an additional damping term (which is actually a relevant physical model, considered in two dimensions by Ilyin and Titi, [@Titi5]), one can show the existence of an attractor and boundedness in $H^{2-}$ in the case of the whole line as well. The discussion on that is in Section \[sec:conclusions\].\
Now and throughout the paper, we will require that the operator $A u=-{\partial}_x(a(x) {\partial}_x u)$ be coercive. That is, assume that $a(x)$ is $C^2$ real valued, so that for some fixed ${\varepsilon}>0$ $$\label{eq:c1}
{\varepsilon}<a(x) <1/{\varepsilon}$$ Note that under these assumptions, we can define the (unbounded) operator $A$ as a Friedrich’s extension of the unbounded operator defined by the quadratic form $$q(u,u) = \int_I a(x) |u'(x)|^2 dx=:{\langle u,Au \rangle},$$ with domain $\dot{H}^1(I)$ with the natural boundary conditions and where $I={\mathbf R^1}$ or $I=(0,1)$. That is, we impose the boundary condition $u(0)=u(1)$ in the periodic case and $\lim_{|x|\to \infty} u(x)=0$ in the case of the whole line. In particular, $A$ is positive and self-adjoint operator and $-A$ generates a strongly continuous semigroup.\
Our first theorem is a well-posedness type result.
\[theo:1\] For the viscous Camassa-Holm equation , assume that $a=a(x)$ satisfies[^4] and $g\in L^\infty_t L^2_x (I)$, where either $I={\mathbf R^1}$ or $I=(0,1)$. Then for every initial data $u_0\in H^1(I)$, there is an unique global classical solution $u$ to . More specifically, $u\in C([0,\infty), H^1(I))$ and for every $0<T_1<T_2<\infty$, $u\in C^2([T_1, T_2], I)$.
Our next result concerns the existence of global attractors for in the case of finite interval[^5] $I=(0,1)$. For technical reasons, we need to impose a smallness condition ${{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}}<<{\varepsilon}$. We do not know whether such a condition is necessary or not, but it is possible that unless such a condition hold, one gets unbounded orbits for some sets of initial data, thus rendering the statements regarding the existence of attractors false.
\[theo:2\] Assume that $a$ satisfies and ${{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}}\leq {\delta}{\varepsilon}$ for some sufficiently small ${\delta}$. Let $g=g(x)\in L^2(0,1)$ has mean value zero, $\int_0^1 g(x) dx=0$. Then, the viscous Camassa-Holm equation has a global attractor, when considered as a dynamical system over a finite interval $I=(0,1)$ with initial data in $H^1_0(0,1)=H^1\cap
\{f: \int_0^1 f(x) dx=0\}$.
[**Remark:**]{} The mean value zero condition imposed upon the forcing term $g$ is necessary for the existence of a global attractor and is in fact necessary merely for uniform boundedness of the orbits.
Indeed, an elementary computation shows that $
{\partial}_t \int_0^1 u (t,x) dx= \int_0^1 g(x) dx$, whence $\int_0^1 u(t,x) dx = \int_0^1 u_0(x) dx+ (\int g(x) dx) t$, which is not bounded as $t\to \infty$, unless $\int g(x) dx=0$.
Our next theorem addresses precisely the asymptotic smoothing effect of the corresponding dynamics.
\[theo:3\] The attractor ${\mathcal A}$ constructed in Theorem \[theo:2\] is contained in $\cap_{{\sigma}>0} H^{2-{\sigma}}(0,1)$. Moreover, for all ${\sigma}>0$, we have the estimate $${\sup\limits}_{f \in {\mathcal A}} {{\left\| f \right\|}_{H^{2-{\sigma}}(0,1)}}\leq C_{\sigma}{{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^2}}$$ That is, the attractor is a bounded subset in $H^{2-{\sigma}}$ with bounds depending only on the constants in the problem (${\varepsilon}, {\delta}, {\sigma}$) and ${{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^2}}$.
In fact, more generally, ${\mathcal A}$ is a bounded subset of $ B^{2}_{2, \infty}$, with the corresponding estimate $$\label{eq:smooth}
{\sup\limits}_{f\in {\mathcal A}} {\sup\limits}_k 2^{2k} {{\left\| P_{2^k} f \right\|}_{L^2}}= {\sup\limits}_{f\in {\mathcal A}} {\sup\limits}_k 2^{2k}
\left({\sum\limits}_{n=2^{k-1}}^{2^{k+1}} |\hat{f}(n)|^2\right)^{1/2}
\leq C{{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^2}},$$
We record that in the case of constant viscosity (i.e. $a=const>0$), all the conditions in Theorem \[theo:2\] and Theorem \[theo:3\] are satisfied.
For the case of the whole line, consider the Camassa-Holm equation with an additional damping factor, as considered in two dimensions by Ilyin-Titi, [@Titi5]. Namely, let $\mu>0$ and consider $$\label{e:1}
u_t +\mu u + {\frac{1}{2}}{\partial}_x(u^2)+{\partial}_x{(1-{\partial}_x^2)^{-1}}[u_x^2/2+u^2] ={\partial}_x(a(x) u_x)+g(x)$$ with initial data $u(0,x)=f$. We have the following
\[theo:9\] Assume that $a$ satisfies and either ${{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}}<{\delta}{\varepsilon}$ for some sufficiently small ${\delta}$ [*or*]{} $a''(x)\leq 2 a(x)$. Then the equation is globally well-posed in $H^1({\mathbf R^1})$. It also has a global attractor ${\mathcal A}$ and the semigroup has the smoothing property: ${\mathcal A}$ is a bounded subset of $B^2_{2, \infty}$. More precisely, $${\sup\limits}_{f\in {\mathcal A}}\sup_k 2^{2k} {{\left\| P_{2^k} f \right\|}_{L^2}}\leq C{{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^2}}.$$
[**Remark**]{}
- If $a=const>0$, all the conditions in Theorem \[theo:9\] are met and the results hold.
- In contrast with Theorem \[theo:2\], note that we can impose the structural condition $a''(x)\leq 2 a(x)$, instead of the smallness of ${{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}}$.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:prelim\], we collect some useful facts from Fourier analysis and the theory of attractors both in finite and infinite domain setting. In Section \[sec:90\], we first show a local well-posedness of the Cauchy problem for the viscous Camassa-Holm equation, by using some elementary $C_0$ semigroup properties of the semigroup generated by $A=-{\partial}_x(a(\cdot) {\partial}_x \cdot)$. This is done by a contraction map principle and yields valid solution only for short time. We then derive[^6] some additional $H^2$ smoothness estimates in order to exploit the underlying $H^1$ conservation law.
In Section \[sec:global\], we show that $H^1$ [*a priori*]{} estimates hold on [*any time interval*]{} $(0,T)$ and thus global well-posedness is established.
In Section \[sec:attractor\_1\], we establish the existence of global attractors in the case of finite interval. This is done by verifying the point dissipativeness and the uniform boundedness of the dynamics. The uniform[^7] vanishing of the high frequency mass of the solutions, which is needed for the existence of attractors is addressed in Section \[sec:vanish\]. Incidentally, one obtains the smoothing estimate .
Finally, in Section \[sec:conclusions\], we prove Theorem \[theo:9\]. The methods here are quite similar to the ones used in the final interval case.\
[**Acknowledgement:**]{} We are grateful to our colleague Bixiang Wang for numerous discussions regarding the abstract theory of attractors and their properties.
Preliminaries {#sec:prelim}
=============
In this section, we collect some useful (generally well-known) facts. We start with the definition of the Fourier transform in the whole space and in the periodic setting.
The Fourier transform and the Helmholtz operator ${(1-{\partial}_x^2)^{-1}}$ {#sec:helm}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Fourier transform on ${\mathbf R^1}$ is (initially) defined on the functions in the Schwartz class ${\mathcal S}$ by $$\hat{f}(\xi)={\int\limits}_{{\mathbf R^1}} f(x) e^{-2\pi i x\xi} dx.$$ We record the inverse Fourier transform $$f(x)={\int\limits}_{{\mathbf R^1}} \hat{f}(\xi) e^{2\pi i x\xi } d\xi,$$ and the Plancherel’s identity is ${{\left\| f \right\|}_{L^2}}=
\|\hat{f}\|_{L^2}$ for all functions $f\in L^2$.
On the interval $[0,1]$, we may introduce the Fouier transform $L^2([0,1])\to l^2({\mathcal Z})$, by setting $f\to \{a_k\}_{k\in{\mathcal Z}}$, where $$a_k= {\int\limits}_0^1 f(x) e^{-2\pi i k x} dx.$$ The inverse Fourier transform in that case is the familiar Fourier expansion $$f(x)={\sum\limits}_{k \in {\mathcal Z}} a_k e^{2\pi i k x}.$$ an the Plancherel’s identity is ${{\left\| f \right\|}_{L^2([0,L])}}={{\left\| \{a_k\} \right\|}_{l^2}}$. Note that here and for the rest of the paper $L^2([0,1])$ is the space of square integrable functions with period one.
The Helmholtz operator is the inverse of the operator $(1-{\partial}_x^2)$ or ${(1-{\partial}_x^2)^{-1}}$. This is well-defined on both $L^2({\mathbf R^1})$ and $L^2(0,1)$.
For (nice decaying) functions $f:{\mathbf R^1}\to{\mathcal C}$, it may be defined via the Fourier transform via $\widehat{{(1-{\partial}_x^2)^{-1}}f}(\xi)=
(1+4\pi^2|\xi|^2)^{-1} \hat{f}(\xi)$ or more explicitly, via $${(1-{\partial}_x^2)^{-1}}f(x)=e^{-|\cdot|}/2 *f(x) ={\frac{1}{2}}{\int\limits}_{-\infty}^\infty e^{-|x-y|}f(y) dy.$$ For the case of finite interval, we consider only the case $(0,1)$ for notational convenience. We remark that the results in the general case can be recovered by a simple change of variables in the equation. Thus for a function $f:(0,1)\to {\mathcal C}$ given by its Fourier expansion $
f(x)= \sum_k a_k e^{2\pi i k x}$, set $${(1-{\partial}_x^2)^{-1}}f (x)= {\sum\limits}_k {\frac{a_k}{1+4\pi^2 k^2}} e^{2\pi i k x}$$
Next, we verify that at least formally, the non viscous Camassa-Holm equation satisfies the conservation law $$\int_I (u^2(t,x) + u_x^2(t,x)) dx=const.$$
Conservation law for
---------------------
More specifically, let $I(t)= \int_I (u^2(t,x) + u_x^2(t,x)) dx$. If $u$ is a solution, which is sufficiently smooth and decaying[^8], we may take time derivative $I'(t)$ to get $$I'(t)= - 2 \int_I (u F(u, u_x) + u_x {\partial}_x [F(u, u_x)]) dx.$$
\[le:5\] Let $u\in C^2({\mathbf R^1})$, with square integrable second derivative. Then $$\int_I (u F(u, u_x) + u_x {\partial}_x [F(u, u_x)]) dx=0$$
This is a simple, although lengthy computation. Note that in what follows below, all the boundary terms are zero, either because $\lim_{|x|\to \infty} u=0$ (in the case $I={\mathbf R^1}$), or by the periodic boundary conditions. We have $$\begin{aligned}
& & \int_I (u F(u, u_x) + u_x {\partial}_x [F(u, u_x)]) dx= \\
& &= \int_I
u \left({\frac{1}{2}}{\partial}_x(u^2)+{\partial}_x{(1-{\partial}_x^2)^{-1}}[u_x^2/2+u^2]\right) dx + \\
& & + \int_I u_x \left({\frac{1}{2}}{\partial}^2_x(u^2)+{\partial}^2_x{(1-{\partial}_x^2)^{-1}}[u_x^2/2+u^2]\right) dx \end{aligned}$$ We start with the terms on the second line above. We have by integration by parts $$\begin{aligned}
& & {\frac{1}{2}} \int_I u_x {\partial}^2_x(u^2) dx= - \int_I u_{xx} u_x u dx = -{\frac{1}{2}} \int_I {\partial}_x[u_x^2] u dx=
{\frac{1}{2}} \int_I u_x^3 dx.\end{aligned}$$ For the second term, use that ${\partial}_x^2{(1-{\partial}_x^2)^{-1}}= -Id +{(1-{\partial}_x^2)^{-1}}$ to get $$\begin{aligned}
& & \int_I u_x {\partial}^2_x{(1-{\partial}_x^2)^{-1}}[u_x^2/2+u^2] dx = - \int_I u_x[u_x^2/2+u^2] dx + \\
& &+
\int_I u_x{(1-{\partial}_x^2)^{-1}}[u_x^2/2+u^2]dx = - {\frac{1}{2}} \int_I u_x^3 dx- \int_I u{\partial}_x {(1-{\partial}_x^2)^{-1}}[u_x^2/2+u^2]dx, \end{aligned}$$ where we have used that $\int_I u_x u^2 dx=0$. Putting everything together yields the Lemma.
Littlewood-Paley projections and function spaces
------------------------------------------------
Fix a smooth, even function $\psi\in C_0^\infty({\mathbf R^1})$, so that $0\leq \psi\leq 1$, $\psi(\xi)=1$, whenever $|\xi|\leq 1$, $\psi$ is decreasing in $(0, \infty)$ and $\psi(\xi)=0$ for all $|\xi|\geq 3/2$. Let also ${\varphi}(\xi):=\psi(\xi)-\psi(2\xi)$. Clearly ${\varphi}(\xi)=1$ for all $3/4\leq |\xi|\leq 1$ and $\textup{supp} {\varphi}\subset 1/2\leq |\xi|\leq 3/2$. For every integer $k$, define the [*Littlewood-Paley operators*]{}, acting on test functions $f\in {\mathcal S}({{\mathbf R}^n})$ via $$\begin{aligned}
& & \widehat{P_{<2^k} f}(\xi):=\psi(2^{-k} \xi) \hat{f}(\xi),\\
& &
\widehat{P_{2^k} f}(\xi):={\varphi}(2^{-k} \xi) \hat{f}(\xi),\end{aligned}$$ Clearly the kernels of these operators are given by $2^{kn} \hat{\psi}(2^k \cdot)$ and $2^{kn} \hat{{\varphi}}(2^k \cdot)$ respectively and thus commute with differential operators. It is also easy to see that since $\|2^{kn} \hat{\psi}(2^k \cdot)\|_{L^1}=C\|\hat{\psi}\|_{L^1}$ and similar for the other kernel, [*$P_{<2^k}, P_{2^k}$ are bounded on $L^p$ spaces for all $1\leq p\leq \infty$* ]{} with bounds independent of $k$.
The Calderón commutator theorem states that the commutator\
$[P_{2^k}, a] f:=P_{2^k}(a f)- a P_{2^k} f$ acts as a smoothing operator of order one[^9]. More precisely, we shall need a (standard) estimates of the form $$\begin{aligned}
& & {{\left\| [P_{2^k}, a] f \right\|}_{L^r}}\leq C 2^{-k} {{\left\| \nabla a \right\|}_{L^q}}{{\left\| f \right\|}_{L^p}},\\
& & {{\left\| [P_{<2^k}, a] f \right\|}_{L^r}}\leq C 2^{-k} {{\left\| \nabla a \right\|}_{L^q}}{{\left\| f \right\|}_{L^p}}\\
& & {{\left\| [P_{2^k}, a]\nabla f \right\|}_{L^r}}\leq C {{\left\| \nabla a \right\|}_{L^q}}{{\left\| f \right\|}_{L^p}},\\
& & {{\left\| [P_{<2^k}, a]\nabla f \right\|}_{L^r}}\leq C {{\left\| \nabla a \right\|}_{L^q}}{{\left\| f \right\|}_{L^p}},\end{aligned}$$ whenever $1\leq r, q, p\leq \infty$ and $1/r=1/p+1/q$.
This whole theory can be developed for the case of finite interval, with some notable differences, some of which we discuss below.
The Littlewood-Paley operators acting on $L^2([0,1])$ are defined via $$P_{\leq N} f (x) = {\sum\limits}_{k: |k|\leq N} a_k e^{2\pi i k x},$$ that is $P_{\leq N}$ truncates the terms in the Fourier expansion with frequencies $k: |k|> N$. Clearly $P_{\leq N}$ is a projection operator. More generally, we may define for all $0\leq N<M\leq \infty$ $$P_{N\leq \cdot\leq M}f(x) = {\sum\limits}_{k: N\leq |k|\leq M} a_k e^{2\pi i k x}.$$ It is an elementary exercise in orthogonality, that whenever $[N_1, M_1]\cap [N_2, M_2]=\emptyset$, then $\int_0^1
P_{N_1\leq \cdot\leq M_1}f(x)P_{N_2\leq \cdot\leq M_2}g(x)dx=0$.
For products of three functions, we have the following
\[le:80\] Let $f, g, h:[0,1]\to {\mathcal C}$, with Fourier coefficients $\{f_n\}, \{g_n\}, \{h_n\}$ respectively. Then $$\int_0^1 f(x) g(x) h(x) dx={\sum\limits}_{m, k\in{\mathcal Z}} f_m g_{-m-k} h_k.$$ As a consequence, for every $N>>1$, $$\label{eq:98}
\int_0^1 (P_{>N} f(x)) g(x) (P_{<N/2} h(x)) dx =
\int_0^1 (P_{>N} f(x)) (P_{>N/2} g(x)) (P_{<N/2} h(x)) dx$$
The proof is based on the Fourier expansion and the fact that $\int_0^1 e^{2\pi i n x} dx ={\delta}_n$. More specifically, $$\begin{aligned}
& & \int_0^1 f(x) g(x) h(x) dx = {\sum\limits}_{m,n, k\in{\mathcal Z}} f_m g_{n}
h_k {\int\limits}_0^1 e^{2\pi i (m+n+k) x} dx = \\
& & =
{\sum\limits}_{m,n, k\in{\mathcal Z}} f_m g_{n} h_k {\delta}_{m+n+k}= {\sum\limits}_{m, k\in{\mathcal Z}} f_m g_{-m-k} h_k.\end{aligned}$$ For , observe that if $|m|>N$ and $|k|<N/2$, then $|-m-k|>N/2$.
Our next lemma is a well-known Sobolev embedding type result for the spaces $L^q(0,1)$. We state it in the form of the [*Bernstein inequality*]{}, since this is what we use later on. One can also formulate a version in terms of the Sobolev spaces defined below.
\[le:bern\] Let $N$ be an integer and $f:[0,1]\to {\mathcal C}$. Then, for every $1\leq p\leq 2 \leq q\leq \infty$, $${{\left\| P_{<N} f \right\|}_{L^q}}\leq N^{1/p-1/q} {{\left\| f \right\|}_{L^p}}.$$
First, we establish the lemma for $p=2$, $q=\infty$. Let $f=\sum_n f_n e^{2\pi i n x}$. Then $${{\left\| P_{<N} f \right\|}_{L^\infty}}\leq \sum_{n :|n|<N} |f_n|\leq N^{1/2}
(\sum_{n :|n|<N} |f_n|^2)^{1/2}\leq N^{1/2} {{\left\| f \right\|}_{L^2}}.$$ Since by Plancherel’s theorem $P_{<N}:L^2\to L^2$, it follows that ${{\left\| P_N \right\|}_{L^q\to L^2}}\leq N^{1/2-1/q}$. The rest of the range follows by duality.
Introduce some function spaces. Take $$\begin{aligned}
& &
\dot{H}^s({\mathbf R^1}) = \{f:{{\mathbf R}^n}\to {\mathcal C}: (\int_{{\mathbf R^1}} |\hat{f}(\xi)|^2|\xi|^{2s}d\xi)^{1/2}<
\infty\}, \\
& & H^s({\mathbf R^1}) = L^2({\mathbf R^1})\cap \dot{H}^s({\mathbf R^1}), \\
& & \dot{H}^s(0,1) = \{f:(0,1)\to {\mathcal C}:
({\sum\limits}_{k\in {\mathcal Z}}|a_k|^2|k|^{2s} )^{1/2}<
\infty\}, \\
& &
H^s((0,1)) = L^2(0,1)\cap \dot{H}^s(0,1).\end{aligned}$$ By the Plancherel’s theorem ${{\left\| P_{2^k} f \right\|}_{\dot{H}^s}}\sim 2^{ks}
{{\left\| P_{2^k} f \right\|}_{L^2}}$ and ${{\left\| P_{>2^k} f \right\|}_{\dot{H}^s}}\gtrsim 2^{ks}
{{\left\| P_{2^k} f \right\|}_{L^2}}$.\
[**Remark:** ]{}We note that while the Littlewood-Paley operators acting on functions in $L^2({{\mathbf R}^n})$ enjoy the Calerón commutation estimates, [*such commutator estimate fails for Littlewood-Paley operators acting on functions in $L^2(I)$*]{}.
We will also frequently use the fractional differentiation operators of order $s: -\infty<s<\infty$, defined via $$\widehat{|{\partial}|^s f}(\xi):= |\xi|^s \hat{f}(\xi),$$ in the case of whole line and $$|{\partial}|^s ({\sum\limits}_k a_k e^{2\pi i k x}):= {\sum\limits}_{k\neq 0} a_k |k|^s e^{2\pi i k x}.$$ in the case $I=(0,1)$. We would like to point out that $|{\partial}|^s:H^s_0\to L^2_0$ is an isometry and in general $${{\left\| |{\partial}|^{s_2} u \right\|}_{\dot{H}^{s_1}}}= {{\left\| u \right\|}_{\dot{H}^{s_1+s_2}}}.$$
As a corollary of Lemma \[le:bern\], we have that for all ${\sigma}>0$, there is $C_{\sigma}$, so that $$\label{eq:sob}
{{\left\| u \right\|}_{L^\infty(0,1)}}\leq |\int_0^1 u(x) dx|+C_{\sigma}{{\left\| u \right\|}_{\dot{H}^{1/2+{\sigma}}}}.$$
Kato-Ponce Lemma in the finite interval case
--------------------------------------------
Recall the Kato-Ponce product estimates, that is for all $s\geq 0$ and $1\leq p, q_1, r_1, q_2, r_2 \leq \infty: 1/p=1/q_1+1/r_1=1/q_2+1/r_2$, then $${{\left\| |{\partial}|^s (f g) \right\|}_{L^p({{\mathbf R}^n})}}\leq C_s({{\left\| |{\partial}|^s f \right\|}_{L^{q_1}({{\mathbf R}^n})}}{{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^{r_1}({{\mathbf R}^n})}}+
{{\left\| f \right\|}_{L^{r_2}({{\mathbf R}^n})}}{{\left\| |{\partial}|^s g \right\|}_{L^{q_2}({{\mathbf R}^n})}}).$$ Unfortunately, we do not know of an analogue of such fractional differentiation product estimate for the case of finite interval. However, when $s$ is an integer, we have a similar, if somewhat weaker estimate.
\[le:KP\] Let $s\geq 0$ be an integer and $1\leq p, q_1, r_1, q_2, r_2 \leq \infty: 1/p=1/q_1+1/r_2=1/q_2+1/r_1$. Then for any $X\subset {{\mathbf R}^n}$, $${{\left\| {\partial}^s (f g) \right\|}_{L^p(X)}}\leq C_s({{\left\| {\partial}^s f \right\|}_{L^{q_1}(X)}}+
{{\left\| f \right\|}_{L^{q_2}(X)}})( {{\left\| {\partial}^s g \right\|}_{L^{r_1}(X)}}+{{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^{r_2}(X)}}).$$
Recall the differentiation formula $${\partial}^s (f g)= {\sum\limits}_{s_1=0}^s {\frac{s!}{s_1! (s-s_1)!}} {\partial}^{s_1} f {\partial}^{s-s_1} g.$$ and the Young’s inequality $ab \leq a^p/p+b^q/q$ for any $1<p,q<\infty: 1/p+1/q=1$. We have $${{\left\| {\partial}^s (f g) \right\|}_{L^p(X)}}\leq 2^s {\sup\limits}_{0\leq s_1\leq s} {{\left\| {\partial}^{s_1} f {\partial}^{s-s_1} g \right\|}_{L^p}}.$$ Thus, it will suffice to show that for any $s_1\in[0,s]$, $${{\left\| {\partial}^{s_1} f {\partial}^{s-s_1} g \right\|}_{L^p}}\leq C_s ({{\left\| {\partial}^s f \right\|}_{L^{q_1}(X)}}+
{{\left\| f \right\|}_{L^{q_2}(X)}})( {{\left\| {\partial}^s g \right\|}_{L^{r_1}(X)}}+{{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^{r_2}(X)}}).$$ Fix $s_1$ and denote ${\alpha}=s_1/s\in[0,1]$. If ${\alpha}=0$ or ${\alpha}=1$, an application of the Hölder’s inequality gives the result. If ${\alpha}\in(0,1)$, then in fact $1/s\leq {\alpha}<1-1/s$.\
Let $\tilde{q}, \tilde{r}$ be determined by $$\begin{aligned}
& &
\tilde{q}^{-1}={\alpha}q_1^{-1}+(1-{\alpha}) q_2^{-1},\\
& &
\tilde{r}^{-1}=(1-{\alpha})r_1^{-1}+{\alpha}r_2^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Clearly $\tilde{q}^{-1}+\tilde{r}^{-1}=p^{-1}$ and by Hölder’s inequality and convexity of the norms $$\begin{aligned}
& &
{{\left\| {\partial}^{s_1} f {\partial}^{s-s_1} g \right\|}_{L^p}}\leq {{\left\| {\partial}^{s_1} f \right\|}_{L^{\tilde{q}}}}
{{\left\| {\partial}^{s-s_1} g \right\|}_{L^{\tilde{r}}}}\leq
{{\left\| {\partial}^{s} f \right\|}_{L^{q_1}}}^{\alpha}{{\left\| f \right\|}_{L^{q_2}}}^{1-{\alpha}}
{{\left\| {\partial}^{s} g \right\|}_{L^{r_1}}}^{1-{\alpha}} {{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^{r_2}}}^{{\alpha}}. \end{aligned}$$ By Young’s inequality, the last expression is bounded by $$C_{\alpha}({{\left\| {\partial}^{s} f \right\|}_{L^{q_1}}}+{{\left\| f \right\|}_{L^{q_2}}})({{\left\| {\partial}^{s} g \right\|}_{L^{r_1}}}+
{{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^{r_2}}}),$$ where $C_{\alpha}$ may be taken $2 \max({\alpha}^{-2}, (1-{\alpha})^{-2})\leq 2 s^2$.
Attractors {#sec:attractors}
----------
In this section, we offer some basic definitions and elementary properties of attractors.
For an initial value problem for well-posed evolution equation, $$\frac{d}{dt} u(t)=F(u(t)), \ \ \ u(0)=u_0,$$ defined on a Hilbert space $H$, consider the solution semigroup $\{S(t)\}_{t \geq 0}$ by $S(t)u_0=u(t)$. $S(t)$ maps $H$ into $H$, satisfies the semigroup properties $$S(t+s)=S(t) S(s), S(0)=Id$$ and is continuous in the initial data for each $t \geq 0$.
Let $S(t)$ be a $C_0$ semigroup, acting on a normed space $H$. Then
- $S(t)$ is called [*point dissipative*]{} if there is a bounded set $B\subset H$ such that for any $u_0 \in H,
S(t)u_0 \in B$ for all sufficiently large $t \geq 0$. That is $${\sup\limits}_{u_0\in B}\limsup_{t\to \infty} {{\left\| S(t) u_0 \right\|}_{H}}<\infty.$$
- $S(t)$ is called [*asymptotically compact*]{} in $H$ if $S(t_n)u_n$ has a convergent subsequence for any [*bounded sequence*]{} $u_n$ when $t_n \to +\infty$.
Our next definition gives a precise meaning to the notion of attractor.
${\mathcal A}\subset H$ is called a global attractor for the evolution equation if it is compact, invariant ($S(t) {\mathcal A}={\mathcal A}, \ t \geq 0$) and attracts every bounded set $X$ ( $S(t) X \to {\mathcal A}, \ t \to \infty$).
A classical result in dynamical systems is that an attractor exists, if $S(t)_{t \ge 0}$ is both point dissipative and asymptotically compact.
Next, we recall the Riesz-Rellich Criteria for precompactness, see Theorem XIII.66, p. 248, [@SimoniV]).
\[rrthm\] Let $S \subseteq L^p({{\mathbf R}^n})$ with $1 \le p <\infty$. Then $S$ is precompact in $L^p({{\mathbf R}^n})$ if and only if the following conditions are satisfied:
\(1) $S$ is bounded in $L^p({{\mathbf R}^n})$;
\(2) $f \to 0$ in $L^p$ sense at infinity uniformly in $S$, i.e., for any $\epsilon$, there is a bounded set $K \subset {{\mathbf R}^n}$ so that for all $f \in S$: $ \int_{{{\mathbf R}^n}\backslash K} |f(x)|^p dx \le \epsilon^p;
$
\(3) $f(\cdot -y) \to f$ uniformly in $S$ as $y \to 0$, i.e., for any $\epsilon$, there is $\delta$ so that $f\in S$ and $|y|<\delta$ imply that $ \int_{{{\mathbf R}^n}} |f(x-y) -f(x)|^p dx \le \epsilon^p.
$
As shown in [@Stanislavova], [@wang] (see also Proposition 3 in [@Stanislavova1]), we may replace the difficult to verify condition $(3)$ in the Riesz-Rellich Criteria above by an equivalent condition, which basically says that the ($L^2$ or the $H^1$) mass of the high-frequency component has to go uniformly to zero. The exact formulation is
\[prop:3\] Assume that
- ${\sup\limits}_n {{\left\| u_n(t_n,.) \right\|}_{H^1({{\mathbf R}^n})}} \leq C $
- $\limsup\limits_n {{\left\| u_n(t_n,.) \right\|}_{H^1(|x|>N)}} \to 0 \ {\textup as} \ N \to \infty$
- $\limsup\limits_n {{\left\| P_{>N}u_n(t_n,.) \right\|}_{H^1({{\mathbf R}^n})}} \to 0 \ {\textup as} \ N \to \infty$
Then the sequence $\{u_n(t_n,.)\}$ is precompact in $H^1({{\mathbf R}^n})$. Same results hold, if one replaces $H^1({{\mathbf R}^n})$ by $L^2({{\mathbf R}^n})$ everywhere in the statement above.
In the case of finite domains, one has of course the second condition automatically satisfied and we have
\[prop:4\] For the sequence $\{u_n\}\subset H^1(0,1)$, assume
- ${\sup\limits}_n {{\left\| u_n(t_n,.) \right\|}_{H^1(0,1)}} \leq C $
- $\limsup\limits_n {{\left\| P_{>N} u_n(t_n,.) \right\|}_{H^1(0,1)}}\to 0 \ \textup{as}\ N \to \infty$.
then the sequence $\{u_n(t_n,.)\}$ is precompact in $H^1(0,1)$.
We reproduce the short proof of Proposition \[prop:4\].
By the Plancherel’s theorem, it suffices to show that $b^k=\{a_n^k\}$, $k=1, \ldots$ is precompact in the weighted space $l^2_s$ if it is uniformly bounded and\
$\lim_{N\to \infty}
\limsup_k (\sum_{n:|n|>N} |n|^{2s} |a_n^k|^2)^{1/2}=0$.
By the uniform boundedness of $\{b^k\}$ and the reflexivity of $l^2_s$, we have a weak limit $b=\{a_n\}\in l^2_s$ of some subsequence of $b^k$. Without loss of generality, assume $b^k\to b$ weakly. In particular, for all $n$, $a_n^k \to_k a_n$. We will show that actually ${\lim\limits}_k{{\left\| b^k-b \right\|}_{l^2_s}}=0$.
Fix ${\sigma}>0$ and find $N$, so that for all, but finitely many $k$ $$(\sum_{n:|n|>N} |n|^{2s} |a_n^k|^2)^{1/2}\leq {\sigma}/3.$$ Next, find $N_1$, so that $$(\sum_{n:|n|>N} |n|^{2s} |a_n|^2)^{1/2}\leq {\sigma}/3.$$ Finally, find $k_0$, so that for all $-\max(N, N_1)\leq n\leq \max(N, N_1)$ and for all $k>k_0$, we have $|a_n^k-a_n|\leq {\sigma}/(10 \max(N, N_1))$. We conclude that for all but finitely many $k>k_0$, we have $${{\left\| b^k-b \right\|}_{l^2_s}}\leq {\sigma}.$$
Global well-posedness for the viscous Camassa-Holm equation {#sec:90}
===========================================================
In this section, we show the global well-posedness for in both the finite interval case and the whole line case. The methods are identical in both cases, so we treat it in the same proof.
As we have mentioned earlier the unbounded operator $A: Au=-{\partial}_x (a(x)u_x)$, satisfying defines a $C_0$ (and in fact analytic) semigroup, see for example [@SimonII], p. 252.\
This allows us to reformulate in an equivalent integral equation form[^10] $$\label{eq:15}
u = e^{-t A} u_0-{\int\limits}_0^t e^{(s-t)A} F(u, u_x)(s) ds.$$ Our first step then will be to show a local well-posedness result.
Local well-posedness for {#sec:lwp}
-------------------------
Regarding the simpler equation , we have taken the classical approach for the heat equation outlined in [@McOwen]. We will use the following lemma, which is a compilation of Theorem 3 (p. 298-300) and the discussion in Section 11.2.b, [@McOwen].
\[le:17\] Suppose $S(t)=e^{-t L}$ is a $C_0$-semigroup acting on both $L^2(I)$ and $\dot{H}^1(I)$. Assume also $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:c10}
& & {{\left\| S(t) g \right\|}_{\dot{H}^1(I)}}\leq C t^{-1/2} {{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^2}}.\end{aligned}$$ For the integral equation $$u(t)= S(t) u_0 +{\int\limits}_0^t S(t-s) F(u)(s) ds,$$ there exists time $T>0$ depending only on ${{\left\| u_0 \right\|}_{H^1}}$, such that the integral equation has an unique local solution $u\in C([0,T], H^1)$ provided $$\label{eq:163}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
{{\left\| F(u)-F(v) \right\|}_{L^2}}\leq M_R{{\left\| u-v \right\|}_{H^1}} \\
\textup{whenever}{\quad\quad}{{\left\| u \right\|}_{H^1}},{{\left\| v \right\|}_{H^1}}\leq R.
\end{array}
\right.$$
We first show the proof of Lemma \[le:17\] and then verify for the semigroup $S(t)=e^{-tA}$ and for the Camassa-Holm nonlinearity $F(u, u_x)$. ’
(Lemma \[le:17\]) We set a fixed point argument for the integral equation at hand. Set $X^R_T=\{u\in C([0,T), H^1(I)), \sup_{0<t<T}{{\left\| u(t, \cdot \right\|}_{H^1}}\leq R \}$ and the map $${\Lambda}u(t, \cdot) = S(t) u_0 +{\int\limits}_0^t S(t-s) F(u)(s) ds.$$ We need to show that for appropriate $R=R({{\left\| u_0 \right\|}_{H^1}})$ and $T=T(R)$, ${\Lambda}:X^R_T\to X^R_T$ is a contraction. Take $R=10 {{\left\| u_0 \right\|}_{H^1}}$. To see ${\Lambda}:X^R_T\to X^R_T$, we have by and (applied for the case $v=0$), $$\begin{aligned}
& &{{\left\| {\Lambda}u(t, \cdot) \right\|}_{H^1}}\leq {{\left\| S(t)u_0 \right\|}_{H^1}}+
\|{\int\limits}_0^t e^{(s-t)L} F(u)(s) ds\|_{L^2}+
C \|{\int\limits}_0^t e^{(s-t)L} F(u)(s) ds\|_{\dot{H}^1} \\
& & \leq C{{\left\| u_0 \right\|}_{H^1}}+
{\int\limits}_0^t {{\left\| F(u)(s, \cdot) \right\|}_{L^2}}ds + {\int\limits}_0^t {\frac{{{\left\| F(u)(s, \cdot) \right\|}_{L^2}}}{\sqrt{t-s}}} ds\leq \\
& & \leq C{{\left\| u_0 \right\|}_{H^1}}+ C M({{\left\| u \right\|}_{H^1}}) (t+\sqrt{t}){\sup\limits}_{0<t<T} {{\left\| u \right\|}_{H^1}}. \end{aligned}$$ Clearly choosing $T=T(R)$ small enough, $0<t<T$ and $\sup_{0<t<T} {{\left\| u \right\|}_{H^1}}\leq R$ will guarantee that the right hand side is less than $R$. One verifies similarly the contraction property of ${\Lambda}:X^R_T\to X^R_T$, by using the full strength of .
First, we verify that $e^{-tA}$ is a semigroup on $\dot{H}^1$. Observe that ${{\left\| u \right\|}_{\dot{H}^1}}\sim {{\left\| A^{1/2} u \right\|}_{L^2}}$. Indeed, $${{\left\| A^{1/2} u \right\|}_{L^2(I)}}^2 = {\langle Au,u \rangle}=\int_I a(x) u_x^2 dx\sim {{\left\| u_x \right\|}_{L^2}}^2,$$ by . Then $${{\left\| e^{-t A} f \right\|}_{\dot{H}^1}}\sim {{\left\| A^{1/2} e^{-t A} f \right\|}_{L^2}}=
{{\left\| e^{-t A} A^{1/2} f \right\|}_{L^2}}\leq C{{\left\| A^{1/2} f \right\|}_{L^2}}\sim {{\left\| f \right\|}_{\dot{H}^1}}.$$
The estimate is a standard property of analytic semigroups, see Corollary 1 and Corollary 2, [@SimonII], p. 252. We choose to deduce it as a simple consequence of the functional calculus for the self adjoint operator $A$.
We have ${{\left\| e^{-tA} g \right\|}_{\dot{H}^1}}\sim {{\left\| A^{1/2} e^{-tA} g \right\|}_{L^2}} = t^{-1/2}
{{\left\| f(tA) g \right\|}_{L^2}}$, where $f(y)=e^{-y}y^{1/2}$ is a well-defined bounded function on the spectrum of $A$. It follows that $${{\left\| e^{-tA} g \right\|}_{\dot{H}^1}}\leq Ct^{-1/2} {{\left\| f \right\|}_{L^\infty(0,\infty)}} {{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^2}}
\leq Ct^{-1/2} {{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^2}},$$ which is .
It remains to establish for the Camassa-Holm nonlinearity $F$. We actually prove a little more general statement.
\[le:20\] Let $F$ be the nonlinearity for the Camassa-Holm equation, as defined earlier. Then for all nonnegative integers $s$, we have $$\label{eq:164}
{{\left\| F(u)-F(v) \right\|}_{H^s}}\leq M ({{\left\| u \right\|}_{H^{s+1}}}+{{\left\| v \right\|}_{H^{s+1}}}) {{\left\| u-v \right\|}_{H^{s+1}}}.$$
We have by Lemma \[le:KP\] and the Sobolev embedding $L^\infty(I)\hookrightarrow H^{1/2+}(I)
\hookrightarrow H^{s+1}(I)$, $$\begin{aligned}
& & {{\left\| {\partial}_x(u^2)-{\partial}_x(v^2) \right\|}_{\dot{H}^s}}\sim {{\left\| |{\partial}_x^{s+1}[(u-v)(u+v)] \right\|}_{L^2}}\leq \\
& &\leq
C( {{\left\| |{\partial}_x^{s+1} (u-v) \right\|}_{L^2}}+{{\left\| (u-v) \right\|}_{L^\infty}})({{\left\| u+v \right\|}_{L^\infty}}+
{{\left\| |{\partial}_x^{s+1}(u+v) \right\|}_{L^2}})\leq \\
& & \leq M {{\left\| u-v \right\|}_{H^{s+1}}} ({{\left\| u \right\|}_{H^{s+1}}}+{{\left\| v \right\|}_{H^{s+1}}}). \end{aligned}$$ For the second term in $F$, consider first $s\geq 1$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
& & {{\left\| {\partial}_x{(1-{\partial}_x^2)^{-1}}(u_x^2-v_x^2) \right\|}_{\dot{H}^s}}\leq C
{{\left\| |{\partial}_x^{s-1}[ (u_x-v_x) (u_x+v_x)] \right\|}_{L^2}} \leq \\
& & \leq
C({{\left\| |{\partial}_x^{s}(u-v) \right\|}_{L^\infty}}+ {{\left\| u_x-v_x \right\|}_{L^2}})
({{\left\| u \right\|}_{H^1}}+{{\left\| v \right\|}_{H^1}}+
{{\left\| {\partial}_x^s u \right\|}_{L^\infty}}+ {{\left\| {\partial}_x^s v \right\|}_{L^\infty}})\leq \\
& & \leq C {{\left\| u-v \right\|}_{H^{s+1/2+}}}( {{\left\| u \right\|}_{H^{s+1/2+}}}+{{\left\| v \right\|}_{H^{s+1/2+}}})\leq
C {{\left\| u-v \right\|}_{H^{s+1}}}( {{\left\| u \right\|}_{H^{s+1}}}+{{\left\| v \right\|}_{H^{s+1}}}). \end{aligned}$$ When $s=0$, use either $${\partial}_x{(1-{\partial}_x^2)^{-1}}f(x)={\frac{1}{2}} {\int\limits}sgn(x-y) e^{-|x-y|} f(y) dy,$$ or $${\partial}_x{(1-{\partial}_x^2)^{-1}}f(x)={\sum\limits}_n {\frac{2\pi i n}{1+4\pi^2 n^2}} f_n e^{2\pi i n x},$$ to conclude that ${\partial}_x{(1-{\partial}_x^2)^{-1}}:L^1(I)\to L^2(I)$. It follows that $${{\left\| {\partial}_x{(1-{\partial}_x^2)^{-1}}(u_x^2-v_x^2) \right\|}_{L^2(I)}}
\lesssim {{\left\| (u_x-v_x)(u_x+v_x) \right\|}_{L^1}}\lesssim {{\left\| u-v \right\|}_{H^1}}({{\left\| u \right\|}_{H^1}}+{{\left\| v \right\|}_{H^1}}).$$ For the third term in $F$, we easily estimate $$\begin{aligned}
& & {{\left\| {\partial}_x{(1-{\partial}_x^2)^{-1}}(u^2-v^2) \right\|}_{\dot{H}^s}}\leq C {{\left\| u-v \right\|}_{H^{\max(s-1,0)}}}({{\left\| u \right\|}_{L^\infty}}+
{{\left\| v \right\|}_{L^\infty}})\leq \\
& &\leq C {{\left\| u-v \right\|}_{H^{s+1}}}({{\left\| u \right\|}_{H^{s+1}}}+{{\left\| u \right\|}_{H^{s+1}}}).\end{aligned}$$
Note that one can represent $F(u)={\Lambda}(u,u)$, where ${\Lambda}(u,v)$ is the bilinear form $${\Lambda}(u,v)= {\frac{1}{2}}{\partial}_x(u v)+{\partial}_x{(1-{\partial}_x^2)^{-1}}[u_x v_x/2+u v].$$ It is easy to see that one can show (with the same exact proof) for every integer $s\geq 0$ $${{\left\| {\Lambda}({\varphi},\psi) \right\|}_{H^s}}\leq C{{\left\| {\varphi}\right\|}_{H^{s+1}}}{{\left\| \psi \right\|}_{H^{s+1}}}.$$ A bilinear interpolation between the estimates above, (which are valid for all integers), yields the corresponding estimates for non integer values of $s$ as well. Setting ${\varphi}=\psi=u$, we obtain
\[cor:1\] Let $s\geq 0$ and $F$ be the Camassa-Holm nonlinearity. Then $${{\left\| F(u) \right\|}_{H^s}}\leq M {{\left\| u \right\|}_{H^{s+1}}}^2.$$
$H^2$ smoothness of the local solutions {#sec:smoothness}
---------------------------------------
In this section, we show the $H^2$ smoothness of the local $H^1$ solution constructed above. Beside the obvious importance of having this extra smoothness information, this will enable us (see Section \[sec:global\] below) to iterate the local solution to a global one by utilizing the conservation (or rather dissipation) of the $H^1$ energy. We have
\[prop:1\] Let $u$ be the $H^1$ solution to , with life span $T$. Then there exists a constant $C_{\varepsilon}$, so that for all $0<t<T$, $u\in C((0,t), H^2(I))$ and as a result $${{\left\| u(t, \cdot) \right\|}_{H^2(I)}}\leq {\frac{C_{\varepsilon}}{\sqrt{t}}} {{\left\| u_0 \right\|}_{H^1}}+ C_{\varepsilon}t^{1/4}
{\sup\limits}_{0<s<t}
{{\left\| u(s, \cdot) \right\|}_{H^1}}^{3}+ C_{\varepsilon}{{\left\| u(t, \cdot) \right\|}_{H^1}}.$$
The argument required for the proof is to rerun again the fixed point method, this time in the smoother space $H^2(I)$. However, this amounts to showing $H^2$ [*a priori*]{} estimates for the solution, which is what we concentrate on.
Apply $A$ to . This is justified, since the right hand side of is in the domain of $A$ by the semigroup properties of $e^{-t A}$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
{{\left\| Au \right\|}_{L^2}}\leq {{\left\| e^{-tA} A u_0 \right\|}_{L^2}}+C {\int\limits}_0^t {{\left\| e^{(s-t)A} A F(u)(s) \right\|}_{L^2(I)}} ds\end{aligned}$$ But $${{\left\| e^{-tA} A u_0 \right\|}_{L^2}}= {{\left\| e^{-tA} A^{1/2} (A^{1/2} u_0) \right\|}_{L^2}}\leq C t^{-1/2}
{{\left\| A^{1/2} u_0 \right\|}_{L^2}}\sim C t^{-1/2} {{\left\| u_0 \right\|}_{H^1}}.$$ On the other hand, by the properties of the functional calculus for $A$ $$\label{eq:901}
{{\left\| e^{-z A} A F \right\|}_{L^2}}=|z|^{-1} {{\left\| f(A) F \right\|}_{L^2}}\leq C |z|^{-1} ({\sup\limits}_{y>0} |e^{-y}y| )
{{\left\| F \right\|}_{L^2}}\leq C |z|^{-1} {{\left\| F \right\|}_{L^2}},$$ for all $z>0$, while $$\label{eq:902}
{{\left\| e^{-z A} A F \right\|}_{L^2}}\leq C{{\left\| A F \right\|}_{L^2}}\leq C_{\varepsilon}{{\left\| F \right\|}_{H^2}}.$$ The last inequality can be checked easily as follows $$\begin{aligned}
& & {{\left\| A u \right\|}_{L^2}}^2=\int (a u_{xx}+a' u_x)^2 dx= \int (a^2 u_{xx}^2 - a a'' u_x^2) dx\leq \\
& &\leq
{{\left\| a \right\|}_{L^\infty}}^2 {{\left\| u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}^2+{{\left\| a \right\|}_{L^\infty}}{{\left\| a'' \right\|}_{L^\infty}}
{{\left\| u_{x} \right\|}_{L^2}}^2\lesssim {{\left\| u \right\|}_{H^2}}^2.\end{aligned}$$ A complex interpolation between and yields $${{\left\| e^{-z A} A F \right\|}_{L^2}}\leq C |z|^{-7/8} {{\left\| F \right\|}_{H^{1/4}}}.$$ Plugging this estimate back in the integral term yields $$\begin{aligned}
& & {\int\limits}_0^t {{\left\| e^{(s-t)A} A F(u)(s) \right\|}_{L^2(I)}} ds\leq C {\int\limits}_0^t
{\frac{{{\left\| F(s, \cdot) \right\|}_{H^{1/4}}}}{(t-s)^{7/8}}}ds\leq C t^{1/8} \sup_{0<s<t}
{{\left\| F(s, \cdot) \right\|}_{H^{1/4}}} .\end{aligned}$$ According to Corollary \[cor:1\], ${{\left\| F(s, \cdot) \right\|}_{H^{1/4}}}\leq C {{\left\| u \right\|}_{H^{5/4}}}^2$. By the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality, ${{\left\| u \right\|}_{H^{5/4}}}\leq {{\left\| u \right\|}_{H^2}}^{1/4}{{\left\| u \right\|}_{H^1}}^{3/4}$.
Putting everything together $$\begin{aligned}
{{\left\| Au(t, \cdot) \right\|}_{L^2}} &\leq & {\frac{C}{\sqrt{t}}}{{\left\| u_0 \right\|}_{H^1}}+ C t^{1/8} {\sup\limits}_{0<s<t}
{{\left\| u(s, \cdot) \right\|}_{H^2}}^{1/2}{{\left\| u(s, \cdot) \right\|}_{H^1}}^{3/2}\leq \\
& &\leq
{\frac{C}{\sqrt{t}}}{{\left\| u_0 \right\|}_{H^1}}+ C_{\sigma}t^{1/4} {\sup\limits}_{0<s<t}
{{\left\| u(s, \cdot) \right\|}_{H^1}}^{3}+ {\sigma}{\sup\limits}_{0<s<t} {{\left\| u(s, \cdot) \right\|}_{H^2}}.\end{aligned}$$ for any ${\sigma}>0$ and some $C_{\sigma}$.
Observe now, ${{\left\| Au \right\|}_{L^2}}^2\geq {\varepsilon}^2 {{\left\| u \right\|}_{H^2}}^2/2-C {{\left\| u \right\|}_{H^1}}^2$. Indeed, $$\begin{aligned}
& & {{\left\| Au \right\|}_{L^2}}^2= \int (a^2 u_{xx}^2 +(a')^2 u_x^2 +2 a a' u_x u_{xx}) dx\geq \\
& & \geq \int {\frac{a^2}{2}}
u_{xx}^2 dx - \int (a')^2 u_x^2 dx \geq {\varepsilon}^2 {{\left\| u \right\|}_{H^2}}^2/2-C {{\left\| u \right\|}_{H^1}}^2.\end{aligned}$$ Let $G(t)={\sup\limits}_{0<s\leq t} {{\left\| u(s, \cdot) \right\|}_{H^2}}$. Taking into account the last inequality provides $$G(t)\leq {\frac{C_{\varepsilon}}{\sqrt{t}}}{{\left\| u_0 \right\|}_{H^1}}+ C_{{\sigma},{\varepsilon}} t^{1/4} {\sup\limits}_{0<s<t}
{{\left\| u(s, \cdot) \right\|}_{H^1}}^{3}+ C{{\left\| u(t, \cdot) \right\|}_{H^1}}+ C_{\varepsilon}{\sigma}G(t).$$ Choosing appropriately small ${\sigma}:C_{\varepsilon}{\sigma}<1/2 $, allows us to hide the last term and as a result $${{\left\| u(t, \cdot) \right\|}_{H^2}}\leq G(t)\leq {\frac{C_{{\varepsilon}}}{\sqrt{t}}}{{\left\| u_0 \right\|}_{H^1}}+ C_{\varepsilon}t^{1/4}
{\sup\limits}_{0<s<t}
{{\left\| u(s, \cdot) \right\|}_{H^1}}^{3}+ C_{\varepsilon}{{\left\| u(t, \cdot) \right\|}_{H^1}}.$$
[**Remark**]{} The above argument can be extended (with no additional smoothness or otherwise assumptions on $A$) to show that $u\in \cap_{m=0}^\infty D(A^m)$ with the corresponding estimates (away from the zero) for ${{\left\| A^m u \right\|}_{L^2}}$ as in Proposition \[prop:1\]. This is the usual regularity result that one expects for parabolic equations.
Global well-posedness for {#sec:global}
--------------------------
Our approach to global well-posedness for the parabolic problem is to iterate the local well-posedness result to a global one.
We will show that for the local $H^1$ solution, produced in Section \[sec:lwp\], one has the estimate $$\label{eq:21}
{{\left\| u(t, \cdot) \right\|}_{H^1}}\leq I(0) e^{C t} + C_{\varepsilon}(e^{C t}-1)
{\sup\limits}_{0\leq s\leq t} {{\left\| g(s, \cdot) \right\|}_{L^2}}^2.$$ for every $0<t<T$, where $T$ is its lifespan.
Assuming , let us prove that the solution is global. Fix $u_0\in H^1(I)$ and define for every (sufficiently large) integer $n$ $$T_n=\sup\{ t:H^1 \textup{solution is defined in }
(0,t)\ \&\ {\sup\limits}_{0<t_1<t} {{\left\| u(t_1, \cdot) \right\|}_{H^1}}<n\},$$ and $T^*=\limsup_n T_n$.
If $T^*=\infty$, there is nothing to prove, the solution is global. If $T^*<\infty$, it must be that $\limsup_{t\to T^*}{{\left\| u(t, \cdot) \right\|}_{H^1}}=\infty$. On the other hand, take any sequence $t_n\to T^*$. By , $$\limsup_{n\to \infty} {{\left\| u(t_n,
\cdot) \right\|}_{H^1}}\leq I(0) e^{C T^*} + C_{\varepsilon}(e^{C T^*}-1)
{\sup\limits}_{0\leq s\leq T^*} {{\left\| g(s, \cdot) \right\|}_{L^2}}^2 <\infty,$$ a contradiction. This implies the solutions produced in Section \[sec:lwp\] are global ones. Therefore, it remains to show .
### Local boundedness of $t\to {{\left\| u(t, \cdot) \right\|}_{H^1}}$
In view of the $H^2$ smoothness, established in Proposition \[prop:1\], this follows in a standard way from Lemma \[le:5\]. To this end, let $$I(t)=\int_I (u^2(t,x)+u_x^2(t,x)) dx.$$ and differentiate in time. Then one may use the equation (because of the $H^2$ smoothness) to get $$\begin{aligned}
& & I'(t)= 2 \int_I (u u_t + u_x (u_t)_x) dx = -2 \int (u F(u, u_x)+u_x {\partial}_x F(u, u_x)) dx + \\
& & + 2\int_I
u {\partial}_x (a(x) u_x)dx +2 \int_I
u_x {\partial}^2_x (a(x) u_x)dx + 2\int_I u g(t,x) dx+ 2\int_I u_x g_x(t,x) dx \end{aligned}$$ Note that by Lemma \[le:5\], $\int (u F(u, u_x)+u_x {\partial}_x F(u, u_x)) dx=0$. For the next term, clearly $$\int_I
u {\partial}_x (a(x) u_x)dx= -\int a(x) u_x^2 dx\leq 0$$ Next, consider the term $ \int_I
u_x {\partial}^2_x (a(x) u_x)dx$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
& & \int_I
u_x {\partial}^2_x (a(x) u_x)dx =- \int {\partial}_x(a u_x) u_{xx} dx= - \int a(x) u_{xx}^2 +
{\frac{1}{2}}\int a''(x) u_x^2 dx\leq \\
& &\leq -{\varepsilon}{{\left\| u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}^2+ {{\left\| a'' \right\|}_{L^\infty}} {{\left\| u_x \right\|}_{L^2}}^2\leq
-{\varepsilon}{{\left\| u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}^2+ C {{\left\| u_x \right\|}_{L^2}}^2 \end{aligned}$$ We have used here $a(x)\geq {\varepsilon}$ and $a\in C^2(I)$.
Finally, we have $$\begin{aligned}
& &|\int_I u g(t,x) dx+ \int_I u_x g_x(t,x) dx |\leq C({{\left\| u \right\|}_{L^2}}+{{\left\| u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}})
{{\left\| g(t, \cdot) \right\|}_{L^2}}\leq \\
& & \leq {\varepsilon}{{\left\| u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}^2/2+ {{\left\| u \right\|}_{L^2}}^2+
C_{\varepsilon}{{\left\| g(t, \cdot) \right\|}_{L^2}}^2. \end{aligned}$$ Altogether, $$\begin{aligned}
& &I'(t)\leq -{\varepsilon}{{\left\| u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}^2/2+C({{\left\| u(t, \cdot) \right\|}_{L^2}}^2+{{\left\| u_{x}(t, \cdot) \right\|}_{L^2}}^2)+
C_{\varepsilon}{{\left\| g(t, \cdot) \right\|}_{L^2}}^2\leq \\
& & \leq C I(t)+C_{\varepsilon}{{\left\| g(t, \cdot) \right\|}_{L^2}}^2\end{aligned}$$ Rewrite this as $$\begin{aligned}
& & {\frac{d}{d t}} (e^{-C t} I(t))\leq C_{\varepsilon}e^{-C t} {{\left\| g(t, \cdot) \right\|}_{L^2}}^2,\end{aligned}$$ whence upon integration we get $$I(t)\leq I(0) e^{C t} + C_{\varepsilon}(e^{C t}-1) {\sup\limits}_{0\leq s\leq t} {{\left\| g(s, \cdot) \right\|}_{L^2}}^2.$$ which is .
Global attractors for the viscous Camassa-Holm: The finite interval case {#sec:attractor_1}
========================================================================
In this section, we prove Theorem \[theo:2\]. As we have discussed in Section \[sec:attractors\] and more specifically Proposition \[prop:4\], we will need to verify that for any $t_n\to \infty$ and for any $B>0$ and any sequence of initial data $\{u_n\}\subset H^1(0,1)$ with ${\sup\limits}_n {{\left\| u_n \right\|}_{H^1}}\leq B$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:70}
& & \sup_{u_0\in H^1_0} \limsup_{t\to \infty}{{\left\| S(t)u_0 \right\|}_{H^1}}\leq C(g, {\varepsilon}), \\
\label{eq:71}
& & \sup_n {{\left\| S(t_n)u_n \right\|}_{H^1}}\leq C(B; g, {\varepsilon}), \\
\label{eq:72}
& & \lim_N \limsup_n{{\left\| P_{>N} S(t_n)u_n \right\|}_{H^1}}=0.\end{aligned}$$ This section is devoted to showing , . The estimate is somewhat more complicated and it will postponed until Section \[sec:vanish\]. In the end, we will show the asymptotic smoothing effect, that is the fact that the attractor lies in a smoother space.
Point dissipativeness: Proof of
--------------------------------
Fix $u_0$ with ${{\left\| u_0 \right\|}_{H^1}}\leq B$. Consider the solution to with initial data $u_0$, $u(t, \cdot)=S(t)u_0$. We have already shown the local boundedness of $t\to {{\left\| u(t, \cdot) \right\|}_{H^1}}$ ( i.e. is ), which we now improve. Note that the extra conditions $\int_0^1 g(x)dx=\int_0^1 u_0(x)dx=0$ are crucial in our argument.
Recall $I(t)=\int_I (u^2(t,x)+u_x^2(t,x)) dx$. We need to reexamine our estimates above for $I'(t)$, in order to use to our advantage the smallness of ${{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}}$. We have as before $$\begin{aligned}
& & I'(t)= 2 \int_I (u u_t + u_x (u_t)_x) dx = - 2\int_I
a(x) (u_x)^2 dx -2 \int_I
u_{xx} {\partial}_x (a(x) u_x)dx + \\
& & +2\int_I u g(t,x) dx- 2\int_I u_{xx} g(t,x) dx \leq -2{\varepsilon}({{\left\| u_x \right\|}_{L^2}}^2 +
{{\left\| u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}^2)+ \\
& &+ 2 {{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}} {{\left\| u_x \right\|}_{L^2}} {{\left\| u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}+
({{\left\| u \right\|}_{L^2}}+{{\left\| u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}){{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^2}}. \end{aligned}$$ Since ${{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}}\leq {\varepsilon}$, it is easy to see that the term $2 {{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}} {{\left\| u_x \right\|}_{L^2}} {{\left\| u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}$ gets absorbed by ${\varepsilon}({{\left\| u_x \right\|}_{L^2}}^2 +
{{\left\| u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}^2)$ and we get $$\label{eq:22}
I'(t)\leq -{\varepsilon}( {{\left\| u_x \right\|}_{L^2}}^2+{{\left\| u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}^2) +
({{\left\| u \right\|}_{L^2}}+{{\left\| u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}){{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^2}}$$
Note that by the conservation law ${\partial}_t \int_0^1 u(t,x) dt= \int_0^1 g(x) dt=0$ and $\int_0^1 u_0(x)=0$, we have $\int_0^1 u(t,x)dx=0$ for all $t$. Let $u(t,x)=\sum_{n\neq 0} a_n(t) e^{2\pi i n x}$. It follows that $${{\left\| u(t, \cdot) \right\|}_{L^2}}=\left({\sum\limits}_{|n|\geq 1} |a_n|^2\right)^{1/2}\leq
\left({\sum\limits}_{|n|\geq 1} |n|^2 |a_n|^2\right)^{1/2}\leq C \|u_x(t, \cdot)\|_{L^2}.$$ Use ${{\left\| u(t, \cdot) \right\|}_{L^2}}\leq \|u_x(t, \cdot)\|_{L^2}\leq \|u_{xx}(t, \cdot)\|_{L^2}$ and the Cauchy-Schwartz’s inequality in to get $$\begin{aligned}
& & I'(t)\leq -{\varepsilon}({{\left\| u_x \right\|}_{L^2}}^2+{{\left\| u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}^2) +
({{\left\| u_x \right\|}_{L^2}}+{{\left\| u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}){{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^2}}\leq \\
& & \leq -{\varepsilon}( {{\left\| u \right\|}_{L^2}}^2+{{\left\| u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}^2)/2 +
C {{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^2}}^2/{\varepsilon}\leq -{\varepsilon}I(t)/2 +
C{{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^2}}^2/{\varepsilon}\end{aligned}$$ We now finish with a Gronwall type argument, namely we rewrite the inequality above as $${\frac{d}{dt}} (I(t) e^{t {\varepsilon}/2}) \leq C e^{t {\varepsilon}/2}
{{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^2}}^2/{\varepsilon},$$ which after integration in time yields $$\label{eq:23}
I(t)\leq I(0) e^{- {\varepsilon}t/2} + C {{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^2}}^2/{\varepsilon}^2.$$ It follows that $$\limsup_{t\to \infty} I(t) \leq C {{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^2}}^2/{\varepsilon}^2,$$ which is the point dissipativeness of $S(t)$.
Uniform boundedness: Proof of
------------------------------
The uniform boundedness in fact follows from as well. Indeed, denote $I_n(t)={{\left\| S(t)u_n \right\|}_{L^2}}^2+{{\left\| S(t)u_n \right\|}_{\dot{H}^1}}^2$. Clearly $I_n(0)={{\left\| u_n \right\|}_{H^1}}^2\leq B^2$. We have by , $$I_n(t_n)\leq I_n(0) e^{- {\varepsilon}t_n/2} + C {{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^2}}^2/{\varepsilon}^2 \leq
B^2+C {{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^2}}^2/{\varepsilon}^2.$$
Uniform vanishing: Proof of {#sec:vanish}
============================
Fix a real number $B$. Let the initial data be $u_0: {{\left\| u_0 \right\|}_{H^1}}\leq B$, with a corresponding solution $u$. We know from the results of the previous sections that such solutions exist globally and belong to the class $C((t_1, t_2), H^2)$ for every $0<t_1<t_2<\infty$.
Let $k$ be a (large) positive integer and denote $$I_{>k}(t)={\int\limits}_0^1 ((P_{>2^k} u)^2 + (P_{>2^k} u_x)^2 dx.$$ This is the high-frequency portion of the energy, which we are trying to show is small as $N\to \infty$, uniformly in ${{\left\| u_0 \right\|}_{H^1}}$. We use energy estimate reminiscent of the estimate for $I(t)$.
After taking time derivative, use the equation and $P_{>2^k}^2=P_{>2^k}$. We get $$\begin{aligned}
& & I_{>k}'(t)=2{\int\limits}_0^1 ( P_{>2^k} u P_{>2^k} u_t + P_{>2^k} u_x P_{>2^k} u_{tx} dx= \\
& &= 2 {\int\limits}_0^1 P_{>2^k} u F(u, u_x)+ P_{>2^k} u_x {\partial}_x F(u, u_x) dx+ \\
& &+ {\int\limits}_0^1
P_{>2^k} u {\partial}_x( a(x) u_x)dx+ P_{>2^k} u_x {\partial}^2_x( a(x) u_x)dx+ \\
& & +
{\int\limits}_0^1
(P_{>2^k} u g + P_{>2^k} u_x g_x dx)=:N+V+F\end{aligned}$$ There are three sort of terms arising in the energy estimate. We start with those arising from the viscosity.
Viscosity terms {#sec:vis}
---------------
Write $$\begin{aligned}
& & {\frac{V}{2}}= {\int\limits}_0^1
(P_{>2^k} u) {\partial}_x( a(x) u_x)dx+ (P_{>2^k} u_x) {\partial}^2_x( a(x) u_x)dx= \\
& & = - {\int\limits}_0^1
\left[(P_{>2^k} u_x) a(x) u_x dx+ (P_{>2^k} u_{xx})a(x) u_{xx}+ (P_{>2^k} u_{xx})a'(x) u_{x} \right]dx.\end{aligned}$$ We estimate the first and the third term by Hölder’s inequality and the uniform boundedness $$|{\int\limits}_0^1
(P_{>2^k} u_x) a(x) u_x dx|\leq {{\left\| a \right\|}_{L^\infty}} {{\left\| u_x \right\|}_{L^2}}^2\leq C(B; g, {\varepsilon}).$$ Also, by Hölder and Cauchy-Schwartz $$\begin{aligned}
& & |{\int\limits}_0^1 (P_{>2^k} u_{xx})a'(x) u_{x} dx|\leq {{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}} {{\left\| u_x \right\|}_{L^2}}
{{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}\leq \\
& & \leq {\frac{{\varepsilon}}{100}} {{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}^2+
{\frac{C}{{\varepsilon}}} {{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}}^2 {{\left\| u_x \right\|}_{L^2}}^2=
{\frac{{\varepsilon}}{100}} {{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}^2+C(B; g, {\varepsilon}).\end{aligned}$$ We need more delicate estimates for the second term $\int (P_{>2^k} u_{xx})a(x) u_{xx} dx$. The difficulties here lie with the fact that the commutators $[P_{>N},a]$ [*are not smoothing operators* ]{}, when considered on $L^2[0,1]$, (in contrast with $L^2({\mathbf R^1})$).
Write $u_{xx}= P_{>2^k} u_{xx}+P_{\leq 2^k}u_{xx}$ to get $$\int (P_{>2^k} u_{xx})a(x) u_{xx} dx= \int (P_{>2^k} u_{xx})^2 a(x) dx+
\int (P_{>2^k} u_{xx})a(x) P_{\leq 2^k}u_{xx} dx.$$ Clearly, $\int (P_{>2^k} u_{xx})^2 a(x) dx\geq {\varepsilon}{{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}^2$, while we will show $$\label{eq:50}
\begin{array}{c}
|\int (P_{>2^k} u_{xx})a(x) P_{\leq 2^k}u_{xx} dx|\leq \\
\leq
C 2^k ({{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}} {{\left\| P_{>2^{k-1}}u_{x} \right\|}_{L^2}}
{{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}+
{{\left\| a_{>{2^{k-1}}} \right\|}_{L^\infty}}{{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}} {{\left\| u_x \right\|}_{L^2}}).
\end{array}$$ To that end, write $$\begin{aligned}
& &
\int (P_{>2^k} u_{xx})a(x) P_{\leq 2^k}u_{xx} dx= \int (P_{>2^k} u_{xx})a(x) P_{2^{k-1}< \cdot
\leq 2^k}u_{xx} dx+ \\
& &+\int (P_{>2^k} u_{xx})a(x) P_{\leq 2^{k-1}}u_{xx} dx. \end{aligned}$$ For the first term, use that $a(x)=a(0)+{\int\limits}_0^x a'(y) dy$ and by orthogonality\
$\int (P_{>2^k} u_{xx})a(0) P_{2^{k-1}< \cdot
\leq 2^k}u_{xx} dx=0$. We get $$\begin{aligned}
& & |\int (P_{>2^k} u_{xx})a(x) P_{2^{k-1}\leq \cdot
\leq 2^k}u_{xx} dx| = |\int (P_{>2^k} u_{xx})(\int_0^x a'(y)dy) P_{2^{k-1}<\cdot
\leq 2^k}u_{xx} dx|\leq \\
& & \leq {{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}} {{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}
{{\left\| P_{2^{k-1}< \cdot
\leq 2^k} u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}} \leq 2^k {{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}} {{\left\| P_{2^{k-1}< \cdot
\leq 2^k} u_{x} \right\|}_{L^2}}
{{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}} \leq \\
& & \leq 2^k {{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}} {{\left\| P_{>2^{k-1}} u_{x} \right\|}_{L^2}}
{{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}} . \end{aligned}$$ For the second term, use Lemma \[le:80\], more specifically . We have $$\begin{aligned}
& & |\int (P_{>2^k} u_{xx})a(x) P_{\leq 2^{k-1}}u_{xx} dx| =
|\int (P_{>2^k} u_{xx})(P_{>2^{k-1}} a(x)) P_{\leq 2^{k-1}}u_{xx} dx|\leq \\
& &\leq {{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}} {{\left\| P_{>2^{k-1}} a \right\|}_{L^\infty}}
{{\left\| P_{\leq 2^{k-1}}u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}\leq
C 2^{k} {{\left\| a_{>2^{k-1}} \right\|}_{L^\infty}} {{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}} {{\left\| P_{\leq 2^{k-1}} u_x \right\|}_{L^2}} \\
& & \leq C 2^{k} {{\left\| a_{>2^{k-1}} \right\|}_{L^\infty}} {{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}} {{\left\| u_x \right\|}_{L^2}}.\end{aligned}$$ This establishes .
Put together all terms that arise from the viscosity and use the uniform boundedness and the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality $a b\leq {\varepsilon}a^2 +(4{\varepsilon})^{-1}b^2$ to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
& &
V\leq - {\frac{2{\varepsilon}}{3}} {{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}^2+
C(B; g,{\varepsilon}, {\delta}) + {\frac{2^{2k} {{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}}^2}{{\varepsilon}}}
{{\left\| P_{>2^{k-1}}u_{x} \right\|}_{L^2}}^2+ \\
& & +
2^{2k}
{{\left\| a_{>2^{k-1}} \right\|}_{L^\infty}}^2 C(B; g,{\varepsilon})\leq - {\frac{2{\varepsilon}}{3}} {{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}^2+ 2^{2k} {\delta}^2 {\varepsilon}{{\left\| P_{>2^{k-1}}u_{x} \right\|}_{L^2}}^2+ C(B; g,{\varepsilon}) + \\
& &+
2^{2k}
{{\left\| a_{>2^{k-1}} \right\|}_{L^\infty}}^2 C(B; g,{\varepsilon}).\end{aligned}$$ The last inequality holds due to ${{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}}\leq {\delta}{\varepsilon}$.
Nonlinearity terms {#sec:nonl}
------------------
For the nonlinearity terms, we have several easy terms, that we take care of first. Namely, according to Lemma \[le:20\] (see with $s=0$) $$\begin{aligned}
& & |\int (P_{>2^k} u) F(u,x_x) dx|\leq {{\left\| P_{>2^k} u \right\|}_{L^2}}{{\left\| F(u, u_x) \right\|}_{L^2}}\leq
C {{\left\| u \right\|}_{H^1}}^3\leq C(B; g,{\varepsilon}). \end{aligned}$$ Also, by Hölder’s inequality and the Sobolev embedding $$\begin{aligned}
& & |\int (P_{>2^k} u_x) {\partial}_x^2 (u^2) dx|= |\int (P_{>2^k} u_{xx}) {\partial}_x (u^2) dx| \leq
{{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}} {{\left\| u_x \right\|}_{L^2}}{{\left\| u \right\|}_{L^\infty}}\leq \\
& &\leq C {{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}} {{\left\| u \right\|}_{H^1}}^2\leq {\frac{{\varepsilon}}{100}} {{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}^2+
C(B; g,{\varepsilon}).\end{aligned}$$
Finally, $$\begin{aligned}
& & |\int P_{>2^k} u_x {\partial}_x^2 {(1-{\partial}_x^2)^{-1}}(u_x^2/2+u^2) dx|\leq C {{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_x \right\|}_{L^\infty}} {{\left\| u \right\|}_{H^1}}^2.\end{aligned}$$ However, by Lemma \[le:bern\] $$\begin{aligned}
& & {{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_x \right\|}_{L^\infty}}\leq {\sum\limits}_{l\geq k}
{{\left\| P_{2^l<\cdot\leq 2^{l+1}} u_x \right\|}_{L^\infty}} \leq
{\sum\limits}_{l\geq k} 2^{l/2}
{{\left\| P_{2^l<\cdot\leq 2^{l+1}} u_x \right\|}_{L^2}} \sim \\
& & \sim
{\sum\limits}_{l\geq k} 2^{-l/2}
{{\left\| P_{2^l<\cdot\leq 2^{l+1}} u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}\leq C 2^{-k/2} {{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}\leq
C {{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}, \end{aligned}$$ implying that $$|\int P_{>2^k} u_x {\partial}^2 {(1-{\partial}_x^2)^{-1}}(u_x^2/2+u^2) dx|\leq {\frac{{\varepsilon}}{100}} {{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}^2
+ C(B; g,{\varepsilon}).$$
Forcing terms {#sec:forc}
-------------
The forcing terms are easy to control. $$\begin{aligned}
& &
|\int P_{>2^k} u g + P_{>2^k} u_x g_x dx|= |\int P_{>2^k} u g - P_{>2^k} u_{xx} g dx|\leq \\
& & \leq ({{\left\| P_{>2^k} u \right\|}_{L^2}}+{{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}) {{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^2}}\leq \\
& & \leq
{\frac{{\varepsilon}}{100}} ({{\left\| P_{>2^k} u \right\|}_{L^2}}^2+{{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}^2 )+
{\frac{C}{{\varepsilon}}} {{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^2}}^2\leq \\
& &\leq {\frac{{\varepsilon}}{50}} {{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}^2 + C(B; g, {\varepsilon}).\end{aligned}$$
Conclusion of the argument for uniform vanishing of the high frequencies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Put together all the estimates for viscosity terms, forcing terms and nonlinearity terms. We obtain $$\begin{aligned}
& & I_{>k}'(t)\leq -{\frac{{\varepsilon}}{2}}{{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}^2+ C 2^{2k} {\delta}^2 {\varepsilon}{{\left\| P_{>2^{k-1}} u_{x} \right\|}_{L^2}}^2+ \\
& &+
2^{2k}{{\left\| a_{>2^{k-1}} \right\|}_{L^\infty}}^2 C(B; g, {\varepsilon})+
C(B; g, {\varepsilon}).\end{aligned}$$ Note first that ${{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}\geq 2^k {{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_{x} \right\|}_{L^2}}\geq c
2^k \sqrt{I_{>k}(t)}$.
Next, we estimate the term ${{\left\| a_{>2^{k-1}} \right\|}_{L^\infty}}$. Let $a(x)={\sum\limits}_l a_l e^{2\pi i l x}$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
& & {{\left\| a_{>2^{k-1}} \right\|}_{L^\infty}}\leq {\sum\limits}_{l>2^k}
|a_l| \leq
C 2^{-k} {\sum\limits}_{l>k} |l ||a_l| \leq C 2^{-k} ({\sum\limits}_{l>k}
|a_l|^2 |l|^{4})^{1/2}({\sum\limits}_{l>1} l^{-2})^{1/2} \leq \\
& & \leq C 2^{-k} {{\left\| a'' \right\|}_{L^2(I)}}\leq C 2^{-k} {{\left\| a'' \right\|}_{L^\infty}}. \end{aligned}$$ We plug in this estimate to get $$\label{eq:100}
I_{>k}'(t)+ {\frac{2^{2k} {\varepsilon}}{4}}I_{>k}(t)\leq C 2^{2k} {\delta}^2 {\varepsilon}{{\left\| P_{>2^{k-1}} u_{x} \right\|}_{L^2}}^2+ C(B; g, {\varepsilon})$$ Notice that as before, we can rewrite as $${\frac{d}{d t}} (I_{>k}(t) e^{2^{2k} {\varepsilon}t/4}) \leq C 2^{2k} {\delta}^2 {\varepsilon}e^{2^{2k} {\varepsilon}t/4}
{{\left\| P_{>2^{k-1}} u_{x} \right\|}_{L^2}}^2+ e^{2^{2k} {\varepsilon}t/4} C(B; g, {\varepsilon}),$$ which after time integration yields $$\label{eq:104}
\begin{array}{l}
I_{>k}(t)\leq I_{>k}(0)e^{-2^{2k} {\varepsilon}t/4}+ C {\delta}^2 {\sup\limits}_{0\leq s\leq t}
{{\left\| P_{>2^{k-1}} u_{x}(s, \cdot) \right\|}_{L^2}}^2+ 2^{-2k} C(B; g, {\varepsilon})\leq \\
\leq I_{>k}(0)e^{-2^{2k} {\varepsilon}t/4}+ C {\delta}^2 {\sup\limits}_{0\leq s\leq t} I_{>k-1}(s)
+ 2^{-2k} C(B; g, {\varepsilon}).
\end{array}$$ Informally, it should be that $I_{>k-1}\sim I_{>k}$, and since ${\delta}^2<<1$, we may ignore the middle term and get the desired uniform vanishing. However, $I_{>k-1}\geq I_{>k}$ and we may not perform this operation.\
To go around this difficulty, introduce $$I^n_{>k}(t)= \int
((u^n_{>2^k}(t, \cdot))^2+({\partial}_x u^n_{>2^k}(t, \cdot))^2)dx,$$ where $\{u^n\}\subset H^1$, with $\sup_n {{\left\| u^n \right\|}_{H^1}}\leq B$. Note that by the uniform boundedness , we have $$\sup_{n, k, t} I^n_{>k}(t)\leq \int
((u^n(t, \cdot))^2+({\partial}_x u^n(t, \cdot))^2)dx\leq C(B; g, {\varepsilon}).$$ Let also $h^n_k(t)= \sup_{0\leq s\leq t} I^n_{>k}(s)$. Recast for each $n$ as $$\label{eq:117}
h^n_k(t)\leq h^n_k(0)e^{-2^{2k} {\varepsilon}t/4} + C{\delta}^2 h^n_{k-1}(t)+ C 2^{-2k} C(B; g, {\varepsilon})$$ We will need ${\delta}$ so small, that $C{\delta}^2\leq 1/8$. Denote also $h_k=\limsup_{n\to \infty}
h^n_k(t_n)$ for some fixed sequence $t_n\to \infty$. Thus, we have $$h_k\leq h_{k-1}/8+ 2^{-2k} C(B; g, {\varepsilon})$$ Iterating this inequality, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
& &
h_k\leq h_{k-1}/8+ 2^{-2k} C(B; g, {\varepsilon})\leq
8^{-2} h_{k-2}+ (2^{-2k}+2^{-2k-1}) C(B; g, {\varepsilon})\leq \ldots \\
& & \leq 2^{-2k} C(B; g, {\varepsilon})+
2^{-3k} h_0\leq (2^{-2k}+ 2^{-3k}) C(B; g, {\varepsilon}), \end{aligned}$$ since by , $h_0\leq C(B; g, {\varepsilon})$. It follows that $$\lim_{k\to \infty} \limsup_{n\to\infty} {{\left\| P_{>2^k} u^n(t_n, \cdot) \right\|}_{H^1}}=\lim_{k\to \infty}h_k =0,$$ which is . Moreover, we have that the attractor (whose existence is now established) is actually a [*bounded subset*]{} of $H^{2-{\sigma}}$ for all ${\sigma}>0$.
Indeed, since every element of the attractor is of the form $u(\cdot)=\lim_n u^n(t_n, \cdot)$, we have by the last estimate $$\sup_k 2^{2k} {{\left\| P_{>2^k} u \right\|}_{L^2}}\leq C(B, g, {\varepsilon}),$$ or $u\in B^2_{2, \infty}$. Of course, this implies $${{\left\| u(\cdot) \right\|}_{H^s}}^2\sim {\sum\limits}_{k\geq 1} 2^{2k(s-1)}
{{\left\| P_{\sim 2^k} u(\cdot) \right\|}_{H^1}}^2 \leq {\sum\limits}_{k\geq 1} 2^{2k(s-1)} 2^{-2k} C(B; g, {\varepsilon}, {\delta})<
C(B; g, {\varepsilon})$$ if $s<2$.
Attractors for the viscous Camassa-Holm equation on the whole line {#sec:conclusions}
==================================================================
In this section, we indicate the main steps for the Proof of Theorem \[theo:9\]. Since most of the arguments are quite similar to those already presented for the case of finite interval, we will frequently refer to the previous sections.
To start with, let us point out that Theorem \[theo:1\], which applies to the (undamped) viscous Camassa-Holm equation applies as stated to as well. The reader may reproduce the arguments from Section \[sec:90\] easily, but we point out that the energy estimates in fact work better in the presence of the damping factor $\mu u$, see the discussion regarding the proof of below.
To establish the asymptotic compactness of the dynamical system $S(t)$ associated with , we resort to Proposition \[prop:3\], just as we have used the similar Proposition \[prop:4\] for the case of finite interval.
Therefore, fix a sequence of times $\{t_n\}$ and $\{u_n\}\subset H^1({\mathbf R^1})$, which is uniformly bounded, say $\sup_n {{\left\| u_n \right\|}_{H^1}}\leq B$. It remains to show $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:2}
& & \sup_{f\in H^1} \limsup_{t\to \infty}{{\left\| S(t)f \right\|}_{H^1}}\leq C(g, \mu, {\varepsilon}) \\
\label{e:3}
& & {\sup\limits}_n {{\left\| S(t_n)u_n \right\|}_{H^1}}\leq C(B, g, {\varepsilon}, \mu) \\
\label{e:4}
& & \lim_{N\to \infty} \limsup_n {{\left\| P_{>N} S(t_n) u_n \right\|}_{H^1}}=0 \\
\label{e:5}
& & \lim_{N\to \infty} \limsup_n {{\left\| S(t_n) u_n \right\|}_{H^1(|x|>N)}}=0.\end{aligned}$$ Note that is the point dissipativeness of $S(t)$, while ,, guarantee the asymptotic compactness of $S(t)$, according to Proposition \[prop:3\].
Proof of
---------
Denote $
I(t)= \int_{{\mathbf R^1}} (u^2 +u_x^2) dx
$ and compute $$\begin{aligned}
& & I'(t)= 2\int u u_t + u_x u_{x t} dx = 2\int u(-F(u, u_x) +{\partial}_x(a u_x)-\mu u+g) dx - \\
& & - 2
\int u_{xx} ( -F(u, u_x) +{\partial}_x(a u_x)-\mu u+g) dx= \\
& &=-2 \int (u F(u, u_x) +u_x {\partial}_x F(u, u_x)) dx-2 \int a(x) (u_x^2+ u_{xx}^2) dx - \\
& & - 2\int a'(x) u_{xx} u_x dx+2\int (u-u_{xx}) g -2 \mu \int (u^2+u_x^2) dx \end{aligned}$$ We split now our considerations, depending on the assumptions on $a$.\
[**Estimate with the assumption ${{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}}<<{\varepsilon}$.**]{}\
By Lemma \[le:5\], $\int (u F(u, u_x) +u_x {\partial}_x F(u, u_x)) dx=0$ and we estimate the rest by Hölder’s inequality $$\begin{aligned}
& &
I'(t)\leq -2{\varepsilon}\int (u_x^2+ u_{xx}^2) dx+2 {{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}} {{\left\| u_x \right\|}_{L^2}}
{{\left\| u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}+\\
& & +2 {{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^2}}({{\left\| u \right\|}_{L^2}}+{{\left\| u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}) - 2 \mu \int (u^2+u_x^2) dx \end{aligned}$$ By the smallness of ${{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}}$, we conclude\
${{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}} {{\left\| u_x \right\|}_{L^2}}
{{\left\| u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}\leq {\varepsilon}( {{\left\| u_x \right\|}_{L^2}}^2+{{\left\| u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}^2)/2$. On the other hand, by Young’s inequality $${{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^2}}({{\left\| u \right\|}_{L^2}}+{{\left\| u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}})\leq \mu {{\left\| u \right\|}_{L^2}}^2/2+
{\varepsilon}{{\left\| u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}^2/4+{\frac{C}{\min(\mu, {\varepsilon})}}{{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^2}}^2.$$ Altogether, $$\label{e:89}
I'(t)\leq -{\frac{{\varepsilon}}{2}} \int (u_x^2+u_{xx}^2 )dx-\mu \int u^2 dx+ {\frac{C}{\min(\mu, {\varepsilon})}}{{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^2}}^2.$$ We show that follows by assuming $a''(x)\leq 2 a(x)$.\
[**Estimate with the assumption $2a''(x)\leq 2 a(x)$.**]{}\
We perform one more integration by parts in the expression for $I'(t)$ to get $$\begin{aligned}
& & I'(t)= - 2 \int a(x) (u_x^2+ u_{xx}^2) dx +\int a''(x) u^2_x dx+2\int (u-u_{xx}) g - \\
& & - 2 \mu \int (u^2+u_x^2) dx \leq -2 \int a(x) u_{xx}^2 -2\mu \int (u_x^2 +u^2) dx
+2\int (u-u_{xx}) g dx \leq \\
& & \leq -\min({\varepsilon}, \mu) \int (u^2 + u_x^2) dx + {\frac{C}{\min(\mu, {\varepsilon})}} {{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^2}}^2.\end{aligned}$$
Thus, under either the smallness assumption ${{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}}<<{\varepsilon}$ or under $a''(x)\leq 2 a(x)$, we have $$I'(t)+{\frac{\min({\varepsilon}, \mu)}{2}} I(t)\leq {\frac{C}{\min(\mu, {\varepsilon})}}{{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^2}}^2,$$ which by Gronwall’s inequality implies $$I(t)\leq e^{- \min({\varepsilon}, \mu)/2 t} I(0)+ {\frac{C}{\min(\mu, {\varepsilon})^2}}{{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^2}}^2=
e^{- \min({\varepsilon}, \mu)/2 t} {{\left\| f \right\|}_{H^1}}^2 + {\frac{C}{\min(\mu, {\varepsilon})^2}}{{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^2}}^2.$$ Taking limit $t\to \infty$ establishes .
Proof of
---------
Uniform boundedness of the orbits follows from the last estimate as follows. Denote $I_n(t)={{\left\| u_n(t, \cdot) \right\|}_{H^1}}^2$. We have $$I_n(t)\leq e^{- \min({\varepsilon}, \mu)/2 t} {{\left\| u_n(0, \cdot) \right\|}_{H^1}}^2 +
{\frac{C}{\min(\mu, {\varepsilon})^2}}{{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^2}}^2\leq B^2+ {\frac{C}{\min(\mu, {\varepsilon})^2}}{{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^2}}^2,$$ where $B=\sup_n {{\left\| u_n(0) \right\|}_{H^1}}$.
Proof of
---------
The proof of largely follows the argument for the similar estimate . Set $$I_{>2^k} (t)= \int_{{\mathbf R^1}} (u_{>2^k})^2+({\partial}_x u_{>2^k})^2 dx$$ and compute as in Section \[sec:vanish\] $$\begin{aligned}
& & I_{>2^k}'(t)= 2 {\int\limits}P_{>2^k}^2 u F(u, u_x)+ P_{>2^k}^2 u_x {\partial}_x F(u, u_x) dx+ \\
& &+ 2 \int
P_{>2^k} u {\partial}_x P_{>2^k}( a(x) u_x)dx+ P_{>2^k} u_x {\partial}^2_x P_{>2^k}( a(x) u_x)dx+ \\
& & +
2 \int
(P_{>2^k}^2 u g + P_{>2^k}^2 u_x g_x dx)- 2 \mu \int ((P_{>2^k}^2 u)^2 + (P_{>2^k}^2 u_x)^2 dx).\end{aligned}$$
The estimates for the terms arising from the nonlinearity work just in the case of finite interval. Again the damping terms can be ignored, because they give rise to terms with negative signs.
In short, the estimates that we need can be summarized in $$\begin{aligned}
& & |{\int\limits}P_{>2^k}^2 u F(u, u_x)+ P_{>2^k}^2 u_x {\partial}_x F(u, u_x) dx| \leq
C {{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}{{\left\| u \right\|}_{H^1}}^2\leq \\
& & \leq {\varepsilon}{{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}^2+ {\frac{C}{{\varepsilon}}} {{\left\| u \right\|}_{H^1}}^4.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, the estimates for the terms arising form the forcing $g$ are estimated by $$\begin{aligned}
& & |\int
(P_{>2^k}^2 u g + P_{>2^k}^2 u_x g_x )dx|\leq {\varepsilon}{{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}^2/100 + {\frac{C}{{\varepsilon}}} {{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^2}}^2.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, the viscosity terms are in fact better behaved than the corresponding terms for the finite interval case, but one has to proceed in a slightly different fashion, due to the technical inconvenience that $P_{>2^k}$ are not involutions, i.e. $P_{>2^k}^2\neq P_{>2^k}$.
We have $$\begin{aligned}
& & V = - 2 \int
(P_{>2^k} u_x) P_{>2^k}( a(x) u_x)dx -2 \int (P_{>2^k}
u_{xx}) P_{>2^k}( a(x) u_x)dx = \\
& & = -2 \int
(P_{>2^k} u_x) a(x) (P_{>2^k} u_x)dx-
2 \int (P_{>2^k} u_x) [P_{>2^k},a] u_x dx - \\
& & - 2 \int (P_{>2^k} u_{xx}) P_{>2^k} (a' u_x) dx - 2\int P_{>2^k} u_{xx}
a(x) P_{>2^k} u_{xx} dx - \\
& & - 2 \int P_{>2^k} u_{xx} [P_{>2^k},a] u_{xx} dx\leq -2{\varepsilon}\int (P_{>2^k} u_{x})^2 + (P_{>2^k} u_{xx})^2 dx + \\
& & + 2 \int |(P_{>2^k} u_x) [P_{>2^k},a] u_x| dx+ 2
\int |(P_{>2^k} u_{xx}) P_{>2^k} (a' u_x)| dx+ \\
& & +
2 \int |P_{>2^k} u_{xx} [P_{>2^k},a] u_{xx} |dx. \end{aligned}$$ Note that $$\begin{aligned}
& &
\int (P_{>2^k} u_{x})^2 + (P_{>2^k} u_{xx})^2 dx\geq
\int (P_{>2^k} u_{xx})^2 dx \geq c 2^{2k}
\int (P_{>2^k} u_{x})^2 dx\sim \\
& & \sim 2^{2k} \int (P_{>2^k} u)^2+ (P_{>2^k} u_{x})^2 dx= 2^{2k}
I_{>2^k}(t). \end{aligned}$$
By the Calderón commutator estimates $$\begin{aligned}
& & \int |(P_{>2^k} u_x) [P_{>2^k},a] u_x| dx\leq C 2^{-k}
{{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_x \right\|}_{L^2}} {{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}} {{\left\| u_x \right\|}_{L^2}}\leq
C {{\left\| u_x \right\|}_{L^2}}^2 {{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}}, \\
& & \int |(P_{>2^k} u_{xx}) P_{>2^k} (a' u_x)| dx\leq
{{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}{{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}} {{\left\| u_x \right\|}_{L^2}}\leq \\
& & \leq {\varepsilon}{{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}/100+ \frac{C}{{\varepsilon}}
{{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}}^2 {{\left\| u_x \right\|}_{L^2}}^2, \\
& & \int |P_{>2^k} u_{xx} [P_{>2^k},a] u_{xx} |dx\leq C
{{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}} {{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}} {{\left\| u_x \right\|}_{L^2}}\leq \\
& & \leq
{\varepsilon}{{\left\| P_{>2^k} u_{xx} \right\|}_{L^2}}/100+ \frac{C}{{\varepsilon}}
{{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}}^2 {{\left\| u_x \right\|}_{L^2}}^2. \end{aligned}$$ Altogether, the various terms in $I_{>2^k}'$ are estimated by $$I_{>2^k}'(t)\leq -{\varepsilon}2^{2k} I_{>2^k}(t)+ \frac{C}{{\varepsilon}}
{{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}}^2 {{\left\| u_x \right\|}_{L^2}}^2+
{\frac{C}{{\varepsilon}}}({{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^2}}^2+{{\left\| u \right\|}_{H^1}}^4).$$ By the uniform boundedness(i.e. ) and the Gronwall’s inequality, we deduce $$I_{>2^k}(t)\leq I_{>2^k}(0) e^{-{\varepsilon}2^{2k} t}+ 2^{-2k}
{\frac{C}{{\varepsilon}^2}}({{\left\| g \right\|}_{L^2}}^2+{\sup\limits}_{0\leq s\leq t}{{\left\| u(s, \cdot) \right\|}_{H^1}}^4+{{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}}^2{\sup\limits}_{0\leq s\leq t}{{\left\| u(s, \cdot) \right\|}_{H^1}}^2 ).$$ It follows that $$\limsup_n {{\left\| P_{>2^k} S(t_n) u_n \right\|}_{H^1}}\leq 2^{-k} C(B, g, {\varepsilon})$$ and therefore $\lim_{k\to \infty} \limsup_n {{\left\| P_{>2^k} S(t_n)
u_n \right\|}_{H^1}}=0$, thus establishing .
Note that since $\limsup_n {{\left\| P_{>2^k} S(t_n) u_n \right\|}_{H^1}}
\lesssim 2^{-k}$, it follows with the same argument as before that the attractor ${\mathcal A}\subset H^{2-{\sigma}}({\mathbf R^1})$ for every ${\sigma}>0$.
Proof of
---------
Our last goal is to establish the uniform smallness of the $H^1$ energy functional away from large balls. Set $$J_{>N}(t)=\int (u^2(t,x)+u_x^2(t,x))(1-\psi(x/N)) dx.$$ Compute the derivative $$\begin{aligned}
& & J_{>N}'(t)= 2\int (u u_t+u_x u_{xt})(1-\psi(x/N)) dx = \\
& &=-2\int (u F(u, u_x)+u_x {\partial}_x F(u, u_x)) (1-\psi(x/N)) dx- \\
& &- 2\mu\int
(u^2+u_x^2)(1-\psi(x/N)) dx+\\
& & +2 \int (u {\partial}_x(a u_x)+ u_x {\partial}_x^2 (a u_x)) (1-\psi(x/N)) dx. \end{aligned}$$ The first term has already been handled in our previous paper, [@Stanislavova]. According to Lemma 5, [@Stanislavova] the estimate is[^11] $$\label{e:8}
|\int (u F(u, u_x)+u_x {\partial}_x F(u, u_x)) (1-\psi(x/N))
dx|\leq {\frac{C}{N}}{{\left\| u(t, \cdot) \right\|}_{H^1}}^3.$$ Next, integration by parts yields $$\begin{aligned}
& & \int (u {\partial}_x(a u_x)+ u_x {\partial}_x^2 (a u_x)) (1-\psi(x/N)) dx = \\
& & =
-\int a u_x^2 (1-\psi(x/N)) dx+ N^{-1}
\int a u u_x \psi'(x/N) dx-\\
& & - \int u_{xx} {\partial}_x (a u_x) (1-\psi(x/N)) dx+
N^{-1} \int u_x {\partial}_x(a u_x)\psi'(x/N) dx \end{aligned}$$ The terms with the factor $N^{-1}$ are “good” terms.
For the first term , we estimate right away $$N^{-1}
|\int a u u_x \psi'(x/N) dx|\leq C N^{-1}{{\left\| a \right\|}_{L^\infty}} {{\left\| u \right\|}_{H^1}}^2.$$ For the second term containing $N^{-1}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
& & N^{-1} \int u_x {\partial}_x(a u_x)\psi'(x/N) dx = N^{-1} \int a'(x) u_x^2
\psi'(x/N) dx - \\
& & - {\frac{1}{2N}} \int u_x^2 {\partial}_x( a' \psi'(x/N)) dx\leq
{\frac{C}{N}} {{\left\| u_x \right\|}_{L^2}}^2({{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}}+{{\left\| a'' \right\|}_{L^\infty}}),\end{aligned}$$ for some absolute constant $C$.\
Finally, we have to estimate the term $- \int u_{xx}
{\partial}_x (a u_x) (1-\psi(x/N)) dx$. As before, we need to use either the smallness of ${{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}}$ or $a''(x)\leq 2 a(x)$.\
[**Estimate under the assumption $a''(x)\leq 2 a(x)$.**]{}\
We have $$\begin{aligned}
& & - \int u_{xx} {\partial}_x (a u_x) (1-\psi(x/N)) dx= \\
& & =
-\int a u_{xx}^2 (1-\psi(x/N)) dx- \int u_{xx} a' u_x (1-\psi(x/N)) dx\leq \\
& & \leq {\frac{1}{2}} \int u_x^2 {\partial}_x
(a'(1-\psi(x/N)) ) dx= \\
& &=
{\frac{1}{2}} \int u_x^2 a''(x) (1-\psi(x/N)) dx-{\frac{1}{2 N}}
\int a''(x) u_x^2 \psi'(x/N) dx\leq \\
& & \leq {\frac{1}{2}} \int u_x^2 a''(x)
(1-\psi(x/N)) dx+ {\frac{1}{2N}}{{\left\| u_x \right\|}_{L^2}}^2 {{\left\| a'' \right\|}_{L^\infty}}. \end{aligned}$$ All in all, we get $$\begin{aligned}
& &J_{>N}'(t)\leq
{\frac{C}{N}}({{\left\| u(t, \cdot) \right\|}_{H^1}}^3+
({{\left\| a \right\|}_{L^\infty}} +{{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}}+{{\left\| a'' \right\|}_{L^\infty}})
{{\left\| u(t, \cdot) \right\|}_{H^1}}^2)+\\
& &+ \int u_x^2 a''(x)
(1-\psi(x/N)) dx-2\int a(x) u_x^2 (1-\psi(x/N)) dx -\\
& &- 2\mu \int (u^2 +u_x^2) (1-\psi(x/N))
dx. \end{aligned}$$ We now use the condition $a''(x)\leq 2 a(x)$, to conclude that the middle term is non-positive whence $$J_{>N}'(t)\leq
{\frac{C}{N}}({{\left\| u(t, \cdot) \right\|}_{H^1}}^3+
({{\left\| a \right\|}_{L^\infty}} +{{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}}+{{\left\| a'' \right\|}_{L^\infty}})
{{\left\| u(t, \cdot) \right\|}_{H^1}}^2) - 2\mu J_{>N}(t).$$ By the uniform bounds on ${{\left\| u(t, \cdot) \right\|}_{H^1}}$ , (i.e. ) and the previous considerations, it follows that $$\label{eq:end}
J_{>N}'(t)+ \mu J_{>N}(t)\leq {\frac{C(B, g, {\varepsilon}, \mu)}{N}}.$$ We will show that holds, by assuming appropriate smallness of ${{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}}$.\
[**Estimate under the assumption ${{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}}<<{\varepsilon}$.**]{}\
We have $$\begin{aligned}
& & - \int u_{xx} {\partial}_x (a u_x) (1-\psi(x/N)) dx\leq \\
& & \leq \int |u_{xx}| |a'(x)||u_x| (1-\psi(x/N)) dx- \int u_{xx}^2 a(x)(1-\psi(x/N)) dx \leq \\
& &\leq {{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}} (\int u_{xx}^2 (1-\psi(x/N)) dx )^{1/2}
(\int u_x^2(1-\psi(x/N)) dx )^{1/2}-\\
& &-
{\varepsilon}\int u_{xx}^2 (1-\psi(x/N)) dx\leq
2{\frac{{{\left\| a' \right\|}_{L^\infty}}^2}{{\varepsilon}}} \int u_x^2(1-\psi(x/N)) dx\leq 2{\delta}^2 {\varepsilon}J_{>N}(t).\end{aligned}$$ Taking ${\delta}$ so small that ${\delta}^2{\varepsilon}<\mu$ ensures that $2{\delta}^2 {\varepsilon}J_{>N}(t)$ is subsumed by\
$-2\mu \int u^2+u_x^2)(1-\psi(x/N)) dx$ and therefore, we arrive at again.\
The Gronwall’s inequality applied to yields $$J_{>N}(t)\leq e^{-\mu t} J_{>N}(0)+
{\frac{C(B, g, {\varepsilon}, \mu)}{N}}.$$ Thus $\limsup_{t_n\to\infty} J_{>N}(t_n)\leq N^{-1} C(B, g, {\varepsilon}, \mu)$, whence $$\lim_{N\to\infty} \limsup_{t_n\to\infty} J_{>N}(t_n)=0.$$
[100]{}
R. Beals R, D. Sattinger and J. Szmigielski, [*Multipeakons and a theorem of Stieltjes*]{}, Inverse Problems [**15**]{} (1999), 1-4.
R. Camassa, D. Holm and J.M. Hyman, [*A* new integrable shallow water equation]{}, Adv. Appl. Mech. [**31**]{} (1994), 1–33.
R. Camassa and D. Holm, [*A*n integrable shallow water equation with peaked solitons.]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{} (1993), no. 11, 1661–1664.
S. Chen, C. Foias, D. Holm, E. Olson, E.S. Titi and S. Wynne, [*T*he Camassa-Holm equations and turbulence. Predictability: quantifying uncertainty in models of complex phenomena (Los Alamos, NM, 1998)]{} Phys. D [**133**]{} (1999), 49–65.
D. Coutand, J. Peirce and S. Shkoller, [*G*lobal well-posedness of weak solutions for the Lagrangian averaged Navier-Stokes equations on bounded domains]{} Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. [**1**]{} (2002), no. 1, 35–50.
G. Coclite, H. Holden and K. Karlsen, [*W*ellposedness for a parabolic-elliptic system]{}, Disc. Cont. Dyn. Sys. [**13**]{} (2005), 659–682.
A. Constantin, [*O*n the inverse spectral problem for the Camassa-Holm equation.]{} J. Funct. Anal. [**155**]{} (1998), no. 2, 352–363.
A. Constantin,[*Existence of permanent and breaking waves for a shallow water equation: a geometric approach*]{}, Ann. Inst. Fourier [**50**]{} (2000), 321–362.
A. Constantin, [*On the scattering problem for the Camassa-Holm equation.*]{} R. Soc. Lond. Proc. Ser. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. [**457**]{} (2001), no. 2008, 953–970.
A. Constantin, J. Escher, [*W*ave breaking for nonlinear nonlocal shallow water equations.]{} Acta Math. [**181**]{} (1998), no. 2, 229–243.
A. Constantin, J. Escher, [*G*lobal weak solutions for a shallow water equation.]{} Indiana Univ. Math. J. [**47**]{} (1998), 1525–1545.
A. Constantin, J. Escher, [*G*lobal existence and blow-up for a shallow water equation.]{} Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4) [**26**]{} (1998), 303–328.
A. Constantin, V. Gerdjikov and R. Ivanov, Inverse scattering transform for the Camassa-Holm equation, Inverse problems, [**22**]{} (2006), 2197–2207.
A. Constantin, H.P. McKean, [*A* shallow water equation on the circle.]{} Comm. Pure Appl. Math. [**52**]{} (1999), no. 8, 949–982.
A. Constantin, L. Molinet, [*Global weak solutions for a shallow water equation*]{}, Comm. Math. Phys. [**211**]{} (2000), 45-61.
A. Constantin, W. Strauss, [ Stability of a class of solitary waves in compressible elastic rods.]{} Phys. Lett. A [**270**]{} (2000), no. 3-4, 140–148.
H. Dai, Y. Huo, [ Solitary shock waves and other travelling waves in a general compressible hyper elastic rod.]{} R. Soc. Lond. Proc. Ser. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. [**456**]{} (2000), 331–363.
E. B. Davies, “Heat kernels and spectral theory”, Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, 92, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990.
C. Foias, D. Holm and E.S. Titi, [*T*he three dimensional viscous Camassa-Holm equations, and their relation to the Navier-Stokes equations and turbulence theory.]{} J. Dynam. Differential Equations [**14**]{} (2002), no. 1, 1–35.
A. S. Fokas and B. Fuchssteiner, [*Symplectic structures, their Bäcklund transformation and hereditary symmetries*]{}, Physica D [**4**]{} (1981), 47-66.
A. E. Green and P. M. Naghdi, [*A derivation of equations for wave propagation in water of variable depth*]{}, J. Fluid Mech. [**78**]{} (1976), 237–246.
A. Ilyin and E.S. Titi, [ Attractors for the two-dimensional Navier-Stokes-$\alpha$ model: an $\alpha$-dependence study. J. Dynam. Differential Equations]{} [**15**]{} (2003), no. 4, 751–778.
A. Ilyin and E.S. Titi, [*S*harp estimates for the number of degrees of freedom for the damped-driven 2D Navier–Stokes equations]{}, (2005), preprint, available at http://arxiv.org/pdf/math.AP/0507327.
D. J. Kaup, [*E*volution of the scattering coefficients of the Camassa-Holm equation, for general initial data.]{} Stud. Appl. Math. [**117**]{} (2006), no. 2, 149–164.
J. Lenells, [*T*raveling wave solutions of the Camassa-Holm equation.]{} J. Differential Equations [**217**]{} (2005), no. 2, 393–430.
H.P. McKean, [*B*reakdown of a shallow water equation. Mikio Sato: a great Japanese mathematician of the twentieth century.]{} Asian J. Math. [**2**]{} (1998), no. 4, 867–874.
R. McOwen, “Partial Differential equations: methods and applications”, Second Edition Prentice Hall, 2003.
M. Reed and B. Simon, “Methods of modern mathematical physics. II. Fourier analysis, self-adjointness”, Academic Press \[Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers\], New York-London, 1975.
M. Reed and B. Simon, “Methods of modern mathematical physics. IV. Analysis of operators” [*Academic Press \[Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers\], New York-London,*]{} 1978.
M. Stanislavova and A. Stefanov, [*O*n global finite energy solutions of the Camassa-Holm equation]{}, J. Four. Anal. Appl. [**11**]{} (2005), no. 5, 511–531.
M. Stanislavova, [*O*n the global attractor for the damped Benjamin-Bona-Mahony equation]{}, Disc. Cont. Dyn. Syst. (Supplement Volume) (2005).
M. Stanislavova, A. Stefanov and B. Wang,[ Asymptotic Smoothing and Attractors for the Generalized BBM Equation on ${\mathbf R^3}$]{}, J. Diff. Eq. [**219**]{} (2005), p. 451–483.
G. B. Whitham, “Linear and Nonlinear waves”, Wiley, New York, 1973.
[^1]: First author supported in part by the NSF under grant \# EPS-0236913 and NSF-DMS 0508184. Second author supported in part by NSF-DMS 0300511.
[^2]: These equations are also known as Navier Stokes ${\alpha}$ models.
[^3]: In fact, for the existence theorem, the smoothness assumptions on $a$ that we work with are considerably less restrictive than those imposed by [@Helge]. Moreover, in the proof of well-posedness, it will suffice to assume only $a\in C^1(I)$.
[^4]: For the well-posedness result, it is enough to assume only that $a\in C^1(0,1)$.
[^5]: As we have mentioned already, global attractors may not exist in the case $I={\mathbf R^1}$.
[^6]: see Section \[sec:smoothness\]
[^7]: Here uniform means uniformity with respect to a given bounded sequence of initial data.
[^8]: This needs justification in each instance, if one takes $u$ to a be a solution of
[^9]: Similar statement holds for the commutator $[P_{<2^k}, a]$ as well.
[^10]: for smooth and decaying solutions
[^11]: This is actually not so hard to justify. Observe that by the conservation law $\int (u F(u, u_x)+u_x {\partial}_x F(u, u_x))dx=0$, all the integration by parts in that does not hit the term $(1-\psi(x/N))$ equates to zero. Therefore, the only terms that survive are those with $N^{-1}\psi'(x/N)$ in them. Observe that there are no $u_{xx}$ in those either, whence .
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The excitation function and momentum distribution of $\eta^\prime$ mesons have been measured in photoproduction off $^{93}$Nb in the energy range of 1.2-2.9 GeV. The experiment has been performed with the combined Crystal Barrel and MiniTAPS detector system, using tagged photon beams from the ELSA electron accelerator. Information on the sign and magnitude of the real part of the $\eta^\prime$-Nb potential has been extracted from a comparison of the data with model calculations. An attractive potential of -($41 \pm$10(stat)$\pm$15(syst)) MeV depth at normal nuclear matter density is deduced within model uncertainties. This value is consistent with the potential depth of -($37 \pm $10(stat)$\pm$10(syst)) MeV obtained in an earlier measurement for a light nucleus (carbon). This relatively shallow $\eta^\prime$-nucleus potential will make the search for $\eta^\prime$ - nucleus bound states more difficult.'
author:
- |
M. Nanova$^{1}$, S. Friedrich$^{1}$, V. Metag$^{1}$, E. Ya. Paryev$^{2}$, F. N. Afzal$^{3}$, D. Bayadilov$^{3,4}$, R. Beck$^{3}$, M. Becker$^{3}$, S. Böse$^{3}$,\
K.-T. Brinkmann$^{1}$, V. Crede$^{5}$, D. Elsner$^{6}$, F. Frommberger$^{6}$, M. Grüner$^{3}$, E. Gutz$^{1}$, Ch. Hammann$^{3}$, J. Hannappel$^{6}$,\
J. Hartmann$^{3}$, W. Hillert$^{6}$, P. Hoffmeister$^{3}$, Ch. Honisch$^{3}$, T. Jude$^{6}$, F. Kalischewski$^{3}$, I. Keshelashvili$^{7,a}$, F. Klein$^{6}$,\
K. Koop$^{3}$, B. Krusche$^{7}$, M. Lang$^{3}$, K. Makonyi$^{1,b}$, F. Messi$^{6}$, J. Müller$^{3}$, J. Müllers$^{3}$, D.-M. Piontek$^{3}$, T. Rostomyan$^{7}$,\
D. Schaab$^{3}$, C. Schmidt$^{7}$, H. Schmieden$^{6}$, R. Schmitz$^{3}$, T. Seifen$^{3}$, C. Sowa$^{8}$, K. Spieker$^{3}$, A. Thiel$^{3}$, U. Thoma$^{3}$,\
T. Triffterer$^{8}$, M. Urban$^{3}$, H. van Pee$^{3}$, D. Walther$^{3}$, C. Wendel$^{3}$, D. Werthmüller$^{7,c}$, U. Wiedner$^{8}$, A. Wilson$^{3}$,\
L. Witthauer$^{7}$, Y. Wunderlich$^{3}$, and H.-G. Zaunick$^{1}$ (The CBELSA/TAPS Collaboration)
title: 'Determination of the real part of the $\eta^\prime$-Nb optical potential '
---
1.5pt
Introduction {#Intro}
============
The masses and the excitation spectrum of baryons and mesons are an important testing ground for our understanding of the dynamics of quarks and gluons in the non-perturbative regime of Quantum-Chromodynamics. A profound understanding of the excitation energy spectrum of baryons composed of up, down, and strange quarks is still lacking. It remains a challenge to link the empirical excitation spectrum to theoretical predictions and to unravel the relevant degrees of freedom. Although the constituent quark model has many successes, detailed studies of nucleon excitations have provided evidence that some of the low-lying excited states may have a structure which goes beyond the simple 3-quark configuration. Kaiser et al. [@Kaiser] discuss the possibility that for example the S$_{11}$(1535) resonance may be a dynamically generated quasi-bound K$\Sigma$-K$\Lambda$ state. Similar interpretations have been proposed for the $\Lambda$(1405) resonance as having a $\bar{K}$-N and $\pi$-$\Sigma$ molecular structure [@Oset; @Meissner; @Thomas]. The recently observed resonances consistent with pentaquark states P$_C$(4380) and P$_C$(4450) [@LHCb] may also be dynamically generated baryon-meson molecular configurations [@Wu]. Hadronic degrees of freedom like the meson-baryon interaction may thus play an important role in the structure of excited N and $\Lambda$ states.
The meson-baryon interaction has been investigated experimentally in near-threshold meson production to determine the meson-nucleon scattering length which is a measure for the strength of the interaction. Scattering lengths for the $\eta$-N [@Arndt], K-N [@Iwasaki], $\omega$-N [@Strakovsky], and $\eta^\prime$-N [@Moskal] systems have been deduced.
If bound or quasi-bound meson-nucleon configurations exist a next step would be to ask whether also bound systems of mesons and nucleon clusters may exist. The possible existence of compact K$^-$pp clusters was proposed by Yamazaki and Akaishi [@Yamazaki_Akaishi] and has attracted a lot of attention experimentally and theoretically. Following first claims of observing kaonic clusters [@FINUDA; @DISTO] conflicting results have been reported and the existence of such states discussed controversially (see recent publications [@Ichikawa; @HADES; @Fabbietti] and references cited therein). The binding energy of these states may not be very large and they may have a rather large width which makes it difficult to detect them experimentally.
Another step further is the quest for the possible existence of meson-nucleus bound states. Deeply bound pionic states have been observed [@Itahashi; @Geissel]. These are halo-like configurations with a $\pi^-$ meson bound in a potential pocket at the nuclear surface generated by the superposition of the attractive Coulomb interaction and the repulsive s-wave $\pi^-$-nucleus interaction [@Kienle_Yamazaki].
We are interested in the question whether the strong interaction alone is strong enough to form meson-nucleus bound states. This can be tested by looking for bound states of neutral mesons with nuclei. In order to find out which neutral meson is the most promising candidate for observing mesic states the meson-nucleus interaction has to be studied. This interaction can be described by an optical potential [@Nagahiro1] $$U(r) = V(r) + iW(r),$$ where $V$ and $W$ denote the real and imaginary parts of the optical potential, respectively, and $r$ is the distance between the meson and the centre of the nucleus.
The strength of the real part of the meson-nucleus potential is connected to the meson in-medium mass shift $\Delta m(\rho_{0})$ at saturation density $\rho_{0}$ [@Nagahiro1] $$V(r) = \Delta m(\rho_{0})\cdot c^2\cdot \frac{\rho(r)}{\rho_{0}}.$$ The imaginary part of the potential describes the meson absorption in the medium via inelastic channels and is related to the in-medium width $\Gamma_{0}$ of the meson at nuclear saturation density by [@Nanova_tr] $$W(r) = -\frac{1}{2}\Gamma_{0}\cdot \frac{\rho(r)}{\rho_{0}}.$$
In recent photoproduction experiments, we studied the $\omega$- and $\eta^\prime$- nucleus interaction and deduced information on the real [@Nanova_realC; @Friedrich; @Metag_PPNP; @Metag_HypInt] and imaginary part [@Nanova_tr; @Kotulla; @Kotulla_err] of the optical potential. For the latter, values of $\approx$ -70 MeV and $\approx$ -10 MeV were extracted for the $\omega$ and $\eta^\prime$ meson, respectively, at saturation density and for average recoil momenta of $\approx$ 1 GeV/c from transparency ratio measurements by studying the attenuation of the meson flux in the photoproduction off various nuclei. The real part of the meson-nucleus optical potential has, however, so far only been determined for a light nucleus (carbon). In the present work we extend these studies for the $\eta^\prime$ meson to a heavier nucleus (Nb, A=93) to investigate whether there is any dependence of the optical model parameters on the nuclear mass number A.
The paper is structured as follows: The experimental set up and the conditions of the experiment are described in section II. Details of the analysis are given in section III. In section IV the results are presented and compared to theoretical calculations in section V. Concluding remarks are given in section VI.
Experiment {#sec:exp}
==========
The experiment was performed at the ELSA electron accelerator facility [@Husmann_Schwille; @Hillert] at the University of Bonn. Tagged photons of energies 1.2-2.9 GeV were produced via bremsstrahlung from an electron beam of 3.0 GeV, scattered off a diamond radiator (500 $\mu$m thick). The energy of generated photons was determined by a tagging hodoscope with an energy resolution better than 0.4$\% \cdot$E$_{\gamma}$. The photon beam, collimated by an aperture of 7 mm diameter, impinged on a 1 mm thick $^{93}$Nb target (8.6$\%$ of a radiation length $X_0$). Decay photons from mesons produced in the target were registered in the combined Crystal Barrel (CB) and MiniTAPS detector system. The CB detector [@Aker], a homogeneous electromagnetic calorimeter, consisted of 1230 CsI(Tl) crystals read out with photodiodes, subtending polar angles of 29$^\circ$-156$^\circ$. In the forward angular range between 11$^\circ$ and 28$^\circ$, 90 CsI(Tl) crystals (Forward Plug (FP)) were mounted and read out with photomultipliers (PMT) providing energy and time information. The angular range between 1$^\circ$ and 11$^\circ$ was covered by the MiniTAPS forward wall [@Novotny; @Gabler] at a distance of 210 cm from the centre of the CB, consisting of 216 BaF$_2$ crystals, read out via PMTs with electronics described in [@Drexler]. The high granularity and the large solid angle coverage made the detector system ideally suited for the detection and reconstruction of multi-photon events.
For charged particle identification each BaF$_2$ module of the MiniTAPS array and the 90 CsI(Tl) crystals of the FP were equipped with plastic scintillators. In the angular range of 23$^\circ$-167$^\circ$ a three layer fibre detector with 513 scintillating fibres, surrounding the target and placed at the centre of the CB, served for charged particle detection [@Suft]. To suppress electromagnetic background at forward angles, a gas-Cherenkov detector with an index of refraction of n=1.00043 was mounted in front of the MiniTAPS array.
In order to improve the statistics at low $\eta^\prime$ momenta, the orientation of the diamond radiator was chosen to generate an excess of coherent photons peaking at an energy of 1.5 GeV in addition to the 1/E$_{\gamma}$ bremsstrahlung flux distribution. The polarisation of the radiation was not exploited in the analysis of the data. The photon flux through the target was determined by counting the photons reaching the gamma intensity monitor (GIM) at the end of the setup in coincidence with electrons registered in the tagging system. The total rate in the tagging system was $\approx$10 MHz. The dead time introduced by the gas-Cherenkov detector was about 25$\%$. The GIM dead time, corrected for in the flux determination, was about 20$\%$.
Online event selection was made using first- and second-level triggers. The detectors contributing to the first-level trigger were the FP, MiniTAPS and gas-Cherenkov together with signals from the tagger. CB could not be used in the first-level trigger because of the long rise time of the photodiode signals. The second-level trigger was based on a FAst Cluster Encoder (FACE), providing the number of clusters in the CB within $\approx $ 10 $\mu$s. Events with at least two hits in the calorimeters and no hit in the gas-Cherenkov detector were selected for further processing. The events were collected in a data taking period of 960 h. More details on the experimental setup and the running conditions can be found in [@Nanova_realC; @Thiel].
Data Analysis {#sec:ana}
=============
The $\eta^\prime$ mesons were identified via their $\eta^\prime\rightarrow \pi^{0}\pi^{0}\eta \rightarrow 6 \gamma$ decay with an overall branching ratio of 8.5$\%$ [@PDG]. For the reconstruction of $\eta^\prime$ mesons from the registered decay photons, only events with 6 neutral and any number of charged hits and with an energy sum of neutral clusters larger than 600 MeV were used. The 6 photons were combined in two pairs of two photons with invariant masses in the range 115 MeV/$c^2 \le m_{\gamma\gamma} \le$ 155 MeV/$c^2$ (corresponding to a $\pm 3 \sigma$ cut around $m_{\pi^{0}}$) and one pair with invariant mass in the range 510 MeV/$c^2 \le m_{\gamma\gamma} \le$ 590 MeV/$c^2$ (roughly corresponding to a $\pm 2 \sigma$ cut around $m_{\eta}$). The best photon combination was selected based on a $\chi^2$ minimisation. To suppress the background from $\eta \rightarrow 3\pi^{0}$ decays, events with three photon pairs with an invariant mass close to the pion mass ($m_{\pi^{0}}$) were removed from the data set. Random coincidences between the tagger and the detector modules in the first level trigger were removed by a cut in the corresponding time spectra. The resulting $\pi^{0}\pi^{0}\eta$ invariant mass spectrum is shown in Fig. \[fig:etaprime\_signal\].
The $\pi^{0}\pi^{0}\eta$ invariant mass spectrum was fitted with a Gaussian function and a polynomial to describe the background. The $\eta^\prime$-signal in the $\pi^{0}\pi^{0}\eta$ spectrum had a width $\sigma$=$11.9\pm0.3$ MeV/$c^2$ and a position $m=957.1\pm0.4$ MeV/$c^2$, in good agreement with the PDG value [@PDG]. In total, $\approx$ 3500 $\eta^\prime$ mesons were reconstructed in the photon energy range 1.2-2.9 GeV.
For the determination of the angle differential and total cross sections, the efficiency for reconstructing the reaction of interest has to be known. Applying the GEANT3 package [@GEANT] with a full implementation of the detector system, the reaction $\gamma \text{Nb} \rightarrow \text{X}\eta^\prime$ was simulated, using as input the measured angular distributions of $\eta^\prime$ mesons produced off protons and neutrons bound in deuterium [@Igal]. In addition, the Fermi motion of nucleons in the target nucleus, as parameterised by [@Cioffi], has been taken into account. The reconstruction efficiency was determined as a function of the laboratory angle and the momentum of the $\eta^\prime$ meson. This approach ensured that the appropriate acceptance was used even if the angle and momentum of the $\eta^\prime$ meson deviated from the kinematics of the reaction because of final state interactions (FSI) in the nuclear environment. For the $\eta^\prime$ meson, FSI effects are, however, expected to be small because of the rather small cross section for elastic $\eta^\prime$ scattering predicted to be $\sigma_{\text{el}}^{\eta^\prime} \approx 3$ mb [@Oset_Ramos]. This corresponds to a mean free path of $\approx$ 20 fm which is large compared to nuclear dimensions. The reconstruction efficiency was determined by taking the ratio of the number of reconstructed and the number of generated $\gamma \text{Nb} \rightarrow \eta^\prime \text{X}$ events in the $\eta^\prime\rightarrow \pi^0\pi^0\eta \rightarrow 6 \gamma$ channel for each angular- and momentum bin. The resulting reconstruction efficiency $\epsilon_{\gamma \text{Nb} \rightarrow \eta^\prime \text{X}} (p_{\eta^\prime}^{\text{lab}},\theta _{\eta^\prime}^{\text{lab}})$ varies smoothly over the full kinematic range as shown in Fig. \[fig:etaprime\_acc\], for the incident photon energy range of 1.2-2.9 GeV. In the Monte Carlo simulations, the same trigger conditions as in the experiment were applied.\
For the cross section determinations, the $\pi^0 \pi^0 \eta$ invariant mass histograms were filled with an event-by-event weighting by the inverse photon flux N$_{\gamma}$ and the reconstruction efficiency $\epsilon_{\gamma \text{Nb} \rightarrow \eta^\prime \text{X}} (p_{\eta^\prime}^{\text{lab}},\theta _{\eta^\prime}^{\text{lab}})$ for each bin in $\eta^\prime$ momentum $p_{\eta^\prime}^{\text{lab}} $ and angle $\theta _{\eta^\prime}^{\text{lab}}$ in the laboratory frame. The differential $\eta^\prime$ cross sections were determined by applying the same fit procedure for 8 bins of the incident photon energy and for 5 bins of $\cos\theta^{\text{c.m.}}_{\eta^\prime}$, where $\theta^{\text{c.m.}}_{\eta^\prime}$ is the angle of the $\eta^\prime$ in the centre of mass system of the incident photon and a target nucleon at rest, neglecting Fermi motion. The polar angular binning was chosen according to the available statistics and was larger than the angular resolution in the c.m. system. The statistical errors were determined from the yield of the $\eta^\prime$ signal (S) in each energy and $\cos\theta^{\text{c.m.}}_{\eta^\prime}$ bin and the counts in the background below the peak (BG) according to the formula: $\Delta \text{N} = \sqrt{(\text{S+BG})}$. The total cross section for $\eta^\prime$ photoproduction was determined (i) by integrating the differential cross sections and (ii) by direct determination of the $\eta^\prime$ meson yields for different incident photon energy bins. The two methods were applied as a systematic check of the fit procedure to extract the $\eta^\prime$ invariant mass signal over different kinematic ranges. The results are compared and further discussed in sec. \[sec:tot\].
The different sources of systematic errors are summarised in Table \[tab:syst\]. The systematic errors in the fit procedure were estimated to be in the range of 10-15% by applying different background functions and fit intervals. Varying the start distributions in the acceptance simulation between isotropic and forward peaking $\eta^\prime$ angular distributions, the systematic errors of the acceptance determination were determined to be less than 10%. The photon flux through the target was measured by counting the photons reaching the GIM in coincidence with electrons registered in the tagger system. Systematic errors in the photon flux determination after dead time correction were estimated to be about 5-10%. The systematic errors introduced by uncertainties in the photon shadowing (see below) were $\approx$ 10%. The total systematic error of the cross section determinations, obtained by adding the systematic errors quadratically, was 23%.
--------------------------- ------------------
fits $\approx$ 10-15%
reconstruction efficiency $\lesssim$ 10%
photon flux 5-10%
photon shadowing $\approx$ 10%
total $\approx$ 23%
--------------------------- ------------------
: Sources of systematic errors
\[tab:syst\]
Experimental results
====================
Differential cross sections for the $\eta^\prime$ photoproduction off Nb {#sec:diff}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The differential cross sections have been determined according to: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\sigma}{d (\cos \theta_{\eta^\prime}^{\text{c.m.}})} = \sum_{\text{p}_{\eta^\prime}^{\text{lab}}} \frac{\text{N}_{\eta^\prime\rightarrow \pi^0 \pi^0 \eta}(\text{p}_{\eta^\prime}^{\text{lab}}, \theta_{\eta^\prime}^{\text{lab}})}{ \epsilon_{\gamma \text{Nb}\rightarrow \eta^\prime \text{X}} (\text{p}_{\eta^\prime}^{\text{lab}}, \theta_{\eta^\prime}^{\text{lab}})} \nonumber \\
\cdot \frac{1}{\text{N}_{\gamma} \cdot \text{n}_{\text{t}}} \cdot \frac{1}{\Delta \cos\theta_{\eta^\prime}^{\text{c.m.}}} \cdot \frac{1}{\frac{\Gamma_{\eta^\prime \rightarrow \pi^0 \pi^0 \eta \rightarrow 6 \gamma}}{\Gamma_{\text{total}}}},
$$ where N$_{\eta^\prime \rightarrow \pi^0 \pi^0 \eta}(p_{\eta^\prime}^{\text{lab}}, \theta_{\eta^\prime}^{\text{lab}})$ is the number of reconstructed $\eta^\prime$ mesons extracted by the fit procedure as described in Sec. \[sec:ana\] in each (p$_{\eta^\prime}^{\text{lab}}, \theta_{\eta^\prime}^{\text{lab}}$) bin; N$_{\gamma}$ is the photon flux; n$_{\text{t}}$ is the density of the target nucleons multiplied by the target thickness (5.55$\cdot$10$^{21}$cm$^{-2}$); $\Delta \cos\theta_{\eta^\prime}^{\text{c.m.}}$ is the angular bin in the c.m. frame; $\frac{\Gamma_{\eta^\prime \rightarrow \pi^0 \pi^0 \eta \rightarrow 6 \gamma}}{\Gamma_{\text{total}}}$ is the decay branching fraction of 8.5% for the decay channel $\eta^\prime \rightarrow \pi^0 \pi^0 \eta \rightarrow 6 \gamma$.\
Fig. \[fig:diffcs\] presents the differential cross sections $d\sigma /d (\cos\theta^{\text{c.m.}}_{\eta^\prime})$ for 8 bins in the incident photon energy range. The dead time of the gas-Cherenkov detector and the GIM have been corrected for. Furthermore, the reduction in the incident photon flux due to photon shadowing has been taken into account by multiplying the observed $\eta^\prime$ yield by 1.17 [@Falter; @bianchi; @Muccifora]. A rather flat angular distribution is observed at low energies near the production threshold on a free nucleon ($E_{\gamma}^{\text{thr}}$=1.447 GeV). For higher photon energies E$_{\gamma} \ >$ 1.8 GeV, the angular distributions show a forward rise, characteristic for t-channel production. This behaviour is similar to previous results on angular distributions for $\eta^\prime$ photoproduction off carbon [@Nanova_realC].
Total cross section for the $\eta^\prime$ photoproduction off Nb {#sec:tot}
----------------------------------------------------------------
The total cross section for the $\eta^\prime$ photoproduction off Nb is shown in Fig. \[fig:tot\_Nb\] (Left). The integration of the differential cross sections and the direct determination of the cross section from the $\eta^\prime$ yield in different incident photon energy bins give consistent results within errors. The cross section is found to be non-zero below E$_{\gamma}$ = 1.447 GeV, the threshold energy for photoproduction of $\eta^\prime$ mesons off the free nucleon. This is on the one hand, due to the Fermi motion of nucleons in the Nb target which gives rise to a distribution of the energy $\sqrt\text{s}$ available in the centre-of-mass system for a given incident photon energy. On the other hand, also the mass of the meson might drop in a nuclear medium - as discussed below - which lowers the production threshold and increases the phase space for meson production below the free threshold energy.
Comparison to the theoretical model predictions and previous experimental results
=================================================================================
Weil et al. [@Weil] discussed the possibility to extract information on the in-medium meson mass and the real part of the meson-nucleus potential from a measurement of the excitation function and/or momentum distribution of mesons in the photoproduction off a nucleus. A lowering of the meson mass in the medium decreases the meson production threshold and the enlarged phase space will consequently increase the production cross section for a given incident beam energy as compared to a scenario without mass shift. The lowering of the meson mass in the medium also affects the momentum distribution of the produced meson in the final state. When a meson is produced with a lower mass, then its total energy is on average also reduced due to kinematics. In addition, mesons produced within the nuclear medium must regain their free mass upon leaving the nucleus. Thus, in case of an in-medium mass drop, this mass difference has to be compensated at the expense of their kinetic energy. As demonstrated in GiBUU transport-model calculations [@Weil], this leads to a downward shift in the momentum distribution for near-threshold energies as compared to a scenario without mass shift. A mass shift can thus be indirectly inferred from a measurement of the excitation function as well as from the momentum distribution of the meson. This idea, initially worked out for $\omega$ mesons [@Weil], has independently been pursued on a quantitative level for $\eta^\prime$ mesons by Paryev [@Paryev].
Excitation function for $\eta^\prime$ mesons {#sec:excit}
--------------------------------------------
The measured excitation function for photoproduction of $\eta^\prime$ mesons off Nb is compared in Fig. \[fig:tot\_Nb\] (Left) to calculations within the first collision model [@Paryev]. These calculations are conceptually identical to the ones used for extracting the real part of the $\eta^\prime$-C potential [@Nanova_realC]. Using the measured differential cross sections for $\eta^\prime$ production off the proton and neutron bound in deuterium [@Igal] as input, the cross section for $\eta^\prime$ photoproduction off Nb is calculated in an eikonal approximation, taking the effect of the nuclear $\eta^\prime$ mean-field potential into account. While the cross section data go up to the highest incident photon energy of 2.9 GeV, the calculations do not extend beyond E$_{\gamma}$ = 2.7 GeV since the elementary $\eta^\prime $ photoproduction cross sections off the proton and neutron [@Igal] are only known up to this energy. The off-shell differential cross sections for the production of $\eta^\prime$ mesons with reduced in-medium mass off intranuclear protons and neutrons in the elementary reactions $\gamma \text{p} \rightarrow \eta^\prime$p and $\gamma \text{n} \rightarrow \eta^\prime$n are assumed to be given by the measured on-shell cross sections, using the reduced in-medium mass. The $\eta^\prime$ final-state absorption is taken into account by using a momentum independent, inelastic in-medium $\eta^\prime$N cross section of $\sigma_{\text{inel}}^{\eta^{\prime}}$=13$\pm$3 mb [@Friedrich_ta], slightly larger but consistent within the errors with the result of previous transparency ratio measurements [@Nanova_tr]. The contribution of $\eta^\prime$ production from two-nucleon short-range correlations is implemented by using the total nucleon spectral function in the parametrisation by [@Efremov]. As in [@Nanova_realC], the momentum-dependent optical potential from [@Rudy], seen by the nucleons emerging from the nucleus in coincidence with the $\eta^\prime$ mesons, is accounted for. Furthermore, the Coulomb interaction of the outgoing proton and the residual nucleus is taken into account. The overall systematic uncertainties of the calculations are mainly given by the experimental input and the fits to the measured cross sections and are estimated to be of the order of 10-15%.
The calculations have been performed for six different scenarios assuming depths of the $\eta^\prime$ real potential at normal nuclear matter density of $V$ = 0, -25, -50, -75, -100\
and -150 MeV, respectively. The calculated cross sections have been scaled down - within the limits of the systematic uncertainties - by a factor of 0.91 to match the experimental excitation function data at incident photon energies above 2.2 GeV, where the difference between the various scenarios is very small. In the corresponding analysis of the C data [@Nanova_realC] a similar rescaling of the theoretical calculations had to be applied. We are not aware of any missing physics in the calculations which might explain this systematic difference between data and calculations. In view of the systematic errors of the cross section data (23$\%$) and the calculations (10-15$\%$) a discrepancy cannot be claimed. The highest sensitivity to the $\eta^\prime$ potential depth is found for incident photon energies near and below the production threshold on the free nucleon. As described in section \[sec:exp\], the photon flux has been enhanced below E$_{\gamma}$ = 1.5 GeV to achieve sufficient statistics in this particularly relevant energy regime where the cross sections are quite small. The excitation function data appear to be incompatible with $\eta^\prime$ mass shifts of -100 MeV and more at normal nuclear matter density, as more clearly seen in Fig. \[fig:tot\_Nb\] (Middle), where the data and the calculations are shown on a linear scale after dividing by the curve corresponding to the scenario V= 0 MeV. A $\chi^{2}$-fit of the data (see Fig. \[fig:tot\_Nb\] (Right)) over the full incident energy range with the excitation functions calculated for the different scenarios gives a potential depth of -(40$\pm$12) MeV.
Momentum distribution of the $\eta'$ mesons {#sec:mom}
-------------------------------------------
The measured momentum differential cross section for $\eta^\prime$ meson photoproduction off Nb is shown in Fig. \[fig:mom\] (Left). The average momentum is 1.14 GeV/$c$. Bin sizes of $\ge$ 0.2 GeV/$c$ have been chosen which are large compared to the momentum resolution of 25-50 MeV/$c$ deduced from the experimental energy resolution and from MC simulations. As described above, the momentum distribution of $\eta^\prime$ mesons is also sensitive to the $\eta^\prime$-potential depth. The $\eta^\prime$ momentum distributions have been calculated for the incident photon energy range 1.3-2.6 GeV and for different potential depths V = 0, -25, -50, -75, -100 and -150 MeV. The comparison of these calculations with the data again seems to exclude strong $\eta^\prime$ mass shifts. In Fig. \[fig:mom\] (Middle) the experimental data and the predicted curves for V = - 25, -50, -75, -100 and -150 MeV are divided by the calculation for the scenario V= 0 MeV and presented on a linear scale. A $\chi^2$ - fit of the data (see Fig. \[fig:mom\] (Right)) with the momentum distributions calculated for the different scenarios gives an attractive potential of -(45$\pm$20) MeV.\
Combining the results from the analysis of the excitation function and the momentum distribution and by proper weighting of the errors a depth of the real part of the $\eta^\prime$-C and $\eta^\prime$-Nb optical potential of V$_0 (\rho = \rho_0) = -(37 \pm 10(stat)\pm10(syst))$ MeV and V$(\rho=\rho_0)$ = -(41 $\pm$10(stat)$\pm$15(syst)) MeV is obtained, respectively. The systematic error quoted is mainly due to uncertainties in normalizing the calculations to the data. The sensitivity of the result on this normalisation has been studied by varying the normalisation factor between 0.7 to 1.0 - well within the systematic errors of the cross section determinations. This results for V$(\rho=\rho_0)$ are consistent with predictions of the $\eta^\prime$-nucleus potential depth within the Quark-Meson Coupling model (QMC) [@Bass] and with calculations in [@Nagahiro_Oset] but does not support larger mass shifts as discussed in [@Jido; @Nagahiro; @Kwon].
Comparison to $\eta^\prime $ photoproduction off carbon
-------------------------------------------------------
The depth of the potential determined in this work for the real part of the $\eta^\prime$-Nb interaction is compared in Fig. \[fig:comb\_result\] to the result obtained for the $\eta^\prime$-C interaction [@Nanova_realC]. The values deduced by analysis of the excitation functions and the momentum distributions do agree for both nuclei within errors. Thus, the present result confirms the earlier observation from photoproduction of $\eta^\prime $ mesons off carbon that the mass of the $\eta^\prime $ meson is lowered by about 40 MeV in nuclei at saturation density, within the errors quoted for the potential depth. There is no evidence for a strong variation of the potential parameters with the nuclear mass number. Assuming that there is no mass number dependence the results separately obtained for both targets can be combined to the weighted average of V$(\rho=\rho_0)$= -(39$\pm$7(stat)$\pm$15(syst)) MeV, as shown in Fig. \[fig:comb\_result\]. A simultaneous $\chi^2$ - fit to the 82 data points of both the C and Nb data sets, dominated by the C-data because of their better statistics, yields a potential depth of -(35 $\pm 15$) MeV. The modulus of the real part of the $\eta^\prime $ optical potential is larger than the modulus of the imaginary part of $\approx$ -10 MeV which still makes the $\eta^\prime $ meson a promising candidate for the search for mesic states. However, this search appears to be more complicated than previously assumed. Pronounced narrow structures in the excitation energy spectrum of the $\eta^\prime$ - nucleus system calculated for potential depths in the range of $\ge$ 100 MeV [@Nagahiro] are less likely to be expected in view of the present results.
Conclusions
===========
From the analysis of the excitation function and momentum distribution of $\eta^\prime$ mesons in photoproduction off Nb the real part of the $\eta^\prime$-Nb optical potential has been determined. Within the model used, the present results are consistent with an attractive $\eta^\prime$-Nb potential with a depth of -(41$\pm$10(stat)$\pm$15(syst)) MeV under normal conditions ($\rho=\rho_{0}, T=0$).
This result is consistent with an earlier determination of the $\eta^\prime$-C potential depth of -(37$\pm$10(stat)$\pm$10(syst)) MeV [@Nanova_realC] and confirms the (indirect) observation of a mass reduction of the $\eta^\prime$ meson in a strongly interacting environment at above conditions. The attractive $\eta^\prime$-nucleus potential may be strong enough to allow the formation of bound $\eta^\prime$-nucleus states. The search for such states is encouraged by the relatively small imaginary potential of the $\eta^\prime$ of $\approx$ -10 MeV [@Nanova_tr]. Because of the relatively shallow $\eta^\prime$-nucleus potential found in this work, the search for $\eta^\prime$-mesic states may, however, turn out to be more difficult than initially anticipated on the basis of theoretical predictions. An experiment to search for $\eta^\prime$ bound states via missing mass spectroscopy [@Kenta] has been performed at the Fragment Separator (FRS) at GSI and is being analyzed. A semi-exclusive measurement where observing the formation of the $\eta^\prime$-mesic state via missing mass spectroscopy is combined with the detection of its decay is ongoing at the LEPS2 facility (Spring8) [@Muramatsu] and is planned [@volker] at the BGO-OD setup [@Schmieden; @Jude] at the ELSA accelerator in Bonn. A corresponding semi-exclusive experiment has also been proposed for the Super-FRS at FAIR [@Nagahiro_Kenta]. The observation of $\eta^\prime$-nucleus bound states would provide further direct information on the $\eta^\prime$-nucleus interaction and the in-medium properties of the $\eta^\prime$ meson.
We thank the scientific and technical staff at ELSA and the collaborating institutions for their important contribution to the success of the experiment. Detailed discussions with U. Mosel and J. Weil are acknowledged. This work was supported financially by the [ *Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft*]{} within SFB/TR16 and by the [*Schweizerischer Nationalfonds*]{}.
[99]{} N. Kaiser, P. B. Siegel, and W. Weise, Phys. Lett. B **362**, 23 (1995). E. Oset and A. Ramos, Nucl. Phys. A **635**, 99 (1998). J. A. Oller and U.-G. Meissner, Phys. Lett. B **500**, 263 (2001). J. M. M. Hall [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. **114**, 132002 (2015). R. Aaij [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. **115**, 072001 (2015). J. J. Wu, R. Molina, E. Oset, and B.S. Zou, Phys. Rev. Lett. **105**, 232001 (2010). R. A. Arndt [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C **72**, 045202 (2005). M. Iwasaki [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. **78**, 3067(1997). I. Strakovsky [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C **91**, 045207 (2015). E. Czerwinski [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. **113**, 062004 (2014). T. Yamazaki and Y. Akaishi, Phys. Lett. B **535**, 70 (2002). M. Agnello [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. **94**, 212303 (2005). T. Yamazaki [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. **104**, 132502 (2010). Y. Ichikawa [*et al.*]{}, Prog. Theo. Exp. Phys. 021D01 (2015). G. Agakishiev [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B **742**, 242 (2015). E. Epple and L. Fabbietti, Phys. Rev. C **92**, 044002 (2015). K. Itahashi [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C **62**, 025202 (2000). H. Geissel [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. **88**, 122301 (2002). P. Kienle and T. Yamazaki, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. **52**, 85 (2004). H. Nagahiro [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C **87**, 045201 (2013). M. Nanova [*et al.*]{}, CBELSA/TAPS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B **710**, 600 (2012). M. Nanova [*et al.*]{}, CBELSA/TAPS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B **727**, 417 (2013). S. Friedrich [*et al.*]{}, CBELSA/TAPS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B **736**, 26 (2014). V. Metag [*et al.*]{}, PPNP **67**, 530 (2012). V. Metag, Hyp. Int. **234**, 25 (2015). M. Kotulla [*et al.*]{}, CBELSA/TAPS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. **100**, 192302 (2008). M. Kotulla [*et al.*]{}, CBELSA/TAPS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. **114**, 199903 (2015). D. Husmann and W. J. Schwille, Phys. Bl. **44**, 40 (1988). W. Hillert, Eur. Phys. J. A **28 S2**, 139 (2006). E. Aker [*et al.*]{}, The Crystal Barrel Collaboration, Nucl. Instr. Meth. A **321**, 69 (1992). R. Novotny [*et al.*]{}, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. **38**, 392 (1991). A. R. Gabler [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instr. Meth. A **346**, 168 (1994). P. Drexler [*et al.*]{}, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. **50**, 969 (2003). G. Suft [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instr. Methods A **538**, 416 (2005). A. Thiel [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. **109**, 102001 (2012). K. A. Olive [*et al.*]{} (Particle Data Group), Chin. Phys. C **38**(9), 090001 (2014). R. Brun [*et al.*]{}, GEANT, Cern/DD/ee/84-1 (1986). I. Jaegle [*et al.*]{}, CBELSA/TAPS Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. A **47**, 11 (2011). C. Ciofi degli Atti and S. Simula, Phys. Rev. C **53**, 1689 (1996). E. Oset and A. Ramos, Phys. Lett. B **704**, 334 (2011). T. Falter, S. Leupold, and U. Mosel, Phys. Rev. C **64**, 024608 (2001). N. Bianchi [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C **54**, 1688 (1996). V. Muccifora [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C **60**, 064616 (1999). J. Weil, U. Mosel, and V. Metag, Phys. Lett. B **723**, 120 (2013). E. Ya. Paryev, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. **40**, 025201 (2013). S. Friedrich [*et al.*]{}, CBELSA/TAPS Collaboration, (submitted for publication to EPJA). E. Ya. Paryev, Eur. Phys. J. A **7**, 127 (2000). Z. Rudy [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. A **15**, 303 (2002). S. D. Bass and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Lett. B. **634**, 368 (2006). H. Nagahiro, S. Hirenzaki, E. Oset, and A. Ramos, Phys. Lett. B **709**, 87 (2012). S. Sakai and D. Jido, Phys. Rev. C **88**, 064906 (2013). H. Nagahiro, M. Takizawa, and S. Hirenzaki, Phys. Rev. C **74**, 045203 (2006). Y. Kwon [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D **86**, 034014 (2012). K. Itahashi [*et al.*]{}, Prog. Theo. Phys. **128**, 601 (2012). N. Muramatsu, Few-Body Syst. **128**, 997 (2013). V. Metag [*et al.*]{}, approved proposal ELSA/03-2012-BGO-OD. H. Schmieden, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E **19**, 1043 (2010). T. Jude [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1510.01488 H. Nagahiro [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C **87**, 045201 (2013).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We present experimental studies on ion acceleration from ultra-thin diamond-like carbon (DLC) foils irradiated by ultra-high contrast laser pulses of energy 0.7J focussed to peak intensities of $5\times10^{19}\,$W/cm$^2$. A reduction in electron heating is observed when the laser polarization is changed from linear to circular, leading to a pronounced peak in the fully ionized carbon spectrum at the optimum foil thickness of 5.3nm. Two-dimensional particle-in-cell (PIC) simulations reveal, that those C$^{6+}$ ions are for the first time dominantly accelerated in a phase-stable way by the laser radiation pressure.'
author:
- 'A. Henig'
- 'S. Steinke'
- 'M. Schnürer'
- 'T. Sokollik'
- 'R. Hörlein'
- 'D. Kiefer'
- 'D. Jung'
- 'J. Schreiber'
- 'B. M. Hegelich'
- 'X.Q. Yan'
- 'T. Tajima'
- 'P.V. Nickles'
- 'W. Sandner'
- 'D. Habs'
title: Radiation pressure acceleration of ion beams driven by circularly polarized laser pulses
---
The generation of highly energetic ion beams from laser-plasma interactions has attracted great interest since the pioneering work that was carried out 10 years ago [@ClarkPRL2000; @MaksimchukPRL2000; @SnavelyPRL2000; @HatchettPoP2000]. In the vast majority of previous studies, foil targets ranging in thickness from a few to several tens of microns have been irradiated by linearly polarized, intense ($10^{18}-10^{21}$W/cm$^2$) laser pulses. Here, target normal sheath acceleration (TNSA) was found to be the predominant mechanism leading to the emission of multi-MeV, high-quality ion beams. In TNSA, highly energetic electrons are created at the target front surface which traverse the opaque foil to set up a quasi-static electric field of the order TV/m on the nonirradiated side. Protons are preferentially accelerated, resulting in a continuous, exponential spectrum with cut-off energy up to 60MeV [@RobsonNP2007]. By decreasing the foil thickness to values only slightly above the decay length of the evanescent field, an enhancement in the acceleration of heavier ions was obtained recently [@HenigPRL2009b], being attributed to relativistic transparency at the peak of the pulse, enabling the penetrating laser to transfer energy to all electrons located within the focal volume. Besides raising the maximum ion energy achievable, a second major challenge is imposed by the demand to generate a monochromatic beam. The possibility to accelerate quasi-monoenergetic ion bunches has already been demonstrated within the TNSA-regime by restricting the ion source to a small volume where the sheath field is homogenous [@HegelichN2006; @SchwoererN2006; @Ter-AvetisyanPRL2006]. However, this method suffers from a very low conversion efficiency.\
Recently, a new mechanism for laser-driven ion acceleration was proposed, where particles gain energy directly from the radiation pressure (RP) exerted onto the target by the laser beam [@MacchiPRL2005; @ZhangPoP2007; @LiseikinaAPL2007; @KlimoPRSTAB2008; @RobinsonNJP2008; @YanPRL2008; @RykovanovNJP2008; @QiaoPRL2009], an idea that goes back to [@MarxN1966]. For RPA to become dominant, a thin foil is irradiated by a circularly polarized laser pulse at normal incidence. Owing to the absence of an oscillating component in the $\vec{v}\times \vec{B}$ force, electron heating is strongly suppressed. Instead, electrons are compressed to a highly dense electron layer piling up in front of the laser pulse which in turn accelerates ions. By choosing the laser intensity, target thickness and density such that the radiation pressure equals the restoring force given by the charge separation field, the whole focal volume eventually propagates ballistically as a quasi-neutral plasma bunch, continuously gaining energy from the laser field. In this scenario, all particle species are accelerated to the same velocity, which intrinsically results in a monochromatic spectrum. As long as the electron temperature is kept low, a phase-stable acceleration can be maintained, and the process is expected to lead to very high conversion efficiencies and ion maximum energies scaling linearly with laser intensity under optimum conditions.\
Despite the anticipated highly promising characteristics of RPA, according to our knowledge experimental investigation of ion acceleration using circular polarization has only been carried out at intensities smaller than $4\times 10^{18}$W/cm$^2$ and targets of several micron thickness irradiated at oblique incidence [@FukumiPoP2005; @KadoLPB2006], thus being far off the parameters necessary for radiation pressure to become the dominant acceleration mechanism.\
In this Letter, we present for the first time experimental studies of ion acceleration driven by circularly polarized laser pulses at significantly increased intensities of $5\times10^{19}\,$W/cm$^2$. Diamond-like carbon (DLC) foils of thickness $2.9-40\,$nm have been irradiated at normal incidence and ultra-high laser pulse contrast. When compared to the case of linear polarization, we observe a pronounced decrease in the number of hot electrons generated. While for linear polarization the spectra of all ion species decay monotonically up to a certain cut-off value, a distinct peak of energy 30MeV emerges in the spectrum of fully ionized carbon ions at the optimum target thickness of $(5.3\,\pm\,1.3)\,$nm and circular polarization. Two-dimensional PIC simulations give evidence, that C$^{6+}$ ions are dominantly accelerated by the laser radiation pressure under these conditions.\
The described experiments have been carried out at the 30TW Ti:sapph laser system located at Max Born Institute, delivering 1.2J of energy stored in pulses of 45fs FWHM duration at a central wavelength of $\lambda=810\,$nm. The relative intensity of prepulses and of the amplified spontaneous emission (ASE) pedestal was characterized by means of a 3rd order autocorrelator to be smaller than $10^{-7}$ at times earlier than $-10\,$ps prior to the arrival of the main peak. In order to further enhance that value, a re-collimating double plasma mirror [@DoumyPRE2004; @AndreevPoP2009] was introduced into the laser beam path, resulting in an estimated contrast of $\sim 10^{-11}$. Taking into account the measured $60\%$ energy throughput of this setup, $\sim 0.7\,$J were focussed by an f/2.5 off-axis parabolic mirror to a FWHM diameter focal spot size of $2w_0=3.6\,\mu$m. A peak intensity of $I_0=5\times10^{19}\,$W/cm$^2$ was achieved, corresponding to a normalized laser vector potential maximum of $a_0=5$ for linear and $a_0=5/\sqrt{2}=3.5$ for circular polarization. To vary the laser polarization to circular, a mica crystal operating as $\lambda/4$-waveplate was introduced into the beam path behind the plasma mirror setup.\
DLC foils of thickness $d=2.9-40\,$nm and density $\rho=2.7$ g/cm$^3$ were placed in the focal plane at normal incidence.
![(color). (a) Experimentally observed maximum proton (green, light green) and carbon C$^{6+}$ (red, orange) energies per atomic mass unit over target thickness for linearly and circularly polarized irradiation. Grey dotted lines represent the respective values obtained from 2D PIC simulations. Corresponding electron spectra measured at the optimum target thickness $d=5.3\,$nm are given in (b), showing a strong reduction in electron heating for circularly polarized irradiation. \[fig1\]](fig1.eps){width="8.6cm"}
Compared to other material available, DLC offers unique properties for mechanically stable, ultra-thin, free standing targets, such as exceptionally high tensile strength, hardness and heat resistance, owing to the high fraction of sp$^3$-, i.e. diamond-like bonds of $\sim$75%. The thickness of the DLC foils was characterized by means of an atomic force microscope (AFM), including the hydrocarbon contamination layer on the target surface which was present during the experiments. In addition, the depth-dependend composition of the target was measured via Elastic Recoil Detection Analysis (ERDA). From these measurements we obtain a thickness of $\sim 1\,$nm for the hydrocarbon contamination layer. Throughout the manuscript we are referring to the combined thickness of bulk and surface layer as it appears in the actual ion acceleration experiment presented.\
To characterize the accelerated ions, a Thomson parabola spectrometer was placed at a distance of $\sim0.5\,$m (solid angle $\sim 1.14\times 10^{-7}\,$sr) along the laser propagation, i.e target normal direction. Ion traces were detected at the back of the spectrometer by a CCD camera coupled to a micro-channel plate (MCP) with phosphor screen [@Ter-AvetisyanJPDAP2005]. In addition, a magnetic electron spectrometer (solid angle $\sim 2\times 10^{-4}\,$sr) equipped with Fujifilm BAS-TR image plates was positioned behind the target at an angle of 22.5$^\circ$ with respect to the laser axis.\
The obtained maximum ion energies per atomic mass unit plotted over target thickness $d$ are shown in figure \[fig1\]a for linear and circular polarization.
![(color). Experimentally observed proton (green) and carbon C$^{6+}$ (red) spectra in case of linear (a) and circular (b) polarized irradiation of a 5.3nm thickness DLC foil. The corresponding curves as obtained from 2D PIC-simulations (c,d) show excellent agreement with the measured distributions at late times (red, $t=221\,$fs after the arrival of the laser pulse maximum at the target). A quasi-monoenergetic peak generated by radiation pressure acceleration is revealed for circular polarization, which is still isolated at the end of the laser-target interaction (black, $t=45\,$fs). \[fig2\]](fig2.eps){width="8.6cm"}
While linearly polarized irradiation yields higher proton and carbon energies, a strong dependence on initial foil thickness is visible in both cases, with a distinct optimum at $d=5.3\,$nm. Using circular polarization, the value of the optimum foil thickness is theoretically expected to be given by the condition $a_0\simeq \sigma$ [@YanPRL2008], i.e., the dimensionless laser vector potential $a_0$ approximately equals the normalized areal density $\sigma=(n_e/n_{cr})\,(d/\lambda)$ of the target. Here, $n_e$ stands for the electron density, whereas $n_{cr}=\epsilon_0 m_e \omega_L^2/e^2$ denotes the critical density of the plasma with electron mass $m_e$ and laser carrier frequency $\omega_L$. This prevision is in excellent agreement with our experimental result of $3.5=a_0\simeq \sigma=3.3$. At the optimum target thickness, maximum energies for protons and carbon ions of 10MeV and 45MeV are generated for circular polarization, while linear polarization gives 13MeV and 71MeV, respectively. The corresponding electron spectra for $d=5.3\,$nm are shown in figure \[fig1\]b. It can be clearly seen, that circularly polarized irradiation results in a pronounced reduction in the number of highly energetic electrons as expected. To illustrate the consequent impact on the acceleration of ions, experimentally observed proton and carbon spectra are plotted in figure \[fig2\]a,b for linear and circular polarization at the optimum foil thickness. A monotonically decaying spectrum is obtained for both protons and carbon ions in case of linear polarization. In contrast, when the laser polarization is changed to circular the spectrum of fully ionized carbon C$^{6+}$ atoms (fig. \[fig2\]b) reveals two components. In addition to the continuously decreasing low energetic ion population reaching up to $\sim20\,$MeV a distinct peak is seen at higher energies, centered around 30MeV. This value is nearly identical to the apex energy of 35MeV of the quasi-monoenergetic peak of C$^{5+}$ presented in [@HegelichN2006]. However, while [@HegelichN2006] measured $\sim 1\times10^7$ particles/msr within an energy spread of $\frac{\Delta E}{E}=17\%$ employing a laser pulse of energy 20J, we obtain about 50% more particles within the same spread at a pulse energy of only 0.7J, corresponding to a more than 40 times increase in conversion efficiency. The spectral spike of C$^{6+}$ ions was repeatedly observed in consecutive shots at the optimum foil thickness of $5.3\,$nm and circular polarization, whereas the shape of the proton spectrum was not affected when varying the polarization.\
In order to support our experimental findings, two-dimensional particle-in-cell (PIC) simulations were carried out.
![Carbon ion phase space at the end of the laser-target interaction ($t=45\,$fs). A significant amount of particles forms a distinct loop in case of circular polarization (b), giving evidence of a phase-stable acceleration driven by the laser radiation pressure. \[fig3\]](fig3.eps){width="8.6cm"}
The DLC foil targets were modeled by a solid density ($n_e/n_{cr}=500$), rectangularly shaped plasma slab of zero initial electron temperature, composed of 90% C$^{6+}$ ions and 10% protons in number density. The laser pulse is of Gaussian shape in both the spatial distribution in the focal plane as well as in time, with a FWHM diameter of $4\,\mu$m and a FWHM duration of 45fs, resulting in a peak intensity of $I_0=5\times 10^{19}\,$W/cm$^2$. A simulation domain of size $10\mu$m in transverse ($y$) and $20\mu$m in longitudinal ($x$) dimension was used, subdivided into a grid of $1200\times 10000$ cells each occupied by 2000 particles. In the following, PIC simulation times are given relative to $t=0$, when the peak of the laser pulse reaches the initial position of the target ($x=3\lambda$).\
The calculated carbon spectra are presented in figure \[fig2\]c,d for linearly and circularly polarized irradiation. To account for the small solid angle of observation of the Thomson parabola spectrometer, only particles propagating in forward direction within a cone of half angle 0.01rad were considered for the simulated graphs. A continuously decaying spectrum is generated in case of linear polarization, which agrees well with the experimental result (fig. \[fig2\]a,c). This scenario changes drastically when circular polarization is used. As shown in figure \[fig2\]d, an isolated, quasi-monoenergetic peak emerges in this configuration at the end of the laser-target interaction (black, $t=45\,$fs). In the carbon ion phase space (fig. \[fig3\]b), a significant amount of particles is located in a discrete area, constituting a rotating structure. The series of loops originates from the continuing front side acceleration and the ballistic evolution of the target, thus giving clear evidence of radiation pressure to be the dominant acceleration force [@MacchiPRL2005; @ZhangPoP2007; @LiseikinaAPL2007; @KlimoPRSTAB2008; @RobinsonNJP2008; @YanPRL2008; @RykovanovNJP2008; @QiaoPRL2009]. This is in strong contrast to the use of linear polarization, where at that moment the carbon ion phase space already forms a continuous, straight line (fig. \[fig3\]a).
![(color). Cycle-averaged electron (a,b) and carbon ion (c,d) density at $t=61\,$fs after the peak of the laser pulse reached the $5.3\,$nm target initially located at $x=3\lambda$. While linear polarization results in strong expansion of the target caused by hot electrons, for circularly polarized irradiation the foil is accelerated as a dense, quasi-neutral plasma bunch. \[fig4\]](fig4.eps){width="8.6cm"}
The striking difference in the acceleration dynamics can also be directly inferred when examining the electron and ion density distributions as observed in our simulations (see fig. \[fig4\]). For use of circular polarization, the electron population maintains its structure as a thin layer of high density being pushed by the laser in forward direction. As a consequence, carbon ions co-propagate with the compressed electron cloud and the whole focal volume is accelerated as a quasi-neutral dense plasma bunch by the laser radiation pressure. Since all ion species move at equal velocity, RPA-driven protons attain only $30/12=2.5\,$MeV energy, thus not being visible in the continuous experimental spectrum reaching up to $\sim10\,$MeV (fig. \[fig2\]b). This scenario is contrary to the case of linear polarization (fig. \[fig4\]a,c), where the foil electrons are heavily heated by the laser. Accordingly, electrons have already spread significantly and the electron density in the focal spot center, where electrons gain their highest energies, is considerably reduced. Although the acceleration of carbon ions is still asymmetric, favoring the laser forward direction (see also [@HenigPRL2009b]), it is dominated by the sheath field of the expanding electrons.\
However, given the laser parameters used in the presented experiment, the narrow isolated quasi-monoenergetic peak in the carbon spectrum as it is present right after the end of laser-target interaction does not preserve its shape upon further propagation of the ion beam (fig. \[fig2\]b,d). Even though the apex energy stays constant, the spectral distribution broadens and partially merges with the low energetic ion population which at this point still gains energy, resulting in the carbon ion spectrum as observed experimentally. This behavior can be attributed to the considerable deformation of the foil plasma by the tightly focussed gaussian laser spot (fig. \[fig4\]b,d). Owing to the thus no longer normal but rather oblique incidence on the bent plasma surface, particularly at the end of the laser-target interaction, perpendicular electric field components are present. Those efficiently heat electrons located in the warped spatial regions, which then quickly spread around the target, causing the mono-energetic peak in the carbon spectrum to broaden as well as ions in the low energetic part of the distribution to gain further energy and close the gap to the RPA-generated population. We note, that this temporal evolution of the foil plasma shape was already discussed theoretically in [@KlimoPRSTAB2008], where in order to prevent the distortion of the ion spectrum an upper limit for the laser pulse duration is given by $t_{max}\simeq \sqrt{2w_0 c \rho d/I_0}=176\,\text{fs}$. Even though the laser pulse duration used in the presented experimental study is significantly shorter than $t_{max}$, a spectral deformation is still observed, taking place after the end of the laser-target interaction.\
In summary, we have presented experimental investigations on ion acceleration from nm-thin DLC foil targets irradiated by linearly and circularly polarized, highly intense laser pulses. A strong decrease in the number of hot electrons is observed for use of circular polarization, resulting in a pronounced peak centered at 30MeV in the carbon C$^{6+}$ ion spectrum at the optimum foil thickness of 5.3nm, which is in excellent agreement with the condition $a_0\,\simeq\,\sigma$ [@YanPRL2008]. Compared to [@HegelichN2006], we demonstrate a more than 40 times increase in conversion efficiency when considering an identical energy spread around the apex. 2D PIC-simulations have been carried out, giving clear evidence that those ions are for the first time dominantly accelerated in a phase-stable way by the laser radiation pressure. While linear polarization gives rise to the generation of a large number of highly energetic electrons, causing the target plasma to expand rapidly, in case of circular polarization electrons and ions co-propagate as a dense, quasi-neutral plasma bunch over the whole duration of the laser pulse. Being recently widely studied in theory, our comparative measurements provide the first experimental proof of the feasibility of radiation pressure acceleration to become the dominant mechanism for ion acceleration when circular polarization is used. These results are a major step towards highly energetic, mono-chromatic ion beams generated at high conversion efficiencies as demanded by many potential applications. Those include fast ignition inertial confinement fusion (ICF) as well as oncology and radiation therapy.
This work was supported by DFG through Transregio SFB TR18 and the DFG Cluster of Excellence Munich-Centre for Advanced Photonics (MAP). A. Henig, D. Kiefer and D. Jung acknowledge financial support from IMPRS-APS, J. Schreiber from DAAD, X. Q. Yan from the Humboldt foundation and NSFC(10855001).
[23]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Practical reinforcement learning problems are often formulated as constrained Markov decision process (CMDP) problems, in which the agent has to maximize the expected return while satisfying a set of prescribed safety constraints. In this study, we propose a novel simulator-based method to approximately solve a CMDP problem without making any compromise on the safety constraints. We achieve this by decomposing the CMDP into a pair of MDPs; reconnaissance MDP and planning MDP. The purpose of *reconnaissance* MDP is to evaluate the set of actions that are safe, and the purpose of *planning* MDP is to maximize the return while using the actions authorized by *reconnaissance* MDP. RMDP can define a set of safe policies for any given set of safety constraint, and this set of safe policies can be used to solve another CMDP problem with different reward. Our method is not only computationally less demanding than the previous simulator-based approaches to CMDP, but also capable of finding a competitive reward-seeking policy in a high dimensional environment, including those involving multiple moving obstacles.'
author:
- |
Shin-ichi Maeda\
Preferred Networks, Inc.\
`ichi@preferred.jp`\
Hayato Watahiki [^1]\
The University of Tokyo\
`watahiki@eidos.ic.i.u-tokyo.ac.jp` Shintarou Okada\
Preferred Networks, Inc.\
`okada@preferred.jp` Masanori Koyama\
Preferred Networks, Inc.\
`masomatics@preferred.jp`
bibliography:
- 'main\_nips.bib'
title: Reconnaissance and Planning algorithm for constrained MDP
---
=1
Introduction
============
With recent advances in reinforcement learning (RL), it is becoming possible to learn complex reward-maximizing policy in an increasingly more complex environment [@Mnih15Atari; @Silver16Go; @Andrychowicz18dexterous_Hand; @James18Sim2Real; @Kalashnikov18QT-opt]. However, not all policies found by standard RL methods are physically *safe* in real-world applications, and a naive application of RL can lead to catastrophic results. This has long been one of the greatest challenges in the application of reinforcement learning to mission-critical systems. In a popular setup, one assumes a Markovian system together with a predefined set of dangerous states that must be avoided, and formulates the problem as a type of constrained Markov decision process (CMDP) problem. That is, based on the classical RL notations in which $\pi$ represents a policy of the agent, we aim to solve $$\begin{aligned}
\max _{\pi} E^{\pi}[R(h)] ~~~ {\rm{s.t.}}~~~E^{\pi}[D(h)] \leq c,
\label{eq:CMDP}\end{aligned}$$ where $h$ is a trajectory of state-action pairs, $R(h)$ is the total return that can be obtained by $h$, and $D(h)$ is the measure of how dangerous the trajectory $h$ is. Most methods of reinforcement learning solves the optimization problem about $\pi$ by a sequence of iterative updates. The difficulty of CMDP problem lies in the evaluation of the safeness of the $\pi$ suggested at every update. The evaluation of the safeness requires the evaluation of integrals with respect to future possibilities, whose cardinality increases exponentially with the length of the future and the number of randomly moving objects in the environment.
Lagrange multiplier-based methods [@Altman99constrainedMDP; @Geibel05RiskSensitiveRL] tackle this problem by aiming to satisfy the constraint softly, and provide the guarantee that the obtained solution is safe if *optimal* lambda is chosen. Trust region optimization (TRO) [@Achiam17ConstrainedPO; @Chow19Lyapunov], and the methods based on Lyapunov function [@Chow18Lyapunov; @Chow19Lyapunov] take the approach of constructing at each update step a pool of policies that are most likely safe. The precise construction of safe pool and the finding of optimal hyper-parameter, however, are computationally heavy tasks in high-dimensional state spaces, and a strong regularity assumption about the system becomes necessary in using these methods in practice.
Presence of a good simulator is particularly important for safe applications when the event to be avoided is a “rare" catastrophic accident, because an immense number of samples will be required to collect information about the cause of the accident. Model Predictive Control (MPC) is perhaps the oldest family of simulator-based methods [@Falcone07MPC; @Wang10FastMPC; @Cairano13MPC; @Weiskircher17MPC] for carrying out tasks under safe constraints. Model Predictive Control uses the philosophy of receding horizon and predicts the future outcome of actions in order to determine what action the agent should take in the next step. If the future-horizon to consider is sufficiently short and the dynamics is deterministic, the prediction can often be approximated well by linear dynamics, which can be evaluated instantly. Because MPC must finish its assessment of the future before taking an action, its performance is limited by the speed of the predictions. If only a short horizon is taken into account, MPC may suggest a move to a state leading to a catastrophe.
In this study, we propose a novel simulator-based approach that looks for a solution of a CMDP problem by decomposing the CMDP into a pair of MDPs: a reconnaissance MDP (R-MDP) and planning MDP (P-MDP). The purpose of R-MDP is to (1) *recon* the state space, (2) evaluate the *threat* function that measures the potential danger at each state, and (3) construct a pool of policies that are safe in the sense of satisfying a user-specified constraint. After solving the R-MDP problem, we solve the P-MDP problem consisting of the original MDP while restricting our policy-search to the R-MDP specified pool of safe policies. If we can find one safe policy, we can use the threat function construct non-empty set of policies that are guaranteed to be safe. The threat function we compute in R-MDP is mathematically close to the Lyapunov function considered previously by Chow et al. [@Chow18Lyapunov; @Chow19Lyapunov]. However, unlike these prior works, we do not have to evaluate the safety of a given policy more than once. Because our method is computationally light, it can be used to solve CMDP problems in high-dimensional spaces with relative ease. Fig. \[fig:route\] illustrates the routes on the circuit taken by agents trained with various methods of CMDP and the locations of accidents made by the agents. The agent trained with our algorithm is finding a safe and efficient route.
![The trajectories produced by the the policy trained by our proposed method ((a) and (d)), 4-step MPC ((b), (e)), the policy trained with penalized DQN ((c) and (f)). The trajectories on circular circuit were produced by the policies trained on the original circuit. $S$ represents the initial position of the agent. The red marks represents the places at which the agent crashed into the wall. Our method can maneuver through the environment without any accident. The policy of DQN cannot adapt to new environment because it is not aware of the new location of the wall in the new circuit. Meanwhile, the policy found by our method can skirt the danger in new environment because it is finding a policy from a set of policies defined by a reward independent threat function constructed just for the sake of safety. MPC can also finish a lap without any accidents. MPC, however, takes an order of magnitude more computation time than our method (See Fig. \[Circuit2\]). []{data-label="fig:route"}](traj-all2.pdf){width="140mm"}
The advantages of our approach are multifold. Because the threat function alone specifies the pool of safe policies in our framework, we can re-use the pool specified by the R-MDP constructed for one CMDP problem to solve another CMDP problem with a different reward function and the same safety constraint. Our formulation of the threat function can also be used to solve a MDP problem with a constraint on the probability of catastrophic failure. By applying a basic rule of probability measure to a set of threat functions, we can solve a CMDP problem with multiple safety constraints as well. This allows us to find a good reward-seeking policy for a sophisticated task like *safely navigating through a crowd of randomly moving objects*. Although our method does not guarantee to find the optimal solution of the CMDP problem, our method prioritizes safety and is still able to find a safe policy that is competitive in terms of reward-seeking ability. To the best of our knowledge, there has not been any study to date that has succeeded in solving a CMDP in dynamical environments as high-dimensional as the ones discussed in this study.
The work that is algorithmically closest to our approach is [@Bouton18safe], which computes for each state the state-dependent set of actions $\{a(s); \max_{\pi} P^{\pi}(\textrm{constraint is satisfied})| s,a ) > \lambda \} $ that guarantees the safety when the constraint can be written as Linear Temporal Logic. This paper provides similar approach for the form of risk that is more commonly used in the field of safe-reinforcement learning. The paper also provides more solid theoretical justification to the safety-guarantee. The following list summarizes the advantages of our new framework.
- The R-MDP problem of identifying the set of safe policies needs to be solved only once. Moreover, one does not necessarily need to obtain the absolute optimal solution for the R-MDP problem in order to find a good reward seeking safe-policy from the ensuing C-MDP problem.
- The policy proposed by our method is almost always safe. If we can find a safe policy from the RMDP problem, we can always guarantee the safety.
- The threat function evaluated by the R-MDP can be re-used for another CMDP problem with safety constraints on the same quantities.
- The P-MDP can be solved with or without access to a simulator.
Method
======
0 分離した問題として解く手法は、すでに存在する。 1.Step-wise Constraint Surrogate と 2.Super-martingale Constraint Surrogate Approach の二つ
Z. Gabor and Z. Kalmar. Multi-criteria reinforcement learning. In International Conference of Machine Learning, 1998.
A survey of multi-objective sequential decision-making. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 48:67–113, 2013.
Problem formulation and setup
-----------------------------
We begin this section with the notations and assumptions that we are going to use throughout the paper. We assume that the system in consideration is a discrete-time constrained Markov Decision Process with finite horizon, defined by a tuple $(S, A, r, d, P, P_0)$, where $S$ is the set of states, $A$ is the set of actions, $P(s,a,s')$ is the density of the state transition probability from $s$ to $s'$ when the action is $a$, $r(s,a)$ is the reward obtained by action $a$ at state $s$, $d(s,a)$ is the non-negative danger of taking action $a$ at state $s$, and $P_0$ is the distribution of the initial state. We use $\pi(a|s)$ to denote the policy $\pi$’s probability of taking an action $a$ at a state $s$. Also, for ease of notation, we use $r$ to denote $r(s,a)$, and $r_{t+1}$ to denote $r(s_t, a_t)$. Likewise, we will use $d$ and $d_{t+1}$ to denote $d(s,a)$ and $d(s_t, a_t)$ respectively. Finally, for an arbitrary set $U$, we will use $U^c$ to denote its complement.
Next, we present the optimization problem in more formality. The ultimate goal of CMDP(Constrained Markoc Decision Process Problem) is to find the policy $\pi^*$ that solves $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname*{arg\,max}_{\pi} E_{\pi}\left[\textstyle \sum_{k=1}^{T} \gamma^k r_k \right], \; {\rm{s.t. }} E_{\pi}\left[\textstyle \sum_{k=1}^{T} \beta^k d_k \right] \leq c,
\label{eq: formal CMDP}\end{aligned}$$ where $c\geq 0$, $\gamma, \beta \in [0,1)$ and $E_{\pi}[\cdot]$ denotes the expectation with respect $\pi$, $P$ and $P_0$. Unless otherwise denoted, we will use $E_\pi$ to refer to the integration with respect to both $\pi$ and $P_0$. In our formulation, we use the following *threat function* as a danger-analogue of the action-value function. We define the threat function for a policy $\eta$ at $(s,a,t)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathscr{T}_t^\eta(s, a) = E_\eta \left[ \sum_{k=t+1}^{T} \beta^k d_k \mid s_t = s, a_t = a\right]. \label{eq:def risk function}\end{aligned}$$ Informally, we can think of $\mathscr{T}_t^{\pi}(s,a)$ as the aggregated measure of threat that the agent with policy $\pi$ must face after taking the action $a$ in the state $s$ at time $t$. We may say that a policy $\pi$ is safe if $E_\pi \left[ \mathscr{T}_0^{\pi}(s,a)\right] \leq c$. To reiterate, out strategy is to (1) evaluate the threat function for a baseline policy, (2) construct a pool of safe policy using the threat function, and (3) to look for a reward-seeking policy in the pool of the safe policies. Before we proceed further, we describe several key definitions and lemmas that stem from the definition of threat function.
Properties of threat functions and $\eta$ secure policies {#sec:method_core}
---------------------------------------------------------
For now, let us consider a time-dependent safety threshold $x_t$ defined at each time $t$, and let $\eta$ be a baseline policy. Then the set of $(\eta,\mathbf{x})$-secure actions the set of actions that are deemed *safe* by $\eta$ for for risk threshold $x$ in the sense that agent’s safety is guaranteed if it follows $\eta$ afterward.
$$\begin{aligned}
A^{\eta, \mathbf{x}}(s) = \bigcap_{t \in \{0,\cdots,T\}} A^{\eta, \mathbf{x}}(s,t),\end{aligned}$$
\[def:secureActions\] where $A^{\eta, \mathbf{x}}(s,t) = \Bigl\{a ; \mathscr{T}_t^\eta(s, a)\leq x_t\Bigr\}$, and $x_t$ is a non-negative time-dependent constant.
Let $\prod _A = \{\pi;\mathrm{supp}(\pi) \subseteq A \}$. Then $\prod_{A^{\eta, x}}$ is a set of actions that very much represents the agent’s freedom in seeking reward when following the policy $\eta$. But indeed, this set of actions is not always non-empty. Let us define $(\eta, x)$-secure states $S^{\eta,\mathbf{x}}= \Bigl\{s\in S ;
A^{\eta, \mathbf{x}}(s) \neq \emptyset \Bigr\}$ to be the set of states for which there is non-empty $(\eta,\bm x)$-secure actions. Over such set of states, we want the agent to take actions that are safer than $\eta$. Let $$\mathcal{F}^{\eta}(s) = \{p(\cdot | s); \forall t \in \{0,\cdots,T\}, E_{p}\left[\mathscr{T}^{\eta}_t(s, a)\right]
\leq E_{\eta}\left[\mathscr{T}^{\eta}_t(s, a)\right] \}.$$ We are going to use the following set of policies as the first candidate of pool from which to look for a reward-seeking safe policy: $$\begin{aligned}
{\textstyle \prod^{\eta, \mathbf{x}}} := & \{\pi ; \pi(\cdot | s) \in {\textstyle \prod _{A^{\eta, \mathbf{x}}(s)}} \ {\rm{ at }} \ s \in S^{\eta,\mathbf{x}}, \
{\rm{ otherwise }} \ \pi(\cdot | s) \in \mathcal{F}^{\eta}(s) \}.\end{aligned}$$ We will refer this policy as the set of $(\eta,\mathbf{x})$-secure policies. Intuitively, this set shall increase as $\eta$ becomes safer. While this intuition unfornately does not hold in general, it holds for its lower bound subset: $$\begin{aligned}
{\textstyle \prod^{\eta, \mathbf{x}}_1(s) }:= \{\pi ; \pi(\cdot | s) \in {\textstyle \prod _{A^{\eta, \mathbf{x}}(s)}} \ {\rm{ at }} \ s \in S^{\eta,\mathbf{x}}, \ {\rm{ otherwise }} \ \pi(\cdot | s) = 1_{\operatorname*{arg\,min}_a E_{\eta}\left[\mathscr{T}^{\eta}_t(s, a)\right]} \}\end{aligned}$$ That is, $\prod_1^{\eta, x}(s) \subseteq \prod _1^{\eta', x}(s)$ whenever $\mathscr{T}_t^{\eta'}(s, a)\leq
\mathscr{T}_t^\eta(s, a)$ for all $a$.
We are still not yet done. Up until here, we have been defining the set of actions based on $\eta$-defined measure of safety. As we will be using a policy other than $\eta$ to maximize the reward, we must take into account the risk that will be incurred in taking an action from a policy other than the one used for determining its risk:
\[lemma:threat bound\] Let $d_{TV}(p,q)$ be the total variation distance[^2] between two distributions $p$ and $q$. For a given policy $\eta$, let $\pi$ be a policy such that $\pi \in \prod^{\eta, x}$. If $ \mathscr{T}_0^\eta(s_0, a)\leq
x_0$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\mathscr{T}_0^\pi(s_0) \leq x_0 + \sum_{t=1}^{T-1} \beta^t x_t E_{\pi}\left[ z_t(s_{t-1},a_{t-1})\mid s_0 \right],
\end{split}\label{eq:safethm}\end{aligned}$$ where $z_t(s_{t-1},a_{t-1}) = E\left[ 1_{s_t \in S^{\eta}} d_{TV}(\pi(\cdot|s_t) , \eta(\cdot|s_t)) \mid s_{t-1}, a_{t-1} \right]$.
\[thm:safe\] For the proof, see the appendix. The bound in its raw form is not too useful because the RHS depends on $\pi$ and the threat of $\pi$ is bounded implicitly. However, if appeal to the trivial upperbound for the total variation distance and set $x_t=c$, we can achieve $\mathscr{T}^{\pi}_{0}(s_{0}) \leq c \left(1 + \sum_{t=1}^{T-1}\beta^t z_t \right) \leq c \left(1 + \sum_{t=1}^{T-1}\beta^t \right)$. The summation term in parenthesis is the very penalty that the agent must pay in taking action other than $\eta$, the safety-evaluating policy. We can thus guarantee $\mathscr{T}^{\pi}_{0}(s_{0}) \leq c$ by just setting $x_t$ to a value smaller than $c$:
Let $x^*_c = c \left(1 + \sum_{t=1}^{T-1} \beta^t \right)^{-1}$. Then $\pi \in \prod^{\eta, x^*_c}_1$ is safe. \[ref:thm2\]
Thus, from any baseline policy $\eta$ satisfying $\mathscr{T}^\eta(s_0) \leq x_c^*$, we can construct a pool of absolutely safe policies whose membership condition is based *explicitly* on $\eta$ and $c$ alone. That the threshold expression in Eq. is free of $\pi$ is what allows us to decompose the CMDP problem into two separate MDP problems. We can seek a solution to the CMDP problem by (1) looking for an $\eta$ satisfying $\mathscr{T}^\eta(s_0) \leq x_c^*$, and (2) looking for the reward maximizing policy in $\pi \in \prod^{\eta, x^*_c}_1$. We address the first problem by R-MDP, and the second problem by P-MDP. Now, several remarks are in order. First, if we take the limit of $\beta \to 0$, the $x^*_c$ in the above statement will approach $c$, and this just gives us the requirement that $\eta$ itself must be safe in order for $\prod^{\eta}$ to serve as a pool of safe policies. Next, if we set $\beta =1$, then $x^*_c \to 0$ as $T \to \infty$. This is in agreement with the law of large numbers; that is, any accident with positive probability is bound to happen at some point. Also, recall that we have $\prod_1^{\eta, x}(s) \subseteq \prod _1^{\eta', x}(s)$ whenever $\mathscr{T}_t^{\eta'}(s, a)\leq
\mathscr{T}_t^\eta(s, a)$. for any $t$. Thus, by finding the risk-minimizing $\eta$, we can maximize the pool of safe policies. Whenever we can, we shall therefore look not just for *a* baseline policy that satisfies $\mathscr{T}^\eta(s_0) \leq x_c^*$, but also for *the* threat minimizing policy. Lastly, if $\eta$ is $x^*_c$-safe, then $\eta \in \prod^{\eta, x^*_c}_1$ is guaranteed so that the $\eta \in \prod^{\eta, x^*_c}_1$ is not empty. Unless otherwise denoted. we will use $\prod^{\eta}$ to denote $\prod^{\eta, x^*_c}_1$, and use $S^{\eta}, A^{\eta}(s)$ to denote $S^{\eta,\mathbf{x}^*_c}, A^{\eta, \mathbf{x}^*_c}(s)$.
Reconnaissance-MDP (R-MDP) and Planning-MDP (P-MDP) {#sec:defRP}
====================================================
As stated in the previous section, we can obtain a set of safe policy from any baseline policy $\eta$ satisfying $\mathscr{T}^\eta(s_0) \leq x_c^*$ , and that we can maximize this set by constructing the set of safe policy from the threat minimizing $\eta$. The purpose of R-MDP is thus to *recon* the system prior to the reward maximization and look for the policy $\eta^*$ with minimal threat (maximal $\prod^{\eta^*}$). As a process, R-MDP is same as the original MDP except that we have a danger function instead of a reward function, and the goal of the agent in the system is to find the minimizer of the risk: $\eta^*(s,a) := \operatorname*{arg\,min}_\eta \mathscr{T}^{\eta}(s,a)$. This is, indeed, more than what we need when the safety is our only concern. So long that $\mathscr{T}^{\eta}(s,a) \leq x^*_c$, the pool of policies $\pi \in \prod^{\eta}$ is guaranteed safe. The purpose of Planning-MDP (P-MDP) is to search within $\prod^{\eta}$ for a good reward-seeking policy.
P-MDP is the same as original MDP, except that action set $A$ is state and time dependent; that is, the agent is allowed to take action only from $A^{\eta}$ whenever $s \in S^\eta$, and take the deterministic action $\operatorname*{arg\,min}_a E_\eta[\mathcal{T}_t (s,a)]$ whenever $s \not \in S^\eta$.
The purpose of P-MDP is to find the policy $$\begin{aligned}
\pi^* := \operatorname*{arg\,max}_{\pi \in \prod^{\eta}} E_\pi \left[ \sum \gamma^t r_t \right].\end{aligned}$$
The following algorithm will find a safe good policy if $\mathcal{T}^{\eta*} \leq x_c^*. $
Obtain $\eta^*(s,a) := \operatorname*{arg\,min}_\eta \mathscr{T}^{\eta}(s,a)$ defined in Eq. for any $(s,a)$ or prepare a heuristically selected $\eta^*(s,a)$ . Evaluate $\mathscr{T}_t^{\eta^*}$ and Construct $\prod^{\eta^*}$ Obtain $\pi^* := \operatorname*{arg\,max}_{\pi \in \prod^{\eta,x^*_c }} E_\pi \left[ \sum \gamma^t r_t \right]$ using either model-free or model-based RL.
Variants of Reconnaissance and Planning Algorithm
-------------------------------------------------
In what follows, we describe important variants of the RP-algorithm that are useful in practice.
### Constraint on the probability of fatal accident
So far, we have considered the constraints of the form $E_{\pi}\left[\textstyle \sum_{k=1}^{T} \beta^k d_k \right] \leq c$. If the danger to be avoided is so catastrophic that *one accident alone* is enough to ruin the project, one might want to directly constrain the probability of an accident. Our RP-Algorithm can be used to find a safe solution for a CMDP with this type of constraint as well. Let us use $d_t=d(s_{t-1},a_{t-1})$ to represent the binary indicator that takes the value 1 only if the agent encounters the accident upon taking the action $a_{t-1}$ at the state $s_{t-1}$. Using this notation, we can write our constraint as $P( \max_{1\leq t \leq T} d_t = 1) \leq c$, and our threat function for this case can be recursively defined as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathscr{T}^{\pi}_{t}(s_{t}, a_{t})
=& E_{\pi}\left[ d_{t+1}
+ (1-d_{t+1})E_{\pi}\left[\mathscr{T}^{\pi}_{t+1}(s_{t+1}, a_{t+1})\right]
\mid s_{t}, a_{t} \right].\end{aligned}$$ Notice that this is a variant of the Bellman relation for the original $\mathscr{T}^\eta$ in which $\beta$ is replaced with $E_{\pi}\left[ 1-d_{t+1} \mid s_{t}, a_{t} \right]$. With straight-forward computations, it can be verified that theorem \[thm:safe\] follows if we replace $\beta$ in the statement with the maximum possible value of $E_{\pi}\left[ 1-d_{t+1} \mid s_{t}, a_{t} \right]$. We can replace $\beta$ with its upperbound ($=1.0$) as well. That is, we may construct a set of safe policies by setting $x = \frac{c}{1 + (T-1)z}$. With this strict constraint, however, $x$ approaches 0 as $T$ approaches infinity. This is in agreement with the law of large numbers; any accident with non-zero probability will happen almost surely if we wait for infinite length of time.
### Constraint on the probability of multiple fatal accidents
Many application of CMDP involves multiple fatal events. For example, during the navigation of highway with heavy traffic, the driver must be wary of the movements of multiple other cars. Industrial robots in hazardous environment might also have to avoid numerous obstacles.
Our setup in the previous subsection can be used to find a solution for this type of problem. Let us consider a model in which the full state of the system is given by $(s^{(o)}_t, \{s^{(n)}_{t}; 1,...,N\})$, where the state of the $n$-th obstacle is $s^{(n)}_{t}$ and the aggregate state of all other objects in the system is $s^{(o)}_{t}$(i.e. the location of the agent, etc). Let $\mathscr{T}^{\pi, n}_t(s^{(o)}_t,s^{(n)}_{t})$ be the probability of collision in the subsystem containing only the agent and the $n$-th obstacle. Under this set up, we can appeal to a basic property of probability measure regarding a union of events to obtain the following interesting result:
\[thm:sum\_bound\] Let us assume that agent can take action based solely on $s^{(o)}_t$, and that $s^{(n)}_{t}$ are all conditionally independent of each other given $s^{(o)}_t$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\mathscr{T}_t^{\pi} (s_t,a_t) \leq \sum_{n=1}^N \mathscr{T}^{\pi, n}_t(s^{(o)}_t,s^{(n)}_{t}).\end{aligned}$$ \[eq:sum\_bound\]
We can then follow the procedure described in Section \[sec:method\_core\] with this new threat function to construct the set of secure policies in Corollary \[ref:thm2\]. Theorem \[thm:sum\_bound\] is closely related to the risk potential approaches [@Wolf08RiskPotential; @Rasekhipour16RiskPotential; @Ji16RiskPotential].These methods also work by evaluating the risk of collision with each obstacle for each location in the environment and by superimposing the results. However, most of them define the risk potential heuristically.
Experiment
==========
We conducted a series of experiments to find answers to the following set of questions:
1. What does the threat function obtained from our method look like?
2. How effective is the safe policy obtained from our method when suboptimal policy was used for the baseline policy $\eta$?
3. How well does the policy trained by our RP-method perform in new environments?
We compared our algorithm’s results on these experiments against those of other methods, including (1) classical MPC, (2) DQN with Lagrange penalty, and (3) Constrained Policy Optimization (CPO) [@Achiam17ConstrainedPO]. At every step, the version of MPC we implemented in our study selects the best reward-seeking action among the set of actions that were deemed safe by the lookahead search. DQN with Lagrange penalty is a version of DQN for which the reward is penalized by the risk function with Lagrange weight. We tested this method with three choices of Lagrange weights. As for CPO, we used the implementation available on Github [@CPOcode].
For our method, we used a neural network to approximate the threat function in the R-MDP for a heuristically-chosen baseline policy that is not necessarily safe, and solved the P-MDP with DQN. When solving P-MDP with DQN, it becomes cumbersome to compute $Q^*$ on states outside $S^\eta$. We therefore constructed an MDP defined on $S^\eta$ that is equivalent to the original MDP for the policies in $\prod_1^{\eta,x_s}$. Namely, we constructed the tuple $(S^{\eta}, A^{\eta}, r^{\eta}_P, P^{\eta}_P, P_0)$, whose components are defined as follows. The function $r^{\eta}_P( \cdot|s) $ is the restriction of the reward $r$ to $A^{\eta}(s)$ for all $s \in S^\eta$. $P^{\eta}_P$ is a transition probability function derived from the original state transition probability $P$ such that, for all $s_1, s_2 \in S^\eta$, $ P^{\eta}_P(s_2 | s_1, a) = P(s_2 | s_1, a) + P ((s_1,a) \overset{(S^\eta )^c}{\longrightarrow} s_2) $ where $(s_1,a) \overset{(S^\eta)^c}{\longrightarrow} s_2$ is the set of all trajectories from $s_1$ to $s_2$ that (1) take a detour to $(S^\eta )^c$ at least once after taking the action $a$ at $s_1$, (2) take the action $a^*(s') = \arg \min_{a\in A} \mathscr{T}^{\eta} (s', a)$ for all $s' \in (S^\eta )^c$, and (3) lead to $s_2$ without visiting any other states in $S^\eta$.
Tasks
-----
We conducted experiments on three tasks on 2-D fields (see Fig. \[fig:field\] for visualizations).
Point Gather
: In this task, the agent’s goal is to collect as many green apples as possible while avoiding red bombs.
Circuit
: The agent’s goal is to complete one lap around the circuit without crashing into a wall. The agent can control its movement by regulating its acceleration and steering. Lidar sensors are used to compute the distance to obstacles.
Jam
: The agent’s goal is to navigate its way out of a room from the exit located at the top right corner as quickly as possible without bumping into 8 randomly moving objects.
![Panels (a) and (b): the fields for Circuit task and Jam task. For Jam, the light blue circles are obstacles, and the yellow circle is the agent. The arrow attached to each object shows its direction of movement. Panels (c) and (d): the heat maps of the trained threat function in the neighborhood of the agent. The shape of the heat map changes with the speed and the direction of the object’s movement. (e),(f),(g) are the heat maps of the upper bound of the threat function (Theorem \[thm:sum\_bound\]), computed for different velocity settings of the agent. The assumed movement of the agent is indicated at the left bottom corner of each map. These maps can be interpreted as a heat map of risk potential.[]{data-label="fig:field"}](Field_all3.pdf){width="110mm"}
Learning the threat function
----------------------------
The state spaces of Jam and Circuit are high-dimensional, because there are multiple obstacles in the environment that must be avoided. We therefore used the method described in Şection \[sec:defRP\] to construct an upper bound for the true threat function by considering a set of separate R-MDPs in which there is only one obstacle. We also treated *wall* as a set of immobile obstacles so that we can construct the threat function for the circuit of any shape. For more detail, see the appendix. Fig. \[fig:field\] is the heat map for the upper bound of the threat function computed in the way of Theorem \[thm:sum\_bound\]. Note that the threat map changes with the state of the agent. We see that our threat function is playing a role similar to the risk potential function. Because our threat function is computed using all aspects of the agent’s state (acceleration, velocity, location), we can provide more comprehensive measure of risk in high dimensional environments compared to other risk metrics used in applications, such as TTC (Time To Collision) [@Lee76TTC] used in smart automobiles that considers only 1D movement.
Learning performance
--------------------
Fig. \[fig:crash\_rate\] plots the average reward and the crash rate of the policy against the training iteration for various methods. The curve plotted for our method (RP) corresponds to the result obtained from training on the P-MDP. The average and the standard deviation at each point was computed over 10 seeds. As we can see in the figure, our method achieves the highest reward at almost all phases during the training for both Jam and Circuit, while maintaining the lowest crash rate. In particular, our method performs significantly better than other methods both in terms of safety and average reward for Jam, the most challenging environment. The RP-trained policy can safely navigate its way out of the dynamically-changing environment consistently even when the number of randomly moving obstacles is different than in the R-MDP used to construct the secure set of policies. Penalized DQN performs better than our method in terms of reward for the Point-Gather, but at the cost of suffering a very high crash rate ($\sim 0.8$). Our method is also safer than the 3-step MPC for both Jam and Circuit as well, a method with significantly higher computational cost.
![Comparison of multiple CMDP methods in terms of rewards and crash rate. For both Circuit and Jam, our method (P-DMP) achieves the highest average reward and lowest crash rate throughout the training process. DQN performs better in terms of reward for Point-Gather, but at the cost of a very high crash rate. []{data-label="fig:crash_rate"}](Curves_all.pdf){width="120mm"}
Robustness of the learned policy to the change of environment
-------------------------------------------------------------
We conducted two sets of experiments of applying a policy learned on one environment to the tasks on another environment. For the first set of experiments, we trained a safe policy for the circuit task, and evaluated its performance on the circuit environments that are different from the original circuit used in the training of the policy: (1) narrowed circuit with original shape, and (2) differently shaped circuit with same width. For the second set of experiments, we trained a safe policy for the JAM task, and tested its performance on other JAM tasks with different numbers of randomly moving obstacles.
Fig. \[Circuit2\] and Fig. \[JAM2\] shows the results. For the modified Jam, we have no results for MPC with more than 3-step prediction since the search cannot be completed within reasonable time-frame. The 4-step MPC requires 36.5secs per episode (200 steps) for Circuit, and the 3-step MPC requires 285secs per episode (100 steps) for the original Jam. We find that, even in varying environments, the policy obtained by our method can guarantee safety with high probability while seeking high reward.
Environment RP MPC 4step DQN $\lambda$=0 DQN $\lambda$=200
---------------------- ---------- ------------- ----------------- -------------------
Training env. 1439 (0) 1055 (0.35) 1432 (0.05) 933 (0.4)
Narrowed env. 377 (0) 959 (0.55) (1.0) (0.99)
Circle 130 (0) 351 (0) (1.0) (1.0)
Computation Time (s) 1.0 36.5 0.9 0.9
: Performance of trained policies on unknown Circuit environments. The values in the table are the obtained rewards, with the probabilities of crashing within parentheses. The agent was penalized 200 pts for each collision, and rewarded for the geodesic distance traveling along the course in right direction. For details concerning the reward settings, please see the appendix.[]{data-label="Circuit2"}
Environment RP MPC 2step MPC 3step DQN $\lambda$=5 DQN $\lambda$=500
----------------------------- ------------- -------------- ------------- ----------------- -------------------
3 obstacles 78.2 (0) 47.45 (0.33) 77.5 (0.05) 77.2 (0.04) 4.4 (0.17)
8 obstacles (training env.) 69.1 (0) 21.32 (0.59) 65.3 (0.2) 47.1 (0.38) -1.0 (0.24)
15 obstacles 33.0 (0.02) -2.5 (0.8) 36.6 (0.45) 16.5 (0.66) -16.8 (0.51)
Computation Time (s) 1.2 2.8 285 0.4 0.4
: Performance of trained policies on and unknown Jam environments[]{data-label="JAM2"}
Conclusion
==========
Our study is the first of its kind in providing a framework for solving CMDP problems that performs well in practice on high-dimensional dynamic environments like Jam. Although our method does not guarantee finding the optimal reward-seeking safe policy, empirically, it is able to find a policy that performs significantly better than classical methods both in terms of safety and rewards. Our treatment of the threat function helps us obtain a more sophisticated and comprehensive measure of danger at each state than conventional methods.Our bound on the threat function also seem to have close connections with previous Lyapunov-based methods as well. Overall, we find that utilizing threat functions is a promising approach to safe RL and further research on framework may lead to new CMDP methods applicable to complex, real-world environments.
### Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
We thank Wesley Chung for his valuable comments on the manuscript and proposal of a tighter bound.
Appendix
========
Proof of Theorem \[lemma:threat bound\]
---------------------------------------
0
\* Let $d_{TV}(p,q)$ be the total variation distance between two distributions $p$ and $q$. For a given policy $\eta$, let $\pi$ be a policy such that $\pi(\cdot | s) \in \prod^{\eta, x}(s)$ whenever $s \in S^\eta$ and $\pi(\cdot | s) \in \{p(\cdot | s); \forall t \in \{0,\cdots,T\}, E_{p}\left[\mathscr{T}^{\eta}_t(s, a)\right]
\leq E_{\eta}\left[\mathscr{T}^{\eta}_t(s, a)\right] \}$ otherwise. If $ \mathscr{T}_0^\eta(s_0, a)\leq
x_0$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\mathscr{T}_0^\pi(s_0) \leq x_0 + \sum_{t=1}^{T-1} \beta^t x_t E_{\pi}\left[ z_t(s_{t-1},a_{t-1})\mid s_0 \right],\end{aligned}$$ where $z_t(s_{t-1},a_{t-1}) = E\left[ 1_{s_t \in S^{\eta}} d_{TV}(\pi(\cdot|s_t) , \eta(\cdot|s_t)) \mid s_{t-1}, a_{t-1} \right]$.
This bound can be proved by the recursion derived from the Bellman equation. Define $e_t(s_t,a_t) \equiv \mathscr{T}^{\pi}_{t}(s_{t}, a_{t})-\mathscr{T}^{\eta}_{t}(s_{t}, a_{t})$. Then $e_t(s_t,a_t)$ has the following recurrence. $$\begin{aligned}
& e_{t-1}(s_{t-1},a_{t-1}) \nonumber \\
=& \mathscr{T}^{\pi}_{t-1}(s_{t-1}, a_{t-1})
- \mathscr{T}^{\eta}_{t-1}(s_{t-1}, a_{t-1})\nonumber \\
=& \beta E\left[E_{\pi}\left[ \mathscr{T}^{\pi}_t(s_t, a_t)\right]
-E_{\eta}\left[\mathscr{T}^{\eta}_t(s_t, a_t)\right] \mid s_{t-1}, a_{t-1} \right]
\nonumber \\
=&
\beta E\left[E_{\pi}\left[ e_t(s_t, a_t)\right]
+ E_{\pi}\left[\mathscr{T}^{\eta}_t(s_t, a_t)\right]
- E_{\eta}\left[\mathscr{T}^{\eta}_t(s_t, a_t)\right]
\mid s_{t-1}, a_{t-1} \right].
\label{eq:recursion of e}\end{aligned}$$ From this recursion , we can derive an inequality. $$\begin{aligned}
& e_{t-1}(s_{t-1},a_{t-1}) \nonumber \\
=&
\beta E\left[E_{\pi}\left[ e_t(s_t, a_t)\right]
+ E_{\pi}\left[\mathscr{T}^{\eta}_t(s_t, a_t)\right]
- E_{\eta}\left[\mathscr{T}^{\eta}_t(s_t, a_t)\right]
\mid s_{t-1}, a_{t-1} \right]
\nonumber \\
= & \beta E\left[E_{\pi}\left[ e_t(s_t, a_t)\right]\mid s_{t-1}, a_{t-1} \right]
\nonumber \\
& + \beta \int_{s_t \in S^{\eta}} P(s_t \mid s_{t-1}, a_{t-1}) (E_{\pi}\left[\mathscr{T}^{\eta}_t(s_t, a_t) \mid s_t \right]
- E_{\eta}\left[\mathscr{T}^{\eta}_t(s_t, a_t) \mid s_t \right] ) ds_t
\nonumber \\
& +\beta \int_{(s_t \in (S^{\eta})^c} P(s_t \mid s_{t-1}, a_{t-1})
(E_{\pi}\left[\mathscr{T}^{\eta}_t(s_t, a_t) \mid s_t \right]
- E_{\eta}\left[\mathscr{T}^{\eta}_t(s_t, a_t) \mid s_t \right])ds_t
\nonumber \\
\leq & \beta E_{\pi}\left[ e_t(s_t, a_t)\mid s_{t-1}, a_{t-1} \right]
+ \beta x_t E\left[1_{s_t \in S^{\eta}} y_t(s_t) \mid s_{t-1}, a_{t-1} \right]
$$ where $y_t(s_t) = \sum_{a_t: \pi(a_t|s_t) > \eta(a_t|s_t)}
\pi(a_t|s_t) - \eta(a_t|s_t) = d_{TV}(\pi(\cdot|s_t), \eta(\cdot|s_t))$. Here we replaced $\mathscr{T}^{\eta}_t(s_t, a_t)$ in the 2nd term by its maximum value on the support of $\pi$ when $s_t \in S^{\eta}$ and replaced $\mathscr{T}^{\eta}_t(s_t, a_t)$ in the 3rd term by its minimum value, zero.
For convenience, let $z_t(s_{t-1},a_{t-1}) = E_\theta\left[1_{s_t\in S^{\eta}}y_t(s_t) \mid s_{t-1}, a_{t-1} \right]$. Then the above inequality can be written as $e_{t-1}(s_{t-1},a_{t-1}) \leq \beta E_{\pi}\left[ e_t(s_t, a_t)\mid s_{t-1}, a_{t-1} \right]
+ \beta x_t z_t(s_{t-1},a_{t-1})$.
Since $e_{T-1}(s_{T-1},a_{T-1}) = 0$ for the finite horizon MDP with length $T$, we have the inequality below by combining the above two inequalities and repeating the recursion. $$\begin{aligned}
e_{0}(s_{0}, a_{0})
\leq & \beta E_{\pi}\left[ e_1(s_1, a_1)\mid s_{0}, a_{0} \right]
+ \beta x_1 z_1(s_{0},a_{0})
\nonumber \\
\leq & \beta^2 E_{\pi}\left[ e_2(s_2, a_2)\mid s_{0}, a_{0} \right] + \beta^2 x_2 E_{\pi}\left[ z_2(s_1,a_1)\mid s_{0}, a_{0} \right]
+ \beta x_1 z_1(s_{0},a_{0})
\nonumber \\
\leq & \sum_{t=1}^{T-1}\beta^t x_t E_{\pi}\left[ z_t(s_{t-1},a_{t-1})\mid s_{0}, a_{0} \right]\end{aligned}$$ This means $$\begin{aligned}
\mathscr{T}^{\pi}_{0}(s_{0})
=&E_{\pi}\left[\mathscr{T}^{\pi}_{0}(s_{0}, a_{0}) \mid s_0 \right] \nonumber \\
=& E_{\pi}\left[\mathscr{T}^{\eta}_{0}(s_{0}, a_{0}) + e_{0}(s_{0}, a_{0}) \mid s_0 \right] \nonumber \\
\leq & x_0 + \sum_{t=1}^{T-1} \beta^t x_t E_{\pi}\left[ z_t(s_{t-1},a_{t-1})\mid s_0 \right].\end{aligned}$$ Note this bound is tight in the sense that there exists some policy and environment that achieves this bound with equality. To keep $z_T(s_{t-1},a_{t-1})$ small, we should make $y_t(s_t)$ small by making $\pi$ enough close to $\eta$. For example, $\epsilon$-$\eta$ policy, i.e., take actions according to the policy $\eta$ with probability $1-\epsilon$ and take actions according to the uniform random policy $u$ with probability $\epsilon$, which becomes small when $\epsilon$ is small. $y_t(s_t) = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{a_t \in A^{\eta}(s_t,t)}
|\pi(a_t|s_t) - \eta(a_t|s_t)|
\leq \sum_{a_t \in A^{\eta}(s_t,t)}
|(1-\epsilon)\eta(a_t|s_t)+\epsilon u - \eta(a_t|s_t)|
= \frac{1}{2}\epsilon\sum_{a_t \in A^{\eta}(s_t,t)} |\eta(a_t|s_t) - u|$.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:sum\_bound\]
-----------------------------------
0
Let us consider a model in which the full state of the system is given by $(s^{(o)}_t, \{s^{(n)}_{t}; 1,...,N\})$, where the state of the $n$-th obstacle is $s^{(n)}_{t}$ and the aggregate state of all other objects in the system is $s^{(o)}_{t}$(i.e. the location of the agent, etc). Let $\mathscr{T}^{\pi, n}_t(s^{(o)}_t,s^{(n)}_{t})$ be the probability of collision in the subsystem containing only the agent and the $n$th obstacle. Let us assume that agent can take action based solely on $s^{(o)}_t$, and that $s^{(n)}_{t}$ are all conditionally independent of each other given $s^{(o)}_t$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\mathscr{T}_t^{\pi} (s_t,a_t) \leq \sum_{n=1}^N \mathscr{T}^{\pi, n}_t(s^{(o)}_t,s^{(n)}_{t}).\end{aligned}$$ \[eq:sum\_bound\]
Let us suppose that we can write $s_t=(s^{(1)}_t,\cdots,s^{(N)}_t,s^{(o)}_t)$, and let us denote the accident of $k$th type by $S_k $. Then, by a basic property of probability distribution $$\begin{aligned}
P(\cup _{i=1}^N S_i | \cdot) \leq \sum_{i=1}^N P(S_i | \cdot).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, if the transition probability is given by $p(s_{t+1}|s_t,a_t)=p(s^{(o)}_{t+1}|s^{(o)}_t,a_t)
\prod_{n=1}^n p(s^{(n)}_{t+1}|s^{(n)}_{t},s^{(o)}_t,a_t)$ and if the policy being followed is $\pi(a_t | s^{(o)}_t)$, We have $$\begin{aligned}
P(\cup _{i=1}^N S_i | s_t, a_t) \leq \sum_{i=1}^N P(S_i | s^{(o)}_t,s^{(n)}_{t}, a_t).\end{aligned}$$ Now, let us consider the problem of constraining the probability of an accident $P( \max_{1\leq t \leq T} d_t = 1 | \pi)$. Then, using the fact that $\mathscr{T}_t^{\pi} (s_t, a_t) = P( \max_{1\leq t \leq T} d_t = 1 | s_t, a_t, \pi)$, we see that we can bound the threat by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathscr{T}_t^{\pi} (s_t,a_t) \leq \sum_{n=1}^N \mathscr{T}^{\pi, n}_t(s^{(o)}_t,s^{(n)}_{t}), \end{aligned}$$ where $d^{(n)}_t (s^{(o)}_t,s^{(n)}_{t},a_t)$ is the probability of the collision with $n$-th obstacle at state $(s^{(o)}_{t+1},s^{(n)}_{t})$ in the ’sub’system consisting of only agent and $n$-th obstacle, and $\mathscr{T}^{\pi, n}_t(s^{(o)}_t,s^{(n)}_{t})$ is the threat function for the R-MDP on such subsystem.
Environments
------------
### Circuit {#circuit .unnumbered}
In this task, the agent’s goal is to complete one lap around the circuit without crashing into the wall. Each state in the system was set to be the tuple of (1) location, (2) velocity, and (3) the direction of the movement. The set of actions allowed for the agent was $\{$0.15rad to left, 0.05rad to left, stay course, 0.05 rad to right, 0.15 rad to right $\} \times \{$ 0.02 unit acceleration, no acceleration, 0.02 unit deceleration $\}$ (15 options). At all time, the speed of the agent was truncated at $\{-0.04, 0.1 \}$. We rewarded the agent for the geodesic distance traveling along the course during each time interval, which accumulates to $1250$pts for one lap while we gave negative rewards for the stopping and collision during the time step, each of which are $-1$pts and $-200$pts, respectively. We set the length of the episode to 200 steps, which is the approximate number of steps required to make one lap.
### Jam {#jam .unnumbered}
In this task, the agent’s goal is to navigate its way out of a room from the exit located at the top left corner without bumping into 8 randomly moving objects. We set three circular safety zones centered at each corner except for the top left corner, i.e., exit. Any moving obstacle entered into the safety zone disappear. Without the safety zone, the task seems to be too difficult, i.e., there is a situation that the agent cannot avoid the collision even if the agent tried his best. We set the safety zone to ease the problem hoping the probability that the agent can solve the task when employing the optimal policy becomes reasonably high. The field was $3 \times 3$ square and the radius of the safety zone located at three corners were set to 0.5. The radius of the agent and moving obstacles were set to 0.1. We rewarded the agent for its distance from the exit, and controlled its value so that the accumulated reward at the goal will be around $85$. The agent was given $10$ points when it reaches the goal, was penalized $-0.05$ points for stopping the advance, and was given $50$pts penalty for each collision. Similar to the setting as in Circuit, the agent was allowed to change direction and acceleration of the movement simultaneously at each time point. The set of actions allowed for the agent was $\{$0.30 rad to left, 0.10 rad to left, stay course, 0.10 rad to right, 0.30 rad to right $\} \times \{$ 0.02 unit acceleration, no acceleration, 0.02 unit deceleration $\}$. At all time, the speed of the agent was truncated at $\{-0.1, 0.1 \}$. Each obstacle in the environment was allowed to take a random action from $\{$0.15rad to left, 0.05rad to left, stay course, 0.05 rad to right, 0.15 rad to right $\} \times \{$ 0.02 unit acceleration, no acceleration, 0.02 unit deceleration $\}$. The speed of the environment was truncated at $\{0, 0.06\}$. We set the length of each episode to $100$ steps.
### Point Gather {#point-gather .unnumbered}
In this task, the goal is to collect as many green apples as possible while avoiding red bombs. There are 2 apples and 10 bombs in the field. The agent was rewarded 10pts when the agent collected apple, and also reward The point mass agent receives 29-dimensional state and can take two-dimensional continuous actions. The state variable takes real values including, position and velocity, the direction and distance to the bomb, etc. The action variables determine the direction and the velocity of the agent. For the implementation of DQN, we discretized each action variable into 9 values. We used the exact same task setting as the one used in the original paper.
Model architecture and optimization details
-------------------------------------------
### RP-algorithm
We implemented our method on Chainer [@Tokui15Chainer].
### Learning of Threat function {#learning-of-threat-function .unnumbered}
For the Circuit and Jam tasks, the agent must avoid collisions with both moving obstacles and the wall. For these environments, it is computationally difficult to obtain the best $\eta$. Thus, we computed a threat function for the collision with every object individually in the environment under an arbitrary baseline policy $\eta$, and constructed the pool of approximately safe policies using the the upper bound of the threat function computed in the way we described in Section 3.1.2. We used $\eta$ that (1) decides the direction of the movement by staying course with probability $0.6$, turning right with probability $0.2$ and turning left with probability $0.2$, and (2) decides its speed by accelerating with probability $0.2$ and decelerating with probability $0.2$. Then, we trained two threat functions each of which predict the collision with the immobile point and moving obstacle randomly put in the 2D region. Since $\eta$ is fixed, the threat function can be obtained by supervised learning, in which the task is to predict the future collision when starting from a given current state and employing the policy $\eta$. The threat function for the collision with the immobile point is used to avoid collision with the wall, which can be considered as a set of immobile points. We shall emphasize that, with our method described in Section 3, the environment used in P-MDP is different from the environment used in R-MDPs, because each threat function in the summand of is computed on the assumption that there is only one obstacle, either immobile point or moving obstacle in the environment.
We used neural network with three fully connected layers (100-50-15) and four fully connected layers (500-500-500-15) for the threat function of the immobile point and moving obstacle, respectively. For the training dataset, we sampled 100,000 initial state and simulated 10,000 paths of length $5$ from each initial state. We trained the network with Adam. The parameter settings for the training of the threat function of immobile point and of mobile obstacle are ($\alpha =1e-2, \epsilon =1e-2$, batchsize = 512, number of epochs = 20), and ($\alpha =1e-2, \epsilon =1e-2$, batchsize = 512, number of epochs = 25), respectively.
For the point gather task, we again used the upper bound approximation explained in Section 3.1.2 for the threat function. The threat function is estimated by using a two-layer fully connected neural network.
### Solving P-MDP {#solving-p-mdp .unnumbered}
For the Planning MDP, we used DQN. For DQN, we used convolutional neural network with one convolutional layer and three fully connected layers, and we trained the network with Adam ($\alpha =1e-3, \epsilon =1e-2$). We linearly decayed the learning rate from $1$ to $0.05$ over 3M iterations.
### DQN with Lagrange coefficient
For DQN, we used the identical DQN as the one used for P-MDP. For Lagrange coefficient, we tested with three Lagrange coefficients for each task, $\{0, 20, 200 \}$ for Circuit, $\{5, 50, 500 \}$ for Jam, $\{1, 10, 50 \}$ for Point Gather, respectively. For the Jam task, the initial Lagrange coefficients are all set to 5 and gradually incremented to the final values $\{1, 10, 50 \}$ as done in [@Miyashita18MobileRobot]. This heuristic pushes the agent to learn the goal-oriented policy first, and then learn the collision avoidance.
### Constrained Policy Optimization
As for CPO, we used the same implementation publicized on Github [@CPOcode], i.e., the policy is a Gaussian policy implemented by a two layer MLP with hidden units 64 and 32 for all tasks.
### Model Predictive Control
We tested MPC with receding horizon $\in \{3,4,5\} $, and at every step selected the action with the highest reward among those that were deemed safe by the prediction.
Related works
-------------
CPO [@Achiam17ConstrainedPO] is a method that gradually improves the safe policy by making a local search for a better safe policy in the neighborhood of the current safe policy. By nature, at each update, CPO has to determine *what members of the neighborhood of current safe policy* satisfy the safety constraint. In implementation, this is done by the evaluation of Lagrange coefficients. Accurate selection of *safe* policy in the neighborhood is especially difficult when the danger to be avoided is “rare” and “catastrophic”, we would need massive number of samples to verify whether a given policy is safe or not. Moreover, because each update is incremental, they have to repeat this process multiple times (usually, several dozens of times for Point Circle, and several thousands of times for Ant Gather and Humanoid Circle). Lyapunov based approach [@Chow18Lyapunov; @Chow19Lyapunov] are also similar in nature. At each step of the algorithm, Lyapunov based approach construct a set of safe policy from a neighborhood of the baseline policy, and computes from its safety-margin function—or the state-dependent measure of how bold an action it can take while remaining safe—to specify the neighborhood from which to look for better policy. For the accurate computation of the margin, one must use the transition probability and solve the linear programming problem over the space with dimension that equals the number of states. The subset of the neighborhood computed from approximate margin may contain unsafe policy. Model checking is another approach to guarantee the safety. Once the constraints are represented in the form of temporal logic constrains or computation-tree logic [@Baier03ModelCheck; @Wen15TLC; @Bouton19TLC], we could ensure the safety by using model checking systems. However, it is sometimes difficult to express the constraints such a structured form. Also even when we represents the constraints in the structured form, we again encounters computation issues; when the state-action space becomes large, the computation required for the model checking system becomes prohibitively heavy due to the increase of the candidates of the solutions.
[^1]: Work done while Hayato Watahiki worked at Preferred Networks, Inc., Tokyo, Japan.
[^2]: Total variation distance is defined as $d_{TV}(p(a),q(a)) = \frac{1}{2}\sum_a |p(a)-q(a)|$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'A problem of distributed state estimation at multiple agents that are physically connected and have competitive interests is mapped to a distributed source coding problem with additional privacy constraints. The agents interact to estimate their own states to a desired fidelity from their (sensor) measurements which are functions of both the local state and the states at the other agents. For a Gaussian state and measurement model, it is shown that the sum-rate achieved by a distributed protocol in which the agents broadcast to one another is a lower bound on that of a centralized protocol in which the agents broadcast as if to a virtual CEO converging only in the limit of a large number of agents. The sufficiency of encoding using local measurements is also proved for both protocols.'
author:
-
bibliography:
- 'ascexmpl.bib'
- 'refsSG.bib'
title: 'Distributed Estimation in Multi-Agent Networks'
---
Introduction
============
We consider a network of $K$ distributed agents in which each agent observes sensor measurements from a distinct part of a large interconnected physical network. Examples of such networks include cyber-physical systems, specifically the smart grid, in which an agent can be viewed as a regional operator whose power measurements are affected by those at other agents due to the physical grid connectivity. Agent $k$ is interested in estimating the state (defined as a set of system parameters; for e.g., voltages and phases in the electric grid) of its local network from its measurements, $Y_{k},$ which are a function of both the local state $X_{k}$ and the states $X_{l},$ $l\not =k,$ $l,k\in\left\{ 1,2,\ldots,K\right\} $ of other agents in the network where the states $X_{k}$ are assumed to be independent of each other.
Estimating $X_{k}$ at agent $k$ with high fidelity requires the agents to interact and share data amongst themselves. While the estimate fidelity is crucial to the control decisions made by the agents, in many distributed systems, for competitive reasons, the agents wish to keep their state information private. This leads to a problem of *competitive privacy* which captures the tradeoff between the utility to the agent (estimate fidelity) that can be achieved via cooperation and the resulting privacy leakage (quantified via mutual information).
Mapping utility to distortion and privacy to leakage quantified via mutual information, one can abstract the competitive privacy problem as a distributed source coding problem with additional leakage constraints. The set of all achievable rate-fidelity-leakage tuples determines the utility-privacy tradeoff region. In [@LS_SG1], we introduced and studied this problem for a two-agent interactive system with Gaussian states and noisy Gaussian measurements. We proved that side-information (measurements at the other agent) aware Wyner-Ziv encoding [@Wyner_Ziv] at each agent achieves both the minimal rate and the minimal leakage for every choice of fidelity (quantified via mean-squared distortion).
Even without additional privacy constraints, the problem of determining the set of all rate-distortion tuples in a multi agent network is related to the distributed source coding problem [@DSS5; @DSS5a] which remains open. Furthermore, for a relatively simpler setting obtained by assuming that a central entity, often referred to as a chief executive officer (CEO), wishes to estimate the states $X_{k},$ for all $k,$ from the transmissions of all agents, we obtain a multi-variate (vector) Gaussian CEO problem which also remains open except for specific cases [@DSS5b].
Circumventing these challenges, we focus on the rate-distortion-leakage behavior in the limit of large $K$ for a *distributed protocol* in which each agent encodes its measurements taking into account the prior broadcasts of the other agents (henceforth referred to as *progressive encoding*) as well as the side-information at the other agents. We compare the performance of this protocol with a *centralized* *protocol* in which the agents broadcast their encoded messages as if to a virtual CEO. We consider a noisy Gaussian measurement model at each agent with the same level of interference from the states of the other agents. For this symmetric model, our results demonstrate that the sum-rate achieved by distributed protocol outperforms that for the centralized schemes with asymptotic convergence with $K$. We also prove the sufficiency of encoding local measurements for both protocols and present outer bounds for the per user rate and leakage.
The paper is organized as follows. We introduce the model and communication protocols in Section \[Sec\_II\]. In Section \[Sec\_III\] we develop the achievable rate-distortion-leakage tuples for both protocols as well as outer bounds. We conclude in Section \[Sec\_CR\].
\[Sec\_II\]Preliminaries
========================
Model and Metrics
-----------------
We consider a network of $K$ agents such that, at any time instant $i,$ $i=1,2,\ldots,n,$ the measurement $Y_{k,i}$ at agent $k$, $k=1,2,\ldots,K,$ is related to the states $X_{m,i},$ $m=1,2,\ldots,K,$ at the agents as follows:$$Y_{k,i}=X_{k,i}+\sum\limits_{l=1,l\not =k}^{K}\sqrt{h}X_{l,i}+Z_{k,i},\text{
}k=1,2,\ldots,K, \label{Model}$$ where the state variables $X_{m,i}\sim\mathcal{N}(0,\sigma^{2})$, for all $m$ and $i$ are assumed to be independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) and are also independent of the i.i.d. noise variables $Z_{k,i}\sim\mathcal{N}(0,1)$. The coefficient $h>0$ is assumed to be fixed for all time and known at all agents. We assume that the $k^{th}$ agent observes a sequence of $n$ measurements $Y_{k}^{n}=[Y_{k,1}$ **** $Y_{k,2}$ $\ldots$ $Y_{k,n}]$, for all $k$, prior to communications.
*Utility*: For the continuous Gaussian distributed state and measurements, a reasonable metric for utility at the $k^{th}$ agent is the mean square error $D_{k}$ between the original and the estimated state sequences $X_{k}^{n}$ and $\hat{X}_{k}^{n}$, respectively.
*Privacy*: The measurements at each agent in conjunction with the quantized data shared by the other agents while enabling accurate estimation also leaks information about the other agents’ states. We capture this leakage using mutual information.
Communication Protocol
----------------------
We assume that each agent broadcasts a function of its measurements (*distributed procotol*) to all agents and they do so in a round-robin fashion. We assume that all agents encode in one of the following two ways: i) *local encoding* in which each agent quantizes only its measurements; or ii) *progressive encoding* in which each agent encodes and transmits taking into account both its measurements and prior communications from other agents. In both cases, the agents transmit at a rate that takes into account the correlated measurements and prior communications of other agents.
To better understand the advantage of the above distributed procotol, we also consider the case where the agents broadcast as if communicating with a virtual central operator, say CEO, henceforth referred to as the *centralized protocol*. This may be viewed as the case in which the computing power at the agents is limited and the CEO shares with each agent its received messages (which are then decoded at each agent). For either protocol, the encoding can be either local or progressive. Let $I_{p}\in\left\{ 0,1\right\} $ and $I_{enc}\in\left\{ 0,1\right\} $ be random variables that denote the choice of protocols and encodings such that $I_{p}=1$ and $I_{p}=0$ for the distributed and centralized protocol, respectively, and $I_{enc}=1$ and $I_{enc}=0$ for the progressive and local encoding, respectively.
Formally, the encoder at agent $k$ maps its measurements to an index set $\mathcal{J}_{k}$ where $$\mathcal{J}_{k}\equiv\left\{ 1,2,\ldots,J_{k}\right\} \text{, }k=1,2,\ldots,K, \label{Enc1}$$ is the index set at the $k^{th}$ agent for mapping the measurement sequence, and the prior communications (progressive encoding), via the encoder $f_{k}$, $k=1,2,\ldots K,$ defined as$$f_{k}:\mathcal{Y}_{k}^{n}\times I_{enc}\cdot{\textstyle\prod\nolimits_{l=1}^{k-1}}
\mathcal{J}_{l}\rightarrow\mathcal{J}_{k}, \label{Enc2}$$ such that at the end of the $K$ broadcasts, one from each agent, the decoding function $F_{k}$ at the $k^{th}$ agent (or the CEO) is a mapping from the received message sets (both protocols) and the measurements (the distributed procotol) to that of the reconstructed sequence denoted as$$F_{k}:\mathcal{J}_{1}\times\ldots\times\mathcal{J}_{K}\times\left(
\mathcal{Y}_{k}^{n}\cdot I_{p}\right) \rightarrow\mathcal{\hat{X}}_{k}^{n},\text{ \ }k=1,2,\ldots,K. \label{Dec}$$ Let $M_{k}$ denotes the size of $J_{k}$. The expected distortion $D_{k}\ $at the $k^{th}$ agent is given by $$D_{k}=\frac{1}{n}\mathbb{E}\left[
{\textstyle\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}}
\left( X_{k,i}-\hat{X}_{k,i}\right) ^{2}\right] \text{, }k=1,2,\ldots K,
\label{Dist}$$ The privacy leakage$,$ $L_{k}^{\left( l\right) }$, about state $k$ at agent $l,$ $l\not =k,$ is given by $$L_{k}^{\left( l\right) }=\frac{1}{n}I\left( X_{k}^{n};J_{1},J_{2},\ldots,J_{K},Y_{l}^{n}\right) ,\text{ for all }k\not =l.$$ The communication rate of the $k^{th}$ agent is denoted by $$R_{k}=n^{-1}\log_{2}M_{k},k=1,2,\ldots,K. \label{CommRate}$$
\[DefUP\]The utility-privacy tradeoff region is the set of all $(D_{1},\ldots,D_{k},L_{1}^{\left( 2\right) },\ldots,L_{1}^{\left(
K\right) },\ldots,L_{K}^{\left( 1\right) },\ldots,L_{K}^{(K-1)})$ for which there exists a coding scheme given by (\[Enc1\])-(\[Dec\]) with parameters $(n,K,M_{1},M_{2},D_{1}+\epsilon,\ldots,D_{K}+\epsilon,L_{1}+\epsilon
,\ldots,L_{K}+\epsilon)$ for $n$ sufficiently large such that $\epsilon
\rightarrow0$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$.
\[Sec\_III\]Main Results
========================
We use the following proposition, lemma, and function definition in the sequel to compute the achievable distortions and rates.
\[Prop1\]For (column) vectors $\underline{A}$ and $\underline{B}$, let $K_{\underline{A}\underline{A}}=var\left( \underline{A}\right) =E\left[
\left( \underline{A}-E\left[ \underline{A}\right] \right) \left(
\underline{A}^{T}-E\left[ \underline{A}^{T}\right] \right) \right] $ and $K_{\underline{A}\underline{B}}=E\left[ \left( \underline{A}-E\left[
\underline{A}\right] \right) \left( \underline{B}^{T}-E\left[
\underline{B}^{T}\right] \right) \right] $ denote the covariance and cross-correlation matrices, respectively. The conditional variance $E[var(\underline{A}|\underline{B})]$ is then given as $E[var(\underline
{A}|\underline{B})]=K_{\underline{A}\underline{A}}-K_{\underline{A}\underline{B}}K_{\underline{B}\underline{B}}^{-1}K_{\underline{A}\underline
{B}}^{T}.$
\[Lemma1\]For a $K\times K$ symmetric Toeplitz matrix whose diagonal entries are all $a,$ and off-diagonal entries are all $b$ the determinant is $\left( a+\left( K-1\right) b\right) \left( a-b\right) ^{\left(
K-1\right) }.$
The determinant is obtained by the following two operations: i) add columns 2-$K$ to column 1, and ii) subtract row $1$ from each of the remaining rows.
For some $\alpha$, $\beta\in\mathcal{R}^{+},$ the function $f_{1}\left(
k,c\right) \equiv\alpha+\left( k-2\right) \beta-\left( k-1\right) c$ varies over $k\in\left[ 1,K\right] $ and $c\in\mathcal{R}^{+}.$
Distortion
----------
We assume that each agent has the same distortion constraint $D$. The distortion $D$ at each agent ranges from a minimum achieved when it has perfect access to the measurements at all agents to a maximum achieved when it estimates using only its own measurements. From the symmetry of the model in (\[Model\]), the minimal (resp. maximal) distortion achieved at each agent is the same. Let $D_{\min}$ and $D_{\max}$ denote the minimal and maximal distortions, respectively, at each agent. For the Gaussian model considered here with minimum mean square error (MSE) constraints, we have $$\begin{aligned}
D_{\min} & =E\left[ var(X_{1}|Y_{1}Y_{2}\ldots Y_{K})\right] ,\text{
and}\label{Dmin_def}\\
D_{\max} & =E\left[ var(X_{1}|Y_{1})\right] . \label{Dmax_def}$$ We now determine $D_{\min}$ and $D_{\max}$. Let
\[alp\_beta\_defs\]$$\begin{aligned}
\alpha & \equiv E(Y_{l}^{2})=\sigma_{X}^{2}\left( 1+h\left( K-1\right)
\right) +1,\text{ for all }l\\
\beta & \equiv E(Y_{l}Y_{k})=\sigma_{X}^{2}\left( 2\sqrt{h}+h\left(
K-2\right) \right) ,\text{ }l\not =k.\end{aligned}$$ Note that for large $K$, $\alpha\rightarrow h\left( K-1\right) \sigma
_{X}^{2},$ and $\beta\rightarrow h\left( K-2\right) \sigma_{X}^{2}.$
*Computation of* $D_{\max}$: Expanding (\[Dmax\_def\]), we obtain
$$D_{\max}=E\left[ var(X_{1}|Y_{1})\right] =\sigma_{X}^{2}\left(
1-\frac{\sigma_{X}^{2}}{\alpha}\right) . \label{Dmax}$$
For large $K,$ $D_{\max}\rightarrow\sigma_{X}^{2}$.
*Computation of* $D_{\min}$: Expanding (\[Dmin\_def\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
D_{\min} & =E\left[ var(X_{1}|Y_{1}Y_{2}\ldots Y_{K})\right] \\
& =\frac{\left\vert E\left[ var(X_{1}Y_{2}\ldots Y_{K}|Y_{1})\right]
\right\vert }{\left\vert E\left[ var(Y_{2}\ldots Y_{K}|Y_{1})\right]
\right\vert } \label{D_max2}$$ where the simplification in (\[D\_max2\]) results from the assumption of jointly Gaussian random variables. Applying Lemma \[Lemma1\], for $$\begin{aligned}
c_{1} & =\sigma_{X}^{2}-\sigma_{X}^{4}/\alpha,\text{ }c_{2}=\sigma_{X}^{2}\left( \sqrt{h}-\beta/\alpha\right) ,\\
c_{3} & =\alpha-\beta^{2}/\alpha,\text{ and }c_{4}=\beta-\beta^{2}/\alpha,\end{aligned}$$ we obtain the minimum distortion $D_{\min}$ as$$D_{\min}=D_{\max}\left( 1-\frac{\left( K-1\right) \frac{\sigma_{X}^{2}\left( \sqrt{h}-\beta/\alpha\right) ^{2}}{\left( 1-\sigma_{X}^{2}/\alpha\right) }}{f_{1}\left( K,\beta^{2}/\alpha\right) }\right) .
\label{Dmin_final}$$
For $K\rightarrow\infty,$ $D_{\min}\rightarrow D_{\max}(1-(1-\sqrt{h})^{2}/h)$.
Distributed Protocol
--------------------
A general coding strategy for this distributed source coding problem needs to take into account: a) the order of agent broadcasts; b) multiple encoding possibilities at each agent depending on whether the received data is used alongwith local measurements in encoding; c) exploiting the correlated measurements at other agents in broadcasting just sufficient data for other agents to achieve their distortions; and d) multiple rounds of interactions. We present a distributed encoding scheme with a single round of communication (for simplicity of analysis) in which the agents broadcast in order (the source permutation choice is irrelevant due to the symmetry of the model). The local and progressive coding schemes differ in including the received data in encoding at each agent, while the centralized and distributed protocols differ in whether they exploit the correlated measurements at the other agents.
The achievable distortion $D$ in general depends on the encoding scheme chosen. Let $R_{k}$ and $\tilde{R}_{k}$ denote the rates for the local and progessive encoding schemes, respectively. We first consider the progressive encoding scheme in which each agent broadcasts (to all other agents) a noisy function of both its measurements and prior communications. More precisely, agent $k$ maps its measurement and prior communication sequences to one among a set of $2^{n\tilde{R}_{k}}$ $\tilde{U}_{k}^{n}$ sequences chosen to satisfy the distortion constraints. The $\tilde{U}_{k}^{n}$ sequences are generated via an i.i.d distribution of $\tilde{U}_{k,i}$ for all $i$ such that $\tilde{U}_{1,i}=Y_{1,i}+Q_{1,i}$ and for all $k>1,$ $\tilde{U}_{k,i}=Y_{k,i}+{\textstyle\sum\nolimits_{l=1}^{k-1}}
a_{k,l}\tilde{U}_{l,i}+Q_{k,i}$ where $a_{k,l}\in\mathcal{R}$, and $Q_{k,i}\sim N\left( 0,\sigma_{Q}^{2}\right) $ is independent of $Y_{k,i}$ for all $k=1,2,\ldots,K,$ and $i=1,2,\ldots,n.$
The achievable distortion $D$ at agent $k$ as a result of estimating its state using both its measurements $Y_{k}^{n}$ and the received sequences $\tilde
{U}_{l}^{n},$ for all $l\not =k,$ is such that $D\in\left[ D_{\min},D_{\max
}\right] $ where $D_{\max}$ is achieved when $U_{l}^{n}=0$ for all $l$ and $D=D_{\min}$ for $\sigma_{Q}^{2}=0$. On the other hand, for the local encoding scheme, let $U_{k,i}=Y_{k,i}+Q_{k,i},$ for all $k$ and $i,$ such that agent $k$ maps *only* its measurement sequences to one among a set of $2^{nR_{k}}$ $U_{k}^{n}$ sequences chosen to satisfy the distortion constraints.
The sets $\mathcal{D}$ of all achievable distortions $D$ for the local and progressive encoding schemes for the distributed protocol are the same.
For Gaussian codebooks and Gaussian measurements and from symmetry of the model, the distortion $D$ at each agent is given by $$\begin{aligned}
D & =\mathbb{E}\left[ var\left( X_{1}|Y_{1}\tilde{U}_{1}\tilde{U}_{2}\tilde{U}_{3}\ldots\tilde{U}_{K}\right) \right] \label{Dist_Prog}\\
& =\mathbb{E}\left[ var\left( X_{1}|Y_{1}U_{1}U_{2}U_{3}\ldots
U_{K}\right) \right] \in\lbrack D_{\min},D_{\max}] \label{Dist_LP1}$$ where in (\[Dist\_Prog\]) we have used that fact that $\tilde{U}_{1}=U_{1},$ and conditioned on $U_{1},$it suffices to condition on $U_{2},$ and similarly for the remaining $U_{k},$ $k>2$.
*Computation of* $D$: Using the independence of the quantization noise $Q_{k}$ for all $k,$ as well as the independence of $Q_{k}$ and $X_{k}$, we have $E\left[ U_{k}U_{l}\right] =E\left[ Y_{k}Y_{l}\right] =\beta$ for all $l\not =k$ and $E\left[ U_{k}^{2}\right] =E\left[ Y_{k}^{2}\right]
+E\left[ Q_{k}^{2}\right] =\alpha+\sigma_{Q}^{2}.$ Thus, $D$ is obtained in a manner analogous to the calculation of $D_{\min}$ with the replacement of $c_{3}$ by $c_{3}+\sigma_{Q}^{2}$. Thus, we have$$D=D_{\max}\left( 1-\frac{\left( K-1\right) \frac{\sigma_{X}^{2}\left(
\sqrt{h}-\beta/\alpha\right) ^{2}}{\left( 1-\sigma_{X}^{2}/\alpha\right) }}{f_{1}\left( K,\frac{\beta^{2}}{\alpha}\right) +\sigma_{Q}^{2}}\right) .$$
*Rate Computation*: We consider a round-robin protocol in which agent 1 broadcasts a quantized function of its measurements and prior communications at a rate which takes into account all the side information at all other agents. Thus, the rate $\tilde{R}_{1}$ required is the maximal of the rates required to each agent and is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{R}_{1} & \geq I(\tilde{U}_{1};Y_{1})-\min\left( I(\tilde{U}_{1};Y_{2}),\ldots,I(\tilde{U}_{1};Y_{K})\right) \\
& =I(U_{1};Y_{1})-I(U_{1};Y_{2})=R_{1} \label{Rate_R1}$$
where (\[Rate\_R1\]) follows from the symmetry of the measurement model, the fact that $\tilde{U}_{1}=U_{1},$ and $R_{1}$ is the minimal rate required at agent 1 for the local scheme. Next, agent 2 analogously broadcasts a function of its measurements at a rate $R_{2}$ given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{R}_{2} & \geq I(\tilde{U}_{2};Y_{2}\tilde{U}_{1})-\min_{l\in\left\{
1,...,K\right\} ,l\not =2}I(\tilde{U}_{2};Y_{l}\tilde{U}_{1})\\
& =I(\tilde{U}_{2};Y_{2}|\tilde{U}_{1})-\min_{l\in\left\{ 1,...,K\right\}
,l\not =2}I(\tilde{U}_{2};Y_{1}|\tilde{U}_{1})\\
& =I(U_{2};Y_{2})-I(U_{2};Y_{1})=R_{2} \label{Rate_R2}$$
where (\[Rate\_R2\]) follows from $h(\tilde{U}_{2}|Y_{1}\tilde{U}_{1})-h(\tilde{U}_{2}|Y_{2}\tilde{U}_{1})=h(U_{2}|Y_{1})-h(U_{2}|Y_{2})$ since $U_{2}-Y_{2}-U_{1}$ form a Markov chain and due to the symmetry of the model. It can be verified easily that the bound in (\[Rate\_R2\]) is the minimal rate $R_{2}$ for the local encoding scheme. One can similarly show that the rate at which agent 3 broadcasts is
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{R}_{3} & \geq I(\tilde{U}_{3};Y_{3}\tilde{U}_{1}\tilde{U}_{2})-\min_{l\in\left\{ 1,...,K\right\} ,l\not =3}I(\tilde{U}_{3};Y_{1}\tilde
{U}_{1}\tilde{U}_{2})\\
& =I(U_{3};Y_{3})-I(U_{3};Y_{1}U_{2})=R_{3}$$
where we have used the fact that $U_{3}-Y_{3}-U_{1}U_{2}$ and $U_{1}-Y_{1}-U_{3}$ form Markov chains. Generalizing we have, for all $k>1,$
$$\tilde{R}_{k}=R_{k}\geq I(U_{k};Y_{k})-I(U_{k};Y_{1}U_{1}\ldots U_{k-1}),\text{ } \label{Rate_Rk}$$
where the bound in (\[Rate\_Rk\]) is the minimal rate at which agent $k$ is required to broadcast when it only encodes $Y_{k}^{n}$.
*Calculation of Leakage*: For the proposed progressive encoding, the leakage of the state of agent $k$ at any other agent $j\not =k,$ for all such $k,j,$ is bounded as
\[Leakage\]$$\begin{aligned}
L_{k}^{(j)} & =\frac{1}{n}I(X_{k}^{n};Y_{j}^{n}J_{1}J_{2}\ldots
J_{K}),\text{ }j\not =k\\
& \geq I(X_{1};Y_{2}\tilde{U}_{1}\ldots\tilde{U}_{K})=I(X_{1};Y_{2}U_{1}\ldots U_{K})\label{Leakage_2}\\
& =\frac{1}{2}\log\left( \frac{\alpha f_{1}\left( K,\beta^{2}/\alpha\right) }{\left( \alpha-\sigma_{X}^{2}\right) f_{1}\left(
K,c_{5}\right) }\right) \label{Leakage_3}$$ where (\[Leakage\_2\]) is a result of the model symmetry, the code construction and typicality arguments and is omitted for brevity. The bound in (\[Leakage\_3\]) follows from the relation of the code constructions for the two encoding schemes and $c_{5}=\left. (\beta-\sqrt{h}\sigma_{x}^{2})^{2}\right/ \left( \alpha-\sigma_{x}^{2}\right) +h\sigma_{X}^{2}$.
\[Lemma\_3\]It is sufficient to encode the local measurements at each agent in the distributed protocol.
Theorem \[Lemma\_3\] follows directly from the fact that for Gaussian encoding, from (\[Dist\_LP1\]), (\[Rate\_Rk\]), and (\[Leakage\_3\]), we have that the set of all rate-distortion-leakage tuples achieved by the local and progressive encoding schemes is the same.
The sum-rate of the distributed scheme $R_{sum}^{Dist}=\sum\nolimits_{k=1}^{K}R_{k}$ can be simplified as
\[Rsum\]$$\begin{aligned}
R_{sum}^{Dist} & =h\left( U_{2}U_{3}\ldots U_{K}|Y_{1}\right)
+h(U_{1}|Y_{2})-\frac{K}{2}\log\left( 2\pi e\sigma_{Q}^{2}\right)
\label{RsumDist5}\\
& =\frac{K}{2}\log\left( \frac{\alpha+\sigma_{Q}^{2}-\beta}{\sigma_{Q}^{2}}\right) +\frac{1}{2}\log\left( \frac{\left( \alpha+\sigma_{Q}^{2}-\frac{\beta^{2}}{\alpha}\right) }{\left( \alpha+\sigma_{Q}^{2}-\beta\right) }\right) \label{RsumDistFin}\\
& \text{ \ \ }+\frac{1}{2}\log\left( \left. (f_{1}\left( K,\beta
^{2}/\alpha\right) +\sigma_{Q}^{2})\right/ \left( \alpha+\sigma_{Q}^{2}-\beta\right) \right) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where (\[RsumDistFin\]) is obtained from (\[RsumDist5\]) by determining $\left\vert E\left[ var\left( \underline{U}_{K}|Y_{1}\right) \right]
\right\vert $ where $\underline{U}_{K-1}=\left[ U_{2}\text{ }U_{3}\text{
}\ldots\text{ }U_{K}\right] ^{T}$ denotes a column vector of length $\left(
K-1\right) $. By expanding $E\left[ var\left( \underline{U}_{K-1}|Y_{1}\right) \right] $ using Proposition \[Prop1\], one can verify that $\left\vert E\left[ var\left( \underline{U}_{K}|Y_{1}\right) \right]
\right\vert $ simplifies to finding the determinant of the $\left(
K-1\right) \times\left( K-1\right) $ Toeplitz matrix with diagonal and off diagonal entries $\alpha+\sigma_{Q}^{2}-\frac{\beta^{2}}{\alpha}$ and $\beta-\frac{\beta^{2}}{\alpha},$ respectively, which from Lemma \[Lemma1\] is given by $f_{1}\left( K,\beta^{2}/\alpha\right) (\alpha+\sigma_{Q}^{2}-\beta)^{\left( K-2\right) }.$ One can similarly show that $E\left[
var\left( U_{1}|Y_{2}\right) \right] =\alpha+\sigma_{Q}^{2}-\beta
^{2}/\alpha.$
In the limit of $K\rightarrow\infty,$ $\left( K-2\right) \beta-\left(
K-1\right) \frac{\beta^{2}}{\alpha}\rightarrow0,$ $\alpha-\beta^{2}/\alpha\rightarrow h,$ $\alpha-\beta\rightarrow h$, and therefore, the second and third log terms in (\[RsumDistFin\]) scale as $\log\left( K\right) .$ Thus, in the limit, the per agent rate $R=R_{sum}^{Dist}/K$ is given by
$$\lim_{K\rightarrow\infty}R=\frac{1}{2}\log\left( \frac{\alpha+\sigma_{Q}^{2}-\beta}{\sigma_{Q}^{2}}\right) .$$
Distributed vs. Centralized
---------------------------
We now compare the distributed protocol to a centralized protocol in which each agent broadcasts at a rate intended for a (virtual) CEO, and thus, is oblivious of the correlated measurements at the other agents. Here again, the agents can use a progressive encoding scheme analogously to the distributed protocol. As in the distributed protocol, here too one can show that a local encoding scheme suffices, in which agent $k$ generates a codebook $U_{k}^{n}$ whose entries $U_{k,i}$ are generated in an i.i.d fashion such that $U_{k,i}=Y_{k,i}+Q_{k,i}$, $Q_{k,i}$ is independent of $Y_{k,i}$ and $Q_{l,i},$ for all $l\not =k,$ for all $k,$ and for all $i.$ The compression rates are bounded as follows. First, agent $1$ transmits its quantized measurements at a rate $R_{1}$ such that for error-free decoding of $U_{1}^{n}$ at the decoder, we require$$R_{1}\geq I\left( U_{1};Y_{1}\right) .$$ Agent 2 takes into account the knowledge of $U_{1}^{n}$ at all agents and broadcasts at a rate$$R_{2}\geq I\left( U_{2};Y_{2}\right) -I\left( U_{2};U_{1}\right) .$$ Note that the agents broadcast taking into account the prior transmissions (as if to a CEO) but not the side information at the other agents. Continuing similarly, we have for all $k\geq2$,$$R_{k}\geq I\left( U_{2};Y_{k}\right) -I\left( U_{k};U_{1}U_{2}\ldots
U_{k-1}\right) .$$ The resulting sum rate $R_{sum}^{CEO}=\sum\nolimits_{k=1}^{K}R_{k}$ can be simplified as $$\begin{aligned}
R_{sum}^{CEO} & =\sum\nolimits_{k=1}^{K}I(U_{k};Y_{k})-\sum\nolimits_{k=2}^{K}I(U_{k};U_{1}\ldots U_{k-1})\\
& =h\left( U_{K},U_{K-1}\ldots U_{1}\right) -\frac{K}{2}\log\left( 2\pi
e\sigma_{Q}^{2}\right) \\
& =\frac{K}{2}\log\left( \frac{\left( \alpha+\sigma_{Q}^{2}-\beta\right)
}{\sigma_{Q}^{2}}\right) \label{RCEOsum}\\
& \text{ \ \ }+\frac{1}{2}\log\left( \frac{\left( \alpha+\sigma_{Q}^{2}+\left( K-1\right) \beta\right) }{\left( \alpha+\sigma_{Q}^{2}-\beta\right) }\right) .\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the rate on average per user is $R^{CEO}=R_{sum}^{CEO}/K$ which converges in the limit of a large number of agents $K$ to $$\lim_{K\rightarrow\infty}R^{CEO}=\frac{1}{2}\log\left( \frac{\left(
\alpha+\sigma_{Q}^{2}-\beta\right) }{\sigma_{Q}^{2}}\right) .$$
Comparing (\[RsumDistFin\]) and (\[RCEOsum\]), we can verify that for every choice of $\sigma_{Q}^{2},$ and hence $D,$ $R_{sum}^{CEO}>R_{sum}^{Dist}$. Furthermore, one can also show that the leakage at each agent for the centralized protocol is the same as the distributed protocol in (\[Leakage\]) and is the same for both the local and progressive encoding schemes. The following theorem summarizes our results.
The average per user rate of the centralized protocol is strictly lower bounded by that for the distributed protocol and converges to this lower bound only in the limit of large $K.$
Outer Bounds
------------
From the symmetry of the model, it suffices to bound the rate $R_{1}$ of agent $1$ as $$\begin{aligned}
R_{1} & \geq\frac{1}{n}H(J_{1})\geq\frac{1}{n}I(Y_{1}^{n};J_{1}|Y_{2}^{n}Y_{3}^{n}\ldots Y_{K}^{n})\\
& \geq h\left( Y_{1}|Y_{2}\ldots Y_{K}\right) -\frac{1}{n}{\textstyle\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}}
h(Y_{1,i}|\hat{X}_{2,i}Y_{2,i}\ldots Y_{K,i})\label{ROB_3}\\
& \geq h\left( Y_{1}|Y_{2}\ldots Y_{K}\right) -\frac{1}{2}\log(2\pi
e\Sigma) \label{ROB_5}$$ where (\[ROB\_3\]) results from the fact that $\hat{X}_{2}^{n},\ldots\hat
{X}_{K}^{n}$ can be estimated from $J_{1},Y_{2}^{n},\ldots Y_{K}^{n}$, and that conditioning on only one of the estimates is a lower bound on $R_{1},$ and (\[ROB\_5\]) results from using the fact that a jointly Gaussian distribution maximizes the differential entropy for a fixed variance, from the concavity of the $\log$ function for $\Sigma\equiv E\left[ var\left(
Y_{1}|\hat{X}_{1}Y_{2}Y_{3}\ldots Y_{K}\right) \right] .$ For jointly Gaussian $\left( Y_{1},\ldots,Y_{K},\hat{X}_{2}\right) ,$ we can write $$\hat{X}_{2}=Y_{2}+{\textstyle\sum\nolimits_{l=1,l\not =2}^{K}}
bY_{l}+Z \label{Xhat_OB}$$ where $Z\sim N\left( 0,\sigma_{Z}^{2}\right) $ is independent of $Y_{k}$ for all $k,$ and from symmetry, we choose the same scaling constant $b$ in (\[Xhat\_OB\]). For $g\equiv E[\left( \hat{X}_{2}-Y_{2}-bY_{3}\ldots
-bY_{K}\right) ^{2}]=b^{2}/\left( b^{2}\alpha+\sigma_{Z}^{2}\right) $, $c_{1}=\beta^{2}g,$ and $c_{2}=c_{1}+\left( \beta-\beta\alpha g\right)
^{2}/\left( \alpha-\alpha^{2}g\right) ,$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
R_{1} & \geq\frac{1}{2}\log\left( \frac{f_{1}(K,\beta^{2}/\alpha)\left(
\alpha-\beta\right) }{f_{1}\left( K-1,\beta^{2}/\alpha\right) }\right) \\
& -\frac{1}{2}\log\left( \frac{f_{1}\left( K,c_{2}\right) }{f_{1}\left(
K,c_{1}\right) }\left( \alpha-\alpha^{2}g\right) \right)\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the orthogonality of the minimum MSE estimate and the measurements, i.e., $E\left[ \left( X_{1}-\hat{X}_{1}\right) Y_{l}\right]
=0,$ for all $l\not =1,$ and the distortion constraint in (\[Dist\]).
With $\hat{X}_{2}$ in (\[Xhat\_OB\]), one can similarly bound $L_{1}^{\left(
j\right) }=L_{1}^{\left( 2\right) }$ (from symmetry), for all $j$, as $$\begin{aligned}
R_{1} & \geq\frac{1}{n}I(X_{1}^{n};Y_{2}^{n}J_{1}J_{2}\ldots J_{K})\\
& \geq h\left( X_{1}\right) -\frac{1}{2}\log\left( 2\pi eE\left[
var\left( X_{1}|Y_{2}\hat{X}_{2}\right) \right] \right) \\
& =\frac{1}{2}\log\left( q_{1}\left/ \left( \left( 1-\sigma_{X}^{2}q_{2}^{2}\right) q_{1}-\sigma_{X}^{2}\left( \sqrt{h}-q_{2}\right)
^{2}\right) \right. \right) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $g_{1}\equiv$ $E\left[ \left( \hat{X}_{2}-Y_{2}\right) ^{2}\right] $ $\ =$ $(b^{2}\left( K-1\right) \alpha$ $+$ $\left( K-1\right) \left(
K-2\right) b\beta/2+\sigma_{Z}^{2-1})^{-1},$ $$\begin{aligned}
q_{1} & \equiv\alpha-g_{1}b^{2}\beta^{2}\left( K-1\right) ^{2},\text{
and}\\
q_{2} & =g_{1}b^{2}\left( 1+\left( K-2\right) \sqrt{h}\right)
\beta\left( K-1\right) .\end{aligned}$$
Due to the lack of a pre-log factor $K,$ the per-user rate $R$ for the outer bound rapidly approaches $0$ with $K$ (relative to the inner bounds).
The rate $R$ and leakage $L_{k}$ (for any $k)$ as a function of $K$ are illustrated in Fig. \[Fig1\] for $h=0.5$ and $\sigma_{Q}^{2}=6$.
\[ptb\]
[AchievabeRateLeak.eps]{}
\[Sec\_CR\]Concluding Remarks
=============================
We have introduced a distributed state estimation problem among $K$ agents with fidelity and privacy constraints. We have shown that the sum-rate and per user rate achieved from a distributed protocol in which the agents directly interact taking into account the prior knowledge at all agents lower bounds those achieved by a centralized protocol with convergence for very large $K.$ Tighter outer bounds that account for the distributed coding are much needed.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
bibliography:
- 'QuantumBib.bib'
---
Introduction
============
The feature that most distinguishes multipartite quantum systems from their classical counterpart is their ability to be in so-called entangled states. Not only does quantum entanglement enable apparent “spooky action at a distance” between separated systems [@Einstein-1935a], but it also has the potential to fundamentally change and dramatically improve the current information processing and cryptographic technologies [@Mermin-2007a]. It becomes natural then to treat entanglement in a multipartite system as a information processing resource that takes on different forms as the system realizes different states. Much effort has been devoted to formally quantifying the amount of entanglement contained in a given quantum state with the motivating intuition being that states having more entanglement possess a greater degree of computational and communication power than those with a lesser amount.
Under this interpretation, one may reasonably argue that a state ${|\phi\rangle}$ possesses no less amount of entanglement than another state ${|\psi\rangle}$ of the same system if the system can be converted from ${|\phi\rangle}$ to ${|\psi\rangle}$ “free of charge,” or without needing any further entanglement to facilitate the transformation. The physical operations implementing such transformations is the celebrated class of Local Operations with Classical Communication (LOCC), which, as described by its name, consists of all operations in which each multipartite subsystem is manipulated locally but perhaps in a manner globally correlated through classical communication. Thus LOCC has become a major framework for quantifying and classifying entanglement (see, e.g., the recent surveys on quantum entanglement by Horodecki [*et al.*]{} [@Horodecki] and G[ü]{}hne and T[ó]{}th [@Guhne]).
Following the notation of Bennett [*et al.*]{} [@Bennett_SLOCC], we write ${|\psi\rangle}{\le_{\textrm{\tiny LOCC}\!}}{|\phi\rangle}$ if ${|\phi\rangle}$ can be converted to ${|\psi\rangle}$ through LOCC. When can a state be converted to another? What’s the largest ratio one can convert multiple copies of a state to multiple copies of another? When is there a state maximum in the sense that all other states in the systems can be obtained from this state? Those are examples of the many natural questions that arise. We often have answers for the [*bipartite*]{} case. For example, a remarkable theorem by Nielsen [@Nielsen-1999a] states that for [*bipartite*]{} states, ${|\psi\rangle}{\le_{\textrm{\tiny LOCC}\!}}{|\phi\rangle}$ if and only if the spectrum of ${|\phi\rangle}$’s reduced density operator (i.e. the [*Schmidt numbers*]{}) is majorized by that of ${|\psi\rangle}$. Another important observation, made by Bennett [*et al.*]{} [@bennett-1999c], is that (for any multipartite systems) if two states are equivalent under LOCC, they are related by a local unitary (LU) transformation. Thus LOCC equivalence classes are simply the orbits of local unitary operations. Such a partitioning is too fine for most interests: even in the two-qubit case, there exists an infinite number of LU equivalence classes.
However, if the required success probability of both the forward and reverse transformations is reduced to be simply nonzero, a much coarser partitioning is achieved. General LOCC transformations occurring with a nonzero probability are called stochastic (SLOCC) and denoted by ${|\psi\rangle}{\le_{\textrm{\tiny SLOCC}\!}}{|\phi\rangle}$ if the transformation is from ${|\phi\rangle}$ to ${|\psi\rangle}$. It turns out that SLOCC equivalence classes are precisely the orbits under local invertible linear transformations [@Dur-2000a]. Similar to the situation with LOCC, bipartite entanglement is well understood under SLOCC. Indeed, for bipartite pure states, ${|\psi\rangle}{\le_{\textrm{\tiny SLOCC}\!}}{|\phi\rangle}$ if and only if the rank of the reduced density operator of ${|\psi\rangle}$ (i.e. the Schmidt rank) is no larger than that of ${|\phi\rangle}$. Thus two states are SLOCC equivalent if and only if they have the same Schmidt rank. The optimal success probability can also be computed easily from the Schmidt numbers [@Vidal-1999a].
In contrast, entanglement among three or more parties behaves fundamentally different from bipartite entanglement. For example, while there is a maximum SLOCC equivalence class for bipartite systems of any dimension, there exists two maximal equivalence classes for the simplest tripartite system of $3$ qubits [@Dur-2000a]. In contrast to Nielsen’s Theorem and the rank criterion for bipartite SLOCC conversion, deciding SLOCC convertibility in general encodes many difficult computational problems. For the general tripartite conversions, the problem is NP-hard (observed in [@Chitambar-2008a] using a NP-hardness result by H[å]{}stad [@Haastad-1990a] on computing tensor rank). For converting a tripartite state to a bipartite state, it is equivalent to the important problem of Polynomial Identity Testing [@Chitambar-PIT]. For certain tripartite asymptotic conversion the optimal conversion ratio is precisely the exponent of matrix multiplication [@Chitambar-2008a]. In view of those results, a simple criterion or an efficient algorithm for checking SLOCC convertibility or equivalence could be found only for systems of restricted dimensions.
This article studies the SLOCC equivalence classes of tripartite pure states in systems of dimensions $2\otimes m\otimes n$. Dur *et al.* presented the first major result in the study of multipartite SLOCC equivalence classes by showing there to be six different classes in $2\otimes 2\otimes 2$ systems [@Dur-2000a]. Their work was extended to four qubit systems by Verstraete and co-workers in which already an infinite number of equivalence classes exist [@Verstraete-2002a]. For an arbitrary number of subsystems, Miyake has shown how multidimensional determinate theory can be used to obtain general properties and results concerning SLOCC equivalence [@Miyake-2003a]. Specific to tripartite $2\otimes 2\otimes n$ systems, Miyake and Verstraete have also completely characterized the equivalence class hierarchy and found that for $n\geq 4$ exactly nine different classes exist [@Miyake-2004a]. Using the method of successive Schmidt decompositions, Cornelio and Piza obtained partial results concerning the equivalence classes in $2\otimes m\otimes n$ systems [@Cornelio-2006a]. Chen *et. al* completed the finite orbit picture by enumerating all 26 equivalence classes in $2\otimes 3\otimes 6$ systems, and showed that for the $3\otimes3\otimes3$ and $2\otimes4\otimes4$ systems (and all systems of higher dimensions) there are infinite number of SLOCC equivalence classes. They used a technique called “the range criterion” [@Chen-2006a], which states that two states are SLOCC equivalent if and only if the ranks of the reduced density operators are identical and their supports are related by local invertible linear operations. While these results are quite interesting, the tools used to obtain them appear rather *ad hoc* and neither the criterion in Ref [@Chen-2006a] nor any previous technique provides an efficient algorithm (or any algorithm at all) for determining SLOCC equivalence. The non-invertible hierarchy among the 26 classes has also remained an open problem.
The main insight of this article is that the theory of matrix pencils is the perfect tool for analyzing SLOCC equivalence in $2\otimes m\otimes n$ systems. For two matrices $A, B\in\mathbb{C}^{m\times n}$, the linear matrix polynomial $\lambda A + \mu B$ is called a matrix pencil. Two pencils $\lambda A+\mu B$ and $\lambda A'+ \mu B'$ are equivalent if there exists invertible $P$ and $Q$ such that $P(\lambda A+\mu B)Q = \lambda A' + \mu B'$. A fundamental result is the existence of a canonical form, discovered by Kronecker (see, e.g., Gantmacher [@Gantmacher-1959a]). The theory of matrix pencils remained an important subject of study for its applications in control and systems theory. An example is the computation of the generalized eigenvalues (see, e.g., Section 7.7 of [@Golub]).[^1] The efficient computation of the Kronecker canonical forms, other canonical forms, and related problems is still an active field of research (see, e.g. [@Beelen] and following articles).
The connection with our problem is that each state in a $2\otimes m\otimes n$ space can be represented as a matrix pencil (see Section \[sec:connection\] for details). The local operations on the second and third subsystem brings the corresponding pencil to an equivalent one. While actions on the first subsystem may bring the pencil to an inequivalent one, we show that if two states are SLOCC equivalent, there are only a small number of choices for operations on the first subsystem that make the resulting pencils equivalent. As a consequence, we derive the first efficient algorithm (in fact, the first algorithm) for determining SLOCC equivalence in general $2\otimes m\otimes n$ systems. For the systems having a finite equivalence classes, we derive the equivalence orbits (which was known before) and represent them using Kronecker canonical forms. We also determine all possible non-invertible transformations among those equivalence classes.
The rest of this article begins with a brief introduction to some main results in matrix pencil theory. We then develop the relationship between tripartite pure states and matrix pencils which allows us to derive necessary and sufficient conditions for the SLOCC convertibility of $2\otimes m\otimes n$ states. From there, we develop a SLOCC hierarchical schematic of all tripartite systems possessing a finite number of SLOCC orbits. The article closes with some brief concluding remarks.
Matrix Pencils
==============
The theory of matrix pencils was first developed by Kronecker over a century ago. A completely thorough treatment of the subject can be found in Gantmacher’s two volume texts [@Gantmacher-1959a] from which we will here only cite the main definitions and results. For a more modern treatment, see Ref. [@Gohberg-2009a]. Given two complex $m\times n$ matrices $R$ and $S$, we form the homogeneous matrix polynomial $\mathcal{P}_{(R,S)}=\mu R +\lambda S$ in variables $\mu$ and $\lambda$. Two pencils $\mathcal{P}_{(R,S)}$ and $\mathcal{P}_{(R',S')}$ are **strictly equivalent** if there exists invertible matrices $B$ and $C$ independent of $\mu$ and $\lambda$ such that $\mu R'+\lambda S'=B(\mu R+\lambda S)C^T$. It immediately follows that $\mathcal{P}_{(R,S)}$ and $\mathcal{P}_{(R',S')}$ are strictly equivalent if and only if there exists invertible $B$ and $C$ such that $BRC^T=R'$ and $BSC^T=S'$.
The **rank** of $\mathcal{P}_{(R,S)}$ is the largest $r$ such that there exists an $r$-minor of $\mathcal{P}_{(R,S)}$ not identically zero (not equaling zero upon any complex substitution for $\mu$ and $\lambda$). For $i\leq r$ we let $D_i(\mu,\lambda)$ denote the greatest common divisor of every $i$-minor of $\mathcal{P}_{(R,S)}$ which is monic with respect to $\lambda$. The **invariant polynomials** of pencil $\mathcal{P}_{(R,S)}$ are the homogeneous polynomials $E_i(\mu,\lambda)=\frac{D_i(\mu,\lambda)}{D_{i-1}(\mu,\lambda)}$ for $i=1...r$ where $D_0(\mu,\lambda)\equiv 1$. There will be a unique factorization of $D_r(\mu,\lambda)$ as $D_r(\mu,\lambda)=\mu^{r-k}p_1\cdot...\cdot p_k$ where $p_j$ is of the form $\mu x_j+\lambda$ for $x_i\in\mathbb{C}$, and the invariant polynomials will likewise have a factorization in terms of the $p_i$ and powers of $\mu$. Then for each distinct $p_i$ (suppose there are $q\leq k$ of them) we can consider the ordered set $\{p_i^{e_{i1}},...,p_i^{e_{ir}}\}$ where $e_{ij}$ gives the largest power of $p_i$ that divides invariant polynomial $E_j$. The multiset generated by letting $i$ range from 1 to $q$ is called the **elementary divisors** of $\mathcal{P}_{(R,S)}$. Likewise, the set $\{\mu^{e'_1},...,\mu^{e'_r}\}$ is called the **infinite elementary divisors** of $\mathcal{P}_{(R,S)}$ where $e'_i$ is the largest power of $\mu$ that divides $E_i(\mu,\lambda)$. From knowing the infinite and elementary divisors of $\mathcal{P}_{(R,S)}$, its invariant polynomials can be constructed and vice versa.
The right null space of $\mathcal{P}_{R,S}$ is the set of homogeneous polynomial vectors $$\textbf{x}_i(\mu,\lambda)=\sum_{j=0}^{\epsilon_i}x_{ij}\mu^{\epsilon_i-j}\lambda^j$$ such that $(\mu R+\lambda S)\textbf{x}_i(\mu,\lambda)\equiv 0$ and $x_{i\epsilon_i}\not =0$. A basis for the right null space whose elements have degrees $\epsilon_1\leq...\leq\epsilon_p$ is called **fundamental** if any other basis whose elements have degrees $\epsilon'_1\leq...\leq\epsilon'_p$ implies $\epsilon_i\leq\epsilon'_i$ for all $i$. A important property of any $\textbf{x}_i(\mu,\lambda)=\sum_{j=0}^{\epsilon_i}x_{ij}\mu^{\epsilon_i-j}\lambda^j$ belonging to a fundamental set is that *the $x_i$ are linearly independent* [@Gantmacher-1959a]. Likewise, we can define the left null space to be homogeneous polynomial vectors satisfying $\mathcal{P}_{R,S}^T\textbf{x}_i(\mu,\lambda)=0$ and form fundamental sets having degrees $\nu_1\leq...\leq\nu_q$. The values $\epsilon_1,...,\epsilon_p$ and $\nu_1,...,\nu_q$ are called the **minimal indices** of $\mathcal{P}_{R,S}$. In particular, the number of $\epsilon_i$ that are zero will be called the **zero index number**, and the number of $\nu_i$ that are zero will be called the **transpose zero index number**. With this overview, we can now state the main theorem characterizing strictly equivalent pencils.
\[kron\] Two matrix pencils are strictly equivalent if and only if they have the same elementary divisors (finite and infinite) and the same minimal indices. Moreover, suppose $\mathcal{P}_{(R,S)}$ has finite elementary divisors $\{(\mu x_1+\lambda)^{e_{11}},(\mu x_1+\lambda)^{e_{12}},...,(\mu x_q+\lambda)^{e_{qr}}\}$, infinite elementary divisors $\{\mu^{e'_1},...,\mu^{e'_r}\}$, minimal indices $\epsilon_1,...,\epsilon_p$ and $\nu_1,...,\nu_q$, a zero index number of $g$, and a transpose zero index number of $h$. Then $\mathcal{P}_{(R,S)}$ is strictly equivalent to the canonical block-form diagonal pencil $$\label{eq:kron}
\{0^{h\times g},L_{\epsilon_{g+1}},...,L_{\epsilon_p},L^T_{\nu_{h+1}},...,L^T_{\nu_q},J\}$$ where $0^{h\times g}$ is the $h\times g$ zero matrix, $L_\epsilon=\overbrace{\begin{pmatrix}\lambda&\mu&0&...&0\\0&\lambda&\mu&...&0\\&...\\0&0&...&\lambda&\mu \end{pmatrix}}^{\epsilon+1} \Bigg \}\epsilon\;$, and $J$ full rank square pencil with block-form $$\{N^{e'_1},...,N^{e'_r},M^{e_{11}},...,M^{e_{qr}}\}$$ where $N^{e'_i}=\mu{{{\mathbb{I}}}}^{e'_i}+\lambda H^{e'_i}$ and $M^{e_{ij}}=(\mu x_i+\lambda){{{\mathbb{I}}}}^{e_{ij}}+\mu H^{e_{ij}}$ with ${{{\mathbb{I}}}}^t$ the $t\times t$ identity matrix and $H^t$ a $t\times t$ matrix whose only nonzero elements are ones on the superdiagonal.
We close this section by noting that both the minimal indices and elementary divisors of a pencil can be determined by efficient algorithms. The first involves determining the null space of scalar matrices, and the latter amounts to performing Gaussian elimination on the matrix $\mu R+\lambda S$ [@Gantmacher-1959a].
Connection to $2\otimes m\otimes n$ Pure States {#sec:connection}
===============================================
Any $2\otimes m\otimes n$ state can be expressed in bra-ket form as ${|\Psi\rangle}={|0\rangle}_A{|R\rangle}_{BC}+{|1\rangle}_A{|S\rangle}_{BC}$. By choosing local bases $\{{|i\rangle}_B\}_{i=0...m-1}$ and $\{{|i\rangle}_C\}_{i=0...n-1}$ for Bob and Charlie respectively, we can express the state as $${|\Psi\rangle}=\bigg({|0\rangle}_A(R\otimes{{{\mathbb{I}}}})+{|1\rangle}_A(S\otimes{{{\mathbb{I}}}})\bigg){|\Phi_n\rangle}=\bigg({|0\rangle}_A({{{\mathbb{I}}}}\otimes R^T)+{|1\rangle}_A({{{\mathbb{I}}}}\otimes S^T)\bigg){|\Phi_m\rangle}$$ where $R_{ij}=\alpha_{ij}$, $S_{ij}=\beta_{ij}$, and ${|\Phi_k\rangle}=\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}{|i\rangle}_B{|i\rangle}_C$. Thus, there is a one-to-one correspondence between a $2\otimes m\otimes n$ pure state ${|\Psi\rangle}$ and the pair of matrices $(R,S)$, so that to every ${|\Psi\rangle}$ and choice of indeterminates $\mu,\lambda$, we can uniquely associate the pencil $\mathcal{P}_{(R,S)}$ which we shall equivalently denote as $\mathcal{P}_{\Psi}$.
There exists a nice relationship between the structure of $\mathcal{P}_{\Psi}$ and the local ranks of each subsystem. The reduced states of Bob and Charlie are obtained by performing a partial trace on the matrix ${|\Psi\rangle \langle \Psi|}$. From above, then, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:reduced states}
\rho_B&=tr_{AC}({|\Psi\rangle \langle \Psi|})=RR^\dagger+SS^\dagger\notag\\
\rho_C&=tr_{AB}({|\Psi\rangle \langle \Psi|})=R^T\bar{R}+S^T\bar{S}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, “[T]{}” denotes the matrix transpose with respect to the basis ${|i\rangle}_B{}_C{\langle j|}$ and “[-]{}” the complex conjugate of its entries. Also note that since Alice has a two dimensional system, her subsystem will either have full rank or be completely separated from Bob and Charlie. Combining these facts, we can prove the following.
\[thm:localranks\] (i) Bob and Charlie share pure entanglement (Alice separated) if and only if $\mathcal{P}_{\Psi}$ can be expressed as a matrix polynomial in one indeterminate $\hat{\lambda}$; i.e. $$\mu R + \lambda S=\hat{\lambda}\hat{S},$$ and (ii) Bob and Charlie’s local ranks are $m-h$ and $n-g$ respectively where $g$ is the zero index number of $\mathcal{P}_{\Psi}$ and $h$ its transpose zero index number.
\(i) Alice is unentangled if and only if up to an overall phase, the state can be written as ${|0\rangle}({|R\rangle}+{|S\rangle})+\alpha{|1\rangle}({|R\rangle}+{|S\rangle})$ which happens if and only if its associated pencil is $(\mu+\lambda\alpha)R+(\mu+\lambda\alpha)S=(\mu+\lambda\alpha)(R+S)=\hat{\lambda}\hat{S}$. (ii) By definition, the zero index number is the number of linearly independent constant vectors ${|v_i\rangle}$ such that $R{|v_i\rangle}=S{|v_i\rangle}=0$. In this case, we must also have $\bar{R}{|\bar{v}_i\rangle}=\bar{S}{|\bar{v}_i\rangle} =0$. It follows from that $\rho_C{|\bar{v}_i\rangle}=0$ if and only if $\bar{R}{|\bar{v}_i\rangle}=\bar{S}{|\bar{v}_i\rangle} =0$ and since complex conjugation does not affect linear dependence, we have $rank(\rho_C)=n-g$. An analogous argument shows that $rank(\rho_B)=m-h$.
We now want to observe the effect of local invertible operators implemented by Alice, Bob, and Charlie; i.e. an SLOCC transformation. Any such operation can be decomposed as $(A\otimes {{{\mathbb{I}}}}_{BC})({{{\mathbb{I}}}}_A\otimes B\otimes C)$ where Bob and Charlie first act, and then Alice follows alone. When Bob and Charlie perform the invertible operator $B\otimes C$, it is easy to check that the transformation ${|R\rangle}_{BC}\to B\otimes C{|R\rangle}_{BC}$ corresponds to $R\to BRC^T$ and likewise for $S$. Thus, the action of Bob and Charlie initiates the matrix pencil transformation $\mu R+\lambda S\to B(\mu R +\lambda S)C^T$. In other words, *local invertible operators of Bob and Charlie map matrix pencils to strictly equivalent ones*.
Any invertible operation by Alice can be represented by a matrix $\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} a&b\\ c&d \end{smallmatrix} \bigr)$ with $ad-bc\not=0$. Then the most general action by Alice will transform the state ${|\Psi\rangle}$ as: $${|0\rangle}_A{|R\rangle}_{BC}+{|1\rangle}_A{|S\rangle}_{BC}\to{|0\rangle}_A(a{|R\rangle}_{BC}+c{|S\rangle}_{BC})+{|1\rangle}_A(b{|R\rangle}_{BC}+d{|S\rangle}_{BC}).$$ Hence, the corresponding pencil transformation is $\mu R+\lambda S\to(\mu a+\lambda b)R+(\mu c+\lambda d)S=\hat{\mu}R+\hat{\lambda}S$ where $\hat{\mu}=\mu a +\lambda b$ and $\hat{\lambda}=\mu c+\lambda d$.
What concerns us is how the transformation $(\mu,\lambda)\to(\hat{\mu},\hat{\lambda})$ affects the elementary divisors and minimal indices of a given pencil. For the latter, care must be taken since minimal indices are defined by the degree of polynomials in variables $\mu$ and $\lambda$. Nevertheless, the following lemma shows minimal indices to be an SLOCC invariant in $2\otimes m\otimes n$ systems.
The minimal indices of a given pencil remain invariant under the action of Alice.
\[lm:AMinIndice\] Under an invertible transformation $(\mu,\lambda)\to (\hat{\mu},\hat{\lambda})=(a\mu+ b\lambda,c\mu+d\lambda)$, a polynomial $r$-component vector $p(\mu,\lambda)=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}x_{ij}\mu^i\lambda^j$ is identically zero iff $p(\hat{\mu},\hat{\lambda})\equiv 0$. To see this, we can introduce the standard basis $\{\mathbf{e}_k\}_{k=1...r}$ and consider $p(\mu,\lambda)$ as an $rmn$-component vector in the space spanned by basis $\mu^i\lambda^j\mathbf{e}_k$. Then the transformation $(\mu,\lambda)\to (\hat{\mu},\hat{\lambda})$ induces a homomorphism on this space which thus cannot map any nonzero zero vector to zero. Consequently, for any set of polynomial vectors $\{\mathbf{x}_i(\mu,\lambda)\}_{i=1...n}$ (a) $(\mu R+\lambda S)\mathbf{x}_i(\mu,\lambda)\equiv 0$ iff $(\hat{\mu}R+\hat{\lambda}S)\mathbf{x}_i(\hat{\mu},\hat{\lambda})\equiv 0$, and (b) $\{\mathbf{x}_i(\mu,\lambda)\}_{i=1...n}$ is linearly independent iff $\{\mathbf{x}_i(\hat{\mu},\hat{\lambda})\}_{i=1...n}$ is linearly independent, where linear independence means that for polynomials $\{p_i(\mu,\lambda)\}_{i=1...n}$, $\sum_{i=1}^np_i(\mu,\lambda)\mathbf{x}_i(\mu,\lambda)\equiv 0\Rightarrow p_i(\mu,\lambda)\equiv 0$ for all $i$. Next, we claim that (c) for any set of linearly independent scalar vectors $\{x_{ij}\}_{j=0...\epsilon}$ with $x_{i\epsilon}\not=0$, the highest degree of $\lambda$ having a nonzero vector coefficient in $\mathbf{x}_i(\hat{\mu},\hat{\lambda})=\sum_{j=0}^\epsilon x_{ij}\hat{\mu}^{\epsilon-j}\hat{\lambda}^j$ is the same as that in $\mathbf{x}_i(\mu,\lambda)=\sum_{j=0}^\epsilon x_{ij}\mu^{\epsilon-j}\lambda^j$. This follows because the coefficient of $\lambda^\epsilon$ in $\sum_{j=0}^\epsilon x_{ij}\hat{\mu}^{\epsilon-j}\hat{\lambda}^j=\sum_{j=0}^\epsilon x_{ij}(a\mu+b\lambda)^{\epsilon-j}(c\mu+d\lambda)^j$ is $\sum_{j=0}^\epsilon x_{ij}b^{\epsilon-j}d^j$ which is non-vanishing due to the linear independence of $\{x_{ij}\}_{j=0...\epsilon}$.
From (a), (c) and the linear independence of $\{x_{ij}\}_{j=0...\epsilon_i}$ noted in the introductory discussion for any fundamental set of vectors, $\mathbf{x}_1(\mu,\lambda)$ is a minimum degree polynomial in the null space of $\mu R+\lambda S$ iff $\mathbf{x}_1(\hat{\mu},\hat{\lambda})$ is a minimum degree polynomial in the null space of $\hat{\mu} R+\hat{\lambda} S$. Now suppose that $\{\mathbf{x}_i(\mu,\lambda)\}_{i=1...n}$ are the first $n$ vectors in a fundamental set for $\mu R+\lambda S$ iff $\{\mathbf{x}_i(\hat{\mu},\hat{\lambda})\}_{i=1...n}$ are the first $n$ vectors in a fundamental set for $\hat{\mu} R+\hat{\lambda} S$. Then by (c), $\mu R+\lambda S$ and $\hat{\mu} R+\hat{\lambda} S$ will have the same first $n$ minimal indices. From (a), (b) and (c) again, $\mathbf{x}_{n+1}(\hat{\mu},\hat{\lambda})$ will be the next vector in the same fundamental set for $\mu R +\lambda S$ iff $\mathbf{x}_{n+1}(\hat\mu,\hat\lambda)$ is likewise for $\hat{\mu} R+\hat{\lambda} S$. Hence by induction and by running the exact same argument on $(\mu R+\lambda S)^T$, the lemma is proven.
As for the elementary divisors, the situation is more complex since Alice’s transformation can induce a mixing between infinite and finite divisors. By direct substitution, it follows immediately that after normalization, the divisors transform as $$\mu^{e_i'}\to\begin{cases}(\mu\tfrac{a}{b}+\lambda)^{e_i'}&\text{if}\;\;b\not=0\\ \mu^{e_i'}&\text{if}\;\;b=0,\end{cases}\hspace{.5cm}\text{and}\hspace{.5cm}(\mu x_i+\lambda)^{e_{ij}}\to\begin{cases}(\mu\tfrac{ax_i+c}{bx_i+d} +\lambda)^{e_{ij}}&\text{if}\;\; bx_i+d\not=0\\ \mu^{e_{ij}}&\text{if}\;\;bx_i+d=0.\end{cases}$$ We see that depending on the choice of $A$, infinite divisors can become finite and finite can become infinite. More importantly, given any general state having finite elementary divisors $\{(\mu x_i+\lambda)^{e_{ij}}\}$, it is always possible for Alice to perform an invertible operation such that $a\not=0$ and $\{bx_i+d\not=0\}$ for all $i$. As a result, we see that $$\label{eq:infdivsimp}
\textit{Any matrix pencil is SLOCC equivalent to one having no infinite divisors}.$$ This observation simplifies the following analysis considerably since the general problem of determining general SLOCC equivalence is reduced to the problem of equivalence among states having only finite elementary divisors. Combining the previous observations with Lemma \[kron\], we arrive at the following theorem and a main result of this article.
\[thm:main\] Two $2\otimes m\otimes n$ states ${|\psi\rangle}$ and ${|\phi\rangle}$ having only finite elementary divisors $\{(\mu x_i+\lambda)^{e_{ij}}\}$ and $\{(y_i+\lambda)^{f_{ij}}\}$ respectively are SLOCC equivalent if and only if their corresponding pencils are of the same rank, have the same minimal indices, $e_{ij}=f_{ij}$ for all $i,j$, and there exists a linear fractional transformation (LFT) relating the $x_i$ and $y_i$; i.e. for all $i$ $$\frac{ax_i+c}{bx_i+d}=y_i\;\;\;(ad-bc\not=0).$$
A nice property of LFTs is that given any two trios $\{x_1,x_2,x_3\}$ and $\{y_1,y_2,y_3\}$ each with distinct values, there always exists a *unique* LFT relating the sets [@Brown-2004a]. The form of the transformation is given by the determinants $$\label{eq:LFT}
a=\begin{vmatrix}x_1y_1&y_1&1\\x_2y_2&y_2&1\\x_3y_3&y_3&1\end{vmatrix},\;\;\;b=\begin{vmatrix}x_1y_1&x_1&y_1\\x_2y_2&x_2&y_2\\x_3y_3&x_3&y_3\end{vmatrix},\;\;\;c=\begin{vmatrix}x_1&y_1&1\\x_2&y_2&1\\x_3&y_3&1\end{vmatrix},\;\;\text{and}\;\;d=\begin{vmatrix}x_1y_1&x_1&1\\x_2y_2&x_2&1\\x_3y_3&x_3&1\end{vmatrix}.$$
We are now able to present an algorithm for determining whether two general $2\otimes m\otimes n$ pure states ${|\psi\rangle}$ and ${|\phi\rangle}$ are SLOCC equivalent.
- Input pencils $\mathcal{P}_{\psi}$ and $\mathcal{P}_{\phi}$ and determine their rank, minimal indices and elementary divisors. As noted above, this step can be achieved via polynomial-time algorithms. If the rank or minimal indices are not the same, ${|\psi\rangle}$ and ${|\phi\rangle}$ are inequivalent. Otherwise, perform an arbitrary LFT on them so the pencils only have finite elementary divisors $\{(\mu x_i+\lambda)^{e_{ij}}\}$ and $\{\mu y_i+\lambda\}^{f_{ij}}$ respectively. By observation this can always be done.
- Fix any three distinct $x_i$ corresponding to divisors of powers $e_{ij}$. Choose any sequence of three distinct $y_i$ whose corresponding powers satisfy $f_{ij}=e_{ij}$ and determine the LFT relating $(x_1,y_1)$, $(x_2,y_2)$, and $(x_3,y_3)$ according to . Choose a new $x_i$ and determine if the LFT relates it to any remaining $y_i$ belonging to an elementary divisor of the same power. By uniqueness of the LFT, if there is no such $y_i$, the states are not equivalent. If there is, choose another $x_i$ and repeat the search on the remaining $y_i$.
- If a perfect matching exists for all $x_i$ and $y_i$, then the states are equivalent. If not, repeat step (II) by choosing another ordered trio of the $y_i$. If no LFT exists for all possible trios, the states are not equivalent.
The Kronecker canonical form of an $m\times n$ pencil can be computed in time $O(m^2n)$ (see the algorithm by Beelen and Van Dooren [@Beelen]). For sets of $t$ elementary divisors, Step (II) this algorithm will require at most $O(t^3)$ steps. Thus the total running time is $O(m^2n + \min\{m, n\}^3)$. Furthermore, the algorithm is constructive in nature because if two states are SLOCC equivalent, we determine the the specific $a,b,c,d$ constituting Alice’s operator in the transformation ${|\phi\rangle}{\le_{\textrm{\tiny SLOCC}\!}}{|\psi\rangle}$. The operators Bob and Charlie are to perform can be determined from the invertible matrices that bring pencils $\mathcal{P}_\psi$ and $\mathcal{P}_\phi$ to their canonical forms of and are so-obtained by a Gaussian elimination procedure [@Gantmacher-1959a]. Hence, not only does our algorithm determine whether two states are equivalent, but it provides the necessary operators achieving the transformations.
All Tripartite Systems with a Finite SLOCC Equivalence Partitioning
===================================================================
To count and characterize all the orbits, we will essentially find what combination of minimal indices and elementary divisors fit in an $m\times n$ matrix of form . A few simplifications will assist in this process. First, since any $m\times n$ pencil is simply the matrix transpose of an $n\times m$ one, it is enough to just consider $m\leq n$. Next, for a given dimension, we must only study the equivalence classes with Bob and Charlie having maximal local ranks since any rank deficient case will correspond to a class of maximum local ranks in a smaller dimension. To this end, Theorem \[thm:localranks\] allows us to immediately determine the local ranks associated with each equivalence class. Furthermore, as evident from the Schmidt decomposition of any state with respect to bipartition AB:C, Charlie’s local rank cannot exceed the product of Alice and Bob’s. Consequently, if $n\geq 2m$, any state of a $2\otimes m\otimes n$ system is the same as one in a $2\otimes m\otimes 2m$ system up to a local change of basis on Charlie’s part. This means that for the task of finite enumeration, we only need to consider systems up to dimensions $2\otimes 2\otimes 4$ and $2\otimes 3\otimes 6$.
One further property of each equivalence class that we are able to study is the tensor rank. The tensor rank of a state is the minimum number of product states whose linear span contains the state, and this quantity turns out to be invariant under invertible SLOCC transformations [@Dur-2000a]. For bipartite systems, the tensor rank is equivalent to the Schmidt rank, and a non-increase in Schmidt rank is also a sufficient condition for SLOCC convertibility between two such states; SLOCC equivalence classes are characterized completely by the Schmidt rank. Interestingly, in three qubit systems, tensor rank is also sufficient to distinguish between the various equivalence classes. However, we find that even for systems having a finite partitioning, the tensor rank is an insufficient measure for determining SLOCC equivalence. Our results follow from previous research on the tensor rank of matrix pencils done by Ja’ Ja’ [@Ja'Ja'-1978a] and rederived in Ref. [@Burgisser-1997a].
[[@Ja'Ja'-1978a],[@Burgisser-1997a]]{} Let $\mathcal{P}_{(R,S)}$ be a pencil with no infinite divisors in canonical form with minimal indices $\epsilon_1,...,\epsilon_p$ and $\nu_1,...,\nu_q$ and $J$ an $l\times l$- sized pencil. Furthermore, let $\delta(J)$ denote the number of invariant polynomials containing at least one nonlinear elementary divisor. Then the tensor rank of $\mathcal{P}_{(R,S)}$ is given by $$\label{eq:tensorrank}
\sum_{i=1}^p(\epsilon_i+1)+\sum_{j=1}^q(\nu_j+1)+l+\delta(J).$$
A summary of all the equivalence classes is provided in Table \[tbl:Equivclass\] in Appendix. We see that there are 26 distinct SLOCC classes for $2\otimes 3\otimes n$ $(n\geq 6)$ systems. This reproduces the findings of Chen *et al.* [@Chen-2006a] here obtained in an entirely different way by using matrix pencil analysis.
Non-Invertible Transformations
==============================
A natural question is whether it is possible to transform from one class to another via non-invertible transformations. One obvious constraint is that states with full local ranks cannot preserve their ranks under a non-invertible transformation. Consequently, we cannot convert among the states belonging to the same dimensional grouping above. A possible conjecture might be that unidirectional convertibility is achievable if none of the local ranks increase and at least one decreases; certainly three qubit systems satisfy this hypothesis. This, however, is false in general as we will now observe.
Let ${|\psi\rangle}$ be some state having maximal local ranks of $(2,m,n)$ and suppose ${|\phi\rangle}$ is a state with ranks $(2,m,n-1)$. If ${|\phi\rangle}{\le_{\textrm{\tiny SLOCC}\!}}{|\psi\rangle}$, Alice and Bob’s matrices inducing the transformation will be full rank while Charlie’s will have rank $n-1$. As for the latter, any such operator can be decomposed into a series of elementary column operations on $\mathcal{P}_\psi$ followed by a mapping of the $n^{th}$ column to a linear combination of the first $n-1$; this $n-1$-columned subpencil corresponds to the target state ${|\phi\rangle}$. >From the commutation relations of elementary operations, if we neglect permutations, ${|\phi\rangle}$ will be some $n-1$-column subset of the original pencil following the application of just column-multiplying and column-addition transformations. Moreover, if column $i$ is the linearly dependent column, then immediately after all column-additions of the $i^{th}$ column are performed, the remaining $n-1$ columns must be equivalent to ${|\phi\rangle}$. As a result, we obtain the following criterion.
\[thm:noninvert\] Let ${|\psi\rangle}$ and ${|\phi\rangle}$ be states with local ranks $(2,m,n)$ and $(2,m,n-1)$, and let $c_1,...,c_n$ denote the columns of $\mathcal{P}_\psi(\mu,\lambda)$. Then ${|\phi\rangle}{\le_{\textrm{\tiny SLOCC}\!}}{|\psi\rangle}$ iff for some $1\leq i\leq n$, there exists constants $a_1,..,a_{i-1},a_{i+1},...,a_n$ and some invertible linear transformation $(\mu,\lambda)\to(\hat\mu,\hat\lambda)$ such that the pencil $\mathcal{P}_{\psi_i}(\hat\mu,\hat\lambda)=[c_1+a_1c_i,...,c_n+a_nc_i]$ is equivalent to $\mathcal{P}_\phi(\mu,\lambda)$.
In general, for transformations in which Charlie’s rank decreases to $n-k$, one need only modify this theorem by considering subpencils of $\mathcal{P}_\psi$ having $n-k$ columns where to each of the columns is added a linear combination of the $k$ non-included columns. Likewise, to account for transformations when Bob’s local rank decreases, the above criterion can be applied with the analysis conducted on the rows of $\mathcal{P}_\psi(\mu,\lambda)$ instead of its columns.
On the surface, Thm. \[thm:noninvert\] has limited value since it involves a search for values $a_1$,..,$a_{i-1}$, $a_{i+1}$,...,$a_n$ over the complex numbers. However, in many cases, it is easy to see whether or not such a collection of numbers can be found. For example, for $1\leq i\leq 4$ in (ABC-19), upon any choice of the $a_j$ and any transformation $\hat\mu,\hat\lambda$, the resultant pencil $\mathcal{P}_{\psi_i}(\hat\mu,\hat\lambda)$ will either be rank two or it will have an elementary divisor of degree at least one. However, the state (ABC-18) is rank three with no non-trivial elementary divisors. Thus, the transformation (ABC-19)$\to$(ABC-18) is impossible. On the other hand, for the state (ABC-17), when $i=1$, we have $\det\mathcal{P}_{\psi_1}(\mu,\lambda)=\lambda[\lambda^2-\mu(\tfrac{a_2}{a_3}\lambda+\tfrac{1}{a_3}\mu)]$ for $a_3\not=0$. The state (ABC-8) has $\det\mathcal{P}_\phi(\mu,\lambda)=\lambda(\mu+\lambda)(2\mu+\lambda)$. By choosing $c_2=\tfrac{3}{2}$ and $c_3=-\tfrac{1}{2}$, these polynomials become equal as well as the elementary divisors, the ranks, and the minimal indices of the pencils. Thus (ABC-17)$\to$(ABC-8) is achievable by SLOCC.
In a manner similar to that just described, we have used Thm. \[thm:noninvert\] to analyze all possible transformations among the $2\otimes 3\otimes n$ equivalence classes. Figure (\[fig:chart\]) in Appendix depicts the SLOCC hierarchy among the classes.
Conclusions and Future Research
===============================
In this article, we have used the theory of matrix pencils to study $2\otimes m\otimes n$ pure quantum states. In doing so, we were able to derive a polynomial time algorithm for deciding SLOCC equivalence of such states. For all tripartite systems having a finite number of equivalence classes, we have obtained state representatives and determined the partial ordering among these classes based on a criterion for general SLOCC convertibility in $2\otimes m\otimes n$ systems. It is interesting to note that in the hierarchy chart of Fig. 2, there exists certain transformations that are impossible even though the local rank of Charlie decreases by two. The transformation (ABC-14) to (ABC-7) is such example.
A natural extension of this work is to find efficient algorithms for deciding LOCC equivalence, LOCC convertibility, and SLOCC convertibility in $2\otimes m\otimes n$ systems. We have made progress on those questions. Another natural next line of inquiry might to consider $p\otimes m\otimes n$ systems and their corresponding degree $p$ matrix polynomials. Indeed, much research has been conducted on higher degree elements, especially those having special properties such as being symmetric [@Gohberg-2009a]. Unfortunately, there exists no corresponding characterization like Kronecker’s for strict equivalence of matrix pencils of degree greater than two. Making the project of generalizing to higher degrees more dubious is the fact that determining SLOCC equivalence for $p\otimes m\otimes n$ can be reduced from a tensor rank calculation on a set of $p$ bilinear forms [@Chitambar-2008a], and this problem has no known solution for $p>2$ [@Burgisser-1997a] (the general problem is, in fact, NP-Hard [@Haastad-1990a]).
As noted in the introduction, we are not the first to study SLOCC convertibility in multipartite systems, and it would be interesting to try and develop the relationship between our results and the work of others. For example, Miyake’s results involve “hyperdeterminants” and their singularities [@Miyake-2003a]. It would be valuable to investigate the correspondence between matrix pencils and hyperdeterminants or to introduce the connection to the quantum information community if such a correspondence has already been obtained. In another work, Liang *et al.* have recently proven a set of conditions both necessary and sufficient for the convertibility of two qubit mixed bell-diagonal states [@Liang-2008a]. As these mixed states can be considered pure with respect to a $2\otimes 2\otimes 4$ system, it would be fruitful to study transformations between tripartite “purified” bell diagonal states via our matrix pencil construction and compare it to the convertibility conditions in Ref. [@Liang-2008a]. Doing so might suggest ways in which purified tripartite pencils can assist in deciding equivalence between general $2\otimes n$ mixed states.
Appendix A {#appendix-a .unnumbered}
==========
\[tbl:Equivclass\] Representative Local Ranks Tensor Rank Representative Local Ranks Tensor Rank
----------------------------------- ------------- ------------- ---------------- ------------- -------------
(A:B:C) (1,1,1) 1 (AB:C) (2,2,1) 2
(AC:B) (2,1,2) 2 (A:BC-1) (1,2,2) 2
(ABC-1) (2,2,2) 2 (ABC-2) (2,2,2) 3
(ABC-3) (2,2,3) 3 (ABC-4) (2,2,3) 3
(ABC-5) (2,2,4) 4 (ABC-6) (2,3,2) 3
(ABC-7) (2,3,2) 3 (ABC-8) (2,3,3) 3
(ABC-9) (2,3,3) 3 (A:BC-2) (1,3,3) 2
(ABC-10) (2,3,3) 4 (ABC-11) (2,3,3) 4
(ABC-12) (2,3,3) 4 (ABC-13) (2,3,3) 4
(ABC-14) (2,3,4) 4 (ABC-15) (2,3,4) 4
(ABC-16) (2,3,4) 5 (ABC-17) (2,3,4) 4
(ABC-18) (2,3,4) 4 (ABC-19) (2,3,5) 5
(ABC-20) (2,3,5) 5 (ABC-21) (2,3,5) 6
: Equivalence Classes in $2\otimes 3\otimes 6$ Systems
![Complete Hierarchy of SLOCC Equivalence Classes; Arrows Indicate a Non-invertible Transformation.[]{data-label="fig:chart"}](chart.png){width="6in"}
[^1]: For two matrices $A$ and $B$, a vector $x$ and a constant $\lambda$, if $Ax=\lambda Bx$, $\lambda$ is a generalized eigenvalue of $(A, B)$ and $\lambda$ the associated eigenvector. The set of generalized eigenvalues are precisely $\{\lambda/\mu: \det(\lambda A+ \mu B)=0\}$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'In 1958, Szüsz proved an inhomogeneous version of Khintchine’s theorem on Diophantine approximation. Szüsz’s theorem states that for any non-increasing approximation function $\psi:\mathbb{N}\to (0,1/2)$ with $\sum_q \psi(q)=\infty$ and any number $\gamma,$ the following set $$W(\psi,\gamma)=\{x\in [0,1]: |qx-p-\gamma|< \psi(q) \text{ for infinitely many } q,p\in\mathbb{N}\}$$ has full Lebesgue measure. Since then, there are very few results in relaxing the monotonicity condition. In this paper, we show that the monotonicity condition can be replaced by the upper bound condition $\psi(q)=O((q(\log\log q)^2)^{-1}).$ Following our method, we also provide a new proof of Szüsz’s theorem.'
author:
- 'Han Yu [^1]'
title: 'On the metric theory of inhomogeneous Diophantine approximation: An Erdős-Vaaler type result'
---
[2010 [*Mathematics Subject Classification*]{}: Primary:11J83,11J20,11K60.]{} [: Inhomogeneous Diophantine approximation, Metric number theory]{}
Introduction
============
Background
----------
In this paper, we study inhomogeneous metric Diophantine approximation. Let $\gamma\in\mathbb{R}$ and $\psi:\mathbb{N}\to \mathbb{R}^+$ be a function (approximation function). We are interested in the following set: $$W(\psi,\gamma)=\{x\in [0,1]: \|qx-\gamma\|< \psi(q) \text{ for infinitely many } q\in\mathbb{N}\}.$$ In the case when $\gamma=0,$ the study of $W(\psi,0)$ is refereed to as classical (or homogeneous) Diophantine approximation. Now, we have a complete understanding of the Lebesgue measure of $W(\psi,0).$
[^2] The set $W(\psi,0)$ has full Lebesgue measure if:
- [Khintchine’s theorem [@Khintchine]]{}: $\psi$ is non-increasing and $\sum_q \psi(q)=\infty.$
- [Duffin-Schaeffer’s theorem [@DS]]{}: $\sum_q \psi(q)=\infty$ and $$\limsup_{Q\to\infty} \frac{\sum_{q\leq Q} \psi(q)\phi(q)/q}{\sum_{q\leq Q} \psi(q)}>0,$$ where $\phi(.)$ is the Euler Phi function.
- [Erdős-Vaaler’s theorem [@Vaaler]]{}: $\sum_q \psi(q)\phi(q)/q=\infty$ and $\psi(q)=O(q^{-1}).$
- [Extra divergence [@BHHV], [@ALMTZ]]{}: $\sum_q \frac{\psi(q)\phi(q)}{q \log^C q}=\infty$ for a number $C>0.$
- [Final result [@KM2019]]{}: $\sum_q \psi(q)\phi(q)/q=\infty.$ This result settled the challenging Duffin-Schaeffer conjecture posed in [@DS]. This result also has an easy-to-prove convergence part: if $\sum_q \psi(q)\phi(q)/q<\infty$ then for Lebesgue almost all $x\in [0,1]$ there are at most finitely many coprime pairs $(p,q)$ such that $|x-p/q|<\psi(q).$
If $\gamma\neq 0,$ the study of $W(\psi,\gamma)$ is refereed to as inhomogeneous metric Diophantine approximation. Despite of the above beautiful result for the classical case, much less is known for the inhomogeneous case. We list some of them here.
[^3]
- [Szüsz’s theorem]{}: If $\psi$ is non-increasing and $\sum_q \psi(q)=\infty$ then $W(\psi,\gamma)$ has full Lebesgue measure for all real number $\gamma.$
- [Ramírez’s examples]{}: Without the monotonicity of the approximation function $\psi$, the condition $\sum_q \psi(q)=\infty$ alone cannot ensure $W(\psi,\gamma)$ to have positive Lebesgue measure.
- [Extra divergence [@Yu]]{}: For each $\epsilon>0,$ if $\sum_{q} q^{-\epsilon} \psi(q)=\infty,$ then for all number $\gamma,$ $W(\psi, \gamma)$ has full Lebesgue measure.
One motivation of studying inhomogeneous Diophantine approximation is to understand multiplicative Diophantine approximation. Let $\psi$ be an approximation function and let $\gamma_1,\gamma_2$ be real numbers. We consider the set $$W(\psi,\gamma_1,\gamma_2)=\{(x,y)\in [0,1]^2: \|qx-\gamma_1\|\|qy-\gamma_2\|<\psi(q)\text{ infinitely often}\}.$$ A famous conjecture of Littlewood states that for an arbitrary $\epsilon>0,$ consider the approximation function $\psi(q)=\epsilon/q,$ the set $W(\psi,0,0)$ contains all pairs of irrational numbers $(x,y)\in [0,1]^2.$ On the metric aspect, what is interesting is to find sufficient conditions on numbers $\gamma_1,\beta,\gamma_2$ such that $W(\psi,\gamma_1,\gamma_2)\cap \{y=\beta\}$ has full Lebesgue measure. For convenience, we consider the following set, $$W(\psi,\beta,\gamma_1,\gamma_2)=\{x\in [0,1]: \|qx-\gamma_1\|\|q\beta-\gamma_2\|<\psi(q)\text{ infinitely often}\}.$$ Recently, there have been many significant progresses in understanding the Lebesgue measure of $W(\psi,\beta,0,\gamma_2).$
Let $\psi$ be a monotonic approximation function. If $\sum_q \psi(q)\log q=\infty,$ then for each irrational non-Liouville number $\beta,$ real number $\gamma_2,$ the set $W(\psi,\beta,0,\gamma_2)$ has full Lebesgue measure.
In [@BHV] it was proved that the above result follows from the Duffin-Schaeffer conjecture which was later proved in [@KM2019]. However before the appearance of [@KM2019], Chow [@C18] proved the above result without relying on the Duffin-Schaeffer conjecture.
Results in this paper
---------------------
We will focus on relaxing the monotonicity condition in Szüsz’s theorem. By the results in [@Ramirez], the monotonicity condition cannot be dropped without introducing other conditions. The ultimate goal in this direction is of course to find a necessary and sufficient condition on $\psi,\gamma$ for $W(\psi,\gamma)$ to have full Lebesgue measure as in the Duffin-Schaeffer conjecture. This is currently beyond our reach. At this stage, we pose the following question which could be challenging.[^4]
Prove or disprove: Let $\psi$ be an approximation function and $\sum_{q} \psi(q)\phi(q)/q=\infty.$ Then for each real number $\gamma,$ the Lebesgue measure of $W(\psi,\gamma)$ is one.
Towards this direction, we will provide the following Erdős-Vaaler type result for inhomogeneous Diophantine approximation.
\[Main1\] Let $\psi(q)=O((q\log\log^2 q)^{-1})$ and $\sum_{q} \psi(q)=\infty.$ Then for each non-Liouville and irrational number $\gamma,$ the Lebesgue measure of $W(\psi,\gamma)$ is one.
An application of Theorem \[Main1\] yields the following.
\[MUL1\] Let $\gamma_1$ be irrational numbers which are not Liouville. Let $\gamma_2$ be a real number and $\beta$ be an irrational number. Suppose that $\psi(q)=O((q\log q(\log\log q)^2)^{-1})$ and $$\sum_{q: \|q\beta-\gamma_2\|\geq (\log q)^{-1}} \frac{\psi(q)}{\|q\beta-\gamma_2\|}=\infty.\tag{D}$$ Then the set $W(\psi,\beta,\gamma_1,\gamma_2)$ has Lebesgue measure is one.
The divergence condition (D) is sometimes not easy to check as it also depends on the choice of $\beta$ and $\gamma_2.$ In order to be sure that this condition is possible to be satisfied, we provide an example in Section \[Proof\]. In fact for $\beta,\gamma_1$ being not Liouville, it is possible the check $|W(\psi,\beta,\gamma_1,\gamma_2)|=1$ for monotonic $\psi$ with $\sum_q \psi(q)\log\log q=\infty$. We do not prove this result here as we wish to prove a stronger result in a forthcoming project.
Several remarks are in order.
We need $\psi(q)=O((q\log\log^2 q)^{-1})$ which is a stronger condition than the Erdős-Vaaler condition that $\psi(q)=O(1/q)$. We do believe that $\psi(q)=O(q^{-1})$ would be sufficient in Theorem \[Main1\].
The requirement that $\gamma$ needs to be non-Liouville comes from the method we will be using. In fact, we need this condition for making Estimate (III) in the proof of Lemma \[Sum Estimate\] valid. It is possible to pose weaker condition on $\gamma$ in terms of its Diophantine property. We cannot completely remove this condition but we do believe that it can be removed.
From here, one might be wondering what is the strength of the above result compared with Szüsz’s theorem. Apart from the requirement that $\gamma$ needs to be not Liouville, it is not clear whether the above result is stronger or not. In this paper, we will use the method for proving Theorem \[Main1\] to revisit Szüsz’s theorem (under the condition that $\gamma$ is not Liouville).
Let $\psi(q)$ be a nonincreasing approximation function with $\sum_q \psi(q)=\infty.$ Then for each non-Liouville and irrational number $\gamma,$ $W(\psi,\gamma)=1.$
Finally for completeness, we also add the following higher dimensional analogies of Szüsz’s theorem without monotonicity requirement. The results are very likely to be known. We will provide a simple proof at the very end of this paper.
\[HIGH\] Let $k\geq 1$ be an integer. Let $\gamma_1,\dots,\gamma_k$ be real numbers. Let $\psi$ be an approximation function. Let $\epsilon>0$ be a small number. We require that $$\begin{cases}
\sum_q (\psi(q))^k=\infty & k\geq 3, \\
\sum_q (\psi(q)\phi(q)/q)^2=\infty & k=2\\
\sum_q \psi(q)/d(q)^{1+\epsilon}=\infty & k=1
\end{cases}$$ Then, the set of points in $[0,1]^k$ with infinitely many integers $q$ with $$\max_{i=1,\dots,k}\{\|qx_i-\gamma_i\|\}\leq \psi(q)$$ has Lebesgue measure one.
For $k=2,$ we need a slightly stronger divergence condition. This condition has nothing to do with the Duffin-Schaeffer conjecture although it appears to be closely related. For $k=1,$ the divergence condition here is much stronger than $\sum_q \psi(q)=\infty.$ The proof of this theorem is much simpler than the theorems in above. The simple method already provides quite satisfactory results for $k\geq 2.$ This is not a surprise. For the homogeneous case, we already know Gallagher’s result [@Gallagher65] for higher dimensional Khintchine’s theorem without monotonicity and Pollington and Vaughan’s result [@PV] for higher dimensional Duffin-Schaeffer conjecture. Pollington and Vaughan’s proof in [@PV] is much less involved than the proof in [@KM2019] for the one dimensional Duffin-Schaeffer conjecture.
Notation
========
- $A^{\psi,\gamma}_q$: Let $\psi$ be an approximation function and $\gamma$ be a real number. For each integer $q\geq 1,$ we use $A^{\psi,\gamma}_q$ to denote the set $$A^{\psi,\gamma}_q=\{x\in [0,1]: \|qx-\gamma\|<\psi(q)\}.$$ We can assume that $\psi(q)<1/2$ for all $q\geq 1.$ In fact, if there are infinitely many $q$ with $\psi(q)\geq 1/2,$ then $W(\psi,\gamma)$ would be the whole unit interval. If $\gamma,\psi$ are clear from the context, we will write $A_q$ instead of $A^{\psi,\gamma}_q.$
- $\chi_A$: The indicator function of a set $A.$
- $B(x,r)$: Metric ball centred at $x$ with radius $r,$ where $r>0$ and $x$ belongs to a metric space.
- $\Delta_{\psi}(q,q')$: The value $q\psi(q')+q'\psi(q)$, where $\psi$ is a given approximation function and $q,q'$ are positive integers. When $\psi$ is clear from the context, we write it as $\Delta(q,q').$
- $\|x\|$: The distance of a real number $x$ to the set of integers.
- $\{x\}$: The unique number in $(-1/2,1/2]$ with $\{x\}-x$ being an integer.
- $\log $: Base $2$ logarithmic function.
- $\mathcal{I}_M$: The collection of intervals $I\subset [0,1]$ of length $1/M$ and with endpoints in $M^{-1}\mathbb{N},$ where $M\geq 1$ is an integer.
- $|A|$: The Lebesgue measure of $A\subset \mathbb{R}$ where $A$ is a Lebesgue measurable set.
- Natural densities: Let $A\subset\mathbb{N}.$ The upper natural density of $A$ is $$\limsup_{q\to\infty} \frac{\#A\cap [1,q]}{q}.$$ The lower natural density of $A$ is $$\liminf_{q\to\infty} \frac{\#A\cap [1,q]}{q}.$$
- Asymptotic symbols: For two functions $f,g:\mathbb{N}\to (0,\infty)$ we use $f=O(g)$ to mean that there is a constant $C>0$ with $$f(q)\leq Cg(q)$$ for all $q\geq 1.$ We use $f=o(g)$ to mean that $$\lim_{q\to\infty} \frac{f(q)}{g(q)}=0.$$ For convenience, we also use $O(g), o(g)$ to denote an auxillary function $f$ with the property that $f=O(g)$, $o(g)$ respectively. The precise form of the function $f$ changes across the contexts and it can be always explicitly written down.
Preliminary
===========
There are several standard results that will be needed in the proofs of the main results. The first one is the Borel-Cantelli lemma. The following result can be found in [@BDV; @ref Proposition 2].
\[Borel\] Let $(\Omega, \mathcal{A}, m)$ be a probability space and let $E_1, E_2, \ldots \in \mathcal{A}$ be a sequence of events in $\Omega$ such that $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}{m(E_n)} = \infty$. Then $$m(\limsup_{n \to \infty}{E_n}) \geq \limsup_{Q \to \infty}{\frac{\left(\sum_{s=1}^{Q}{m(E_s)}\right)^2}{\sum_{s,t=1}^{Q}{m(E_s \cap E_t)}}}.$$ If $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}{m(E_n)} <\infty$ then $m(\limsup_{n \to \infty}{E_n})=0.$
The condition that $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}{m(E_n)} = \infty$ is very essential in the statement. Suppose that $\{E_n\}_{n\geq 1}$ is a sequence of pairwise independent events and $\sum_n m(E_n)<\infty.$ Then we know that $m(\limsup_{n \to \infty}{E_n})=0.$ However, we nonetheless have $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{Q\to\infty}{\frac{\left(\sum_{s=1}^{Q}{m(E_s)}\right)^2}{\sum_{s,t=1}^{Q}{m(E_s \cap E_t)}}}&=&\limsup_{Q\to\infty}\frac{\left(\sum_{s=1}^{Q}{m(E_s)}\right)^2}{\left(\sum_{s=1}^{Q}{m(E_s)}\right)^2+\sum_{s=1}^Q (m(E_s)-m^2(E_s))}\\
&\geq&\limsup_{Q\to\infty}\frac{\left(\sum_{s=1}^{Q}{m(E_s)}\right)^2}{\left(\sum_{s=1}^{Q}{m(E_s)}\right)^2+\sum_{s=1}^Q m(E_s)}\\
&=&\limsup_{Q\to\infty}\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{\sum_{s=1}^Q m(E_s)}}>0.
\end{aligned}$$
In general, we have the following estimate from [@EC].
\[EC\] Let $N\geq 1$ be an integer. Let $(\Omega, \mathcal{A}, m)$ be a probability space and let $\{E_n\}_{1\leq n\leq N} \subset \mathcal{A}$ be an arbitrary sequence of $m$-measurable sets in $\Omega$. Then, if $m\left(\bigcup_{n=1}^{ N}{E_n}\right)>0$, we have $$m\left(\bigcup_{n=1}^{N}{E_n}\right) \geq \frac{\left(\sum_{s=1}^{N}{m(E_s)}\right)^2}{\sum_{s,t=1}^{N}{m(E_s \cap E_t)}}.$$
We also need the following result in discrepancy theory. See [@DT97 Section 1.4] for more details.
\[Discrepancy\] For each irrational number $\alpha,$ there is a decreasig functoin $D_\alpha:\mathbb{N}\to (0,1)$ such that for all interval $I\subset (-1/2,1/2)$ we have $$\left|\frac{\#\{1\leq q\leq Q: \{q\alpha\}\in I\}}{Q}-|I|\right|=D_\alpha(Q).$$
For each irrational number $\alpha,$ we have $D_\alpha(Q)=o(1).$ When $\alpha$ is Badly approximable, we have $D_\alpha(Q)=O(\log Q/Q).$ If $\alpha\in \mathbb{R}\setminus\mathbb{Q}$ is not Liouville, then there is a number $\beta\in (0,1)$ with $
D_\alpha(Q)=O(Q^{\beta-1}).
$ Those bounds are special cases of [@DT97 Theorem 1.80].
The next result is a standard homework question, however, we have not found a proper reference and we provide a proof.
\[Aux\] Let $\{a_q,q\geq 1\}$ be a non-increasing sequence of positive numbers with $$\sum_{q\geq 1} a_q=\infty.$$ Let $A\subset\mathbb{N}$ be a set with positive lower natural density. Then $$\sum_{q\in A} a_q=\infty.$$
Since $A$ has positive lower density, we see that there are positive numbers $\epsilon,M>0$ such that $$\#A\cap [1,Q]\geq \epsilon Q$$ for all $Q\geq M.$ Without loss generality, we can assume that $\epsilon=k^{-1}$ for an integer $k>1.$ This implies that $$\#A\cap [1,kQ]\geq Q$$ for each $Q\geq [M/k]+1=Q_0.$ Let $Q>Q_0.$ We consider $$\sum_{q\leq kQ, q\in A} a_q.$$ There are at least $Q_0$ many elements in $A$ which are smaller than $kQ_0+1,$ the contribution of the first $Q_0$ of those numbers to the sum is at least $$Q_0 a_{kQ_0}.$$ There are at least $Q_0+1$ many elements in $A$ smaller than $k(Q_0+1)+1.$ Therefore, the contribution of the first $Q_0+1$ elements is at least (remember that the first $Q_0$ elements are smaller than $kQ_0+1$) $$Q_0 a_{kQ_0}+a_{k(Q_0+1)}.$$ Iterate the above argument we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{q\leq kQ, q\in A} a_q&\geq Q_0a_{kQ_0}+a_{k(Q_0+1)}+a_{k(Q_0+2)}+\dots+a_{kQ}&\\
&\geq \frac{1}{k}\sum_{q=kQ_0}^{kQ}a_q.&
\end{aligned}$$ This implies that $$\sum_{q\in A} a_q=\infty.$$
Proof of Theorem \[Main1\] {#Proof}
==========================
Let $\psi$ be an approximation function and $\gamma$ be a real number. In order to use Lemma \[Borel\], we need to estimate the size of intersections $A_q\cap A_{q'}.$
\[master\] Let $H>2$ be an integer. Let $\psi$ be an approximation function and $\gamma$ be an irrational number. For integers $1\leq q'<q$ such that $\Delta(q',q)<H\gcd(q,q')$ we have the following estimate $$|A_q\cap A_{q'}|\leq 2(2H+1)\min\{\psi(q)/q, \psi(q')/q'\} \gcd(q,q') \chi_{B(0,\Delta(q,q')/\gcd(q,q'))}(\{\gamma(q'-q)/\gcd(q,q')\}).$$ Otherwise if $\Delta(q,q')\geq H\gcd(q,q')$, we have $$|A_q\cap A_{q'}|\leq 4\psi(q)\psi(q')\left(1+ \frac{C_0}{2H} \right),$$ where $C_0>1$ is an absolute constant.
First, we want to count the number of integer solutions ($n,n'$) to the following inequality: $$\left|\frac{n}{q}-\frac{\gamma}{q}-\frac{n'}{q'}+\frac{\gamma}{q'} \right|\leq \frac{\psi(q)}{q}+\frac{\psi(q')}{q'}$$ with the restriction that $$\frac{\gamma+n}{q}\in [0,1],\frac{\gamma+n'}{q'}\in [0,1].$$ We multiply $qq'/\gcd(q,q')$ to the above inequality and obtain $$|nq'/\gcd(q,q')-n' q/\gcd(q,q')-\gamma (q'-q)/\gcd(q,q')|\leq \Delta(q,q')/\gcd(q,q').$$ Let $s=q/\gcd(q,q'), s'=q'/\gcd(q,q').$ We see that $\gcd(s,s')=1.$ We have $\{\gamma(q'-q)/\gcd(q,q')\}\in (-1/2,1/2).$ Suppose that $\Delta(q',q)/\gcd(q,q')<H.$ Then there are at most $2H+1$ possible integer values for $ns'-n's$. The solutions exist only when[^5] $$\{\gamma(q'-q)/\gcd(q,q')\}\in B(0,\Delta(q',q)/\gcd(q,q')).$$ There are $\gcd(q,q')$ many pairs $n,n'$ with $ns'-n's$ taking each of the above values. Therefore we see that $A_q\cap A_{q'}$ is contained in the union of at most $(2H+1)\gcd(q,q')$ many intervals of length $2\min\{\psi(q)/q,\psi(q')/q'\}.$ Thus we have $$|A_q\cap A_{q'}|\leq 2(2H+1)\min\{\psi(q)/q, \psi(q')/q'\} \gcd(q,q') \chi_{B(0,\Delta(q,q')/\gcd(q,q'))}(\{\gamma(q'-q)/\gcd(q,q')\}).$$ Suppose that $\Delta(q',q)/\gcd(q,q')\geq H.$ In this case, we use the Formula (3.2.5) in [@Harman] which says that $$||A_q\cap A_{q'}|-4\psi(q)\psi(q')|\leq C_0 \gcd(q,q')\min\{\psi(q)/q,\psi(q')/q'\}.$$ Here the constant $C_0>1$ is absolute. From here we see that $$|A_q\cap A_{q'}|\leq 4\psi(q)\psi(q')\left(1+\frac{C_0}{H}\Delta(q,q')\min\{\psi(q)/q,\psi(q')/q'\}\frac{1}{4\psi(q)\psi(q')} \right).$$ Notice that $$\Delta(q,q')\leq 2qq'\max\{\psi(q)/q,\psi(q')/q'\}.$$ Therefore we have $$\Delta(q,q')\min\{\psi(q)/q,\psi(q')/q'\}\leq 2\psi(q)\psi(q').$$ Thus, we see that $$|A_q\cap A_{q'}|\leq 4\psi(q)\psi(q')\left(1+ \frac{C_0}{2H} \right).$$ This proves the result.
From the above result we see that for each $q\geq 1$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
& &\sum_{1\leq q'<q} |A_q\cap A_{q'}|\\&\leq& 2(2H+1)\sum_{q': \Delta(q,q')<H\gcd(q,q')} \frac{\psi(q)}{q}\gcd(q',q)\chi_{B(0,\Delta(q,q')/\gcd(q,q'))}(\{\gamma (q'-q)/\gcd(q,q')\})\\&+&4(1+C_0/(2H))\sum_{1\leq q'\leq q} \psi(q)\psi(q').\end{aligned}$$ We now want to estimate the first sum on the RHS in above.
\[Sum Estimate\] Under the hypothesis of Lemma \[master\], suppose further that $\gamma$ is not Liouville and $\psi(q)\leq C q^{-1}(\log\log q)^{-2} $ for a number $C>0.$ Then there are constants $C',C''>0$ such that for all $q\geq 16,$ $$\sum_{1\leq q'<q} \frac{\psi(q)}{q}\gcd(q',q)\chi_{B(0,\Delta(q,q')/\gcd(q,q'))}(\{\gamma (q'-q)/\gcd(q,q')\})\leq C' \frac{\psi(q)}{(\log\log q)^{2}}\sum_{r|q} \frac{\log r}{r}+C''\psi(q).$$
\[Remark\] The $(\log\log q)^{-2}$ factor on the RHS comes from the upper bound condition on $\psi.$ Actually, exactly the same arguments would show that if $\psi(q)=O(q^{-1})$ then we have $$\sum_{1\leq q'<q} \frac{\psi(q)}{q}\gcd(q',q)\chi_{B(0,\Delta(q,q')/\gcd(q,q'))}(\{\gamma (q'-q)/\gcd(q,q')\})=O\left( \psi(q)\sum_{r|q} \frac{\log r}{r}+\psi(q)\right).$$ The extra $(\log\log q)^{-2}$ factor will be important later in the proof of Theorem \[Main1\].
We can simply assume that $\psi(q)\leq (q(\log\log q)^2)^{-1}$ for all $q\geq 3$ (where $\log\log q$ is positive) and $\psi(q)=0$ for $q=1,2.$ The multiplicative constant $C$ in the statement will not affect arguments in this proof at all.
First, we observe that the sum on the LHS can be rewritten as $$A=\frac{\psi({q})}{q}\sum_{r|q} r \sum_{q': \gcd(q',q)=r}\chi_{B(0,\Delta(q,q')/r)}(\{\gamma (q'-q)/r\}).$$ For each integer $k\geq 0$ we use $D_{k,r}$ to denote the set $$D_{k,r}=\{1\leq q'<q: \gcd(q',q)=r, q'/q\in [2^{-k-1},2^{-k})\}.$$ Then we see that $$A=\frac{\psi(q)}{q}\sum_{r|q} r\sum_{k\geq 0} \sum_{q'\in D_{k,r}} \chi_{B(0,\Delta(q,q')/r)}(\{\gamma (q'-q)/r\}).$$ The infinite sum over the index $k$ is actually a finite sum since for large $k$ the set $D_{k,r}$ would be empty. Furthermore, we have the following trivial bound $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{1\leq q'<q^{1/2}} \frac{\psi(q)}{q}\gcd(q',q)\chi_{B(0,\Delta(q,q')/\gcd(q,q'))}(\{\gamma (q'-q)/\gcd(q,q')\})\leq \frac{\psi(q)}{q}\sum_{1\leq q'\leq q^{1/2}} \gcd(q',q)\\
=\frac{\psi(q)}{q}\sum_{r|q} r\sum_{q':r| q', 1\leq q'\leq q^{1/2}} 1
\leq\frac{\psi(q)}{q}\sum_{r|q} r \frac{q^{1/2}}{r}
=\psi(q)d(q) q^{-1/2}=\psi(q)o(1).\tag{I}
\end{aligned}$$ Thus we only need to consider $k$ such that $2^k\leq q^{1/2}$ since otherwise $q'\leq q/2^k\leq q^{1/2}$ and its contribution to the sum is included in Estimate (I). Now we split the sum on $k$ into two parts $$\sum^{k\leq 0.5\log q}_{k\geq 0}=\sum^{k\leq 0.5\log q}_{k\leq 2\log r}+\sum^{k\leq 0.5\log q}_{k>2\log r}.$$ It can happen that the second sum in above is 0. In general, we bound the second term from above as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\psi(q)}{q}\sum_{r|q} r\sum_{k> 2\log r}\sum_{q'\in D_{k,r}}\chi_{B(0,\Delta(q,q')/r)}(\{\gamma (q'-q)/r\})\\
\leq \frac{\psi(q)}{q}\sum_{r|q} r\sum_{q': r|q', 1\leq q'\leq q/r^2} 1\leq \frac{\psi(q)}{q}\sum_{r|q} r \frac{q}{r^{3}}\leq \zeta(2)\psi(q).\tag{II}
\end{aligned}$$ In what follows, we always have $k\leq 0.5\log q$ and we do not explicitly write it down. We now estimate the $\sum_{k\leq 2\log r}$ term.
First we have for $q'\in D_{k,r}$ $$\Delta(q',q)\leq 2\frac{2^{k+1}}{\log\log^2 (q/2^{k+1})}.$$ Therefore, we see that $$\sum_{q'\in D_{k,r}}\chi_{B(0,\Delta(q,q')/r)}(\{\gamma (q'-q)/r\})\leq \sum_{q'\in D_{k,r}} \chi_{B(0,2^{k+2}/(r\log\log^2 (q/2^{k+1})))}(\{\gamma (q'-q)/r\}).$$ Observe that $$D_{k,r}\subset \{q': r|q', q'/q\in [2^{-k-1},2^{-k})\}=\{rs: s\geq 1, rs/q\in [2^{-k-1},2^{-k})\}.$$ We need to count the number $S_{k,r}$ of $s\geq 1, rs/q\in [2^{-k-1},2^{-k})$ such that $\{\gamma(s-qr^{-1})\}$ is contained in $$I_{k,r}=B(0,2^{k+2}/(r\log\log^2 (q/2^{k+1}))).$$ We remark that the requirement that $$\frac{q}{2^{k+1} r}\leq s< \frac{q}{2^k r}$$ could lead to null choice of $s.$ We treat the case when $q/(2^{k}r)>1.$ Otherwise, there is nothing to consider. In this case, we see that there are at most $1+q/(2^{k+1}r)\leq 3q/(2^{k+1}r)$ many integers $s$ in the above range. Now we use Lemma \[Discrepancy\]. As $\gamma$ is not Liouville, there is a number $\beta\in (0,1)$ and a constant $C_\beta\geq 1$ such that for any set $\mathcal{N}$ of $n\geq 2$ consecutive integers and any interval $I\subset [-1/2,1/2],$ $$|\#\{m\in \mathcal{N}: \{\gamma m\}\in I\}-|I|n|\leq C_\beta n^{\beta}.$$ Thus if $|I_{k,r}|\geq (2^{-k-1}q/r)^{\beta-1}$ we see that $$S_{k,r}\leq 3(C_\beta+1) \frac{q}{2^{k+1} r} 2^{k+2}/(r\log\log^2 (q/2^{k+1}))=6(C_\beta+1)\frac{q}{r^2 \log\log^2 (q/2^{k+1})}.\tag{E}$$ Otherwise, we have $$S_{k,r}\leq (C_\beta+3) \left(\frac{q}{2^{k+1}r}\right)^{\beta}.$$ Now we want to estimate the total contribution of $S_{k,r}$ when $|I_{k,r}|<(2^{-k-1}q/r)^{\beta-1}$ and $q/(2^{k}r)>1.$ Denote the set of pairs $k,r$ satisfying these two conditions as $B_q.$ Again, because $\gamma$ is not Liouville, there is a number $\alpha>1$ such that if $|I_{k,r}|\leq (q/r)^{-\alpha}$ then $S_{k,r}=0.$ To see this, observe that as $s$ ranging over $\{1,\dots,q/r-1\}$, the value of $\{\gamma(s-q/r)\}$ ranges over $\{\gamma\},\dots,\{\gamma(q/r-1)\}.$ As $\gamma$ is not Liouville, we see that $\|n\gamma\|\geq n^{-\alpha}$ for a number $\alpha>1$ and all $n\geq 2.$ Therefore, we can also pose the condition that $$|I_{k,r}|> (q/r)^{-\alpha}.$$ This condition implies that $$r<q^{\alpha/(1+\alpha)}2^{(k+2)/(1+\alpha)}.\tag{*}$$ Here the number $\alpha>1$ can be chosen to be arbitrarily large. In fact, as long as $2^{k+2}<q,$ $(*)$ with a certain $\alpha>1$ implies $(*)$ with a larger value of $\alpha.$ To see this, notice that for $\alpha'>\alpha>1,$ $$\frac{q^{\alpha/(1+\alpha)}2^{(k+2)/(1+\alpha)}}{q^{\alpha'/(1+\alpha')}2^{(k+2)/(1+\alpha')}}=\frac{2^{(k+2)((1+\alpha)^{-1}-(1+\alpha')^{-1})}}{q^{\alpha'/(1+\alpha')-\alpha/(1+\alpha)}}.$$ As we have $$\frac{\alpha'}{1+\alpha'}-\frac{\alpha}{1+\alpha}=1-\frac{1}{1+\alpha'}-1-\frac{1}{1+\alpha}=\frac{1}{1+\alpha}-\frac{1}{1+\alpha'},$$ together with $2^{k+2}<q$ we see that $$\frac{q^{\alpha/(1+\alpha)}2^{(k+2)/(1+\alpha)}}{q^{\alpha'/(1+\alpha')}2^{(k+2)/(1+\alpha')}}<1.$$ As we have $2^k\leq q^{1/2},$ we see that as long as $q>16$ we have $2^{k+2}<q.$ Now we have the following estimate, $$\sum_{r|q,k\leq 2\log r, (k,r)\in B_q} r \sum_{q'\in D_{k,r}}\chi_{B(0,\Delta(q,q')/r)}(\{\gamma (q'-q)/r\})\leq \sum_{r|q, k\geq 0, (k,r)\in B_q} (C_\beta+3) r \left(\frac{q}{2^{k+1}r}\right)^{\beta}.$$ Observe that $$\frac{\psi(q)}{q}\sum_{r|q,k\geq 0, (k,r)\in B_q,(*)} r\left(\frac{q}{2^{k+1}r}\right)^\beta\leq \frac{\psi(q)}{q}\sum_{r|q,k\geq 0, (k,r)\in B_q,(*)} q^{\frac{\alpha}{1+\alpha}(1-\beta)+\beta} \frac{1}{2^{(k+1)\beta}} 2^{(k+2)\frac{1-\beta}{1+\alpha}}.$$ We choose $\alpha$ to be large enough such that $\beta>\frac{1-\beta}{1+\alpha}.$ On the other hand, the exponent of $q$ is smaller than $1.$ With such choices of the parameters, we see that there are constants $C'_\beta,\epsilon_\beta>0$ such that $$\frac{\psi(q)}{q}\sum_{r|q,k\geq 0, (k,r)\in B_q,(*)} r\left(\frac{q}{2^{k+1}r}\right)^\beta\leq C'_\beta \frac{\psi(q)}{q^{\epsilon_\beta}} d(q).$$ Since we have $d(n)=o(n^{\epsilon_\beta}).$ We see that there is a constant $C''_\beta$ such that $$C'_\beta \frac{\psi(q)}{q^{\epsilon_\beta}} d(q)\leq C''_\beta \psi(q).\tag{III}$$ Therefore the total contribution of $S_{k,r}$ when $|I_{k,r}|<(2^{-k-1}q/r)^{\beta-1}$ and $q/(2^{k+1}r)>1$ is at most constant times $\psi(q).$
Now we estimate the total contribution of $S_{k,r}$ when $|I_{k,r}|\geq (2^{-k-1}q/r)^{\beta-1}$ and $q/(2^{k+1}r)>1.$ We use $C_q$ to denote the set of pairs $(k,r)$ with these conditions. We use the estimate $(E)$ for such a pair $(k,r).$ Thus we see that $$\begin{aligned}
& &\frac{\psi(q)}{q}\sum_{r|q} r\sum_{(k,r)\in C_q} \sum_{q'\in D_{k,r}}\chi_{B(0,2^{k+2}/(r\log\log^2 (q/2^{k+1})))}(\{\gamma (q'-q)/r\})\\
&\leq& \frac{\psi(q)}{q}\sum_{r|q} r\sum_{(k,r)\in C_q} 6(C_\beta+1)\frac{q}{r^2 \log\log^2 (q/2^{k+1})}\\
&\leq& 6(C_\beta+1)\psi(q) \sum_{r|q} \frac{1}{r} \sum_{k\leq 2\log r}\frac{1}{\log\log^2 (q/2^{k+1})}
\end{aligned}$$ As we also have $2^k\leq q^{1/2},$ we see that there is a number $C'''>0$ such that $$\log\log^2 (q/2^{k+1})\geq \log\log^2 (q^{1/2}/2)\geq C'''\log\log^2 q.$$ From here we see that $$6(C_\beta+1)\psi(q) \sum_{r|q} \frac{1}{r} \sum_{k\leq 2\log r}\frac{1}{\log\log (q/2^{k+1})}\leq 12(C_\beta+1)C'''^{-1} \psi(q)\frac{1}{\log\log^2 q}\sum_{r|q} \frac{\log r}{r}.\tag{IV}$$ Collecting the estimates (I), (II), (III),(IV) and reindexing the constants, we see that for two suitable constants $C',C''>0,$ $$\frac{\psi({q})}{q}\sum_{r|q} r \sum_{q': \gcd(q',q)=r}\chi_{B(0,\Delta(q,q')/r)}(\{\gamma (q'-q)/r\})\leq C'\psi(q)\frac{1}{\log\log^2 q} \sum_{r|q} \frac{\log r}{r}+C''\psi(q).$$ This finishes the proof.
Define the arithmetic function $F$ by $$F(q)=\sum_{r|q} \frac{\log r}{r}.$$ Let $Q$ be a large integer and let $K_Q$ be a positive integer whose value depends on $Q.$ We see that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{q=1}^Q F^{K_Q}(q)&=&\sum_{q=1}^Q \sum_{r_1,r_2,\dots,r_{K_Q}|q} \prod_{i=1}^{K_Q} \frac{\log r_i}{r_i}\\
&=& \sum_{r_1,r_2,\dots,r_{K_Q}\leq Q} \prod_{i=1}^{K_Q} \frac{\log r_i}{r_i}\sum_{q: [r_1,\dots,r_{K_Q}]| q} 1\\
&\leq& \sum_{r_1,r_2,\dots,r_{K_Q}\leq Q} \prod_{i=1}^{K_Q} \frac{\log r_i}{r_i} \frac{Q}{[r_1,\dots,r_{K_Q}]}.
\end{aligned}$$ As $[r_1,\dots,r_{K_Q}]\geq (r_1r_2\dots r_{K_Q})^{1/K_Q},$ we have $$\sum_{q=1}^Q F^{K_Q}(q)\leq \left(\sum_{1\leq r\leq Q} \frac{\log r}{r^{1+K^{-1}_Q}}\right)^{K_Q}.$$ Observe that there is a constant $C$ with $$\sum_{1\leq r\leq Q} \frac{\log r}{r^{1+K^{-1}_Q}}\leq \sum_{r\geq 1} \frac{\log r}{r^{1+K^{-1}_Q}}=-\zeta'(1+K^{-1}_Q)\leq C K^2_Q.$$ Thus we see that $$\sum_{q=1}^Q F^{K_Q}(q)\leq Q(CK^2_Q)^{K_Q}.$$ Then we see that $$\#\{q\leq Q: F(q)> 2CK^2_Q\}\leq Q \frac{1}{2^{K_Q}}.$$ We choose $K_Q=2\log\log Q$ and this makes $$\#\{q\leq Q: F(q)> 4C\log\log^2 Q\}\leq \frac{Q}{\log^2 Q}.$$ Since $\psi(q)=O(q^{-1}(\log\log q)^{-2})$ we see that there is a constant $C'>0$ such that $$\sum_{q: F(q)>4C \log\log^2 q} \psi(q)=\sum_{k\geq 1} \sum_{q: F(q)>4C \log\log^2 q, 2^{k-1} \leq q\leq 2^k} \psi(q)\leq C'\sum_{k\geq 1}\frac{2^k}{2^{k-1}} \frac{1}{k^2}<\infty.$$ Thus, we can assume that $\psi$ is supported on where $F(q)<4C \log\log^2 q.$ From here and Lemmas \[master\], \[Sum Estimate\], we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{1\leq q'<q} |A_q\cap A_{q'}|&\leq& 4\left(1+\frac{C_0}{2H}\right) \sum_{1\leq q'\leq q}\psi(q)\psi(q')+C''\psi(q)+C' \psi(q)\frac{F(q)}{\log\log^2 q}\\&\leq& 4\left(1+\frac{C_0}{2H}\right) \sum_{1\leq q'\leq q}\psi(q)\psi(q')+C''\psi(q)+4C'C \psi(q).
\end{aligned}$$ From above and the assumption $\sum_q \psi(q)=\infty$ we see that $$\frac{(\sum_{q\leq Q} |A_q|)^2}{\sum_{q,q'\leq Q} |A_q\cap A_{q'}|}\geq\frac{(\sum_{q=1}^Q 2\psi(q))^2}{4\left(1+\frac{C_0}{2H}\right) (\sum_{q=1}^Q\psi(q))^2+O(\sum_{q=1}^Q \psi(q))}\geq \frac{1}{1+\frac{C_0}{2H}+o(1)}.$$ By Lemma \[Borel\], we see that $|W(\psi,\gamma)|=|\limsup_{q\to\infty} A_q|\geq (1+C_0/(2H))^{-1}.$ As $H$ can be chosen to be arbitrarily large, we see that $$|W(\psi,\gamma)|=1.$$
As $\psi$ is non-increasing, if for an integer $q\geq 100$ we have $\psi(q)\geq 1/q,$ then we have $$\psi(q')\geq \frac{1}{2q'}$$ for all $q'\in [q/2,q].$ In this case, our strategy is to shrink $\psi(q')$ to $1/(2q')$ for $q'\in [q/2,q].$ More precisely, we find $q_1$ the first integer $\geq 100$ with $\psi(q_1)\geq 1/q_1.$ Then we shrink $\psi$ at $[q_1/2,q_1].$ Next, we find $q_2,$ the first integer $>q_1$ with $\psi(q_2)\geq 1/q_2.$ We then shrink $\psi$ at $[\max\{q_1+1,q_2/2\},q_2].$ In the end, we obtain a new approximation function $\psi'\leq \psi$ such that $\psi'(q)=O(1/q).$
Suppose that the above shrinking procedure was performed infinitely many times. In particular, we can find numbers $s_1<s_2<\dots$ with $2s_i<s_{i+1}$ and $\psi(s_i)>1/s_i$ for $i\geq 1.$ Then the modified approximation function $\psi'$ satisfies $$\psi'(q')\geq \frac{1}{2s_i}$$ for $q'\in [s_i/2,s_i].$ Thus $\sum_{q'\in [s_i/2,s_i]}\psi'(q')\geq 1/4.$ From here we see that $$\sum_{q} \psi'(q)=\infty.$$
Now we want to sieve out the support of $\psi'$ further. Recall the function $F$ used before in the proof of Theorem \[Main1\], $$F(q)=\sum_{r|q} \frac{\log r}{r}.$$ We have for a constant $C>0$ that $$\#\{q\leq Q: F(q)>2CK^2_Q\}\leq Q\frac{1}{2^{K_Q}}$$ holds for each $Q\geq 100$ and $K_Q\geq 100.$ Now we simply choose $K_Q$ to be a fixed large number $K$ and we restrict $\psi$ to $$G_K=\{q\leq Q: F(q)\leq 2CK^2\}.$$ This set has natural lower density at least $1-1/2^K.$ Moreover, for each integer $q>100$, the set $G^c_K\cap [q/2,q]$ contains at most $q/c_K$ elements, where $c_K>1$ and it can be made to be arbitrarily large by choosing $K$ to be sufficiently large. We can restrict $\psi'$ on $G_K$ and we denote this new approximation function as $\psi'_K.$ Observe that $F(q)$ is bounded for $q\in G_K$. Instead of Lemma \[Sum Estimate\], we can use Remark \[Remark\] in the proof of Theorem \[Main1\]. We now consider $W(\psi'_K,\gamma).$ Following the arguments in the proofs of Theorem \[Main1\], we see that $$|W(\psi,\gamma)|=1.$$
Now, we need to deal with the case when the shrinking procedure in above cannot be performed infinitely often. This implies that $\psi(q)<1/q$ except for at most finitely many values of $q.$ Thus in this case, we have $\psi(q)=O(1/q).$ Again, we choose $K$ such that $G_K$ has positive lower density. This can be done by choosing $K$ to be sufficiently large. As $\psi$ is non-increasing, we see that $$\sum_{q\in G_K}\psi(q)=\infty.$$ Consider the restricted approximation function $\psi_K.$ As in above we see that $|W(\psi,\gamma)|=1.$ From here the proof is finished.
As a direct consequence of Theorem \[Main1\], we now illustrate the following.
Consider the following set $$B=\{q\in\mathbb{N}: \|q\beta-\gamma_2\|\geq (\log q)^{-1}\}.$$ Then on this set $B$, we have $$\psi'(q)=\frac{\psi(q)}{\|q\beta-\gamma_2\|}=O((q(\log\log q)^2)^{-1}).$$ We extend $\psi'$ by setting $\psi'(q)=0$ whenever $q\notin B.$ Then we have $$W(\psi',\gamma_1)\subset W(\psi,\beta,\gamma_1,\gamma_2).$$ Since we have $$\sum_{q\in B} \psi'(q)=\infty,$$ we can use Theorem \[Main1\] to conclude the result.
We now provide examples such that the condition (D) in the statement of Theorem \[MUL1\] is satisfied. First, we want to analyse the set $B$ constructed in the previous proof. Let $\beta$ be an algebraic irrational number and $\gamma$ be a real number. We want to understand the set $$B=\{q\in\mathbb{N}: \|q\beta-\gamma_2\|\geq (\log q)^{-1}\}.$$ To do this, let $k,l$ be natural numbers and we consider $$B_{k,l}=\{q\in [2^k,2^{k+1}]: \|q\beta-\gamma_2\|\in [2^l/k, 2^{l+1}/k]\}.$$ We need to estimate from below the cardinality of $B_{k,l}.$ The interesting case would be $2^{l}\leq k.$ As $\beta$ is algebraic, it is not Liouville. We can use Lemma \[Discrepancy\]. As a result, we see that there are numbers $c,M>0$ such that for all $k\geq M$ and $l\leq \log k$ we have $$\#B_{k,l}\geq c 2^k \frac{2^{l}}{k}.$$ We let [^6] $$\psi(q)=\frac{1}{q \log q(\log\log q)^2}.$$ Then we see that for $k\geq M, l\leq \log k,$ $$\sum_{q\in B_{k,l}} \frac{\psi(q)}{\|q\beta-\gamma_2\|}\geq c 2^k \frac{2^l}{k} \frac{1}{2^{k+1}(k+1)(\log (k+1))^2} \frac{k}{2^{l+1}}=\frac{c}{4}\frac{1}{(k+1)(\log (k+1))^2}.$$ Then we have $$\sum_{q\in B\cap [2^k,2^{k+1}]} \frac{\psi(q)}{\|q\beta-\gamma_2\|}\geq \sum^{l\leq \log k}_{l=0} \frac{c}{4}\frac{1}{(k+1)(\log (k+1))^2}\geq \frac{c}{8} \frac{1}{k\log k}$$ for all sufficiently large $k.$ Thus we conclude that $$\sum_{q\in B} \frac{\psi(q)}{\|q\beta-\gamma_2\|}=\infty.$$
Higher dimensional approximations
=================================
We will prove Theorem \[HIGH\]. Let $H,C_0$ be as in Lemma \[master\]. Let $\psi$ be an approximation function with the required divergence condition. For each $q\geq 2,$ we consider $$B_q=\prod_{i=1}^k A^{\psi,\gamma_i}_q.$$ We want to study the set $\limsup_{q\to\infty} B_q.$ Now, observe that the Lebesgue measure of $B_q$ is simply $$(2\psi(q))^k$$ if $\psi(q)\leq 1/2.$ Otherwise, the Lebesgue measure is $1.$ As before, we will always assume $\psi(q)<1/2,$ or else the result follows trivially. We can use Lemma \[master\] for each component. Write for integers $i\in\{1,\dots,k\}$ and $q,q'\geq 2,$ $$\begin{aligned}
L_i(q,q')=2(2H+1)\min\{\psi(q)/q,\psi(q')/q'\}\gcd(q,q')\chi_{B(0,\Delta(q,q')/\gcd(q,q'))}(\{\gamma_i(q'-q)/\gcd(q,q')\})
\end{aligned}$$ if $\Delta(q,q')\leq H\gcd(q,q').$ Otherwise, we define. $$L_i(q,q')=4(1+C_0/(2H))\psi(q)\psi(q').$$ Then we see that $$|B_q\cap B_{q'}|\leq \prod_{i=1}^k L_i(q,q').$$ When $\Delta(q,q')\leq H\gcd(q,q'),$ we shall simply estimate $L_i(q,q')$ from above by $$L_i(q,q')\leq 2(2H+1)\min\left\{\frac{\psi(q)}{q},\frac{\psi(q')}{q'}\right\}\gcd(q,q')$$ From here we removed the dependence of the inhomogeneous shifts $\gamma_1,\dots,\gamma_k.$ We now estimate $\sum_{1\leq q'\leq q} |B_q\cap B_{q'}|.$ We split the sum according to whether $\Delta(q,q')$ less or larger than $H\gcd(q,q').$ For the latter part, the upper bound is $$\sum_{1\leq q'\leq q, \Delta(q,q')\geq H\gcd(q,q')} |B_q\cap B_{q'}|\leq \sum_{1\leq q'\leq q} \sum_{1\leq q'\leq q}\prod_{i=1}^k 4^k(1+C_0/(2H))^k\psi^k(q)\psi^k(q').\tag{I}$$ For the former part, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{1\leq q'\leq q, \Delta(q,q')\leq H\gcd(q,q')} |B_q\cap B_{q'}|&\leq& \sum_{1\leq q'\leq q} \left(2(2H+1)\min\left\{\frac{\psi(q)}{q},\frac{\psi(q')}{q'}\right\}\gcd(q,q')\right)^k\\
&\leq& 2^k(2H+1)^k \sum_{1\leq q'\leq q} \frac{\psi(q)^k}{q^k} \gcd(q,q')^k\\
&=& 2^k(2H+1)^k \frac{\psi(q)^k}{q^k}\sum_{r|q} r^k \sum_{1\leq q'\leq q, \gcd(q,q')=r} 1.\\
&=& 2^k(2H+1)^k \frac{\psi(q)^k}{q^k}\sum_{r|q} r^k \phi(q/r). \tag{II}
\end{aligned}$$ Suppose that $k\geq 3.$ We then use the trivial bound $\phi(q/r)\leq q/r$ to write (II) further as $$\leq 2^k (2H+1)^k\frac{\psi(q)^k}{q^k}\sum_{r|q} r^k \frac{q}{r}= 2^k(2H+1)^k \psi(q)^k\sum_{r|q} \left(\frac{r}{q}\right)^{k-1}\leq 2^k(2H+1)^k \psi(q)^k \zeta(k-1). \tag{II'}$$ From here we see that for $k\geq 3,$ $$\sum_{1\leq q'\leq q} |B_q\cap B_{q'}|\leq 4^k(1+C_0/(2H))^k \psi(q)^k (\sum_{1\leq q'\leq q} \psi(q')^k)+2^k(2H+1)^k\zeta(k-1) \psi(q)^k.$$ From here, we can use Lemma \[Borel\] to conclude that $$|\limsup_{q\to\infty} B_q|\geq \frac{1}{(1+C_0/(2H))^k}.$$ This proves the result for $k\geq 3$ as $H$ can be chosen to be arbitrarily large.
When $k=2,$ Estimate (II’) fails as $\zeta(1)$ is not defined. We need to argue differently. We have the following estimate from (II) that for a constant $C>1,$ $$2^2(2H+1)^2 \psi(q)^2 \sum_{r|q}\frac{1}{r}\leq 2^2 C \psi(q)^2(2H+1)^2 \frac{q}{\phi(q)}.$$ Here we have used the fact that for a constant $C>1,$ for all $q\geq 1,$ $$C^{-1}\frac{q}{\phi(q)}\leq \sum_{r|q} \frac{1}{r}\leq C\frac{q}{\phi(q)}.$$ For each $l\geq 0,$ let $D_l$ be the set $$\{q: q/\phi(q)\in [2^l,2^{l+1}]\}.$$ Denote the sum $$a_l=\sum_{q\in D_l} \psi(q)^2 \left(\frac{\phi(q)}{q}\right)^2.$$ Suppose that $a_l=\infty$ for an integer $l\geq 0.$ In this case, we can just restrict $\psi$ to the set $D_l.$ In addition, we have $q/\phi({q})\leq 2^{l+1}$ on $D_l.$ Then, by using the same argument as in the $k\geq 3$ case we see that $$|\limsup_{q\to\infty} B_q|\geq 1/(1+C_0/(2H))^2.$$ Thus we assume that $$a_l<\infty$$ for all $l\geq 0.$ The divergent condition for $\psi$ forces $\sum_l a_l=\infty.$ Now let $l$ be any integer. By Lemma \[EC\], we see that as long as at least one $B_q$ with $q\in D_l$ has positive measure, we have for all large enough $Q,$ $$\mu_Q=|\cup_{q\leq Q, q\in D_l} B_q|\geq \frac{\left(\sum_{q=1}^{Q}{|B_q|}\right)^2}{\sum_{q,q'=1}^{Q}{|B_q \cap B_{q'}|}}.$$ We see that $$\liminf_{q\to\infty} \mu_Q\geq \frac{1}{(1+C_0/(2H))^2+2^2(2H+1)^2 C 2^{l+1} \frac{1}{a_l \times 2^{2l}}}.\tag{III}$$ Warning, this does not imply that $|\limsup_{q\to\infty} B_q|>0$! However, as $\sum_l a_l=\infty,$ there must exist arbitrarily large integers $l$ such that $$2^{l}a_l\geq 1000\times 2^3\times C\times (2H+1)^2.$$ From here we see that there are arbitrarily large integers $Q$ such that $$\mu_Q\geq \frac{1-1000^{-1}}{(1+C_0/(2H))^2+1000^{-1}}.$$ We fix a pair of $l,Q$ as in above and write $H_{l}=\cup_{q\leq Q, q\in D_l} B_q.$ We do not explicitly write $Q$ here. As a consequence, we can find sets $H_{l}$ with arbitrarily large $l$ (and corresponding $Q$) such that $$|H_l|\geq \frac{1-1000^{-1}}{(1+C_0/(2H))^2+1000^{-1}}.$$ We can rename $H_l$ such that the index $l$ runs over $1,\dots,\infty.$ Notice that $F_n=\cup_{k\geq n} H_k$ is a decreasing sequence of Lebesgue measurable sets. This implies that (by the continuity of Lebesgue measure) $$|\limsup_{l\to\infty} H_l|=\left|\bigcap_{n\geq 1}\left(\bigcup_{k\geq n} H_k\right)\right|=|\cap_{n\geq 1} F_n|=\lim_{n\to\infty} |F_n|\geq \frac{1-1000^{-1}}{(1+C_0/(2H))^2+1000^{-1}}.$$ Suppose that $x\in \limsup_{l\to\infty} H_l,$ then $x\in H_l$ for infinitely many $l.$ This implies that $x\in B_q$ for at least one $q\in D_l$ for infinitely many $l.$ This implies that $x\in B_q$ for infinitely many different $q.$ This finishes the proof for $k=2$(notice that the number $1000$ as well as $H$ in above can be replaced by any large numbers).
Now let us assume that $k=1.$ In this case, (II) can be further bounded by $$\leq 2\psi(q) d(q).$$ As we required $\psi(q)/(d(q))^{1+\epsilon}=\infty,$ we can perform the argument as in the $k=2$ case. We just discuss values of $d(q)$ instead of $q/\phi(q)$. The extra $+\epsilon$ on the exponent will help us to find an estimate like (III) where the coefficient $a_l$ is $2^{(1+\epsilon)l}.$ From here the rest of the arguments can be performed without essential changes. This concludes the proof.
Acknowledgements. {#acknowledgements. .unnumbered}
-----------------
HY was financially supported by the University of Cambridge and the Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. HY has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No. 803711). HY thanks S. Chow for helpful comments.
[999]{}
C. Aistleitner, T. Lachmann, M. Munsch, N. Technau and A. Zafeiropoulos, *The Duffin-Schaeffer conjecture with extra divergence*, Adv. Math. **356**(7), (2019).
V. Beresnevich, D. Dickinson, S. Velani, *Measure theoretic laws for lim sup sets*, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. **179**(846), (2006).
V. Beresnevich, G. Harman, A. Haynes and S. Velani, *The Duffin-Schaeffer conjecture with extra divergence II*, Math. Z. **275**(1), (2013), 127–133.
V. Beresnevich, A. Haynes and S. Velani, *Sums of reciprocals of fractional parts and multiplicative Diophantine approximation*, to appear in Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., preprint, arXiv:1511.06862.
S. Chow, *Bohr sets and multiplicative Diophantine approximation*, Duke Math. J. **167**(9), (2018), 1623-1642.
K. L. Chung, P. Erdős, *On the application of the Borel-Cantelli lemma*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 72 (1952), 179–186.
R. Duffin and A. Schaeffer, *Khintchine’s problem in metric Diophantine approximation*, Duke Math. J. **8** ,(1941), 243–255.
M. Drmota and R. Tichy, *Sequences, Discrepancies and Applications*, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg,(1997).
P. Gallagher, *Metric simultaneous diophantine approximation (II)*, Mathematika **12**(2), (1965), 123-127.
G. Harman, *Metric number theory*, Clarendon Press, Oxford, (1998).
A. Khintchine, *Einige Sätze über Kettenbrücke, mit Anwendungen auf die Theorie der Diophantischen Approximationen*, Math. Ann. **92**(1-2), (1924), 115-125.
D. Koukoulopoulos and J. Maynard, *On the Duffin–Schaeffer conjecture*, arXiv:1907.04593.
A. Pollington and R. Vaughan, *The k-dimensional Duffin and Schaeffer conjecture*, J. Théor. Nombres Bordeaux **1**(1), (1989), 81-88.
F. Ramírez, *Counterexamples, covering systems, and zero-one laws for inhomogeneous approximation*, Int. J. Number Theory, **13**(3), (2017), 633-654.
P. Szüsz, *Über die metrische Theorie der Diophantischen Approximation*, Acta. Math. Sci. Hungar. **9**, (1958) ,177-193.
J. Vaaler, *On the metric theory of Diophantine approximation*, Pacific J. Math. **76**(2), (1978), 527–539.
H. Yu, *A Fourier-analytic approach to inhomogeneous Diophantine approximation*, Acta Arith. **190**, (2019), 263-292.
H. Yu, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, Cambridge, CB3 0WB, UK</span>
*E-mail address:* `hy351@maths.cam.ac.uk`
[^1]: Supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No. 803711), and indirectly by Corpus Christi College, Cambridge
[^2]: This list of results is by no means complete.
[^3]: This list is not complete.
[^4]: The work in [@KM2019] certainly also sheds some lights on the inhomogeneous problem but does not make it any less challenging.
[^5]: If $\Delta(q',q)/\gcd(q,q')\geq 1,$ then the above holds trivially. Thus, this condition is only effective when $\Delta(q',q)$ is much smaller compare to $\gcd(q,q').$
[^6]: This choice of $\psi$ happens to be monotonic. However, this is not essential in the argument.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Anomaly-free perturbations of loop quantum cosmology with holonomy corrections reveal an $\Omega$ -deformed spacetime structure, $\Omega:=1-2\rho/\rho_c$, where $\Omega<0$ indicates a Euclidean-like space and $\Omega>0$ indicates a Lorentz-like space. It would be reasonable to give the initial value at the spacetime transition point, $\rho=\rho_c/2$, but we find that it is impossible to define a Minkowski-like vacuum even for large $k$ modes at that time. However, if we loosen the condition and give the initial value slightly after $\Omega=0$, e.g., $\Omega\simeq 0.2$, the vacuum state can be well defined and, furthermore the slow roll approximation also works well in that region. Both scalar and tensor spectra are considered in the framework of loop quantum cosmology with holonomy corrections. We find that if the energy density is not too small in relation to $\rho_c/2$ when the considered $k$ mode crossing the horizon, effective theory can give a much smaller scalar power spectrum than classical theory and the spectrum of tensor perturbations could blueshift. But when compared to other observations, since the energy densities when the modes crossed the horizon were significantly smaller than $\rho_c$, the results we get agree with previous work in the literature and with the classical inflation theory.'
author:
- Long Chen
- 'Jian-Yang Zhu'
title: 'Inflationary spectra from a near $\Omega$-deformed space-time transition point in Loop Quantum Cosmology'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Loop quantum gravity (LQG) [@Han2007; @Ashtekar2004; @Rovelli2004; @Thiemann2007] is a promising quantum theory of gravity which is background independent. The basic variables of LQG are the holonomies of $SU(2)$ connections and the fluxes of densitized triads. LQG predicts a quantum geometry whose area, volume, and length operators have discrete eigenvalues. The dynamics of the theory is not yet complete for the complexity of the Hamiltonian constraints. Loop quantum cosmology (LQC) [@Ashtekar2006; @Ashtekar2011; @Bojowald2008; @Vandersloot], as the symmetry reduced model of LQG, uses the quantization method of loop quantum gravity and its key observation of quantum geometry to quantize the cosmological model. In LQC, the big bang predicted by classical theory is replaced by a big bounce for the existence of a nonezero minimal area spectrum in loop quantum gravity.
To obtain more predictions of LQC and to test the validity of the method of quantization, the theory of perturbations in the framework of LQC also has been developed. There exist two kinds of perturbation theories to address this problem in the literature. The first is the addressed metric method [@Ashtekar2013], while the second one is the anomaly freedom perturbation method in the effective theory of LQC [@Bojowald2008b; @Cailleteau2012; @Cailleteau2012b]. In this paper, we will consider the second method, developed by Bojowald and his collaborators [@Bojowald2008b]. In the effective theory of LQC, there exist two main quantum corrections to the classical theory: inverse volume corrections and holonomy corrections. Since holonomy corrections are more simple and display impressive results at high energy density, in this paper we focus on the perturbation framework under holonomy corrections developed in [@Cailleteau2012; @Cailleteau2012b]. The anomaly-free perturbations of loop quantum cosmology with holonomy corrections reveal an $\Omega$-deformed spacetime structure where $\Omega:=1-2\rho/\rho_c$ is the coefficient appearing in the expression of the Poisson bracket between two Hamiltonian constraints [@Cailleteau2012], and $\rho_c$ is the energy density at the bouncing point which is also the maximum density the Universe could obtain. When $\rho_c/2<\rho\leqslant\rho_c$, we have $\Omega<0$, so the Universe’s structure is like the Euclidean space (where $\Omega=-1<0$). Also, $\Omega>0$ when $\rho<\rho_c/2$ would give a spacetime structure like the Lorentzian space (where $\Omega=1>0$). The signature changes at the transition point $\Omega=0$, which is also called the silent surface. Because the constraint algebra is more like Euclidean space in the region $\Omega<0$, the time variable behaves like space variables and, because the dynamical equations of perturbations become elliptic, the solutions of perturbation equations would face a problem of instability for initial value problems [@Barrau2015], which seems puzzling. A mixed-type characteristic problem was considered in [@Bojowald2015], but there exist several global problems. In this paper we want to consider the initial value problem at the transition point $\Omega=0$ in the expanding Universe and discard the evolution before that point. Note that given initial values in the region where $\Omega<0$ [@Mielczarek2014a; @Yue2013] and in the contracting phase[@Schander2015] are also considered in the literature.
Inflation, as a necessary supplement to the standard cosmological model, can solve many long-standing problems such as the horizon problem, the flatness problem, etc. Using the perturbation theory of cosmology and given a natural initial state, Bunch-Davies vacuum, inflation models can also provide a natural explanation of the structure formation. Loop quantum cosmology modifies the evolution of cosmology in classical theory; thus, which predictions the inflation theory in the framework of LQC could give would be an interesting question. The power spectra of inflation in LQC with inverse volume corrections were calculated in [@Bojowald2011] and were shown to be consistent with the observations. The calculations of the power spectra by the corrections of holonomy were also considered in [@Mielczarek2014b; @Zhu2015], where the initial values are given at $\Omega\sim1$ which is far from the transition point $\Omega=0$. The reason for choosing this initial state is as follows. In the framework of classical theory, by comparing the observations with the inflation theory, we find the energy density when crossing the horizon to be quite small compared to the Planck energy $\rho_P$. Then, since the critical density $\rho_c$ in LQC is generally supposed to be of the order of Planck energy, one would like to think that the quantum corrections of LQC are not large. But to make the calculations more precise and self-consistent in the framework of LQC, it is still preferable to consider the initial values at $\Omega =0$, and to see whether the quantum corrections at high energy could be omitted. However by some direct calculations of $z''/z$, where $z=z_S$ or $z_T$ appears in the equations of perturbations, we will find that it is impossible to define a well-defined Minkowski (Bunch-Davies) vacuum at the transition point which is bad. However, if we loosen the initial condition and give it near after $\Omega=0$, e.g. $\Omega\sim 0.2$, one can define a well-defined vacuum state and the slow roll approximation also works. For these reasons, we will choose the initial value to be slightly after the transition point in this work.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec.II, we first review the background equations of motion of LQC with holonomy corrections, then introduce the slow roll approximations in the epoch of inflation. In Secs.III and IV, we consider the dynamics of scalar perturbations and tensor perturbations, respectively. After solving the perturbation equations, we get the power spectra of scalar perturbations and tensor perturbations in Sec.V. In Sec.VI, we compare the results with classical theory and the observations. Some conclusions are given in Sec.VII.
\[sec:level2\] Background dynamics and slow roll approximations
===============================================================
Holonomy corrections in LQC modify Friedmann equations into the following effective equations: $$H^{2}=\frac{\kappa }{3}\rho (1-\rho /\rho _{c}), \label{FriedmannEqns1}$$$$\dot{H}=-\frac{\kappa }{2}\dot{\varphi}^{2}\Omega , \label{FriedmannEqns2}$$$$\ddot{\varphi}+3H\dot{\varphi}+V_{\varphi }=0, \label{FriedmannEqns3}$$where $\rho_c$ will be considered to be of the order of $\rho_P$, in this paper, $\rho=\dot\varphi^2/2+V(\varphi)$ is the energy density of inflaton $\varphi$ and the subscript $\varphi$ in $V_\varphi$ represents the derivative of $V$ by $\varphi$, two or more $\varphi$s indicates higher derivative.
In the epoch of inflation, the density is dominated by the potential $V(\varphi)$: $\dot\varphi^2/V\ll 1$, and the first equation (\[FriedmannEqns1\])then becomes $H^2=\frac{\kappa}{3}V(1-V/\rho_c)$. By differentiating this equation with respect to time and using Eq.(\[FriedmannEqns2\]), one can find $3H\dot\varphi+V'=0$, which means that $\ddot\varphi\ll3H\dot\varphi$ when we compare with Eq.(\[FriedmannEqns3\]). Thus, we get the slow roll equations of LQC: $$H^{2}=\frac{\kappa }{3}V(1-V/\rho _{c}), \label{SlowRollEqns1}$$$$\dot{H}=-\frac{\kappa }{2}\dot{\varphi}^{2}\Omega , \label{SlowRollEqns2}$$$$\dot{\varphi}=-\frac{V_{\varphi }}{3H}, \label{SlowRollEqns3}$$where $\Omega=1-2V/\rho_c=1-2\delta_H$, $\delta_H:=V/\rho_c\leqslant \frac{1}{2}$, and the slow roll conditions are $$\epsilon :=\frac{3\dot{\varphi}^{2}}{2V}\simeq \frac{1}{2\kappa }\left(
\frac{V_{\varphi }}{V}\right) ^{2}\frac{1}{1-\delta _{H}}\ll 1,
\label{SlowRollConditions1}$$$$\delta :=\frac{\ddot{\varphi}}{H\dot{\varphi}}\simeq \frac{1}{2\kappa }\left[
\left( \frac{V_{\varphi }}{V}\right) ^{2}\frac{\Omega }{(1-\delta _{H})^{2}}%
-2\frac{V_{\varphi \varphi }}{V}\frac{1}{1-\delta _{H}}\right] \ll 1.
\label{SlowRollConditions2}$$The hubble slow roll parameter $\epsilon_H:=-\frac{\dot H}{H^2}\simeq\epsilon\frac{\Omega}{1-\delta_H}$ is smaller than the potential’s slow roll parameter $\epsilon$, and the parameter $\eta$ is defined as $\eta:=\frac{1}{\kappa}\frac{V_{\varphi\varphi}}{V}\frac{1}{1-\delta_H}=\epsilon_H-\delta$.
When considering the dynamics of the perturbations, we will need two variables: $z_S:=a\dot\varphi/H$ related to the scalar perturbations and $z_T:=a/\sqrt\Omega$ related to the tensor perturbations, and the expressions of $z_S''/z_S$ and $z_T''/z_T$ in terms of the conformal time $\tau$, where $'\equiv \frac{d}{d\tau}=a\frac{d}{d t}$. Generally, we also hope that some extra requirements [@Weinberg] enable us to get simple expressions for these two quantities: the slow roll parameters must evolve slowly and more precisely, we hope that $\epsilon_H$, $\delta$, and $\frac{1-\Omega}{\Omega}\epsilon$ evolve much more slowly than $aH$ (see Eq.(\[zspprime\]) later). Compare the evolution of $\epsilon_H$ with $aH$: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\dot{\epsilon}_{H}/\epsilon _{H}}{\dot{(aH)}/(aH)} &=&\frac{2\kappa V}{%
3H^{2}}\left( 1-\delta _{H}\right) \left( \delta +\epsilon _{H}+\frac{%
2\delta _{H}}{\Omega }\epsilon \right) \nonumber \\
&=&2\left( \epsilon _{H}+\delta +\frac{1-\Omega }{\Omega }\epsilon \right)\end{aligned}$$from which one can find that the value will be infinite if $\Omega\rightarrow 0$, which means that the evolution $\epsilon_H$ is not small. However if we take $\Omega>0.2$, the value could be smaller than $2\delta+9\epsilon$, satisfying the requirement. The other two quantities give $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\dot{\delta}/\delta }{\dot{(aH)}/(aH)} &=&4\epsilon \left( \frac{%
\Omega }{1-\delta _{H}}+\frac{\delta _{H}}{1-\delta _{H}}\frac{\epsilon }{%
\delta }\right)\nonumber\\
&&\pm \frac{\sqrt{2\kappa \epsilon }}{\kappa ^{2}\delta }\frac{V_{\varphi \nonumber
\varphi \varphi }}{V(1-\delta _{H})^{3/2}}\\
&\ll &1\end{aligned}$$$$\frac{\frac{d}{d t}{\ln(\frac{1-\Omega}{\Omega}\epsilon)}}{\dot{(aH)}/(aH)}=2\frac{3\Omega^2-1}{\Omega(1+\Omega)}\epsilon-2\eta\ll1.$$ Generally, $\epsilon$ is of the same order as $\delta$, so the first gives $\frac{\sqrt{2\kappa\epsilon}}{\kappa^2\delta}\frac{V_{\varphi\varphi\varphi}}{V}\ll1$. The second requirement gives the same requirement from $\epsilon_H$: $\Omega$ should not be too close to 0. Note that, in classical theory [@Weinberg], these requirements only give $\frac{\sqrt{2\kappa\epsilon}}{\kappa^2\delta}\frac{V_{\varphi\varphi\varphi}}{V}\ll1$, so the requirement that $\Omega$ is not too close to 0 is a new requirement from LQC. It should be noted that, if the requirement that $\delta$ evolves slowly compared to $aH$ is not satisfied, the calculations of power spectra only under slow roll approximation equations. (\[SlowRollConditions1\]) and (\[SlowRollConditions2\]) can be seen in Ref. [@Stewart]. In this paper, for simplicity, we assume that slow roll conditions include these extra requirements (as in most papers).
Now we turn to calculating the expressions for $\frac{z_S''}{z_S}$ and $\frac{z''_T}{z_T}$ under slow roll approximations containing the two extra requirements given above. We follow the calculation method used by Weinberg [@Weinberg] and in Ref. [@Riotto].
First let us consider $$\frac{z_S''}{z_S}=\frac{d}{d\tau}\left(\frac{z_S'}{z_S}\right)+\left(\frac{z_S'}{z_S}\right)^2.$$ From the definition of $\epsilon_H$ and $\delta$, one can get $$\frac{z_S'}{z_S}=aH(1+\delta+\epsilon_H).$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{zspprime}
\frac{d}{d\tau}\left(\frac{z_S'}{z_S}\right)&=& a\frac{d}{dt}\left[aH(1+\delta+\epsilon_H)\right] \nonumber \\
&\simeq & a(1+\delta+\epsilon_H)\frac{d}{dt}(aH) \nonumber \\
&\simeq & (aH)^2(1+\delta),\end{aligned}$$ where in the second equality we have used the extra requirement $\epsilon_H$ and $\delta$ evolve smallly enough compared to $aH$. Thus, we get $\frac{z_S''}{z_S}=(aH)^2(2+2\epsilon_H+3\delta)$. The expression of $aH\simeq(1+\epsilon_H)/(-\tau)$ can be found in $\frac{d}{dt}(\frac{1}{aH})=-(1-\epsilon_H)$. Therefore, we get the final expression for $\frac{z_S''}{z_S}$: $$\label{zS''}
\frac{z_S''}{z_S}\simeq\frac{1}{\tau^2}(\nu_S^2-\frac{1}{4}),$$ where $\nu_S:=\frac{3}{2}+2\epsilon_H+\delta$. $z_S$ also can be expressed with $\tau$ from $\frac{z_S'}{z_S}=aH(1+\delta+\epsilon_H)\simeq\frac{1}{-\tau}(\nu_S-1/2)$: $$\label{zS}
z_S=\tilde z_S\left(\frac{-\tau}{-\tilde\tau}\right)^{-\nu_S+1/2},$$ where $\tilde\tau$ is an arbitrary time which will be fixed later.
The calculations of $z_T$ are almost the same and the results are $$\frac{z_T''}{z_T}=\frac{1}{\tau^2}(\nu_T^2-\frac{1}{4}),~~
z_T=\tilde z_T\left(\frac{-\tau}{-\tilde\tau}\right)^{-\nu_T+1/2},$$ where $\nu_T:=\frac{3}{2}+\frac{1-6\delta_H+6\delta_H^2}{\Omega^2}\epsilon_H$ and the extra requirement that $\frac{1-\Omega}{\Omega}\epsilon$ evolves slowly enough compared to $a H$ was followed.
\[sec:level3\] Scalar perturbations
===================================
The anomaly-free scalar perturbations of cosmology with holonomy corrections in LQC were derived in [@Cailleteau2012], and we will use their results directly. When calculating the power spectra of perturbations in inflation, one requires the action of gauge invariant perturbations of fields which, for scalar perturbations, can be derived by the method used in [@Maldacena]. There are five gauge variant variables $(\psi,\phi,B,E,\delta\varphi)$ in the case of the scalar perturbations. The idea is that, by choosing a special gauge $\delta\varphi=0=E$ and using the density of momentum and Hamiltonian constraints at first order, one can express all of the other perturbation fields, i.e. $\phi$ and $B$, in one perturbation field, $\psi$ which, in this gauge is just the gauge invariant quantity $\mathcal {R}$. Thus, the original action to second order of all gauge dependent perturbation fields becomes the action of $\mathcal {R}$. In LQC, one also can use this method to obtain the action, which is found to be $$\begin{aligned}
\label{action of scalar perturb}
%\begin{split}
S^{(2)}_S&=& \int d\tau \int d^3x \left(\frac{1}{2}z_S^2\mathcal{R}'^2-\frac{\Omega}{2}z_S^2(\partial\mathcal{R})^2\right) \nonumber \\
&=&\int d\tau \int d^3x\left(\frac{1}{2}\upsilon_S'^2-\frac{\Omega}{2}(\partial \upsilon_S)^2+\frac{1}{2}\frac{z_S''}{z_S}\upsilon_S^2\right),
%\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $\upsilon_S:=z_S\mathcal{R}$. One can check to see that, by this action, the equation of motion of $\upsilon_S$ obtained from the action principle is the same as [@Cailleteau2012]: $$\label{eqn of vS}
\upsilon_S''-\Omega\Delta \upsilon_S-\frac{z_S''}{z_S}\upsilon_S=0.$$
To quantize the fields $\mathcal{R}$ or $\upsilon_S$, define the momentum field $\pi_S:=\frac{\delta L}{\delta \upsilon_S'}=\upsilon_S'$. Then, from the commutating relation of $\hat\upsilon_S$ and $\hat\pi_S$, one can get $$\label{brackt of vS}
[\hat \upsilon_S(\vec x,\tau),\hat \upsilon_S'(\vec y,\tau)]=i\delta^{(3)}(\vec x,\vec y),$$ where we have chosen $\hbar=1$. Expand $\hat\upsilon_S$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\hat \upsilon_S(\vec x,\tau)&=& \int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^{3/2}}\hat \upsilon_{S\vec k}(\tau)e^{i\vec k \cdot \vec x} \nonumber \\
&=&\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^{3/2}} [\hat a_S({\vec k})\upsilon_{Sk}(\tau)e^{i\vec k \cdot \vec x}+\hat a^\dag_S(\vec k)\upsilon^*_{Sk}(\tau)e^{-i\vec k \cdot \vec x}] ,
\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ where, in the second equality, we have made $\upsilon_{S\vec k}=\upsilon_{Sk}$ as in the quantum field theory in Minkowski spacetime, and the self-adjointness of $\hat \upsilon_S$. Note that $\hat \upsilon_{S\vec k}(\tau)=\hat a_S(\vec k)\upsilon_{Sk}(\tau)+\hat a^\dag_S(-\vec k)\upsilon^*_{Sk}(\tau)$. If we require that $\hat a_S$ and $\hat a^\dag_S$ are the annihilation and creation operators satisfying $[\hat a_S(\vec k), \hat a^\dag_S(\vec k')]=\delta^{(3)}(\vec k, \vec k')$, the commutating relation in Eq.(\[brackt of vS\]) would give the same Wronskian condition used in classical theory: $$\label{Wronskian condition}
\upsilon_{Sk}\upsilon'^*_{Sk}-\upsilon^*_{Sk}\upsilon'_{Sk}=i.$$ The equation of $\upsilon_{Sk}(\tau)$ can be derived from the Eq.(\[eqn of vS\]) of $\hat \upsilon_S(\vec x,\tau)$ ( by acting on the vacuum state $|0\rangle$ ): $$\label{eqn of vk}
\upsilon_{Sk}''+\omega_{Sk}^2(\tau)\upsilon_{Sk}=0,$$ where $\omega_{Sk}^2:=\Omega k^2-\frac{z_S''}{z_S}$.
To define the initial state, which is chosen to be the Minkowski vacuum as in the literature, one needs to give an initial value to the above equation. We said in the Introduction that the given initial value at the transition point, $\Omega=0$, is a good choice, but we also said we cannot do this. The reason for this is that, near $\Omega=0$, the quantity $\frac{z_S''}{z_S}$ is found to be positive, which makes $\omega_{Sk}^2\simeq-\frac{z_S''}{z_S}$ negative for all $k$ modes and any value of $\varphi$ shown below. From Eqs.(\[FriedmannEqns1\]-\[FriedmannEqns3\]), one can find, near $\Omega=0$, $$\frac{z_S''}{z_S}\simeq \kappa a^2\rho_c\left[\frac{1}{6}+12\left(\delta_H-\frac{1}{2}\right)^2-\frac{V_{\varphi\varphi}}{\kappa \rho_c}\right].$$ Generally, the term $V_{\varphi\varphi}/\kappa \rho_c$ on the right hand side in the above equation are quite small – e.g., the model with potential $V=\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi^2$, where $m\sim10^{-6}m_P$ gives $V_{\varphi\varphi}/\kappa \rho_c\sim 10^{-12}$ – so the other two terms always make $z_S''/z_S$ positive. This would be a bad result, and whether there exists some approach for addressing this problem should be analyzed in future work. In this paper, we instead consider a loose version of the problem: the initial value given is near after the transition point. Fortunately, in the region of low values of $\Omega$, $\omega_{Sk}^2$ can be positive for large $k$ modes. Furthermore, we know from Sec.II that, if we take $\Omega\sim0.2$, slow roll approximations also are valid, thus the general approach of calculating power spectra can be used in LQC. For these reasons, we will take our initial values at the point $\Omega=0.2$.
As in classical theory, we consider those modes where, initially $\sqrt{\Omega}k\gg aH$. Since $\sqrt{\Omega}=\sqrt{1-2V/\rho_c}$ varies slowly in the epoch of inflation, $\omega_{Sk}\simeq\sqrt\Omega k$ also varies slowly and the solution would be $\upsilon_{Sk}\sim c_1e^{-i\omega_{Sk}(\tau-\tau_*)}+c_2e^{i\omega_{Sk}(\tau-\tau_*)}$, where $\tau_*$ is the initial time with $\Omega=0.2$. The positive frequency solution is used to define the Minkowski vacuum, where the coefficient $c_1$ can be fixed by the Wronskian condition (\[Wronskian condition\]): $$\label{initial value of vk}
\upsilon_{Sk}\sim\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\sqrt\Omega k}}e^{-i\sqrt\Omega k(\tau-\tau_*)}.$$
On the other hand, from the expression in Eq.(\[zS”\]), the dynamical equation of $\upsilon_{Sk}$ in Eq.(\[eqn of vk\]) becomes $$\label{eqn of vk2}
\upsilon_{Sk}''+\left[\Omega {k}^2-\frac{1}{\tau^2}\left(\nu_S^2-\frac{1}{4}\right)\right]\upsilon_{Sk}=0,$$ whose general approximated solution (this approximation is appropriate since $\Omega$ varies slowly) is $$\label{general solution of vk}
\upsilon_{Sk}(\tau)=\sqrt{-\tau}\left[d_1(k)H^{(1)}_{\nu_S}\left(-\sqrt\Omega k\tau\right)
+d_2(k)H^{(2)}_{\nu_S}\left(-\sqrt\Omega k\tau\right)\right],$$ where $H^{(1)}_\nu$ and $H^{(2)}_\nu$ are the Hankel’s functions of first and second class, respectively. To fix the coefficients $d_1$ and $d_2$, one needs to use the initial state in Eq.(\[initial value of vk\]), where $\sqrt\Omega k(-\tau)\simeq\frac{\sqrt\Omega k}{aH}\gg1$. From the asymptotic properties of $H^{(1)}_\nu$ and $H^{(2)}_\nu$, $$H^{(1)}(x\gg1)\simeq\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi x}}e^{i(x-\frac{\pi}{2}\nu-\frac{\pi}{4})},$$ $$H^{(2)}(x\gg1)\simeq\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi x}}e^{-i(x-\frac{\pi}{2}\nu-\frac{\pi}{4})},$$ and by comparing them to the initial value, one can get $$\begin{aligned}
d_1=\frac{\sqrt\pi}{2}e^{i\frac{\pi}{2}\left(\nu_S+\frac{1}{2}\right)+i\sqrt\Omega k\tau_*},~~
d_2=0.\end{aligned}$$ Thus we get the solution for $\upsilon_{Sk}(\tau)$ with the initial value (\[initial value of vk\]) and obtain the solution for $\mathcal{R}_k$: $$\label{solution of Rk}
\mathcal{R}_k(\tau)=\frac{\sqrt\pi}{2}e^{i\frac{\pi}{2}\left(\nu_S+\frac{1}{2}\right)+i\sqrt\Omega k\tau_*}
\frac{\sqrt{-\tau}}{z_S}H^{(1)}_{\nu_S}\left(-\sqrt\Omega k\tau\right).$$
To compare this with observations, we want to know, when $\sqrt \Omega k\ll aH\simeq\frac{1}{-\tau}$, i.e. $x\ll 1$, how $\mathcal{R}_k(\tau)$ will behave. From the asymptotic property $H^{(1)}_\nu(x\ll 1)\simeq \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}e^{-i\pi/2}2^{\nu-3/2}\frac{\Gamma(\nu)}{\Gamma(3/2)}x^{-\nu}$, one can get when $\sqrt\Omega k\ll aH$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{R}_k&=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\sqrt\Omega k}}\frac{ie^{i\sqrt\Omega k\tau_*}}{z_S}(-\sqrt\Omega k\tau)^{\frac{1}{2}-\nu_S} \nonumber \\
&=&\frac{ie^{i\sqrt\Omega k\tau_*}}{\sqrt2\tilde z_S (\tilde a\tilde H)^{-\nu_S+1/2}}(\sqrt{\Omega(\tau)}k)^{-\nu_S},\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the expression for $z_S$ in Eq.(\[zS\]). Note that because $\Omega$ depends slightly on time at the high energy density stage, the expression of $\mathcal {R}_k$ is not independent of time. However, when the Universe evolves into the low density region -for example, when inflation ends, we have $\Omega\simeq 1$ and the value of $\mathcal{R}_k$ becomes time independent: $\mathcal{R}_k=\frac{ie^{i k\tau_*}}{\sqrt2\tilde z_S (\tilde a\tilde H)^{-\nu_S+1/2}}k^{-\nu_S}$. Before fixing the time $\tilde \tau$, we note that $|\mathcal{R}_k|\propto k^{-\nu_S}$ which will be useful for giving the spectral index when calculating the power spectrum of scalar perturbations later.
At last, we fix the time $\tilde \tau$, as in the literature, at $\tau_k$ when the $k$ mode crosses the Hubble horizon: $\sqrt{\Omega_k}k=a_kH_k$, from which one can get $\tilde z_S=\frac{\tilde a \dot{\tilde \varphi}}{\tilde H}
=\pm a_k\sqrt{\frac{2\epsilon_{Hk}}{\kappa \Omega_k}}
=\pm\frac{k}{H_k}\sqrt{\frac{2\epsilon_{Hk}}{\kappa}}$. Thus the final expression of $\mathcal {R}_k$ is $$\mathcal{R}_k=\pm\frac{i\sqrt\kappa e^{i k\tau_*}}{2}\frac{H_k}{\sqrt{\epsilon_{Hk}}}\Omega_k^{\frac{\nu_S-1/2}{2}}k^{-3/2}.$$ It may be noted that the information on choosing the initial condition $\Omega_*=0.2$ only enters into the exponent term $e^{ik\tau_*}$; thus, when considering the power spectrum of scalar perturbations where we only need the absolute value of $\mathcal{R}_k$, the true value of $\Omega_*$ would not be relevant. We will use this expression to define the power spectrum of the perturbations which will be shown in Sec. V.
\[sec:level4\] Tensor perturbations
===================================
In this section, we consider tensor perturbations in loop quantum cosmology. The tensor perturbations or gravitons $h^a_i$ [@Bojowald2008c] with the traceless and transverse conditions $h^i_i=0=\partial_ah^a_i$ are already gauge invariant. The theory of tensor perturbations in LQC was derived in [@Cailleteau2012b]. The approach for getting the quantum corrected Hamiltonian constraints is to make a consistent framework in all types of perturbations; that is to say, we should make different types of perturbations share the same coefficients with the counterterms in the expansion of Hamiltonian constraints. Since the scalar perturbations almost determine the coefficients and the counterterms, we get the desired results for the tensor perturbations. The action can also be obtained in this framework: $$\label{action of tensor perturb}
S^{(2)}_T=\frac{1}{8\kappa}\int d\tau \int d^3xz^2_T\left[{h^i_a}'{h^a_i}'-\Omega(\partial_dh^i_a)(\partial_dh^a_i)\right].$$ From this action, one can get the dynamics of $h^a_i$: $$\label{eqn of h}
{h^a_i}''+\left(2\mathcal{H}-\frac{\Omega'}{\Omega}\right){h^a_i}'-\Omega\Delta h^a_i=0.$$
The traceless and transverse conditions make $h^a_i$ only have 2 independent degrees of freedom (see [@Weinberg]), and one can expand the tensor perturbations as (see also [@Riotto]) $$\begin{aligned}
\hat h_{ij}(\vec x,\tau)
&=&\sum _{\sigma=\pm2}\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^{3/2}}e^\sigma_{ij}(\hat k)\hat h^\sigma_{\vec k}(\tau)e^{i\vec k\cdot \vec x} \nonumber \\
&=&\sum _{\sigma=\pm2}\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^{3/2}}
\left[h^\sigma_k(\tau)e^\sigma_{ij}(\hat k)\hat a^\sigma_T(\vec k)e^{i\vec k \cdot \vec x}\right. \nonumber \\
&&\left.+ h^{\sigma*}_k(\tau)e^{\sigma*}_{ij}(\hat k)\hat a^{\sigma\dag}_T(\vec k)e^{-i\vec k \cdot \vec x}\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat h^\sigma_{\vec k}(\tau)=h^\sigma_k(\tau)e^\sigma_{ij}(\hat k)\hat a^\sigma_T(\vec k)
+ h^{\sigma*}_k(\tau)e^{\sigma*}_{ij}(\hat k)\hat a^{\sigma\dag}_T(-\vec k)$, $\hat k=\vec k/|\vec k|$. The parameter $\sigma=\pm2$ is called the helicity of gravitons, and $e^\sigma_{ij}$ satisfies $$\label{relation of eij}
\begin{array}{c}
e^\sigma_{ij}=e^\sigma_{ji},\;~~e^\sigma_{ii}=0=k^ie^\sigma_{ij},\\
e^\sigma_{ij}(-\hat k)=e^{\sigma*}_{ij}(\hat k),\;~~e^{\sigma*}_{ij}(\hat k)e^{\tilde{\sigma}}_{ij}(\hat k)=2\delta_{\sigma,\tilde\sigma}.
\end{array}$$ To get the Wronskian condition of $h^\sigma_k$, one can rewrite $\hat h^\sigma_{\vec k}$ into two self-adjoint operators, $\hat{\mathcal{U}}^\sigma_{\vec k}$ and $\hat{\mathcal{V}}_{\vec k}$ (which are real quantities in classical theory): $\hat h^\sigma_{\vec k}=\hat{\mathcal{U}}^\sigma_{\vec k}+i\hat{\mathcal{V}}_{\vec k}$. By using the relations of Eq.(\[relation of eij\]), one can get the action of $\mathcal{U}_{\vec k}$ and $\mathcal{V}_{\vec k}$ from the original action in Eq.(\[action of tensor perturb\]). Then their commuting relations, together with $[\hat a^\sigma_T(\vec k), \hat a^{\sigma'\dag}_T(\vec k')]
=\delta_{\sigma,\sigma '}\delta^{(3)}(\vec k, \vec k')$, will give the Wronskian condition of $h^\sigma_k$: $h^\sigma_k{h^{\sigma*}_k}'-h^{\sigma*}_k{h^\sigma_k}'=\frac{2i\kappa\Omega}{a^2},\sigma=\pm2.$ Defining $\upsilon_{Tk}:=\frac{z_T}{\sqrt{2\kappa}}h^\sigma_k$, $\forall \sigma$, the above relation then becomes $$\label{Wronskian condition2}
\upsilon_{Tk}\upsilon'^*_{Tk}-\upsilon^*_{Tk}\upsilon'_{Tk}=i.$$ It is interesting to note that there exists another method for getting this relation showed in [@Mielczarek2014b], where the author used an effective 4-metric. The equation of $\upsilon_{Tk}$ also can be derived from the equation of $h^a_i$ in Eq.(\[eqn of h\]): $$\label{eqn of vTk}
\upsilon_{Tk}''+\omega^2_{Tk}\upsilon_{Tk}=0,$$ where $\omega^2_{Tk}=\Omega k^2-\frac{z_T''}{z_T}$. As in the case of the scalar perturbations, we also find that $\frac{z_T''}{z_T}$ is positive near $\Omega\sim0^+$: $$\frac{z_T''}{z_T}\simeq \frac{9}{4}\kappa\rho_ca^2\left(\frac{1-\frac{2V}{\rho_c}}{1-\frac{2\rho}{\rho_c}}\right)^2.$$ Worse than the case of scalar perturbations, this quantity would be infinite except when $\dot\varphi=0$. Thus, we cannot define a Minkowski vacuum at $\Omega=0$-but define it after that time.
Since the calculations below are similar to Sec.III, we only give the main results. The solution of $h^\sigma_k=\sqrt{2\kappa}\frac{v_{Tk}}{z_T}$ is $$\label{solution of hk}
h^\sigma_k(\tau)=\sqrt{\frac{\pi\kappa}{2}}e^{i\frac{\pi}{2}\left(\nu_T+\frac{1}{2}\right)+i\sqrt\Omega k\tau_*}
\frac{\sqrt{-\tau}}{z_T}H^{(1)}_{\nu_T}\left(-\sqrt\Omega k\tau\right), \forall \sigma.$$ When $\sqrt\Omega k\ll aH$, it can be approximated as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{solution of hk2}
h^\sigma_k(\tau)&=& \frac{i\sqrt\kappa e^{ik\tau_*}}{\tilde z_T (\tilde a\tilde H)^{-\nu_T+1/2}}k^{-\nu_T} \nonumber \\
&=&i\sqrt\kappa e^{ik\tau_*}\frac{H_k\Omega_k^{\frac{\nu_T-1/2}{2}}}{k^{3/2}},\end{aligned}$$ where, in the first equality, the time $\tau$ is taken at the low energy density region where $\Omega\simeq1$, and, in the second equality, we choose $\tilde\tau=\tau_k$, such that $\sqrt\Omega_k k=a_kH_k$, which gives $\tilde z_T=\frac{\tilde a}{\sqrt{\tilde\Omega}}=\frac{k}{H_k}$. Note that, from the first equality, one can find that $|h^\sigma_k|\propto k^{-\nu_T}$, which will be used to determine the spectral index of the tensor perturbations.
\[sec:level5\]Power spectra of inflations
=========================================
With the solutions for the scalar and tensor perturbations obtained in Secs.III and IV, we can now get the power spectra of these modes.
First, we consider the scalar perturbations. The power spectrum of $\mathcal{R}$ is defined as $P_{\mathcal{R}}:=\frac{k^3}{2\pi^2}|\mathcal{R}_k(\tau)|^2$ from the two point correlation function: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle 0|\hat{\mathcal{R}}(\vec x,\tau)\hat{\mathcal{R}}(\vec y,\tau)|0\rangle
&=&\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}|\mathcal{R}_k(\tau)|^2e^{i\vec k \cdot (\vec x-\vec y)} \nonumber \\
&=&\int\frac{k^2\sin\theta dkd\theta d\varphi}{(2\pi)^3}|\mathcal{R}_k(\tau)|^2e^{ikr\cos\theta} \nonumber \\
&=&\int\frac{dk}{k}\frac{\sin(kr)}{kr}\frac{k^3}{2\pi^2}|\mathcal{R}_k(\tau)|^2 \nonumber \\
&=&:\int\frac{dk}{k}\frac{\sin(kr)}{kr}P_{\mathcal{R}}(k,\tau).\end{aligned}$$ From the result of Sec. III, we have arrived at the expression for $\mathcal{R}_k(\tau)$ when $\sqrt\Omega k\ll aH$ and $\Omega\simeq1$, so the power spectrum is found to be $$P_{\mathcal{R}}(k)=\frac{\kappa}{8\pi^2}\frac{H_k^2}{\epsilon_{Hk}}\Omega_k^{\nu_S-\frac{1}{2}}\propto k^{3-2\nu_S},$$ which is time independent and almost scale invariant. Thus, we get the power spectrum $$\begin{aligned}
\label{spectrum of scalar perturb}
A_S&=& \frac{\kappa}{8\pi^2}\frac{H^2}{\epsilon_H}\Omega^{\nu_S-\frac{1}{2}} \nonumber \\
&=&\frac{\kappa}{8\pi^2}\frac{H_\mathfrak{c}^2}{\epsilon_\mathfrak{c}}(1-\delta_H)^3(1-2\delta_H)^{3\epsilon_H-\eta} \nonumber \\
&\simeq&\frac{\kappa}{8\pi^2}\frac{H_\mathfrak{c}^2}{\epsilon_\mathfrak{c}}(1-\delta_H)^3,\end{aligned}$$ where, in the last equality, $(1-2\delta_H)^{3\epsilon_H-\eta}\simeq1$ was used for the smallness of $\epsilon_H,\eta$, and we have defined the classical expressions denoted with subscript $\mathfrak{c}$ as $$\label{classical expr}
\epsilon_\mathfrak{c}:=\frac{1}{2\kappa}\left(\frac{V'}{V}\right)^2,~~
\eta_\mathfrak{c}:=\frac{1}{\kappa}\frac{V''}{V},~~
H^2_\mathfrak{c}:=\frac{\kappa}{3}V.$$ The spectral index $n_S$ is found to be $$\begin{aligned}
\label{index of scalar perturb}
n_S-1&=& 3-2\nu_S \nonumber \\
&=&-6\epsilon_\mathfrak{c}\frac{1-2\delta_H}{(1-\delta_H)^2}+2\eta_\mathfrak{c}\frac{1}{1-\delta_H}.\end{aligned}$$
The calculations of the tensor perturbations are similar to the scalar case. First the power spectrum $P_T:=\frac{2k^3}{\pi^2}|h^\sigma_k|^2$ is defined from the correlation functions $$\begin{aligned}
\langle 0|\hat h_{ij}(\vec x,\tau)\hat h_{ij}(\vec y,\tau)|0\rangle
&=& \underset{\sigma}\sum \int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}|h^\sigma_k|^2e^\sigma_{ij}(\hat k)e^{\sigma*}_{ij}(\hat k)e^{i\vec k \cdot (\vec x-\vec y)}\nonumber \\
&=&4\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}|h^\sigma_k(\tau)|^2e^{i\vec k \cdot (\vec x-\vec y)}\nonumber \\
&=&\int\frac{dk}{k}\frac{\sin(kr)}{kr}\frac{2k^3}{\pi^2}|h^\sigma_k(\tau)|^2 \nonumber \\
&=&:\int\frac{dk}{k}\frac{\sin(kr)}{kr}P_T(k,\tau),\end{aligned}$$ where the property of $e^\sigma_{ij}$ in Eq.(\[relation of eij\]) was used to get the second equality. By using the solution Eq.(\[solution of hk2\]), one can find when $k\ll aH$, $$P_T(k)=\frac{2\kappa}{\pi^2}H_k^2\Omega_k^{\nu_T-\frac{1}{2}}\propto k^{3-2\nu_T}.$$ Then we get the power spectrum of the tensor, $$\label{spectrum of tensor pertub}
A_T=\frac{2\kappa}{\pi^2}H^2\Omega^{\nu_T-\frac{1}{2}}
=\frac{2\kappa}{\pi^2}H_{\mathfrak{c}}^2(1-\delta_H)(1-2\delta_H)^{\nu_T-\frac{1}{2}},$$ and its spectral index, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{index of tensor pertub}
n_T=3-2\nu_T=-2\epsilon_{\mathfrak{c}}\frac{1-6\delta_H+6\delta^2_H}{(1-2\delta_H)(1-\delta_H)^2}.\end{aligned}$$ The tensor-scalar ratio of power spectra is $$\label{ratio of t-s}
r:=\frac{A_T}{A_S}=16\epsilon_H=16\epsilon_{\mathfrak{c}}\frac{1-2\delta_H}{(1-\delta_H)^2}.$$
\[sec:level6\]Comparison with classical theory and observations
===============================================================
In this section, we first compare the results given in the previous section with the predictions of classical theory, then compare them with observations.
Classical theory predicts the power spectra of perturbations and their spectral indexes as follows [@Weinberg; @Riotto] $$\label{}
A^\mathfrak{c}_S =\frac{\kappa}{8\pi^2}\frac{H_\mathfrak{c}^2}{\epsilon_\mathfrak{c}},~~r^\mathfrak{c}=16\epsilon_{\mathfrak{c}},$$ and $$\label{}
n^\mathfrak{c}_S-1=-6\epsilon_\mathfrak{c}+2\eta_\mathfrak{c},~~n^\mathfrak{c}_T=-2\epsilon_{\mathfrak{c}}.$$ When making a comparison with classical theory, for explicitness, we suppose that the values of the inflation field when crossing the Hubble horizon are the same for quantum and classical theory. Then,
1. The power spectrum $A_S$ of scalar perturbations in LQC in Eq.(\[spectrum of scalar perturb\]) is smaller than in classical theory for the quantum correction term $(1-\delta_H)^3<1$, where $\delta_H\in(0,0.4)$. If $\frac{V_{exit}}{\rho_c}\simeq0.4$, the correction of LQC could be large: $A_S\simeq0.2A^{\mathfrak{c}}_S$.
2. The spectral index $n_S$ of scalar perturbations of LQC is larger than in classical theory, which means LQC gives a flater spectrum of scalar perturbations. Since the quantum corrections in Eq.(\[index of scalar perturb\]) are $\frac{5}{9}<\frac{1-2\delta_H}{(1-\delta_H)^2}<1$ and $\frac{5}{3}>\frac{1}{1-\delta_H}>1$, we have $1-n_S\in\left(\frac{10}{3}(\epsilon_\mathfrak{c}-\eta_\mathfrak{c}),6\epsilon_\mathfrak{c}-2\eta_\mathfrak{c}\right)$.
3. An interesting thing is that the spectrum of tensor perturbation could be either blueshifted if the $k$ mode crosses the horizon at high energy density or redshifted if it crosses the horizon at low energy density which can be seen from the term in $n_T$ Eq.(\[index of tensor pertub\]): $1-6\delta_H+6\delta^2_H\in(-0.44,1)$.
4. The tensor-scalar ratio of spectra $r$ is generally smaller than classical theory since the correction term in Eq.(\[ratio of t-s\]) $\frac{5}{9}<\frac{1-2\delta_H}{(1-\delta_H)^2}<1$.
We have found that, as in classical theory, the power spectra only depends on the values of the quantities when the modes cross the Hubble horizon, and the information of the initial state is not directly relevant. Thus, if the quantum corrections of LQC when the $k$ mode crossing the Hubble horizon is small, the quantum correction to power spectra would be small. We find that the modes connected with observations [@Planck] are in a region with low energy density, so holonomy corrections to power spectra are quite small, and the results are the same with the results obtained by Mielczarek [@Mielczarek2014b] and in classical theory. This can be seen as below. From the observation of the power spectrum of scalar perturbations $A_S\sim10^{-9}$, and in comparison to Eq.(\[spectrum of scalar perturb\]), one can find that $\frac{V}{\rho_P}=\frac{3\epsilon_\mathfrak{c}}{8(1-\delta_H)^3}A_S<2\times10^{-10}$, where we have used the largest possible value of slow roll parameter $\epsilon_\mathfrak{c}=0.1$ and take $\delta_H=0.4$. If $\rho_c$ is of the same order of $\rho_P$, which is often assumed in the literature, then we know the energy density is quite low compared to $\rho_c$.
\[sec:level7\] conclusions
==========================
In this paper, we considered the power spectra of scalar perturbations and tensor perturbations in the framework of loop quantum cosmology with holonomy corrections.
Since the dynamical equations of both types of perturbations turn elliptic in the region $\rho>\rho_c/2$, given that the initial values at those regions would present the problem of instability. We tried to consider the initial value problem at $\Omega=0$ in the expanding phase, but found that one cannot define the Minkowski vacuum as in classical theory. Thus, we instead considered a loose version of this problem, the problem with the initial value slightly after the transition point. The vacuum state can be well defined for large $k$ modes and the slow roll approximations also can be used which enable us to solve these problems analytically. Actions of perturbations were obtained which give Wronskian conditions for defining the quantum theory of perturbations. We found that holonomy corrections can modify the power spectra of the perturbations and their indexes largely when the density is of the order of $\rho_c$. For example, the power spectrum of scalar perturbations in loop quantum cosmology can be smaller than classical theory in one order, and the spectrum of tensor perturbations even could blueshift. When making a connection with observations, however, it was found that the modes we observed are quite low compared to $\rho_c$, which means that quantum corrections from loop quantum cosmology are small. The results obtained in this paper thus would be the same as the calculations in [@Mielczarek2014b] and the results of classical theory.
In this paper, we found that one cannot define the vacuum state at $\Omega=0$ in the framework of holonomy corrections since $\frac{z''}{z}$’s are always positive at that point. Whether things could change if we consider holonomy corrections together with inverse volume corrections is an interesting question. This perturbation theory of considering these two corrections was derived in [@Cailleteau2014], so the calculations may be possible and deserve to research.
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grants No. 11175019, No. 11575270, and No. 11235003).
[References]{}
T. Thiemann, [*Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2007).
C. Rovelli, [*Quantum Gravity*]{}, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2004).
A. Ashtekar and J. Lewandowski, Classical Quantum Gravity [**21**]{} R53 (2004), \[arXiv:0110034\].
M. Han, Y. Ma, and W. Huang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D [**16**]{}, 1397 (2007), \[arXiv:0509064\].
M. Bojowald, Loop quantum cosmology, Living Rev. Relativity. [**11**]{}, 4 (2008), \[arXiv:0601085\].
A. Ashtekar and P. Singh, Classical Quantum Gravity [**28**]{} 213001 (2011), \[arXiv:1108.0893\].
A. Ashtekar, T. Pawlowski, and P. Singh, Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{}, 084003 (2006).
K. Vandersloot, Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 023523 (2007).
I. Agullo, A. Ashtekar, and W. Nelson, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, 043507 (2013), \[arXiv:1211.1354\].
M. Bojowald, G. Hossain, M. Kagan, and S. Shankaranarayanan, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 063547 (2008).
T. Cailleteau, J. Mielczarek, A.Barrau and J. Grain, Classical Quantum Gravity [**29**]{} 095010 (2012).
T. Cailleteau, A.Barrau, F. Vidotto, and J. Grain, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 087301 (2012).
A. Barrau, M. Bojowald, G. Calcagni, J. Grain and M. Kagan, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. [**05**]{} (2015) 051, \[arXiv: 1404.1018\].
M. Bojowald and J. Mielczarek, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. [**08**]{} (2015) 052, \[arXiv: 1503.09154v1\].
J. Mielczarek, L. Linsefors and A. Barrau, arXiv: 1411.0272.
X. Yue and J. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, 063518 (2013).
S. Schander, A. Barrau, B. Bolliet, L. Linsefors, J. Mielczarek, and J. Grain, Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, 023531(2016).
M. Bojowald and G. Calcagni, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. [**03**]{} (2011) 032, \[arXiv: 1011.2779\]
J. Mielczarek, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. [**03**]{} (2014) 048, \[arXiv: 1311.1344\]
T. Zhu, A. Wang, G. Cleaver, K. Kirsten, Q. Sheng and Q. Wua, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. [**10**]{} (2015) 052
E. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{} 103508 (2002).
S.Weinberg, [*Cosmology*]{} (Oxford University Press, New York, 2008).
A. Riotto, arXiv: hep-ph/0210162.
J. Maldacena, J. High Energy Phys. [**05**]{} (2003) 013, \[arXiv: 0210603\].
M. Bojowald and G. Hossain, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 023508 (2008).
P. A. R Ade [*et al*]{}. (Planck Collaboration), arXiv:1502.01589 and arXiv:1502.02114.
T. Cailleteau,L. Linsefors and A. Barrau, Classical Quantum Gravity [**31**]{}, 125011 (2014).
[^1]: Corresponding author
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
We describe a subdivision algorithm for isolating the complex roots of a polynomial $F\in\mathbb{C}[x]$. Given an oracle that provides approximations of each of the coefficients of $F$ to any absolute error bound and given an arbitrary square $\mathcal{B}$ in the complex plane containing only simple roots of $F$, our algorithm returns disjoint isolating disks for the roots of $F$ in $\mathcal{B}$.
Our complexity analysis bounds the absolute error to which the coefficients of $F$ have to be provided, the total number of iterations, and the overall bit complexity. It further shows that the complexity of our algorithm is controlled by the geometry of the roots in a near neighborhood of the input square $\mathcal{B}$, namely, the number of roots, their absolute values and pairwise distances. The number of subdivision steps is near-optimal. For the *benchmark problem*, namely, to isolate all the roots of a polynomial of degree $n$ with integer coefficients of bit size less than $\tau$, our algorithm needs $\tilde{O}(n^3+n^2\tau)$ bit operations, which is comparable to the record bound of Pan (2002). It is the first time that such a bound has been achieved using subdivision methods, and independent of divide-and-conquer techniques such as Schönhage’s splitting circle technique.
Our algorithm uses the quadtree construction of Weyl (1924) with two key ingredients: using Pellet’s Theorem (1881) combined with Graeffe iteration, we derive a “soft-test” to count the number of roots in a disk. Using Schröder’s modified Newton operator combined with bisection, in a form inspired by the quadratic interval method from Abbot (2006), we achieve quadratic convergence towards root clusters. Relative to the divide-conquer algorithms, our algorithm is quite simple with the potential of being practical. This paper is self-contained: we provide pseudo-code for all subroutines used by our algorithm.
author:
- 'Ruben Becker [^1] [^2]\'
- 'Michael Sagraloff\'
- 'Vikram Sharma [^3]\'
- 'Chee Yap [^4]\'
bibliography:
- 'bib.bib'
title: ' A Near-Optimal Subdivision Algorithm for Complex Root Isolation based on the Pellet Test and Newton Iteration '
---
Introduction
============
The computation of the roots of a univariate polynomial is one of the best studied problems in the areas of computer algebra and numerical analysis, nevertheless there are still a number of novel algorithms presented each year; see [@McNamee2012239; @McNamee:2002; @McNamee2007; @McNamee-Pan2013; @Pan:history] for an extensive overview. One reason for this development is undoubtedly the great importance of the problem, which results from the fact that solutions for many problems from mathematics, engineering, computer science, or the natural sciences make critical use of univariate root solving. Another reason for the steady research is that, despite the huge existing literature, there is still a large discrepancy between methods that are considered to be efficient in practice and those that achieve good theoretical bounds. For instance, for computing all complex roots of a polynomial, practitioners typically use Aberth’s, Weierstrass-Durand-Kerner’s and QR algorithms. These iterative methods are relatively simple as, in each step, we only need to evaluate the given polynomial (and its derivative) at certain points. They have been integrated in popular packages such as <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MPSolve</span> [@Bini-Fiorentino; @DBLP:journals/jcam/BiniR14] or `eigensolve` [@DBLP:journals/jsc/Fortune02], regardless of the fact that their excellent empirical behavior has not been entirely verified in theory. In contrast, there exist algorithms [@Pan:survey; @MSW-rootfinding2013; @Pan:alg] that achieve near-optimal bounds with respect to asymptotic complexity; however, implementations of these methods do not exist. The main reason for this situation is that these algorithms are quite involved and that they use a series of asymptotically fast subroutines (see [@Pan:alg p. 702]). In most cases, this rules out a self-contained presentation, which makes it difficult to access such methods, not only for practitioners but also for researchers working in the same area. In addition, for an efficient implementation, it would be necessary to incorporate a sophisticated precision management and many implementation tricks. Even then, there might still be a considerable overhead due to the extensive use of asymptotically fast subroutines, which does not show up in the asymptotic complexity bounds but is critical for input sizes that can be handled on modern computers.
In this paper, we aim to resolve the above described discrepancy by presenting a subdivision algorithm for complex root isolation, which we denote by . For our method, we mainly combine simple and well-known techniques such as the classical quad-tree construction by Weyl [@Weyl], Pellet’s Theorem [@rahman2002analytic], Graeffe iteration [@Graeffe49; @householder-graeffe:59], and Schröder’s modified Newton operator [@Schroder1870]. In addition, we derive bounds on its theoretical worst-case complexity matching the best bounds currently known for this problem; see Section \[subsec:main results\] for more details. Hence, we hope that our contribution will finally bring together theory and practice in the area of complex root finding. In this context, it is remarkable that, for the complexity results, we do not require any asymptotically fast subroutines except the classical fast algorithms for polynomial multiplication and Taylor shift computation. Our presentation is self contained and we provide pseudo-code for all subroutines. Compared to existing asymptotically fast algorithms, our method is relatively simple and has the potential of being practical.
In theory, the currently best algorithm for complex root finding goes back to Schönhage’s splitting circle method [@schonhage:fundamental], which has been considerably refined by Pan [@Pan:alg] and others [@Kirrinnis1998378; @Neff199681]. In [@Pan:alg], Pan gives an algorithm for approximate polynomial factorization with near-optimal arithmetic and bit complexity.[^5] From an approximate factorization, one can derive isolating disks for all complex roots. A corresponding algorithm for complex root isolation, which uses Pan’s method as a subroutine, has been presented and analyzed in [@MSW-rootfinding2013]. Its cost can be expressed in terms of (accessible) parameters that directly depend on the input such as the degree of $F$ and the size of its coefficients, but also in terms of (hidden) geometric parameters such as the pairwise distances between the roots. A special case, namely the so-called *(complex) benchmark problem* of isolating all complex roots of a polynomial $F$ with integer coefficients of bit size at most $\tau$, has attracted a lot of interest in the literature. Using Pan’s method [@Pan:survey; @MSW-rootfinding2013], the latter problem can be solved with $\tilde{O}(n^2\tau)$ operations[^6], which constitutes the current record bound for this problem.[^7] So far, there exists no other method for complex root isolation that achieves a comparable bound. For the *real benchmark problem*, that is the isolation of the *real* roots of a polynomial of degree $n$ with integer coefficients of bit size at most $\tau$, recent work [@Sagraloff2015] describes a practical subdivision algorithm based on the Descartes method and Newton Iteration with bit complexity $\tilde{O}(n^3+n^2\tau)$. An implementation of this method [@DBLP:conf/issac/KobelRS16] is competitive with the fastest existing implementations [@rouillier-zimmermann:roots:04] for real root isolation, and it shows superior performance for hard instances, where roots appear in clusters. Our contribution is in the same line with [@Sagraloff2015], that is, both methods combine a subdivision approach, a simple predicate to test for roots, and Newton iteration to speed up convergence. The main difference is that we treat the more general problem of isolating all complex roots, whereas the algorithm from [@Sagraloff2015] can only be used to compute the real roots, due to the use of Descartes’ Rule of Signs to test for roots.
We further remark that, in comparison to global approaches such as <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MPSolve</span> [@Bini-Fiorentino; @DBLP:journals/jcam/BiniR14], which compute all complex roots in parallel, our algorithm can also be used for a local search for only the roots contained in some given square. In this case, the number of iterations as well as the cost of the algorithm adapt to geometric parameters that only depend on the roots located in some neighborhood of the given square.
Overview of the Algorithm and Main Results {#subsec:main results}
------------------------------------------
We consider a polynomial $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def:polyF}
F(x)=\sum_{i=0}^n a_i x^i\in\mathbb{C}[x],\quad\text{with }n\ge 2\text{ and }\frac{1}{4}<|a_n|\le 1.\end{aligned}$$ Notice that, after multiplication with a suitable power of two, we can always ensure that the above requirement on the leading coefficient is fulfilled, without changing the roots of the given polynomial. It is assumed that the coefficients of $F$ are given by means of a coefficient oracle. That is, for an arbitrary $L$, the oracle provides a dyadic approximation $\tilde{a}_i$ of each coefficient $a_i$ that coincides with $a_i$ to $L$ bits after the binary point. We call an approximation $\tilde{F}$ obtained in this way an *(absolute) $L$-bit approximation of $F$* and assume that the cost for asking the oracle for an $L$-bit approximation of $F$ is the cost of reading such an approximation;[^8] see Section \[sec:definitions\] for more details. Let us denote by $z_1$ to $z_n$ the roots of $F$, where each root occurs as often as determined by its multiplicity. Now, given a closed, axis-aligned square $\mathcal{B}$ in the complex plane, our goal is to compute isolating disks for all roots of $F$ contained in $\mathcal{B}$. Since we can only ask for approximations of the coefficients, we need to further require that $\mathcal{B}$ contains only simple roots of $F$ as, otherwise, a multiple root of multiplicity $k$ cannot be distinguished from a cluster of $k$ nearby roots, and thus the problem becomes ill-posed. If the latter requirement is fulfilled, then our algorithm [$\cisolate$]{} computes isolating disks for all roots contained in $\mathcal{B}$.[^9] However, it may also return isolating disks for some of the roots contained in $2\mathcal{B}$, the square centered at $\mathcal{B}$ and of twice the size as $\mathcal{B}$. Our approach is based on Weyl’s quad tree construction, that is, we recursively subdivide $\mathcal{B}$ into smaller sub-squares and discard squares for which we can show that they do not contain a root of $F$. The remaining squares are clustered into maximal connected components, which are tested for being isolating for a single root.
As exclusion and inclusion predicate, we propose a test based on Pellet’s theorem and Graeffe iteration. We briefly outline our approach and refer to Section \[sec:rootcounting\] for more details. Let $\Delta:=\Delta(m,r)\subset\CC$ be the disk centered at $m$ with radius $r$, and define $\lambda\cdot\Delta(m,r):=\Delta(m,\lambda\cdot r)$ for arbitrary $\lambda\in\RR^+$. According to Pellet’s theorem [@rahman2002analytic], the number of roots contained in $\Delta$ equals $k$ if the absolute value of the $k$-th coefficient of $F_{\Delta}(x):=F(m+rx)$ dominates the sum of the absolute values of all other coefficients. For $k=0$ and $k=1$, it has been known [@Yap:2011:SBE:1993886.1993938; @Yakoubsohn2000] that Pellet’s theorem applies if the smaller disk $n^{-e_1}\cdot\Delta$ contains $k$ roots and the larger disk $n^{e_2}\cdot\Delta$ contains no further root, where $e_1$ and $e_2$ are suitable positive constants. In the paper at hand, we derive constants $e_1$ and $e_2$ such that the latter result stays true for all $k$. As a consequence, using only $O(\log\log n)$ Graeffe iteration for iteratively squaring the roots of $F_{\Delta}$, we can replace the factors $n^{e_1}$ and $n^{e_2}$ by the constants $\rho_1:=\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}\approx 0.94$ and $\rho_2:=\frac{4}{3}$. More precisely, we derive a test that allows us to exactly count the number of roots contained in a disk $\Delta$, provided that the disks $\rho_2\cdot \Delta$ and $\rho_1\cdot\Delta$ contain the same number of roots. If the latter requirement is not fulfilled, the test might return the value $-1$, in which case we have no information on the number of roots in $\Delta$. Since, in general, the latter test requires exact arithmetic and since we can only ask for approximations of the coefficients of $F$, there might be cases, where we either cannot decide the outcome of our test or where an unnecessarily high precision is needed. Based on the idea of so-called soft-predicates [@DBLP:conf/cie/YapS013], we formulate a variant of the above test, which we denote by $\mathbf{T_*}$, that uses only approximate arithmetic and runs with a precision demand that is directly related to the maximal absolute value that $F$ takes on the disk $\Delta$.
In the subdivision process, we inscribe each square in a corresponding disk and run the $\mathbf{T_*}$-test on this disk. Squares, for which the test $\mathbf{T_*}$ yields $0$, do not contain a root and can thus be discarded. The remaining squares are clustered into maximal connected components, which we also inscribe in corresponding disks. If the $\mathbf{T_*}$-test yields $1$ for such a disk, we discard the cluster and store the disk as an isolating disk. Otherwise, we keep on subdividing each square into four equally sized sub-squares and proceed. This approach on its own already yields a reasonably efficient algorithm, however, only linear convergence against the roots can be achieved. As a consequence, there might exist long paths in the subdivision tree with no branching (there are at most $n-1$ branching nodes). For instance, when considering the benchmark problem, there exist polynomials (e.g. so called Mignotte polynomials having two roots with a very small distance to each other) for which the length of such a sequence is lower bounded by $\Omega(n\tau)$. We show how to traverse such sequences in a much faster manner, that is reducing their length to $O(\log(n\tau))$ in the worst-case, via a regula falsi method, which combines Newton iteration and square quartering. Our approach is inspired by the so-called quadratic interval refinement (QIR for short) method proposed by Abbott [@abbott-quadratic]. It combines the secant method and interval bisection in order to further refine an interval that is already known to be isolating for a root. In [@Sagraloff:2012:NMD:2442829.2442872; @Sagraloff:2014:NAC:2608628.2608632; @Sagraloff2015], the QIR approach has been considerably refined by replacing the secant method by Newton iteration (i.e. Schröder’s modified Newton operator for multiple roots). Compared to Abbott’s original variant, this yields a method with quadratic convergence against clusters of roots during the isolation process. Our approach is similar to the one from [@Sagraloff2015], however, we use the $\mathbf{T}_*$-test instead of Descartes’ Rule of Signs, which only applies to real intervals. Furthermore, the approach from [@Sagraloff2015] uses fast approximate multipoint evaluation [@Kirrinnis1998378; @DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1304.8069] in order to determine subdivision points whose distance to the roots of $F$ is not too small. This is needed to avoid an unnecessarily large precision when using Descartes’ Rule of Signs. For our algorithm , there is no need for (fast) approximate multipoint evaluation. We now state our first main theoretical result, which shows that our algorithm performs near-optimal with respect to the number of produced squares:
Let $F$ be polynomial as in (\[def:polyF\]) and suppose that $F$ is square-free. For isolating all complex roots of $F$, the algorithm $\mathbb{C}\textsc{Isolate}$ produces a number of squares bounded by $$\tilde{O}\left(n\cdot\log(n)\cdot\log\left(n\cdot\Gamma_F\cdot\LOG(\sigma_F^{-1})\right)\right),$$ where we define $\LOG(x):=\max(1,\log |x|)$ for arbitrary $x\in\CC$, $\Gamma_F:=\LOG(\max_{i=1}^n|z_i|)$ the *logarithmic root bound* and $\sigma_F:=\min_{(i,j):i\neq j}|z_i-z_j|$ the *separation of $F$*.
For the benchmark problem, the above bound simplifies to $O(n\log(n)\log(n\tau))$. When running our algorithm on an arbitrary axis-aligned square $\mathcal{B}$, we obtain refined bounds showing that our algorithm is also adaptive with respect to the number of roots contained in some neighborhood of $\mathcal{B}$ as well as with respect to their geometric location. Namely, suppose that the enlarged square $2\mathcal{B}$ contains only simple roots of $F$, then we may replace $n$, $\Gamma_F$, and $\sigma_F$ in the bound in the above theorem by the number of roots contained in the enlarged square $2\mathcal{B}$, the logarithm of the width of $\mathcal{B}$, and the minimal separation of the roots of $F$ contained in $2\mathcal{B}$, respectively; see also Theorem \[mapping\].
Finally, we give bounds on the the bit complexity of our approach as well as on the precision to which the coefficients of $F$ have to be provided:
Let $F$ be a polynomial as in (\[def:polyF\]) and suppose that $F$ is square-free. For isolating all complex roots of $F$, the algorithm uses a number of bit operations bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
& \tilde{O}\left(\sum\nolimits_{i=1}^n n\cdot(\tau_F+n\cdot \LOG (z_i)+\LOG (\sigma_F(z_i)^{-1})+\LOG (F'(z_i)^{-1}))\right)= \\
& \tilde{O}(n(n^2 + n \LOG(\Mea_F) + \LOG (\Disc_F^{-1}))),\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ where we define $\tau_F:=\lceil\LOG\|F\|_{\infty} \rceil$, $\sigma_F(z_i):=\min_{j\neq i}|z_i-z_j|$ the *separation of $z_i$*, $\Mea_F:=|a_n|\cdot\prod_{i=1}^n\max(1,|z_i|)$ the *Mahler Measure*, and $\Disc_F$ the *discriminant of $F$*. As input, the algorithm requires an $L$-bit approximation of $F$ with $$\begin{aligned}
L & =\tilde{O}\left(\sum\nolimits_{i=1}^n (\tau_F+n\cdot \LOG (z_i)+\LOG (\sigma_F(z_i)^{-1})+\LOG (F'(z_i)^{-1}))\right) \\
& =\tilde{O}(n^2 + n \LOG(\Mea_F) + \LOG (\Disc_F^{-1})).
\end{aligned}$$
Again, we also give refined complexity bounds for the problem of isolating all roots of $F$ contained in some square $\mathcal{B}$, which show that the cost and the precision demand of our algorithm adapt to the hardness of the roots contained in a close neighborhood of the square. For the benchmark problem, the above bound simplifies to $\tilde{O}(n^3+n^2\tau)$. It is interesting that our bounds on the bit complexity for isolating all complex roots as achieved by exactly match the corresponding bounds for the complex root isolation algorithm from [@MSW-rootfinding2013], which uses Pan’s method for approximate polynomial factorization.
Related Work
------------
As already mentioned at the beginning, there exists a huge literature on computing the roots of a univariate polynomial. This makes it simply impossible to give a comprehensive overview without going beyond the scope of a research paper, hence we suggest the interested reader to consult some of the excellent surveys [@McNamee2012239; @McNamee:2002; @McNamee2007; @McNamee-Pan2013; @Pan:history]. Here, we mainly focus on a comparison of our method with other existing subdivision methods for real and complex root finding.
For real root computation, subdivision algorithms have become extremely popular due to their simplicity, ease of implementation, and practical efficiency. They have found their way into the most popular computer algebra systems, where they constitute the default routine for real root computation. Prominent examples of subdivision methods are the Descartes method [@Collins-Akritas; @eigenwillig-phd; @Eigenwillig2005; @rouillier-zimmermann:roots:04; @Sagraloff:2012:NMD:2442829.2442872; @Sagraloff2015; @Sagraloff2014DSC; @Sharma:2015:NOS:2755996.2756656], the Bolzano method[^10] [@Becker12; @DBLP:journals/jsc/BurrK12; @Yap:2011:SBE:1993886.1993938], the Sturm method [@davenport:85; @du-sharma-yap:sturm:07], and the continued fraction method [@akritas-strzebonski:comparison:05; @sharma; @tsigaridas13; @te-cf:08]. From a high-level point of view, all of the above mentioned methods essentially follow the same approach: Starting from a given interval $I_0$, they recursively subdivide $I_0$ to search for the roots contained in $I_0$. Intervals that are shown to contain no root are discarded, and intervals that are shown to be isolating for a simple root are returned. The two main differences between these algorithms are the choice of the exclusion predicate and the way how the intervals are subdivided. For the *real benchmark problem* of isolating all real roots of a polynomial of degree $n$ with integer coefficients of bit size $\tau$ or less, most of the above methods need $\tilde{O}(n\tau)$ subdivision steps and their worst-case bit complexity is bounded by $\tilde{O}(n^4\tau^2)$. The bound on the number of subdivision steps stems from the fact that the product of the separation of all roots is lower bounded by $2^{-\tilde{O}(n\tau)}$ and that only linear convergence to the roots is achieved. By considering special polynomials (e.g., Mignotte polynomials) that have roots with separation $2^{-\Omega(n\tau)}$, one can further show that the bound $\tilde{O}(n\tau)$ is even tight up to logarithmic factors; see [@Collins; @Eigenwillig2005]. When using exact arithmetic, the cost for each subdivision step is bounded by $\tilde{O}(n^3\tau)$ bit operations, which is due to the fact that $n$ arithmetic operations with a precision of $\tilde{O}(n^2\tau)$ are performed. In [@Sagraloff2014DSC; @Sagraloff2015], it has been shown for the Descartes method that it suffices to work with a precision of size $\tilde{O}(n\tau)$ in order to isolate all real roots, a fact that has already been empirically verified in [@rouillier-zimmermann:roots:04]. This yields a worst-case bit complexity bound of size $\tilde{O}(n^3\tau^2)$ for a modified Descartes method, which uses approximate instead of exact arithmetic. For a corresponding modified variant of the Bolzano method [@Becker12], a similar argument yields the same bound. Recent work [@Sagraloff:2012:NMD:2442829.2442872; @Sagraloff2015; @Sharma:2015:NOS:2755996.2756656] combines the Descartes method and Newton iteration, which yields algorithms with quadratic convergence in almost all iterations. They use only $O(n\log(n\tau))$ subdivision steps, which is near optimal. The methods from [@Sagraloff:2012:NMD:2442829.2442872; @Sharma:2015:NOS:2755996.2756656] work for integer polynomials only and each computation is carried out with exact arithmetic. An amortized analysis of their cost yields the bound $\tilde{O}(n^3\tau)$ for the bit complexity. [@Sagraloff2015] introduces an algorithm that improves upon the methods from [@Sagraloff:2012:NMD:2442829.2442872; @Sharma:2015:NOS:2755996.2756656] in two points. First, it can be used to compute the real roots of a polynomial with arbitrary real coefficients. Second, due to the use of approximate arithmetic, its precision demand is considerably smaller. For the real benchmark problem, it achieves the bit complexity bound $\tilde{O}(n^3+n^2\tau)$. More precisely, it needs $\tilde{O}(n\log(n\tau))$ iterations, and, in each iteration, $\tilde{O}(n)$ arithmetic operations are carried out with an average precision of size $\tilde{O}(n+\tau)$. This essentially matches the bounds achieved by our algorithm for complex root isolation. shares common elements with the method from [@Sagraloff2015], however we had to develop novel tools to accommodate the fact that our search area is now the entire complex plane and not the real axis. In particular, we replaced Descartes’ Rule of Signs, which serves as the test for real roots in [@Sagraloff2015], by our novel test $\mathbf{T_*}$ for counting the number of complex roots in a disk.
For computing the complex roots, there also exist a series of subdivision methods (e.g. [@Collins:1992:EAI:143242.143308; @mt-mega-2009; @Mourrain2002612; @Pan2000213; @Pinkert:1976; @DBLP:journals/jc/Renegar87; @Yap:2011:SBE:1993886.1993938; @Wilf:1978; @Yakoubsohn2005652]); however, only a few algorithms have been analyzed in a way that allows a direct comparison with our method. The earliest algorithm most relevant to our work is Weyl’s [@Weyl]. He proposed a subdivision based algorithm for computing a $2^{-b}$-relative approximation to all the roots of a polynomial, which is a slightly different problem then root isolation. The inclusion and exclusion tests are based on estimating the distance to a nearest root from the center of a box, or what are called proximity tests in the literature. The [*arithmetic complexity*]{} of the algorithm is ${O}(n^3b\log n)$, when not using asymptotically fast polynomial arithmetic. The problem with Weyl’s approach, indeed with any approach based on subdivision, is the linear convergence to the roots. The convergence factor was improved by Renegar [@DBLP:journals/jc/Renegar87] and Pan [@Pan2000213] by considering a combination of subdivision with Newton iteration. Renegar [@DBLP:journals/jc/Renegar87] uses the Schur-Cohn algorithm [@henrici1974 Section 6.8] as an exclusion test (rather than the proximity tests of Weyl). In addition, he introduces a subroutine for approximating the winding number of a polynomial around the perimeter of some disk, and thus a method for counting the number of roots of the polynomial in a disk. Once the number $k$ of roots in a disk is known, a fixed number (depending on the degree and the radius of the disk) of Newton steps are applied to the $(k-1)$-th derivative of the polynomial, which guarantees quadratic convergence to a cluster containing $k$ roots. The arithmetic complexity of Renegar’s algorithm for the problem of approximating the roots is $O(n^2 \log b + n^3\log n)$ without using asymptotically fast polynomial arithmetic. The improvement over Weyl’s result is basically due to the quadratic convergence obtained by the use of Newton iteration.
Pan [@Pan2000213] describes another modification of Weyl’s approach that has arithmetic cost $O((n^2\log n) \log (bn))$, which is an improvement over Renegar’s algorithm since the dependence on the degree is a quadratic factor in $n$. The exclusion test is based on a combination of Turan’s proximity test [@turan1984new] and Graeffe iteration. Note that the asymptotic complexity of these tests is $\wt{O}(n)$, whereas a straightforward implementation of the Schur-Cohn test takes $O(n^2)$ arithmetic operations; the difference in the cost of these exclusion tests is the reason behind the the improvement in the complexity estimate of Pan’s algorithm compared to Renegar’s. The algorithm in [@Pan2000213] recursively interchanges Schröder’s iteration (a modification of Newton’s iteration to handle multiple roots) and Weyl’s subdivision process. As in the case of Renegar, the former is needed to approximate a cluster of roots, and if that fails to happen, the subdivision is used to break up the set of roots into smaller subsets, and continue recursively. The transition between the iteration phase and the subdivision process is based on estimating the root radii [@Schoenhage82 Section 14], and is perhaps more adaptive than Renegar’s approach. To estimate the number of roots inside a disk (which is needed to estimate the size of a cluster), Pan uses a combination of the winding number algorithm along with Graeffe iteration to ensure that there are no roots close to the boundary of the disk; as suggested by Pan, one can alternatively use the root radii algorithm without affecting the complexity significantly. The analysis of the algorithm has two steps. First, is to bound the number of boxes computed in the subdivision phase. This is done by considering the connected components of the boxes and bounding the number of boxes in each component in terms of the number of roots inside a slight scaling of the smallest disk containing the component; in our case, the bound on the number of boxes is obtained by mapping the components to appropriate roots (see Theorem \[mapping\]); the resulting bound is comparable in both cases (see ([@Pan2000213 Prop. 8.3] in Pan and Theorem \[thm:treesize\] below). The second step of the analysis shows that for certain well separated clusters Newton iteration gives us quadratic convergence to the cluster [@Pan2000213 Lem. 10.6]; an analogous result is also derived by Renegar [@DBLP:journals/jc/Renegar87 Cor. 4.5], and by us (Lemma \[newtonsucceeds\]). Some of the key differences between the approach in this paper and Pan’s [@Pan2000213] are the following: we use Pellet’s test combined with Graeffe iteration for both the exclusion test and detecting a cluster; we use a modification of the QIR method [@abbott-quadratic] for multiple roots, which is more adaptive in transitioning between the quadratic convergence and subdivision phases. In terms of the results derived, perhaps the most important difference is that we bound the [*bit complexity*]{} of our algorithm. In comparison, neither Renegar nor Pan analyze the precision demand or the Boolean complexity of their algorithms.
Similar to our method, Yakoubsohn [@Yakoubsohn2005652] combines Weyl’s quad tree approach and a test for roots based on Pellet’s theorem. However, since only an exclusion predicate (based on Pellet’s theorem with $k=0$) is considered but no additional test to verify that a region is isolating, his method does not directly compute isolating regions but arbitrary good approximations of the complex roots. In [@Yap:2011:SBE:1993886.1993938], we introduced a variant of Yakoubsohn’s method, denoted by <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ceval</span>, that computes isolating disks for the complex roots of an integer polynomial. There, an additional inclusion test (based on Pellet’s theorem with $k=1$) has been used to show that a disk is isolating for a root. The methods from [@Yap:2011:SBE:1993886.1993938; @Yakoubsohn2005652] only consider square-quartering, and thus nothing better than linear convergence can be achieved. For the benchmark problem, the algorithm from [@Yap:2011:SBE:1993886.1993938] needs $\tilde{O}(n^2\tau)$ subdivision steps and its cost is bounded by $\tilde{O}(n^4\tau^2)$ bit operations. Yakoubsohn further mentions how to improve upon his method by combining the exclusion predicate with Graeffe iterations, which yields an improvement by a factor of size $n$ with respect to the total number of produced squares. In [@Giusti2005], an extension of Pellet’s theorem for analytic functions has been considered and thoroughly analyzed. The authors also derive further criteria to detect clusters of roots of such functions, and to determine their multiplicities and diameters. This allows for the computation of suitable starting points for which Schröder’s modified Newton operator yields quadratic convergence to the cluster. In contrast, we follow the approach of combining Pellet’s theorem and Graeffe iteration to derive a simple test for detecting clusters of roots. However, we do neither compute the diameter of such a cluster nor do we consider any additional computations to check whether quadratic convergence to the cluster can be achieved. Instead, we rely on a trial-error approach that performs Schröder’s modified Newton operator by default and then checks for success. We show that this can be done in a certified manner such that quadratic convergence to clusters is guaranteed for all but only a small number of iterations, where our method falls back to bisection. Our approach works well with polynomials whose coefficients can only be approximated and we derive precise bounds on the precision demand in the worst-case.
In our previous work [@DBLP:conf/cie/YapS013], we provided the first complete algorithm for computing $\epsilon$-clusters of roots of analytic functions. Like the present work, it is a subdivision approach based on the $T_k$-test of Pellet; but unlike this paper, it does not have quadratic convergence nor complexity analysis. In [@DBLP:conf/cie/YapS013], we assumed that an analytic function is given when we also have interval evaluation of its derivatives of any desired order; this natural assumption is clearly satisfied by most common analytic functions. The algorithm from [@DBLP:conf/cie/YapS013] does not compute isolating disks but arbitrary small regions containing clusters of roots, hence being also applicable to functions with multiple roots and for which separation bounds are not known.
Structure of the Paper and Reading Guide
----------------------------------------
In Section \[sec:definitions\], we summarize the most important definitions and notations, which we will use throughout the paper. We suggest the reader to print a copy of this section in order to quickly refer to the definitions. We introduce our novel test $\T$ for counting the roots in a disk in Section \[sec:rootcounting\]. The reader who is willing to skip all details of this section and who wants to proceed directly with the main algorithm should only consider the summary given at the beginning of Section \[sec:rootcounting\], where we give the main properties of the $\T$-test. The algorithm is given in Section \[sec:algorithm\]. Its analysis is split into two parts. In Section \[subsec:treesize\], we derive bounds on the number of iterations needed by our algorithms, whereas, in Section \[subsec:bitcomplexity\], we estimate its bit complexity. Some of the (rather technical) proofs are outsourced to an appendix, and we recommend to skip these proofs in a first reading of the paper. In Section \[sec:conclusion\], we summarize and hint to some future research.
Definitions and a Root Bound {#sec:definitions}
============================
Let $F$ be a polynomial as defined in (\[def:polyF\]) with complex roots $z_1,\ldots,z_n$. We fix the following definitions and denotations:
- As mentioned in the introduction, we assume the existence of an oracle that provides arbitrary good approximations of the coefficients. More precisely, for an arbitrary non-negative integer $L$, we may ask the oracle for dyadic approximations $\tilde{a}_i=\frac{m_i}{2^{L+1}}$ of the coefficients $a_i$ such that $m_i\in\ZZ+i\cdot\ZZ\in\mathbb{C}$ are Gaussian integers and $|a_k-\tilde{a}_k|<2^{-L}$ for all $k=0,\ldots,n$. We also say that $\tilde{a}_k$ approximates $a_k$ to $L$ bits after the binary point, and a corresponding polynomial $\tilde{F}=\tilde{a}_0+\cdots+\tilde{a}_n\cdot x^n$ with coefficients fulfilling the latter properties is called an *(absolute) $L$-bit approximation of $F$*. It is assumed that the cost for asking the oracle for such an approximation is the cost for reading the approximations.
- For any non-negative integer $k$, we denote by $[k]$ the set $\set{1\ldots k}$ of size $k$. For any set $S$ and any non-negative integer $k$, we write $\binom{S}{k}$ for the set of all subsets of $S$ of size $k$.
- $\MAX(x_1,\ldots,x_k):=\max(1,|x_1|,\ldots,|x_k|)$ for arbitrary $x_1,\ldots,x_k\in\mathbb{C}$, $\log \coloneqq \log_2$ the binary logarithm, and $$\LOG(x_1,\ldots,x_k) \coloneqq \lceil \MAX(\log \MAX(x_1,\ldots,x_k)) \rceil.$$ Notice that, if $|z| \le 2$ for some $z\in\mathbb{C}$, then $\LOG(z)$ is $1$. Otherwise, $\LOG(z)$ equals $\log |z|$ rounded up to the next integer.
- $\|F\|_{\infty}=\max\{|a_k|: k=0,\ldots, n\}$ denotes the *infinity-norm of $F$*. We further define $\tau_F:=\LOG (\|F\|_{\infty})$, which bounds the number of bits before the binary point in the binary representation of any coefficient of $F$.
- $\Gamma_F:=\LOG (\max_{i=1}^n |z_i|)$ is defined as the *logarithmic root bound of $F$*.
- $\operatorname{Mea}_F:=|a_n|\cdot\prod_{i=1}^n \MAX(z_i)$ is defined as the *Mahler measure of $F$*.
- $\sigma_F(z_i):=\min_{j\neq i} |z_i-z_j|$ is defined as the *separation of the root $z_i$* and $\sigma_F:=\min_{i=1}^n \sigma_F(z_i)$ as the *separation of $F$*.
- For an arbitrary region $\mathcal{R}\subset\mathbb{C}$ in the complex space, we define $\sigma_{F}(\mathcal{R}):=\min_{i:z_i\in\mathcal{R}}\sigma_F(z_i)$, which we call the *separation of $F$ restricted to $\mathcal{R}$*. We further denote by $\mathcal{Z}(\mathcal{R})$ the set of all roots of $F$ that are contained in $\mathcal{R}$, and by $\Mea_F(\mathcal{R}):=|a_n|\cdot\prod_{z_i\in \mathcal{Z}(\mathcal{R})} \MAX(z_i)$ the *Mahler measure of $F$ restricted to $\mathcal{R}$.*
- We denote the interior of a disk in the complex plane with center $m\in\mathbb{C}$ and radius $r\in\mathbb{R}^+$ by $\Delta=\Delta(m,r)$. For short, we also write $\lambda\cdot\Delta$ to denote the disk $\Delta(m,\lambda\cdot r)$ that is centered at $m$ and scaled by a factor $\lambda\in\mathbb{R}^+$. We further use $F_{\Delta}(x)$ to denote the shifted and scaled polynomial $F(m+r\cdot x)$, that is, $F_{\Delta}(x):=F(m+r\cdot x)$.
- A disk *$\Delta$ is isolating for a root $z_i$* of $F$ if it contains $z_i$ but no other root of $F$. For a set $S$ of roots of $F$ and positive real values $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$ with $\rho_1\le 1\le \rho_2$, we further say that a disk *$\Delta$ is $(\rho_1,\rho_2)$-isolating for $S$* if $\rho_1\cdot\Delta$ contains exactly the roots contained in $S$ and $\rho_2\cdot\Delta\setminus \rho_1\cdot\Delta$ contains no root of $F$.
- Throughout the paper, we only consider squares $$B=\{z=x+i\cdot y\in\mathbb{C}: x\in [x_{\min},x_{\max}]\text{ and } y\in [y_{\min},y_{\max}]\}$$ in the complex space that are *closed, axis-aligned, and of width $w(B)=2^\ell$ for some $\ell\in\mathbb{Z}$* (i.e., $|x_{\max}-x_{\min}|=|y_{\max}-y_{\min}|=2^{\ell}$), hence, for brevity, these properties are not peculiarly mentioned. Similar as for disks, for a $\lambda\in\mathbb{R}^+$, $\lambda\cdot B$ denotes the scaled square of size $\lambda\cdot 2^{\ell}$ centered at $B$.
According to Cauchy’s root bound (e.g. see [@yap-fundamental]), we have $|z_i|\le 1+\max_{i=0}^n \frac{|a_i|}{|a_n|}< 1+4\cdot 2^{\tau_F}$, and thus $\Gamma_F=O(\tau_F)$. In addition, it holds that $$\tau_F\le \LOG (2^n\cdot \Mea_F)\le n(1+\Gamma_F)\le 2n\Gamma_F.$$ Following [@MSW-rootfinding2013 Theorem 1] (or [@Sagraloff2014DSC Section 6.1]), we can compute an integer approximation $\tilde{\Gamma}_{F}\in\mathbb{N}$ of $\Gamma_{F}$ with $\Gamma_{F}+1\le \tilde{\Gamma}_{F}\le\Gamma_{F}+8\log n+1
$ using $\tilde{O}(n^{2}\Gamma_{F})$ many bit operations. For this, the coefficients of $F$ need to be approximated to $\tilde{O}(n\Gamma_F)$ bits after the binary point. From $\tilde{\Gamma}_{F}$, we then immediately derive an integer $\Gamma=2^{\gamma}$, with $\gamma:=\lceil \log \tilde{\Gamma}_{F}\rceil\in\mathbb{N}_{\ge 1}$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def:Gamma}
\Gamma_{F}+1\le \tilde{\Gamma}_{F}\le \Gamma\le 2\cdot\tilde{\Gamma}_{F} \le 2\cdot(\Gamma_{F}+8\log n+1).\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $2^{\Gamma}=2^{O(\Gamma_{F}+\log n)}$ is an upper bound for the modulus of all roots of $F$, and thus once can always restrict the search for roots to the set of all complex numbers of absolute value of at most $2^{\Gamma}$.
Counting Roots in a Disk {#sec:rootcounting}
========================
In this section, we introduce the $\T(\Delta)$-test, which constitute our main ingredient to count the numbers of roots of $F$ in a given disk $\Delta$. Here, we briefly summarize the main properties of the $\T(\Delta)$-test. The reader willing to focus on the algorithmic details of the root isolation algorithm is invited to read the following summary and skip the remainder of this section on a first read.
- For a given polynomial $F$ as in (\[def:polyF\]) and a disk $\Delta$, the $\T(\Delta)$-test always returns an integer $k\in \{-1,0,1,\ldots,n\}$. If $k\ge 0$, then $\Delta$ contains exactly $k$ roots of $F$. If $k=-1$, no further information on the number of roots in $\Delta$ can be derived; see Lemma \[softtest:success2\], part (\[softtest:secondpart\]).
- If $\Delta$ is $(\rho_1,\rho_2)$-isolating for a set of $k$ roots of $F$, where $\rho_1=\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}\approx 0.94$ and $\rho_2=\frac{4}{3}$, then $\T(\Delta)$ returns $k$, see Lemma \[softtest:success2\], part (\[softtest:firstpart\]). In particular, $\T(\Delta)$ returns $0$ if $\frac{4}{3}\cdot\Delta$ contains no root.
- The cost for the $\T(\Delta)$-test is bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
& \tilde{O}(n(\tau_F+n\LOG(m,r)+\LOG(\|F_{\Delta}\|_{\infty}^{-1}))) \\
& \hspace{3cm}=
\tilde{O}(n(\tau_F+n\LOG(m,r)+\LOG((\max_{z\in \Delta}|F(z)|)^{-1})))
\end{aligned}$$ bit operations, and thus directly related to the size of $\Delta$ and the maximum absolute value that $F$ takes on the disk $\Delta$. For this, the test requires an $L$-bit approximation of $F$, with $$\begin{aligned}
L & =\tilde{O}(\tau_F+n\LOG(m,r)+\LOG(\|F_{\Delta}\|_{\infty}^{-1})) \\
& = \tilde{O}(\tau_F+n\LOG(m,r)+\LOG((\max_{z\in \Delta}|F(z)|)^{-1})),
\end{aligned}$$ see Lemma \[allkcost\]. Here, we used that $\max_{z\in\Delta}|F(z)|\le (n+1)\cdot \|F_{\Delta}\|_{\infty}$ as shown in in the proof of Theorem \[graeffe thm\].
Pellet’s Theorem and the Tk-Test {#sec:pellet}
--------------------------------
In what follows, let $k$ be an integer with $0\le k\le n=\deg F$, and let $K\in\RR$ with $K\ge 1$. We consider the following test, which allows us to compute the size of a cluster of roots contained in a disk $\Delta(m,r)$:
*For a polynomial $F\in\CC[x]$, the $T_k$-test on a disk $\Delta:=\Delta(m,r)$ with parameter $K$ holds* if $$\begin{aligned}
T_k(m,r,K,F):\quad
\left| \frac{F^{(k)}(m) r^k }{k!} \right|
>
K\cdot \sum_{i\neq k} \left| \frac{F^{(i)}(m) r^i }{i!} \right| \label{Tktest}
\end{aligned}$$ or, equivalently, if $F^{(k)}(m)\neq 0$ and $$\begin{aligned}
T_k(m,r,K,F):\quad
\sum_{i<k} \left| \frac{F^{(i)}(m) r^{i-k} k!}{F^{(k)}(m) i!} \right|
+
\sum_{i> k} \left| \frac{F^{(i)}(m) r^{i-k} k!}{F^{(k)}(m) i!} \right|
< \frac{1}{K}.\label{Tktest:splitsum}
\end{aligned}$$
Mostly, we will write $T_k(\Delta,K,F)$ for $T_k(m,r,K,F)$, or simply $T_k(\Delta,K)$ if it is clear from the context which polynomial $F$ is considered. Notice that if the $T_k$-test succeeds for some parameter $K=K_0$, then it also succeeds for any $K$ with $K\le K_0$. Clearly, $T_k(m,r,K,F)$ is equivalent to $T_k(0,1,K,F_{\Delta})$, with $F_{\Delta}(x):=F(m+r\cdot x)$.
The following result is a direct consequence of Pellet’s theorem, and, in our algorithm, it will turn out to be crucial in order to compute the size of a cluster of roots of $F$; see [@rahman2002analytic Section 9.2] or [@DBLP:conf/cie/YapS013] for a proof.
\[thm:pellet\] If $T_k(m,r,K,F)$ holds for some $K\in\mathbb{R}$ with $K\ge 1$ and some $k\in\{0,\ldots,n\}$, then $\Delta(m,r)$ contains exactly $k$ roots of $F$ counted with multiplicities.
We derive criteria on the locations of the roots $z_1,\ldots,z_n$ of $F$ under which the $T_k$-test is guaranteed to succeed:
\[tktest thm\] Let $k$ be an integer with $0\le k\le n=\deg(F)$, let $K\in\RR$ with $K\ge 1$, and let $c_1$ and $c_2$ be arbitrary real values fulfilling $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def:constants}
c_2 \cdot n\cdot \ln\left(\frac{1+2K}{2K}\right)\ge c_1 \cdot n\ge \frac{\MAX(k)}{\ln(1+\frac{1}{8K})}.
\end{aligned}$$ For a disk $\Delta=\Delta(m,r)$, suppose that there exists a real $\lambda$ with
$$\lambda\ge\max(4c_2\cdot \MAX(k)\cdot n^3,16K\cdot\MAX(k)^2\cdot n)$$ such that $\Delta$ is $(1,\lambda)$-isolating for the roots $z_1,\ldots, z_k$ of $F$, then $T_k(c_1n\cdot\Delta,K,F)$ holds.
In our algorithm, we will only make use of Corollary \[tktest cor2\], which is actually a consequence of Theorem \[tktest thm\] with the specific values $K:=\frac{3}{2}$, $c_1:=16$, $c_2:=64$, $\lambda=256n^5$, and thus $\frac{\MAX(k)}{\ln(1+\frac{1}{8K})}\approx 12.49\cdot\MAX(k)$ and $\ln\left(\frac{1+2K}{2K}\right)\approx 0.29$.
\[tktest cor2\] Let $\Delta$ be a disk in the complex space that is $(\frac{1}{16n},16n^4)$-isolating for a set of $k$ roots (counted with multiplicity) of $F$. Then, $T_k(\Delta,\frac{3}{2},F)$ holds.
The proof of Theorem \[tktest thm\] is given in the appendix. In the proof, we separately bound the two sums in . We also derive a bound on the minimal distance between a root of the $k$-th derivative $F^{(k)}$ of $F$ and a cluster of $k$ roots of $F$. Pawlowski [@pawlowski1999] provides a similar but more general bound, which implies a bound on the first sum in . However, compared to [@pawlowski1999], our proof is significantly shorter and uses only simple arguments, hence we decided to integrate it in the appendix of this paper for the sake of a self-contained presentation.
The TkG-Test: Using Graeffe Iteration {#sec:Graeffe}
-------------------------------------
Corollary \[tktest cor2\] guarantees success of the $T_k(\Delta, 3/2, F)$-test, with $k=|\mathcal{Z}(\Delta)|$, if the disk $\Delta$ is $(\frac{1}{16n},16n^4)$-isolating for a set of $k$ roots. In this section, we use a well-known approach for squaring the roots of a polynomial, called Graeffe iteration [@Graeffe49], in order to improve upon the $T_k$-test. More specifically, we derive a variant of the $T_k$-test, which we denote $T_k^G$-test[^11], that allows us to exactly count the roots contained in some disk $\Delta$ if $\Delta$ is $(\rho_1,\rho_2)$-isolating for a set of $k$ roots, with constants $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$ of size $\rho_1\approx 0.947$ and $\rho_2=\frac{4}{3}$.
For a polynomial $F(x)=\sum_{i=0}^n a_{i}x^i \in\mathbb{C}[x]$, write $F(x)= F_e(x^2) + x\cdot F_o(x^2)$, with $$\begin{aligned}
& F_e(x):=
a_{2 \lfloor \frac{n}{2}\rfloor}x^{\lfloor \frac{n}{2} \rfloor }
+ a_{2\lfloor \frac{n}{2}\rfloor -2} x^{\lfloor \frac{n}{2} \rfloor -1}
+ \ldots
+ a_{2} x
+ a_0, \quad \text{ and }\\
& F_o(x):=
a_{2 \lfloor \frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor +1}x^{\lfloor \frac{n-1}{2} \rfloor }
+ a_{2 \lfloor \frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor -1} x^{\lfloor \frac{n-1}{2} \rfloor -1}
+ \ldots
+ a_{3} x
+ a_{1}.
\end{aligned}$$ Then, the *first Graeffe iterate $F^{[1]}$ of $F$* is defined as: $$F^{[1]}(x):=(-1)^n [F_e(x)^2 - x\cdot F_o(x)^2].$$
The first part of the following theorem is well-known (e.g. see [@Graeffe49]), and we give its proof only for the sake of a self-contained presentation. For the second part, we have not been able to find a corresponding result in the literature. Despite the fact that we consider the result to be of independent interest, we will need it in the analysis of our approach.
\[graeffe thm\] Denote the roots of $F$ by $z_1,\ldots,z_n$, then it holds that $F^{[1]}(x)=\sum_{i=0}^n a_i^{[1]}x^i = a_n^2\cdot \prod_{i=1}^n(x-z_i^2)$. In particular, the roots of the first Graeffe iterate $F^{[1]}$ are the squares of the roots of $F$. In addition, we have $$n^2\cdot \MAX(\|F\|_\infty)^2\ge\|F^{[1]}\|_\infty\ge \|F\|_\infty^2 \cdot 2^{-4n}.$$
See Appendix \[appendix:graeffe\].
\[algo:graeffe\] $F^{[0]}(x):=F(x)$
We can now iteratively apply Graeffe iterations in order to square the roots of a polynomial $F(x)$ several times. In this way, we can now reduce the “separation factor of the $T_k$-Test” from polynomial in $n$ (namely, $256n^5$) to a constant value (in our case, this constant will be $\approx 1.41$) when we run $N$, with $N=\Theta(\log \log n)$, Graeffe iterations first, and then apply the $T_k$-test; see Algorithm \[algo:graeffe2\]. From Theorem \[tktest thm\] and Theorem \[graeffe thm\], we then obtain the following result:
\[softtest:success\] Let $\Delta$ be a disk in the complex plane and $F(x)\in\mathbb{C}[x]$ a polynomial of degree $n$. Let $$\begin{aligned}
N:=\lceil\log(1+\log n)\rceil+5
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_1:=\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}\approx 0.943\quad\text{and}\quad\rho_2:=\frac{4}{3}
\end{aligned}$$ Then, we have $\sqrt[2^N]{\frac{1}{16n}}>\rho_1$, and it holds:
- If $\Delta$ is $(\rho_1,\rho_2)$-isolating for a set of $k$ roots of $F$, then $T_k^G (\Delta,\frac{3}{2})$ succeeds.
- If $T_k^G (\Delta,K)$ succeeds for some $K\ge 1$, then $\Delta$ contains exactly $k$ roots.
The lower bound on $\rho(n):=\sqrt[2^N]{\frac{1}{16n}}$ follows by a straight forward computation that shows that $\rho(n)$, considered as a function in $n$, is strictly increasing and that $\rho(2)\approx 0.947> \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}\approx 0.943$. Now, let $F_{\Delta}^{[N]}$ be the polynomial obtained from $F_{\Delta}$ after performing $N$ recursive Graeffe iterations. If $\Delta$ is $(\rho_1,\rho_2)$-isolating for a set of $k$ roots of $F$, then the unit disk $\Delta':=\Delta(0,1)$ is also $(\rho_1,\rho_2)$-isolating for a set of $k$ roots of $F_{\Delta}$, that is, $\Delta'$ contains $k$ roots of $F_{\Delta}$ and all other roots of $F_{\Delta}$ have absolute value larger than $\frac{4}{3}$. Hence, we conclude that $F_{\Delta}^{[N]}$ has $k$ roots of absolute value less than $\rho_1^{2^N}<\frac{1}{16n}$, whereas the remaining roots have absolute value larger than $\rho_2^{2^N}\ge 16n^4$. From Corollary \[tktest cor2\], we thus conclude that $T_k(\Delta',\frac{3}{2},F_{\Delta}^{[N]})$ succeeds. This shows (a). Part (b) is an immediate consequence of Theorem \[thm:pellet\] and the fact that Graeffe iteration does not change the number of roots contained in the unit disk.
In the special case where $k=0$, the failure of $T_0^G (\Delta)$ already implies that $\frac{4}{3}\cdot\Delta$ contains at least one root.\
\[algo:graeffe2\] Call Algorithm \[algo:graeffe\] with input $F_{\Delta}(x):=F(m+r\cdot x)$ and $N:=\lceil\log(1 +\log n)\rceil+5$, which returns $F_{\Delta}^{[N]}$
The following result is a direct consequence of Theorem \[graeffe thm\]. We will later use it in the analysis of our algorithm:
Let $F_{\Delta}$ and $F^{[N]}_{\Delta}$ be defined as in Algorithm \[algo:graeffe2\]. Then, it holds: $$\LOG(\|F^{[N]}_{\Delta}(x)\|_\infty,\|F^{[N]}_{\Delta}(x)\|_\infty^{-1})=O(\log n\cdot(n+\LOG(\|F_{\Delta}\|_\infty,\|F_{\Delta}\|_\infty^{-1})).$$
The tTkG-Test: Using Approximate Arithmetic {#sec:graeffeapx}
-------------------------------------------
So far, the $T_k$-test is formulated in a way such that, in general, high-precision arithmetic, or even exact arithmetic, is needed in order to compute its output. Namely, if the two expressions on both sides of (\[Tktest\]) are actually equal, then exact arithmetic is needed to decide equality. Notice that, in general, we cannot even handle this case as we have only access to (arbitrary good) approximations of the coefficients of the input polynomial $F$. But even if the two expression are different but almost equal, then we need to evaluate the polynomial $F$ and its higher order derivatives with a very high precision in order to decide the inequality, which induces high computational costs. This is a typical problem that appears in many algorithms, where a sign predicate $\mathcal{P}$ is used to draw conclusions, which in turn decide a branch of the algorithm. Suppose that, similar as for the $T_k$-test (with $E_{\ell}=\frac{|F^{(k)}(m)|\cdot r^k }{k!} $ and $E_r=\sum_{i\neq k} \frac{|F^{(i)}(m) |\cdot r^i }{i!}$), there exist two non-negative expressions $E_{\ell}$ and $E_r$ such that $\cal P$ succeeds[^12] if and only if $E_{\ell}-E_r$ has a positive sign (or, equivalently, if $E_{\ell}>E_r$). We further denote by $\mathcal{P}_{\frac{3}{2}}$ the predicate that succeeds if and only if the stronger inequality $E_{\ell}-\frac{3}{2}\cdot E_r>0$ holds.[^13] Then, success of $\mathcal{P}_{\frac{3}{2}}$ implies success of $\cal P$; however, a failure of $\mathcal{P}_{\frac{3}{2}}$ does, in general, not imply that $\mathcal{P}$ fails as well. As already mentioned above for the special case, where $\mathcal{P}=T_k(m,r,1,F)$, it might be computationally expensive (or even infeasible) to determine the outcome of $\mathcal{P}$, namely in the case where the two expressions $E_{\ell}$ and $E_r$ are equal or almost equal. In order to avoid such undesirable situations, we propose to replace the predicate $\cal P$ by a corresponding so-called *soft-predicate* [@DBLP:conf/cie/YapS013], which we denote by $\tilde{\cal P}$. $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}$ does not only return True or False, but may also return a flag called “Undecided”. If it returns True or False, the result of $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}$ coincides with that of $\mathcal{P}$. However, if $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}$ returns Undecided, we may only conclude that $E_{\ell}$ is a relative $\frac{3}{2}$-approximation of $E_r$ (i.e., $\frac{2}{3}\cdot E_{\ell}<E_r<\frac{3}{2}\cdot E_{\ell}$). We briefly sketch our approach and give details in Algorithm \[algo:softpredicate\]: In the first step, we compute approximations $\tilde E_{\ell}$ and $\tilde E_r$ of the values $E_{\ell}$ and $E_r$, respectively. Then, we check whether we can already compare the exact values $E_{\ell}$ and $E_r$ by just considering their approximations and taking into account the quality of approximation. If this is the case, we are done as we can already determine the outcome of $\mathcal{P}$. Hence, we define that $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}$ returns True (False) if we can show that $E_{\ell}>E_r$ ($E_{\ell}<E_r$). Otherwise, we iteratively increase the quality of approximation until we can either show that $E_{\ell}>E_r$, $E_{\ell}<E_r$, or $\frac{2}{3}\cdot E_{\ell}\le E_r\le\frac{3}{2}\cdot E_{\ell}$. We may consider the latter case as an indicator that comparing $E_{\ell}$ and $E_r$ is difficult, and thus $\tilde{\cal P}$ returns Undecided in this case.
It is easy to see that Algorithm \[algo:softpredicate\] terminates if and only if at least one of the two expressions $E_{\ell}$ and $E_r$ is non-zero, hence we make this a requirement. In the following lemma, we further give a bound on the precision to which the expressions $E_{\ell}$ and $E_r$ have to be approximated in order to guarantee termination of the algorithm.
\[algo:softpredicate\] $L:=1$
\[precision:compare\] Algorithm \[algo:softpredicate\] terminates for an $L$ that is upper bounded by $$L_0:=2\cdot(\LOG(\max(E_{\ell},E_r)^{-1})+4).$$
Suppose that $L\ge \LOG(\max(E_{\ell},E_r)^{-1})+4$. We further assume that $E_{\ell}=\max(E_{\ell},E_r)$; the case $E_r=\max(E_{\ell},E_r)$ is then treated in analogous manner. It follows that $$E_{r}^+\le E_{r} +2^{-L+1}\le E_{\ell} +2^{-L+1}\le \frac{9}{8}\cdot E_{\ell}\le \frac{3}{2}\cdot E_{\ell}-2^{-L+2}\le \frac{3}{2}\cdot E_{\ell}^-.$$ Hence, if, in addition, $\frac{2}{3}\cdot E_{\ell}^+\le E_r^-$, then the algorithm returns Undecided in Step 10. Otherwise, we have $\frac{9}{8}\cdot E_{\ell}\ge E_{\ell}+2^{-L+1}\ge E_{\ell}^+>\frac{3}{2}\cdot E_{r}^-$, and thus $$E_{\ell}^-\ge E_{\ell}-2^{-L+1}\ge \frac{7}{8}\cdot E_{\ell}\ge \frac{3}{4}\cdot E_{\ell}+2^{-L+1}\ge E_{r}^-+2^{-L+1}\ge E_r^+,$$ which shows that the algorithm returns True in Step 6. Since we double $L$ in each iteration, it follows that the algorithm must terminate for an $L$ with $L< 2\cdot(\LOG(\max(E_{\ell},E_r)^{-1})+4)$.
Notice that if $\tilde{\cal P}$ returns True, then $\cal P$ also succeeds. This however does not hold in the opposite direction. In addition, if $\mathcal{P}_{\frac{3}{2}}$ succeeds, then $E_{\ell}>E_r$ and $E_{\ell}$ cannot be a relative $\frac{3}{2}$-approximation of $E_r$, hence $\tilde{\cal P}$ must return True. We conclude that our soft-predicate is somehow located “in between” the two predicates $\cal P$ and $\mathcal{P}_{\frac{3}{2}}$.\
We now return to the special case, where $\mathcal{P}=T_k(m,r,1,F)$, with $E_{\ell}=\frac{|F^{(k)}(m)|\cdot r^k }{k!} $ and $E_r=\sum_{i\neq k} \frac{|F^{(i)}(m) |\cdot r^i }{i!}$ the two expressions on the left and the right side of (\[Tktest\]), respectively. Then, success of $\mathcal{P}$ implies that the disk $\Delta=\Delta(m,r)$ contains exactly $k$ roots of $F$, whereas a failure of $\mathcal{P}$ yields no further information. Now, let us consider the corresponding soft predicate $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}=\tilde T_k(\Delta,F)$ of $\mathcal{P}=T_k(\Delta,F)$. If $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}$ returns True, then this implies success of $\mathcal{P}$. In addition, notice that success of $T_k(\Delta,\frac{3}{2},F)$ implies that $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}$ returns True, and thus we may replace $T_k(\Delta,\frac{3}{2},F)$ by $\tilde T_k(\Delta,F)$ in the second part of Theorem \[tktest thm\]. Similarly, in Lemma \[softtest:success\], we may also replace $T_k^G(\Delta,\frac{3}{2},F)$ by the soft-version $\tilde T_k^G(\Delta,F)$ of $T_k^G(\Delta,F)$. We give more details for the computation of $\tilde T_k(\Delta,F)$ and $\tilde T_k^G(\Delta,F)$ in Algorithms \[algo:softTk\] and \[algo:softgraeffe2\], which are essentially applications of Algorithm \[algo:softpredicate\] to the predicates $T_k(\Delta,F)$ and $T_k^G(\Delta,F)$. The lemma below summarizes our results. Based on Lemma \[precision:compare\], we also provide a bound on the precision $L$ for which Algorithm \[algo:softTk\] terminates and a bound for the bit complexity of Algorithm \[algo:softTk\]. A corresponding bound for the bit complexity of carrying out the $\tilde T_k^G(\Delta,F)$-test for all $k=0,\ldots,n$ is given in Lemma \[tildeTcost\].
\[algo:softTk\] $L:=1$
\[tildeTcost\] For a disk $\Delta:=\Delta(m,r)$ in the complex plane and a polynomial $F\in\mathbb{C}[x]$ of degree $n$, the $\tilde T_k(\Delta,F)$-test terminates with an absolute precision $L$ that is upper bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def:epsilon}
L(\Delta,F):=L(m,r,F):=2\cdot\left(4+\LOG(\|F_{\Delta}\|_\infty^{-1})\right).
\end{aligned}$$ If $T_k(\Delta,\frac{3}{2},F)$ succeeds, the $\tilde T_k(\Delta,F)$-test returns True. The cost for running the $\tilde{T}_k(\Delta,F)$-test *for all* $k=0,\ldots,n$ is upper bounded by $$\tilde{O}(n(n\cdot \LOG(m, r)+\tau_F+L(\Delta,F)))$$ bit operations. The algorithm needs an $\tilde{O}(n\cdot \LOG(m, r)+\tau_F+L(\Delta,F))$-bit approximation of $F$.
Let $\mathcal{P}:=T_k(\Delta,1,F)$ be the predicate that succeeds if and only if $E_{\ell}>E_r$, with $E_{\ell}:=|f_k|$ and $E_{r}:=\sum_{i\neq k}|f_i|$. Then, $E_{\ell}^{\pm}:=f_k^{\pm}$ and $E_r^{\pm}:=\sum_{i\neq k} f_i^{\pm}$ are lower and upper bounds for $E_{\ell}$ and $E_r$, respectively, such that $|E_{\ell}^{\pm}-E_{\ell}|\le 2^{-L+1}$ and $|E_{r}^{\pm}-E_{r}|\le 2^{-L+1}$. Hence, Lemma \[precision:compare\] yields that Algorithm \[algo:softTk\] terminates for an $L$ smaller than $2\cdot(4+\LOG(\max(E_{\ell},E_r)^{-1}))\le L(\Delta,F)$.
We have already argued above that success of the predicate $\mathcal{P}_{\frac{3}{2}}=T_k(\Delta,\frac{3}{2},F)$ implies that $\tilde{P}=\tilde{T}_k(\Delta,F)$ returns True. Hence, it remains to show the claim on the bit complexity for carrying out the $\tilde T_k(\Delta,F)$-test for all $k=0,\ldots,n$. For a given $L$, we can compute an $(L+\lceil \log (n+1)\rceil)$-bit approximation $\tilde F_{\Delta}(x)=\sum_{i=0}^n\tilde{f}_ix^i$ of $F_{\Delta}$ with a number of bit operations that is bounded by $\tilde{O}(n(\tau_F+n\LOG(m, r)+L))$; e.g. see the first part of the proof of [@Sagraloff2015 Lemma 17]. For a fixed $k$, the computation of the signs of the sums in each of the three IF clauses needs $n$ additions of dyadic numbers with denominators of bit size $\lceil \log(n+1)\rceil+L$ and with numerators of bit size $O(L+n\LOG(r)+\tau_F)$, hence the cost is bounded by $O(n(\tau_F+n\LOG(r)+L))$ bit operations. Notice that, when passing from an integer $k$ to a $k'\neq k$, the corresponding sums in one IF clause differ only by two terms, that is, $f^{\pm}_k$ and $f^{\pm}_{k'}$. Hence, we can decide all IF clauses *for all $k$* using $O(n)$ additions. Furthermore, we double the precision $L$ in each step, and the algorithm terminates for an $L$ smaller than $L(\Delta,F)$. Hence, $L$ is doubled at most $\log L(\Delta,F)$ many times, and thus the total cost for all $k$ is bounded by $\tilde{O}(n(\tau_F+n\LOG(m, r)+L(\Delta,F)))$ bit operations.
We now extend the above soft-variant of the $T_k$-test to a corresponding soft-variant of the $T_k^G$-test, which we denote $\tilde T_k^G$; see Algorithm \[algo:softgraeffe2\] for details. We further combine $\tilde{T}_k^G$ for all $k=0,\ldots,n$ to obtain $\T(\Delta,F)$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def:T*}
\T(\Delta,F):=\begin{cases}
k\quad\text{if there exists a }k\text{ such that }\tilde{T}_k^G(\Delta)\text{ succeeds} \\
-1\text{ otherwise.}
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
Again, for brevity, we often omit $F$ and just write $\T(\Delta)$. We say that $\T$ succeeds if it returns a non-negative value. Otherwise, it fails.
The following result, which can be considered as the “soft variant” of Lemma \[softtest:success\], can then immediately be deduced from Lemma \[softtest:success\] and Lemma \[tildeTcost\]:
\[algo:softgraeffe2\] Let $F^{[N]}_{\Delta}(x)$ be the $N$-th Graeffe iterate of $F_{\Delta}(x):=F(m+r\cdot x)$, where $N:=\lceil\log(1 +\log n)\rceil+5$ Output $\tilde T_k(0,1,F^{[N]}_{\Delta})$.
\[softtest:success2\] Let $\Delta:=\Delta(m,r)$ be a disk in the complex plane, $F(x)\in\mathbb{C}[x]$ be a polynomial of degree $n$, and let $\rho_1=\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}$ and $\rho_2=\frac{4}{3}$. Then, it holds:
(a) \[softtest:firstpart\] If $\Delta$ is $(\rho_1,\rho_2)$-isolating for a set of $k$ roots of $F$, then $\T(\Delta)$ returns $k$.
(b) \[softtest:secondpart\] If $\T(\Delta)$ returns a $k\ge 0$, then $\Delta$ contains exactly $k$ roots.
For the complexity analysis of our root isolation algorithm (see Section \[sec:algorithm\]), we provide a bound on the total cost for running the $\T$-test.
\[allkcost\] The total cost for carrying out the $\T(\Delta)$ is bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
& \tilde{O}(n(\tau_F+n\LOG(m,r)+L(\Delta,F)))
=\tilde{O}(n(\tau_F+n\LOG(m,r)+\LOG((\max_{z\in \Delta}|F(z)|)^{-1})))
\end{aligned}$$ bit operations. For this, we need an $L$-bit approximation of $F$ with $$L=\tilde{O}(\tau_F+n\LOG(m,r)+L(\Delta,F))=\tilde{O}(\tau_F+n\LOG(m,r)+\LOG((\max_{z\in \Delta}|F(z)|)^{-1})).$$
According to Lemma \[tildeTcost\], the computation of $\tilde{T}_k(0,1,F_{\Delta}^{[N]})$ needs an $L$-bit approximation $\tilde{F}_{\Delta}^{[N]}$ of $F_{\Delta}^{[N]}$ , with $L$ bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{boundforL}
\tilde{O}(n+\tau_{F_\Delta^{[N]}}+L(0,1,F_{\Delta}^{[N]}))=\tilde{O}(n+\LOG(\|F_{\Delta}^{[N]}\|_\infty,\|F_{\Delta}^{[N]}\|_\infty^{-1})).
\end{aligned}$$ Given such an approximation $\tilde{F}_{\Delta}^{[N]}$, the cost for running the test for all $k=0,\ldots,n$ is then bounded by $\tilde{O}(n(n+\tau_{F_\Delta^{[N]}}+L))$ bit operations. In each of the $N=O(\log \log n )$ Graeffe iterations, the size of $\LOG(\|F_{\Delta}^{[i]}\|_\infty,\|F_{\Delta}^{[i]}\|_\infty^{-1})$ increases by at most a factor of two plus an additive term $4n$; see Theorem \[graeffe thm\]. Hence, we must have $$\begin{aligned}
\LOG(\|F_{\Delta}^{[i]}\|_\infty,\|F_{\Delta}^{[i]}\|_\infty^{-1})
& = O(\log n\cdot \LOG(\|F_{\Delta}\|_\infty,\|F_{\Delta}\|_\infty^{-1})+n\log n) \\
& =\tilde{O}(n\LOG(m,r)+\tau_F+L(\Delta,F))
\end{aligned}$$ for all $i=0,\ldots,N$. We conclude that the above bound (\[boundforL\]) for $L$ can be replaced by $\tilde{O}(\tau_F+n\LOG(m,r)+L(\Delta,F))$.
It remains to bound the cost for computing an approximation $\tilde{F}_{\Delta}^{[N]}$ of $F_{\Delta}^{[N]}$ with $\|F_{\Delta}^{[N]}-\tilde{F}_{\Delta}^{N}\|_{\infty}<2^{-L}$. Suppose that, for a given $\rho\in\mathbb{N}$ we have computed an approximation $\tilde{F}_{\Delta}$ of $F_{\Delta}$, with $\|F_{\Delta}-\tilde{F}_{\Delta}\|_{\infty}<2^{-\rho}$. According to [@Schoenhage82 Theorem 8.4] (see also [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1304.8069 Theorem 14] and [@Sagraloff2015 Lemma 17]), this can be achieved using a number of bit operations bounded by $\tilde{O}(n(n\LOG(m,r)+\tau_F+\rho))$. In each Graeffe iteration, an approximation $\tilde{F}_{\Delta}^{[i]}$ of $F_{\Delta}^{[i]}$ is split into two polynomials $\tilde{F}_{\Delta,o}^{[i]}$ and $\tilde{F}_{\Delta,e}^{[i]}$ with coefficients of comparable bit size (and half the degree), and an approximation $\tilde{F}_{\Delta}^{[i+1]}$ of $F_{\Delta}^{[i]}$ is then computed as the difference of $\tilde{F}_{\Delta,e}^{[i]}$ and $x\cdot \tilde{F}_{\Delta,o}^{[i]}$. If all computations are carried out with fixed point arithmetic and an absolute precision of $\rho$ bits after the binary point, then the precision loss in the $i$-th step, with $i=0,\ldots,N$, is bounded by $O(\log n+\log\|F_{\Delta}^{[i]}\|_\infty)=O(2^i(\log n+\log\|F_{\Delta}\|_\infty))=O(\log n(\log n+\log\|F_{\Delta}\|_\infty))$ bits after the binary point. The cost for the two multiplications and the addition is bounded by $\tilde{O}(n(\rho+\log\|F_{\Delta}^{[i]}\|_\infty))$. Since there are only $N=O(\log\log n)$ many iterations, we conclude that it suffices to start with an approximation $\tilde{F}_{\Delta}$ of $F_{\Delta}$, with $\|F_{\Delta}-\tilde{F}_{\Delta}\|_{\infty}<2^{-\rho}$ and $\rho=\tilde{O}(n\LOG (m,r)+\tau_F+L(\Delta,F))$. The total cost for all Graeffe iterations is then bounded by $\tilde{O}(n\rho)$ bit operations, hence the claim follows together with the fact that $\max_{z\in\Delta}|F(z)|\le (n+1)\|F_{\Delta}\|_{\infty}$ as shown in in the proof of Theorem \[graeffe thm\].
CIsolate: An Algorithm for Root Isolation {#sec:algorithm}
=========================================
We can now formulate our algorithm, which we denote by $\mathbb{C}$<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Isolate</span>, to isolate all complex roots of a polynomial $F(x)$ that are contained in some given square[^14] $\mathcal{B}\subset \mathbb{C}$. If the enlarged square $2\mathcal{B}$ contains only simple roots of $F$, then our algorithm returns isolating disks for all roots that are contained in $\mathcal{B}$. However, it might also return isolating disks for some of the roots that are not contained in $\mathcal{B}$ but in the complement $2\mathcal{B}\setminus \mathcal{B}$. In particular, in the important special case, where $F$ is square-free and where we start with a square $\mathcal{B}$ that is known to contain all complex roots of $F$, our algorithm isolates all complex roots of $F$. Before we give details, we need some further definitions, which we provide in Section \[sec:defcomponent\]. In Section \[subsec:algorithm\], we first give an overview of our algorithm before we provide details and the proof for termination and correctness.
Connected Components {#sec:defcomponent}
--------------------
Given a set $S=\{B_1,\ldots,B_m\}$ of squares $B_1,\ldots,B_m\subset \mathbb{C}$, we say that two squares $B,B'\in S$ are connected in $S$ ($B\sim_{S} B'$ for short) if there exist squares $B_{i_1},\ldots,B_{i_{s'}}\in S$ with $B_{i_1}=B$, $B_{i_{s'}}=B'$, and $B_{i_j}\cap B_{i_{j+1}}\neq \emptyset$ for all $j=1,\ldots,s'-1$. This yields a decomposition of $S$ into equivalence classes $C_1,\ldots,C_k\subset S$ that correspond to maximal connected and disjoint components $\bar{C}_{\ell}=\bigcup_{i:B_i\in C_{\ell}} B_i$, with $\ell=1,\ldots,k$. Notice that $C_{\ell}$ is defined as the set of squares $B_i$ that belong to the same equivalence class, whereas $\bar{C}_{\ell}$ denotes the closed region in $\mathbb{C}$ that consists of all points that are contained in a square $B_i\in C_{\ell}$. However, for simplicity, we abuse notation and simply use $C$ to denote the set of squares $B$ contained in a component $C$ as well as to denote the set of points contained in the closed region $\bar{C}$. Now, let $C=\{B_1,\ldots,B_s\}$ be a connected component consisting of equally sized squares $B_i$ of width $w$, then we define (see also Figure \[fig:yyy\]):
- $B_C$ is the axis-aligned closed square in $\mathbb{C}$ of minimal width such that $C\subset B_C$ and $$\min_{z\in B_C}\Re(z)=\min_{z\in C} \Re(z)
\text{ and }
\max_{z\in B_C}\Im(z)=\max_{z\in C} \Im(z),$$ where $\Re(z)$ denotes the real part and $\Im(z)$ the imaginary part of an arbitrary complex value $z$. We further denote $m_C$ the center of $B_C$, and $\Delta_C:=\Delta(m_C,\frac{3}{4} w(B_C))$ a disk containing $B_C$, and thus also $C$. We further define the *diameter $w(C)$ of the component $C$* to be the width of $B_C$, i.e. $w(C):=w(B_C)$, and $r(C):=\frac{w(C)}{2}$ to be the *radius of $C$*.
- $C^+:=\bigcup_{i:B_i\in C}2B_i$ is defined as the union of the enlarged squares $2 B_i$. Notice that $C^+$ is the $\frac{w}{2}$-neighborhood of $C$ (w.r.t. max-norm).
The Algorithm {#subsec:algorithm}
-------------
We start with an informal description of our algorithm $\mathbb{C}\textsc{Isolate}$, where we focus on the main ideas explaining the ratio behind our choices. For the sake of comprehensibility, we slightly simplified some steps at the cost of complete formal correctness, hence, the considerations below should be taken with a grain of salt. A precise definition of the algorithm including all details is given in Algorithm \[cisolate\] and the subroutines <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewtonTest</span> (Algorithm \[newtontest\]) and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bisection</span> (Algorithm \[bisection\]).
$\mathcal{O} = \{\}$ $\mathcal{C} = \{(\mathcal{B},4)\}$
`//` *\* Preprocessing \**`//` `//` *\* Main Loop \**`//` $\mathcal{O}$.
From a high-level perspective, our algorithm follows the classical subdivision approach of Weyl [@Weyl]. That is, starting from the input square $\mathcal{B}$, we recursively subdivide $\mathcal{B}$ into smaller squares, and we remove squares for which we can show that they do not contain a root of $F$. Eventually, the algorithm returns regions that are isolating for a root of $F$. In order to discard a square $B$, with $B\subset\mathcal{B}$, we call the $\T(\Delta_B,F)$-test[^15], with $\Delta_B$ the disk containing $B$. The remaining squares are then clustered into maximal connected components. We further check whether a component $C$ is well separated from all other components, that is, we test whether the distance from $C$ to all other components is considerably larger than its diameter. If this is the case, we use the $\T$-test in order to determine the “multiplicity” $k_C$ of the component $C$, that is, the number of roots contained in the enclosing disk $\Delta_C$; see Line \[testbeforenewton\] of Algorithm \[cisolate\] and Figure \[fig:yyy\] for details. If $k_C=1$, we may return an isolating disk for the corresponding unique root. Otherwise, there is a cluster consisting of two or more roots, which still have to be separated from each other. A straight-forward approach to separate these roots from each other is to recursively subdivide each square into four equally sized squares and to remove squares until, eventually, each of the remaining components contains exactly one root that is well separated from all other roots; see also Algorithm \[bisection\] (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bisection</span>) and Figure \[fig:zzz\]. However, this approach itself yields only linear convergence to the roots, and, as a consequence, there might exist (e.g. for Mignotte polynomials) long sequences $C_1,\ldots,C_s$ of interlaced connected components with invariant multiplicity $k$, that is $C_1\supset C_2\supset\cdots\supset C_s$ and $k=k_{C_1}=\cdots =k_{C_s}>1$. The main idea to traverse such sequences more efficiently is to consider a cluster of $k$ roots as a single root of multiplicity $k$ and to use Newton iteration (for multiple roots) to compute a better approximation of this root. For this, we use an adaptive trial and error approach similar to the quadratic interval refinement (QIR) method, first introduced by Abbott [@abbott-quadratic]; see Algorithm \[newtontest\] (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewtonTest</span>) and Figure \[fig:xxx\]. In its original form, QIR has been combined with the secant method to efficiently refine an interval that is already known to be isolating for a real root of a real polynomial. Recent work [@Sagraloff:2012:NMD:2442829.2442872] considers a modified approach of the QIR method that uses Newton iteration (for multiple roots) and Descartes’ Rule of Signs. It has been refined and integrated in almost optimal methods [@Sagraloff:2014:NAC:2608628.2608632; @Sagraloff2015] for isolating and approximating the real roots of a real (sparse) polynomial, where it constitutes the crucial ingredient for quadratic convergence. In this paper, we further extend the QIR approach for approximating complex roots of a polynomial.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Failure</span>
The main crux of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewtonTest</span> (and the QIR method in general) is that we never have to check in advance whether Newton iteration actually yields an improved approximation of the cluster of roots. Instead, correctness is verified independently using the $\T$-test. In order to achieve quadratic convergence in the presence of a well isolated root cluster, we assign, in each iteration, an integer $N_C$ to each component $C$. The reader may think of $N_C$ as the actual speed of convergence to the cluster of roots contained in $C$. Then, in case of success of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewtonTest</span>, the component $C$ is replaced by a component $C'\subset C$ of diameter $w(C')\approx w(C)\cdot N_C^{-1}$. In this case, we “square the speed’ of convergence", that is, we set $N_{C'}:=N_C^2$. If the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewtonTest</span> fails, we fall back to bisection and decrease the speed of convergence, that is, we set $N_{C'}:=\sqrt{N_C}$ for all components $C'$ into which the component $C$ is split. Our analysis shows that the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewtonTest</span> is the crucial ingredient for quadratic convergence. More precisely, we prove that, in the worst-case, the number $s$ of components in each sequence $C_1,\ldots,C_s$ as above becomes logarithmic in the length of such a sequence if only bisection would be used; see Lemma \[pathlength\].
We now turn to the proof of termination and correctness of the algorithm. In addition, we derive further properties, which will turn out to be useful in the analysis.
$C'\as \emptyset$ Compute maximal connected components $C_1', \ldots C'_\ell$ from the squares in $C'$.\[grouping\] $C_1', \ldots C'_\ell$
\[thm:termination\] The algorithm $\mathbb{C}\textsc{Isolate}$ terminates and returns a correct result. In addition, *at any stage of the algorithm*, it holds that:
- For any $(C,N_C)\in\mathcal{C}$, the connected component $C$ consists of disjoint, aligned, and equally-sized squares $B_{1},\ldots,B_{s_C}$, each of width $2^{\ell_C}$ with some $\ell_C\in\mathbb{Z}$.
- For any two distinct pairs $(C_1,N_{C_1})\in \mathcal{C}$ and $(C_2,N_{C_2})\in \mathcal{C}$, the distance between $C_1$ and $C_2$ is at least $\max(2^{\ell_{C_1}},2^{\ell_{C_2}})$. In particular, the enlarged regions $C_1^+$ and $C_2^+$ are disjoint.
- The union of all connected components $C$ covers all roots of $F$ contained in $\mathcal{B}$. In mathematical terms, $$F(z)\neq 0\text{ for all }z\in\mathcal{B}\setminus\bigcup_{C:(C,N_C)\in\mathcal{C}}C.$$
- For each square $B$ produced by the algorithm that is not equal to the initial square $\mathcal{B}$, the enlarged square $2B$ contains at least one root of $F$.
- Each component $C$ considered by the algorithm consists of $s_C\le 9\cdot |\MMM(C^+)|$ squares. The total number of squares in all components $C$ is at most $9$-times the number of roots contained in $2\mathcal{B}$, that is,[^16] $$\sum_{C:\exists (C,N_C)\in\mathcal{C}} s_C\le 9 \cdot |\MMM(2\mathcal{B})|.$$
- Let $(C, N_C)$ be a pair produced by the algorithm. The sequence of ancestors of a component $C$ produced by the algorithm is recursively defined as follows. It consists of the component $C'$ from which $C$ resulted followed by the ancestors of $C'$. We denote with $\ancstar(C)$, the first ancestor of $C$ for which the Newton Test was successful, if such exists, otherwise $\ancstar(C)=\BBB$. Then $w(C)\le\frac{2w(\ancstar(C))}{ \sqrt{N_C}}\le\frac{2w(\BBB)}{\sqrt{N_C}}$. Moreover,
- $\frac{\sigma_F(2\mathcal{B})^2}{2^{17}\cdot n^2\cdot w(\mathcal{B})}\le 2^{\ell_C}\le w(\mathcal{B})$ and $4\le N_C\le \left(\frac{2^{9}\cdot w(\mathcal{B})}{\sigma_F(2\mathcal{B})}\right)^2$, where $\sigma_F(2\mathcal{B}):=\min_{i:z_i\in 2\mathcal{B}}\sigma_F(z_i)$ is the separation of $F$ restricted to $2\mathcal{B}$.
Part (a) follows almost immediately via induction. Namely, a component $C$ consisting of squares of size $2^{\ell_C}$ is either replaced by a single connected component consisting of (at most $4$) squares of width $2^{\ell_C-1}/N_C$ in line \[newtonadd\] after <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewtonTest</span> was called, or it is replaced by a set of connected components $C'\subset C$, each consisting of squares of size $2^{\ell_C-1}$ in line \[bisectionadd\] after <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bisection</span> was called.
For (b), we can also use induction on the number of iterations. Suppose first that a component $C$ is obtained from processing a component $D$ in line \[bisectionadd\]. If $C$ is the only connected component obtained from $D$, then, by the induction hypotheses, it follows that the distance to all other components $C'$, with $C'\cap D=\emptyset$, is at least $\max(2^{\ell_D},2^{\ell_{C'}})\ge \max(2^{\ell_C},2^{\ell_{C'}})$. If $D$ splits into several components $C_1,\ldots,C_s$, with $s>1$, their distance to any component $C'$, with $C'\cap D=\emptyset$, is at least $\max(2^{\ell_D},2^{\ell_{C'}})\ge \max(2^{\ell_{C_i}},2^{\ell_{C'}})$ for all $i$. In addition, the pairwise distance of two disjoint components $C_i$ and $C_j$ is at least $2^{\ell_C-1}=2^{\ell_{C_i}}$ for all $i$. Finally, suppose that, in line \[newtonadd\], we replace a component $D$ by a single component $C$. In this case, $C\subset D$ and $C$ consists of squares of width $2^{\ell-1}/N_C$. Hence, the distance from $C$ to any other component $C'$ is also lower bounded by $\max(2^{\ell_C},2^{\ell_{C'}})$.
For (c), notice that in line \[DiscardCBisect\] of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bisection</span>, we discard a square $B$ only if the $\T(\Delta_B)=0$. Hence, in this case, $B$ contains no root of $F$. It remains to show that each root of $F$ contained in $C$ is also contained in $C'$, where $C'\subset C$ is a connected component as produced in line \[newtonadd\] after <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewtonTest</span> was called. If $\T(\Delta')=k_C$, then $\Delta'$ contains $k_C$ roots; see Lemma \[softtest:success2\]. Hence, since $\Delta'$ is contained in $2\Delta_C$, and since $2\Delta_C$ also contains $k_C$ roots (as $\T(2\Delta_C)=k_C$ holds), it follows that $\Delta'$ contains all roots that are contained in $C$. The disk $\Delta'$ intersects no other component $C'\neq C$ as the distance from $C$ to $C'$ is larger than $2^{\ell_C}$, and thus, by induction, we conclude that $(\Delta'\cap\mathcal{B})\setminus C$ contains no root of $F$. This shows that $C'$ already contains all roots contained in $C$.
We can now prove part (d) and part (e). Any square $B\neq\mathcal{B}$ that is considered by the algorithm either results from the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bisection</span> or from the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewtonTest</span> routine. If a square $B$ results from the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bisection</span> routine, then the disk $\Delta_B=\Delta(m_B,w(B))$ contains at least one root of $F$, and thus also $2B$ contains at least one root. If a square $B$ results from the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewtonTest</span> routine, then $2B$ even contains two roots or more. Namely, in this case, $\T(\Delta')=k_C$ holds for the disk $\Delta'=\Delta(m',r')$, with $r'=\frac{1}{4}w(B)$ and $k_C>1$, and thus $\Delta'$ contains $k_C$ roots. Since $2B$ contains the latter disk, $2B$ must contain at least $k_C$ roots. This shows (d). From (d), we immediately conclude that, for each component $C\neq\mathcal{B}$ produced by the algorithm, the enlarged component $C^+$ contains at least one root of $F$. In addition, since $C^+$ is contained in $2\mathcal{B}$, each of these roots must be contained in $2\mathcal{B}$. The first part in (e) now follows from the fact that, for a fixed root of $F$, there can be at most $9$ different squares $B$ of the same size such that $2B$ contains this root. From part (b), it follows that, for any two distinct components $C_1$ and $C_2$, the enlarged components $C_1^+$ and $C_2^+$ do not intersect, and thus the total number of squares in all components is upper bounded by $9\cdot |\MMM(2\mathcal{B})|$, which proves the second part in (e).
For (f), we may assume that $N_C>4$ as, otherwise, the inequality becomes trivial. Denote with $C_1,\ldots,C_{s}$ the sequence of ancestors of $C$, with $C_1:=\ancstar(C)$, $C_s=C$, and $C_i\supset C_{i+1}$. By definition of $\ancstar(C)$, it holds that $w(C_2)\le \tfrac{w(C_1)}{N_{C_1}} =\tfrac{w(C_1)}{\sqrt{N_{C_2}}}$, since the step from $C_1$ to $C_2$ is a quadratic step. It follows that $$w(C)
= w(C_s)
\le w(C_{s-1})
\le w(C_2)
\le \tfrac{w(C_1)}{N_{C_1}}
= \tfrac{w(C_1)}{\sqrt{N_{C_2}}}
\le \tfrac{w(C_1)}{\sqrt{N_{C_s}}}
= \tfrac{w(\ancstar(C))}{\sqrt{N_{C}}},$$ since $N_{C_i}= \sqrt{N_{C_{i-1}}}$ for $i=2,\ldots, s$.
We can now show that the algorithm terminates; the inequalities in (g) will then follow from the proof of termination: Suppose that the algorithm produces a sequence $C_1,C_2,\ldots,C_s$ of connected components, with $s\ge\log n+6$ and $C_1\supset C_2\supset\cdots\supset C_s$. If, for at least one index $i\in\{1,\ldots,s-1\}$, $C_{i+1}$ is obtained from $C_{i}$ via a quadratic step, then $w(C_{i+1})\le w(C_i)/N_{C_{i}}\le w(C_i)/4$. Hence, in this case, we also have $w(C_s)\le \frac{w(C_1)}{4}$. Now, suppose that each $C_{i+1}$ is obtained from $C_i$ via a linear step, then each square in $C_i$ has size $2^{\ell_{C_1}-i+1}$, and thus $w(C_s)\le 9n\cdot 2^{\ell_{C_1}-s+1}\le \frac{w(C_1)}{2}$. This shows that, after at most $\log n+6$ iterations, the width of each connected component is halved. Hence, in order to prove termination of the algorithm, it suffices to prove that each component $C$ of small enough width is terminal, that is $C$ is replaced by an isolating disk in line \[addisolating\] or discarded in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewtonTest</span> or <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bisection</span>. The following argument shows that each component $C$ of width smaller than $w:=\frac{1}{32}\cdot\sigma_F(2\mathcal{B})$ that is not discarded is replaced by an isolating disk. We have already shown that $C^+$ must contain a root $\xi$ of $F$, and thus we have $|m_C-\xi|<2w(C)<\sigma_F(\xi)/16$ and $r_C<\sigma_F(\xi)/16$. We conclude that the disks $2\Delta_C$ and $\Delta(m_C,8r_C)$ are both isolating for $\xi$. Then, Lemma \[softtest:success2\] guarantees that $\T(2\Delta_C)=1$ and $\T(4\Delta_C)=1$ hold. Hence, if $4\Delta_C$ intersects no other component $C'\neq C$, then the algorithm replaces $C$ by the isolating disk $2\Delta_C$ in line \[addisolating\], because the if-clause in line \[testbeforenewton\] succeeds with $k_C=1$. It remains to show that the latter assumption is always fulfilled. Namely, suppose that $4\Delta_C$ intersects a component $C'\neq C$, and let $B$ and $B'$ be arbitrary squares contained in $C$ and $C'$, respectively. Then, the enlarged squares $2B$ and $2B'$ contain roots $\xi$ and $\xi'$, respectively, and $\xi$ and $\xi'$ must be distinct as $C^+$ and $(C')^+$ are disjoint. Hence, the distance between $B$ and $B'$, and thus also the distance $\delta$ between $C$ and $C'$, must be larger than $\sigma_F(2\mathcal{B})-2^{\ell_C}-2^{\ell_{C'}}=32w-2^{\ell_C}-2^{\ell_{C'}}\ge 31 w-2^{\ell_{C'}}$. Hence, if $2^{\ell_{C'}}\le 25w$, then $4\Delta_C\subset\Delta(m_C,6w)$ does not intersect $C'$. Vice versa, if $2^{\ell_{C'}}>25w$, then the distance between $C$ and $C'$ is at least $\max(2^{\ell_C},2^{\ell_{C'}})> 25w$, and thus $4\Delta_C$ does not intersect $C'$ as well. Notice that (g) now follows almost directly from the above considerations. Indeed, let $C\neq \mathcal{B}$ be an arbitrary component $C$ and let $D$ be any component that contains $C$. Since $D$ is not terminal, we conclude that $w(D)\ge w$, and thus $N_D\le \frac{4w(\mathcal{B})}{w}$ according to (f). Since $N_C$ is smaller than or equal to the square of the maximum of all values $N_D$, the second inequality in (g) follows. The first inequality follows from the fact that $2^{\ell_{C}}\ge \min_{D:C\subset D}\frac{2^{\ell_D-1}}{N_D}\ge \frac{w}{9n\cdot\max_{D:C\subset D} N_D}$.
For correctness, we remark that each disk $D$ returned by the algorithm is actually isolating for a root of $F$ contained in $2\mathcal{B}$ and that $2D$ also isolates this root. Namely, for each component $C$ produced by the algorithm, the enlarged component $C^+$ contains at least one root. Now, if the if-clause in line \[testbeforenewton\] succeeds on $C$ with $k_C=1$, it holds that $\T(2\Delta_C)=1$, and thus the disk $2\Delta_C$ contains exactly one root $\xi$. Hence, since $\Delta_C$ contains $C^+$, this root must be contained in $C^+$. In addition, if also $\T(4\Delta_C)=1$ holds, then the disk $4\Delta_C$ isolates $\xi$ as well. Finally, it remains to show that the algorithm returns an isolating disk for each root $\xi$ that is contained in $\mathcal{B}$. From (a) and (c), we conclude that there is a unique maximal sequence $\mathcal{S}=C_1,C_2,\ldots,C_s$ of connected components, with $C_1\supset C_2\supset\cdots\supset C_s$, such that each $C_i$ contains $\xi$. Now, when processing $C_s$, $C_s$ cannot be replaced by other connected components $C'\subset C_s$ as one of these components would contain $\xi$, and this would contradict the assumption that the sequence $\mathcal{S}$ is maximal. Since $C_s$ contains $\xi$, it cannot be discarded in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bisection</span> or <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewtonTest</span>, hence $C_s$ is replaced by an isolating disk for $\xi$ in line \[addisolating\].
*Remarks.* We remark that our requirement on the input polynomial $F$ to have only simple roots in $2\mathcal{B}$ is only needed for the termination of the algorithm. Running the algorithm on an arbitrary polynomial (possibly having multiple roots) yields isolating disks for the simple roots as well as arbitrarily small connected components converging against the multiple roots of $F$ in $\mathcal{B}$. Namely, if $\mathcal{B}$ is not discarded in the first iteration, then the enlargement $C^+$ of each component $C$ contains at least one root. Since $C$ consists of at most $9n$ squares, each of size $2^{\ell_C}$, it holds that each point in $C$ approximates a root of $F$ to an error of less than $n\cdot 2^{\ell_C+4}$. In addition, the union of all components covers all roots contained in $\mathcal{B}$, and thus our algorithm yields $L$-bit approximations of all roots in $\mathcal{B}$ if we iterate until $\ell_C\le-4-\log n-L$ for all components $C$. In the special situation, where we run the algorithm on an input square that is known to contain all roots and if, in addition, the number $k$ of distinct roots of $F$ is given as input, our algorithm can be used to return isolating regions for all roots. Namely, in this situation, we may proceed until the total number of connected components $C$ equals $k$. Then, each of the enlarged components $C^+$ isolates a root of $F$. The latter problem is of special interest in the context of computing a cylindrical algebraic decomposition, where we have to isolate the roots of a not necessarily square-free polynomial with algebraic coefficients. In this case, it might be easier to first compute $k$ via a symbolic pre-computation and to consider sufficiently good approximations of the initial polynomial instead of computing approximations of the square-free part of $F$. A corresponding approach based on approximate polynomial factorization has been presented in [@MSW-rootfinding2013], and we refer the reader to this work for more details and for a motivation of the problem.
Complexity Analysis {#sec:complexity}
===================
We split the analysis of our algorithm into two parts. In the first part, we focus on the number of iterations that are needed to isolate the roots of $F(x)$ that are contained in a given square $\mathcal{B}$. We will see that this number is near-linear[^17] in $|\MMM(2\mathcal{B})|$, the number of roots contained in the enlarged square $2\mathcal{B}$. We further remark that, for any fixed non-negative constant $\epsilon$, the total number of iterations is near-linear in $|\MMM((1+\epsilon)\cdot\mathcal{B})|$; however, for the sake of simplifying analysis, we only provide details for the special case $\epsilon=1$. Hence, we conclude that our algorithms performs near-optimal with respect to the number of subdivision steps if the input square $\mathcal{B}$ has the property that each root contained in $(1+\epsilon)\cdot \mathcal{B}$ is also contained in $\mathcal{B}$; in particular, this is trivially fulfilled if $\mathcal{B}$ is chosen large enough to contain all roots of $F$.
In the second part of our analysis, we give bounds on the number of bit operations that are needed to process a component $C$. This eventually yields a bound on the overall bit complexity that is stated in terms of the degree of $F$, the absolute values and the separations of the roots in $\MMM(2\mathcal{B})$, and the absolute value of the derivative $F'$ at these roots. For the special case, where our algorithm is used to isolate all roots of a polynomial of degree $n$ with integer coefficients of bit size less than $\tau$, the bound on the bit complexity simplifies to $\tilde{O}(n^3+n^2\tau)$.
Size of the Subdivision Tree {#subsec:treesize}
----------------------------
We consider the subdivision tree $\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{B}}$, or simply $\mathcal{T}$, induced by our algorithm, where $\mathcal{B}$ is the initial square/component. More specifically, the nodes of the (undirected) graph $\mathcal{T}$ are the pairs $(C,N_C)\in \mathcal{C}$ produced by the algorithm, and two nodes $(C,N_C)$ and $(C',N_{C'})$ are connected via an edge if and only if $C\subset C'$ (or $C'\subset C$) and there exists no other component $C''$ with $C\subset C''\subset C'$ ($C'\subset C''\subset C$). In the first case, we say that $(C,N_C)$ is a child of $(C',N_{C'})$, whereas, in the second case, $(C,N_C)$ is a parent of $(C',N_{C'})$. For brevity, we usually omit the integer $N_C$, and just refer to $C$ as the nodes of $\mathcal{T}$. Notice that, according to Theorem \[thm:termination\], the so obtained graph is indeed a tree rooted at $\mathcal{B}$. A node $C$ is called *terminal* if and only if it has no children. We further use the following definition to refer to some special nodes:
\[def:splitting\] A node $(C,N_C)\in\mathcal{T}$ is called *special*, if one of the following conditions is fulfilled:
- The node $(C,N_C)$ is terminal.
- The node $(C,N_C)$ is the root of $\mathcal{T}$, that is, $(C,N_C)=(\mathcal{B},4)$.
- The node $(C,N_C)$ is the last node for which <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bisection</span> is called in the preprocessing phase of the algorithm. We call this node the *base* of $\mathcal{T}$. Notice that the first part of the tree consists of a unique path connecting the root and the base of the tree.
- For each child $D$ of $C$, it holds that $\MMM(D^+)\neq \MMM(C^+)$.
Roughly speaking, except for the root and the base of $\mathcal{T}$, special nodes either isolate a root of $F$ or they are split into two or more disjoint clusters each containing roots of $F$. More precisely, from Theorem \[thm:termination\], we conclude that, for any two distinct nodes $C,D\in\mathcal{T}$, the enlarged regions $\MMM(C^+)$ and $\MMM(D^+)$ are either disjoint or one of the nodes is an ancestor of the other one. In the latter case, we have $C^+\subset D^+$ or $D^+\subset C^+$. Since, for any two children $D_1$ and $D_2$ of a node $C$, the enlarged regions $D_1^+$ and $D_2^+$ are disjoint, we have $\sum_{i=1}^{k} \MMM(D_i^+)\le \MMM(C^+)$, where $D_1$ to $D_k$ are the children of $C$. Hence, since each $D_i^+$ contains at least one root, the fourth condition in Definition \[def:splitting\] is violated if and only if $C$ has exactly one child $D$ and $\MMM(C^+)=\MMM(D^+)$. The number of special nodes is at most $2\cdot(1+|\MMM(2\mathcal{B})|)$ as there is one root and one base, at most $|\MMM(2\mathcal{B})|$ terminal nodes $C$ with $C\neq\mathcal{B}$, and each occurrence of a special node, which fulfills the fourth condition, yields a reduction of the non-negative number $\sum_{C} (|\MMM(C^+)|-1)$ by at least one. The subdivision tree $\mathcal{T}$ now decomposes into special nodes and sequences of non-special nodes $C_1,\ldots,C_s$, with $C_1\supset C_2\supset\cdots\supset C_s$, that connect two consecutive special nodes. The remainder of this section is dedicated to the proof that the length $s$ of such a sequence is bounded by some value $s_{\max}$ of size $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def:smax}
s_{\max} & =O\left(\log n + \log\LOG(w(\mathcal{B}) + \log\LOG(\sigma_F(2\mathcal{B})^{-1}) \right) \\ \nonumber
& =O\left(\log \left(n\cdot \LOG(w(\mathcal{B}))\cdot \LOG(\sigma_F(2\mathcal{B})^{-1})\right)\right).\end{aligned}$$
For the proof, we need the following lemma, which provides sufficient conditions for the success of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewtonTest</span>.
\[newtonsucceeds\] Let $C=\{B_1,\ldots,B_{s_C}\}$ be a non-terminal component with $\mathcal{B}\setminus C\neq \emptyset$, let $\mathcal{B}_C$ be the corresponding enclosing square of width $w(C)$ and center $m=m_C$, and let $\Delta:=\Delta_C=\Delta(m,r)$, with $r:=\frac{3}{4}w(C)$, be the corresponding enclosing disk. Let $z_1,\ldots,z_{k}$ be the roots contained in the enlarged component $C^+$, and suppose that all these roots are contained in a disk $\Delta'':=\Delta(m'',r'')$ of radius $r''=2^{-20-\log n} \frac{r}{N_C}$. In addition, assume that the disk $\Delta(m,2^{2\log n +20} N_C r)$ contains none of the roots $z_{k+1},\ldots,z_{n}$. Then, the algorithm $\mathbb{C}\textsc{Isolate}$ performs a quadratic step, that is, $C$ is replaced by a single component $C'$ of width $w(C')\le \frac{w(C)}{N_C}$.
We first argue by contradiction that $4\Delta$ does not intersect any other component $C'$, which implies that the first condition of the **and** in the if-clause in line \[testbeforenewton\] is fulfilled. If $4\Delta$ intersects $C'$, then the distance between $C$ and $C'$ is at most $8r$, and thus $2^{\ell_{C'}}<8r$ as the distance between $C$ and $C'$ is at least $\max(2^{\ell_C},2^{\ell_{C'}})$. Hence, we conclude that the disk $\Delta(m,64r)$ completely contains $2B'$ for some square $B'$ of $C'$. Since $2B'$ also contains at least one root and since each such root must be distinct from any of the roots $z_1,\ldots,z_k$, we get a contradiction.
According to our assumptions, each of the two disks $\Delta$ and $8\Delta$ contains the roots $z_1,\ldots,z_k$ but no other root of $F$. Hence, according to Lemma \[softtest:success2\], $\T(2\Delta)=\T(4\Delta)=k$ holds. Since we assumed $C$ to be non-terminal, we must have $k\ge 2$, and thus the algorithm reaches line \[ReachesNewtonTest\] and the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewtonTest</span> is called. We assumed that $C$ does not entirely cover the initial square $\mathcal{B}$, hence, in a previous iteration, we must have discarded a square of width $2^{\ell_C}$ or more whose boundary shares at least one point with the boundary of $C$. Hence, we can choose a point in such a square as the point $x_C\in\mathcal{B}\setminus C$ in the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewtonTest</span> such that the distance from $x_C$ to $C$ is equal to $2^{\ell_C-1}$ and such that the distance from $x_C$ to the boundary of $\mathcal{B}$ is at least $2^{\ell_C-1}$. Notice that also the distance from $x_C$ to any other component $C'$ is at least $2^{\ell_C-1}$, and thus the distance from $x_C$ to any root of $F$ is at least $2^{\ell_C-1}$, which is larger than or equal to $\frac{r}{27n}$ as $C$ consists of at most $9n$ squares. From our assumptions, we thus conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
& & |x_C - m''| \le 4r \quad\text{and}\quad
|x_C - z_i| \ge \frac{r}{27n} \quad\text{ for } i\le k,\\
& \text{and} & \\
& & |x_C - z_i| \ge 2^{20} n^2 N_C\cdot r - 4r>2^{19} n^2 N_C\cdot r
\quad\text{ for }i>k.
\end{aligned}$$ Using the fact that $\frac{F'(x)}{F(x)}=\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{x-z_i}$ for any $x$ with $F(x)\neq 0$, we can bound the distance from the Newton iterate $x_C'$ as defined in (\[def:newton\]) to the “center” $m''$ of the cluster of roots: $$\begin{aligned}
& \left| \frac{1}{k} \frac{(x_C-m'')F'(x_C)}{F(x_C)}
-1 \right|
=
\left|
\frac{1}{k} \sum_{i=1}^{k} \frac{x_C-m''}{x_C-z_i}
+
\frac{1}{k} \sum_{i>k} \frac{x_C-m''}{x_C-z_i}
-1 \right|\\
& =
\frac{1}{k}
\left|
\sum_{i=1}^{k} \frac{z_i-m''}{x_C-z_i}
+
\sum_{i>k} \frac{x_C-m''}{x_C-z_i}
\right|
\le
\frac{1}{k}
\sum_{i=1}^{k} \frac{|z_i-m''|}{|x_C-z_i|}
+
\sum_{i>k} \frac{|x_C-m''|}{|x_C-z_i|}\\
& \le \frac{r''}{r/(27n)} + \frac{n-k}{k}\frac{4r}{n^2 2^{19}N_Cr}
<
\frac{27nr}{rn^2 2^{20}N_C}
+
\frac{4nr}{r n^2 2^{20} N_C}\le
\frac{1}{2^{14} n N_C}.
\end{aligned}$$ Hence, there is an $\eps\in\mathbb{C}$, with $|\eps|<\frac{1}{2^{14}nN_C}$, such that $\frac{1}{k} \frac{(x_C-m'')F'(x_C)}{F(x_C)}=1+\eps$. This implies that $\frac{|F'(x_C)|}{|F(x_C)|}\ge \frac{1}{|x_C-m''|}\ge \frac{1}{4r}$, and thus the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewtonTest</span> must reach line \[resultless\] as Algorithm \[algo:softpredicate\] must return True or Undecided. With $x_C'=x_C-k\cdot\frac{F(x_C)}{F'(x_C)}$, it further follows that $$\begin{aligned}
|m'' - x_C'|
& =
|m''-x_C|
\cdot
\left|
1 -
\frac{1}
{ \frac{1}{k} \frac{(x_C-m'')F'(x_C)}{F(x_C)} }
\right|
=
|m''-x_C|
\cdot
\left|
1 -
\frac{1}
{ 1 + \eps }
\right|\\
& =
\left|
\frac{\eps(m''-x_C)}{1+\eps}
\right|
\le
\frac{4r}{2^{13}nN_C}
\le
\frac{r}{2^{11}nN_C}< \frac{2^{\ell_C}}{128N_C}.
\end{aligned}$$ We can therefore bound $$\begin{aligned}
|\tilde x_C' - m''|
& \le
|\tilde x_C' - x_C'|
+
|x_C' - m''|
\le
\frac{2^{l_C}}{64N_C}
+
|x_C' - m''|\\
& \le
\frac{2^{l_C}}{64N_C}
+\frac{2^{l_C}}{128N_C}
<
\frac{2^{l_C}}{32N_C}.
\end{aligned}$$
Since the distance from $m''$ to any of the roots $z_1,\ldots,z_k$ is also smaller than $r''<\frac{2^{l_C}}{32N_C}$, we conclude that the disk $\Delta(\tilde{x}_C',\frac{2^{l_C}}{16N_C})$ contains all roots $z_1,\ldots,z_k$. Hence, we conclude that $\Delta':=\Delta(\tilde{x}_C',\frac{2^{l_C}}{8N_C})$ is $(\frac{1}{2},\frac{4}{3})$-isolating for the roots $z_1,\ldots,z_k$, and thus $\T(\Delta')=k$ must hold according to Lemma \[softtest:success2\]. This shows that we reach line \[newtonaddboxes\] and that the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewtonTest</span> returns <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Success</span>.
In essence, the above lemma states that, in case of a well separated cluster of roots contained in some component $C$, our algorithm performs a quadratic step. That is, it replaces the component $C$ by a component $C'$ of width $w(C')\le \frac{2^{\ell_C}}{N_C}\le\frac{w(C)}{N_C}$, which contains all roots that are contained in $C$. Now, suppose that there exists a sequence $C_1,\ldots,C_s$ of non-special nodes, with $C_1\supset\cdots\supset C_s$, such that $C_s$ has much smaller width than $C_1$. Then, $C_1$ contains a cluster of nearby roots but no other root of $F$. We will see that, from a considerably small (i.e., comparable to the bound in (\[def:smax\])) index on, this cluster is also well separated from the remaining roots (with respect to the size of $C_i$) such that the requirements in the above lemma are fulfilled. As a consequence, only a small number of steps from $C_i$ to $C_{i+1}$ are linear, which in turn implies that the whole sequence has small length. For the proof, we need to consider a sequence $(s_i)_i=(x_i,n_i)_i$, which we define in a rather abstract way. The rationale behind our choice for $s_i$ is that, for all except a small number of indices and a suitable choice for $s_i$, the sequence $(s_i)_i$ behaves similarly to the sequence $(2^{\ell_{C_i}},\log\log N_{C_i})_i$. We remark that $(s_i)_i$ has already been introduced in [@Sagraloff2015], where it serves as a crucial ingredient for the analysis of the real root isolation method <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ANewDSC</span>.
\[sequence\] Let $w$, $w'\in\mathbb{R}^+$ be two positive reals with $w>w'$, and let $m\in\mathbb{N}_{\ge 1}$ be a positive integer. We recursively define the sequence $(s_i)_{i\in\mathbb{N}_{\ge 1}}:=((x_i,n_i))_{i\in\mathbb{N}_{\ge 1}}$ as follows: Let $s_1=(x_{1},n_1):=(w,m)$, and $$s_{i+1}=\left(x_{i+1},n_{i+1}\right):=\begin{cases}
\left(\epsilon_{i}\cdot x_{i},n_{i}+1\right)\text{ with an } \epsilon_{i}\in [0,\frac{1}{N_{i}}], & \text{if }\frac{x_{i}}{N_{i}}\ge w'\\
\left(\delta_{i}\cdot x_{i},\max(1,n_{i}-1)\right)\text{ with a } \delta_{i}\in [0,\frac{1}{2}], & \text{if }\frac{x_{i}}{N_{i}}<w',
\end{cases}$$ where $N_i:=2^{2^{n_{i}}}$ and $i\ge 1$. Then, the smallest index $i_0$ with $x_{i_0}\le w'$ is bounded by $8(n_1+\log\log \max(4,\frac{w}{w'}))$.
We are now ready to prove the claimed bound on the maximal length of a sequence of non-special nodes:
\[pathlength\] Let $\P=(C_1,N_1),\ldots, (C_s,N_s)$, with $C_1\supset\cdots\supset C_s$, be a sequence of consecutive non-special nodes. Then, we have $s\le s_{\max}$ with an $s_{\max}$ of size $$\begin{aligned}
s_{\max} & =O\left(\log n+\log\LOG(w(\mathcal{B}))+\log\LOG(\sigma_F(B^+)^{-1}) \right) \\
& =O\left(\log \left(n\cdot \LOG(w(\mathcal{B}))\cdot \LOG(\sigma_F(2\mathcal{B})^{-1})\right)\right).
\end{aligned}$$
We distinguish two cases. We first consider the special case, where $\P$ is an arbitrary sub-sequence of the unique initial sequence from the child of the root of the tree to the parent of the base of the tree; if there exists no non-special root in between the root and the base of the tree, there is nothing to prove. Due to Theorem \[thm:termination\], part (e), $C_s$ consists of at most $9\cdot |\MMM(2\BBB)|$ squares. It follows that $2^{2s}\le 9n$ as $C_i$ consists of at least $2^{2i}$ squares. This yields $s=O(\log n)$.
We now come to the case, where we can assume that each $C_i$ is a successor of the base of the tree. In particular, we have $\mathcal{B}\setminus C_i\neq \emptyset$. W.l.o.g., we may further assume that $z_1,\ldots,z_k$ are the roots contained in the enlarged component $C_1^+$. Since all $C_i$ are assumed to be non-special, each $C_i^+$ contains $z_1$ to $z_k$ but no other root of $F$. Let $w_i:=w(C_i)$ be the width of the component $C_i$, $r_i:=\frac{3}{4}\cdot w_i$ be the radius of the enclosing disk $\Delta_i:=\Delta_{C_i}$, and $2^{\ell_i}:=2^{\ell_{C_i}}$ be the width of each of the squares into which $C_i$ decomposes. Notice that, for each index $i$, the enlarged component $C_i^+$ is contained in the disk $2\Delta_i$ of radius $\frac{3}{2}\cdot w_i$, and thus the disk $2\Delta_s$ of radius $\frac{3}{2}\cdot w_s$ contains the roots $z_1$ to $z_k$. We now split the sequence $\mathcal{P}$ into three (possibly empty) subsequences $\P_1=(C_1,N_1),\ldots, (C_{i_1},N_{i_1})$, $\P_2=(C_{i_1+1},N_{i_1+1}),\ldots, (C_{i_2},N_{i_2})$, and $\P_3=(C_{i_2+1},N_{i_2+1}),\ldots, (C_{s},N_{s})$, where $i_1$ and $i_2$ are defined as follows:
- $i_1$ is the first index with $2^{\ell_{1}}>2^{3\log n+32}\cdot N_{i_1}\cdot 2^{\ell_{i_1}}$. If there exists no such index, we set $i_1:=s$. Further notice that, for any index $i$ larger than $i_1$, we also have $2^{\ell_{1}}>2^{3\log n+32}\cdot N_{i}\cdot 2^{\ell_{i}}$, which follows from induction and the fact that $2^{\ell_i}$ and $N_i$ are replaced by $\frac{2^{\ell_i}}{2 N_i}$ and $N_i^2$ in a quadratic step.
- $i_2$ is the first index larger than or equal to $i_1$ such that the step from $i_2$ to $i_2+1$ is quadratic and $2^{\ell_{s}}\cdot 2^{3\log n+32}\cdot N_{i_2}\ge 2^{\ell_{i_2}}$. If there exists no such index $i_2$, we set $i_2:=s$.
From the definition of $i_2$, it is easy to see that $\P_3$ has length bounded by $O(\log n)$. Namely, if $i_2=s$, there is nothing to prove, hence we may assume that the step from $i_2$ to $i_2+1$ is quadratic and $2^{\ell_s}\ge 2^{-3\log n-32}\cdot N_{i_2}^{-1}\cdot 2^{\ell_{i_2}}=2^{-3\log n-31}\cdot 2^{\ell_{i_2+1}}$. Hence, we conclude that $s-(i_2+1)\le 3\log n+31$ as $\ell_i$ is reduced by at least $1$ in each step.
Let us now consider an arbitrary index $i$ from the sequence $\P_2$. The distance from an arbitrary point in $C_i^+$ to the boundary of $C_1^+$ is at least $2^{\ell_1-1}\ge 2^{3\log n+31}\cdot N_{i}\cdot 2^{\ell_i}>2^{2\log n+20}\cdot N_i\cdot r_i$, where the latter inequality follows from $r_i=\frac{3}{4}w_i\le \frac{3}{4}\cdot 9n\cdot 2^{\ell_i}$. Since $C_1^+$ contains only the roots $z_1,\ldots,z_k$, this implies that the distance from an arbitrary point in $C_i^+$ to an arbitrary root $z_{k+1},\ldots,z_n$ is larger than $2^{2\log n+20}\cdot N_i\cdot r_i$. Hence, the second requirement from Lemma \[newtonsucceeds\] is fulfilled for each component $C_i$ with $i\ge i_1$. Now, suppose that $2^{\ell_{s}}\cdot 2^{3\log n+32}\cdot N_{i}< 2^{\ell_{i}}$, then the roots $z_1$ to $z_k$ are contained in a disk of radius $\frac{3}{2}\cdot 9n\cdot 2^{\ell_s}<2^{-20-\log n}\cdot N_i^{-1}\cdot r_i$, and thus also the first requirement from Lemma \[newtonsucceeds\] is fulfilled. Hence, from the definition of $i_2$, we conclude that the algorithm performs a quadratic step if and only if $2^{\ell_{s}}\cdot 2^{3\log n+32}\cdot N_{i}< 2^{\ell_{i}}$. We now define the sequence $s_i:=(2^{\ell_i},\log\log N_i)$, where $i$ runs from $i_1$ to the first index, denoted $i_1'$, for which $2^{\ell_{i_1'}}<2^{\ell_{s}}\cdot 2^{-3\log n-32}$. Then, according to Lemma \[sequence\], it holds that $i_1'-i_1\le 8(m+\log\log\max(4,\frac{w}{w'}))$, with $w:=2^{\ell_{i_1}}$, $m:=\log\log N_{i_1}$, and $w':=2^{\ell_{s}}\cdot 2^{3\log n+32}$. Theorem \[thm:termination\] (g) yields that $m=O(\log\LOG(w(\mathcal{B}))+\log\LOG(\sigma_F(2\mathcal{B})^{-1})$. Hence, since $i_2-i_1'\le 3\log n+32$, we conclude that $i_2-i_1\le O(\log n+\log\LOG(w(\mathcal{B}))+\log\LOG (\sigma_F(2\mathcal{B})^{-1}))$.
It remains to show that the latter bound also applies to $i_1$. From the upper bound on the numbers $N_i$, it follows the existence of an $m_{\max}$ of size $O(\log n+\log\LOG(w(\mathcal{B}))+\log\LOG(\sigma_F(2\mathcal{B})^{-1}))$ such that each sequence of consecutive quadratic steps has length less than $m_{\max}$, and such that after $m_{\max}$ consecutive linear steps, the number $N_i$ drops to $4$. Since the number $\ell_i$ decreases by at least $1$ in each step, there exists an index $i'$ of size $O(\log n)$ such that $2^{\ell_{i'}}\cdot 2^{3\log n+34}<2^{\ell_1}$. Now, if the sequence $C_{i'},C_{i'+1},\ldots$ starts with $m_{\max}$ or more consecutive linear steps, we must have $N_{i'+m_{\max}}=4$, and thus $2^{\ell_{i'+m_{\max}}}\cdot 2^{3\log n+32}N_{i'+m_{\max}}<2^{\ell_1}$. Hence, we conclude that $i_1\le i'+m_{\max}$ in this case. Otherwise, there must exist an index $i''$, with $i'\le i''<i'+m_{\max}$, such that the step from $i''$ to $i''+1$ is quadratic, whereas the step from $i''+2$ is linear. Then, it holds that $$N_{i'' +2 }
=
\sqrt{N_{i''+1}}
=
N_{i''}
\; \text{ and } \;
2^{\ell_{i''+2}}
\le
2^{\ell_{i''+1}}
=
\frac{2^{\ell_{i''}}}{2N_{i''}}
<
2^{-3\log n-32}
\frac{2^{\ell_1}}{N_{i''}},$$ which implies that $i_1\le i''+2\le i'+m_{\max}+1=O(\log n+\log\LOG(w(\mathcal{B}))+\log\LOG(\sigma_F(2\mathcal{B})^{-1}))$. Hence, the claimed bound on $i_1$ follows.
We can now state the first main result of this section, which immediately follows from the above bound on $s_{\max}$ and the fact that there exists at most $2\cdot(|\MMM(2\mathcal{B})|+1)$ special nodes:
\[thm:treesize\] The subdivision tree $\mathcal{T}$ induced by $\CC$<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Isolate</span> has size $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equ:treesize}
|\mathcal{T}| & \le 2\cdot(|\MMM(2\mathcal{B})|+1)\cdot s_{\max} \\ \nonumber
& = O\left(|\MMM(2\mathcal{B})|\cdot \log \left(n\cdot \LOG(w(\mathcal{B}))\cdot \LOG(\sigma_F(2\mathcal{B})^{-1})\right)\right).
\end{aligned}$$ If $\mathcal{B}$ contains all complex roots of $F$, and if $\LOG (w(\mathcal{B}))=O(\Gamma_F+\log n)$,[^18] then the above bound writes as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equ:treesizeglobal}
O\left(n\cdot \log \left(n\cdot \Gamma_F\cdot \LOG(\sigma_F^{-1})\right)\right).
\end{aligned}$$
We can also give simpler bounds for the special case, where our input polynomial has integer coefficients. Suppose that $f(x)\in\mathbb{Z}[x]$ has integer coefficients of bit size less than $\tau$. We first divide $f$ by its leading coefficient $\operatorname{lcf}(f)$ to obtain the polynomial $F:=f/\operatorname{lcf}(f)$, which meets our requirement from (\[def:polyF\]) on the leading coefficient. Then, we have $\Gamma_F=O(\tau)$ and $\sigma_F=2^{-O(n(\log n+\tau))}$; e.g. see [@yap-fundamental] for a proof of the latter bound. Hence, we obtain the following result:
\[cor:treesize\] Let $f$ be a polynomial of degree $n$ with integer coefficients of bit size less than $\tau$, let $F:=f/\operatorname{lcf}(f)$, and let $\mathcal{B}$ be a square of width $2^{O(\Gamma_F+\log n)}$. Then, the algorithm $\mathbb{C}\textsc{Isolate}$ (with input $F$ and $\mathcal{B}$) uses $$O(|\MMM(2\mathcal{B})|\cdot \log(n\tau))=O(n\cdot\log(n\tau))$$ iterations to isolate all roots of $F$ that are contained in $\mathcal{B}$.
The above results show that our algorithm performs near-optimal with respect to the number of components that are produced by the algorithm. In addition, since each component consists of at most $9n$ squares, we immediately obtain an upper bound for the total number of squares produced by the algorithm that exceeds the bound from (\[equ:treesizeglobal\]) by a factor of $n$. Indeed, we will see that the actual number of squares is considerably smaller, that is, of size $O(|\MMM(2\mathcal{B})|\cdot s_{\max}\cdot\log n)$, which exceeds the bound in (\[equ:treesizeglobal\]) only by a factor $\log n$. For the proof, we consider two mappings $\phi$ and $\psi$, where $\phi$ maps a component $C=\{B_1,\ldots,B_{s_C}\}$ to a root $z_i\in C^+$, and $\psi$ maps a square $B_j$ to a root $z_i\in 4B_j\cap C^+$. The claimed bound for the total number of squares then follows from the fact that we can define $\phi$ and $\psi$ in a way such that the pre-image of an arbitrary root $z_i\in2\mathcal{B}$ (under each of the two mappings) has size $O(s_{\max}\cdot\log n)$. The rest of this section is dedicated to the definitions of $\phi$ and $\psi$ and the proof of the latter claim. In what follows, we may assume that $2\mathcal{B}$ contains at least one root as, otherwise, all four sub-squares of $\mathcal{B}$ are already discarded in the first iteration of the preprocessing phase.
For a root $\xi\in2\mathcal{B}$, we define the *canonical path* $\P_{\xi}$ of $\xi$ as the unique path in the subdivision tree $\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{B}}$ that consists of all nodes $C$ with $\xi\in C^+$.
Notice that the canonical path is well-defined as, for any two nodes $C_1$ and $C_2$, either $C_1^+$ and $C_2^+$ are disjoint or one of the two components contains the other one. We can now define the maps $\phi$ and $\psi$:
\[def:maps\] Let $C=\{B_1,\ldots,B_{s_C}\}$ be a node in the subdivision tree $\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{B}}$, and let $B:=B_j$ be an arbitrary square in $C$. Then, we define maps $\phi$ and $\psi$ as follows:
- Starting at $C$, we descend in the subdivision tree as follows: If the current node $D$ is a non-terminal special node, we go to the child $E$ that minimizes $|\MMM(E^+)|$. If $D$ is terminal, we stop. If $D$ is non-special, then there is a unique child of $D$ to proceed with. Proceeding this way, the number $|\MMM(D^+)|$ is at least halved in each non-terminal special node $D$, except for the base node. Hence, since any sequence of consecutive non-special nodes has length at most $s_{\max}$, it follows that after at most $s_{\max}\cdot(\log\lceil(|\MMM(C^+)|)\rceil+1)\le s_{\max}\cdot(\log n+2)$ many steps we reach a terminal node $F$. We define $\phi(C)$ to be an arbitrary root contained in $\MMM(F^+)$.
- According to part (d) of Theorem \[thm:termination\], the enlarged square $2B$ contains at least one root $\xi$. Now, consider the unique maximal subpath $P'_{\xi}=C_1,C_2,\ldots,C_s$ of the canonical path $P_{\xi}$ that starts at $C_1:=C$. If $s\le\lceil\log (18n)\rceil$, we define $\psi(B):=\xi$. Otherwise, consider the component $C':=C_{\lceil\log(18n)\rceil}$ and define $\psi(B):=\phi(C')$.
It is clear from the above definition that $\phi(C)$ is contained in $C^+$ as each root contained in the enlarged component $F^+$ corresponding to the terminal node $F$ is also contained in $C^+$. It remains to show that $\psi(B)\in 4B\cap C^+$. If the length of the sub-path $P_{\xi}'$ is $\lceil\log(18n)\rceil$ or less, then $\psi(B)=\xi\in 2B$, hence, there is nothing to prove. Otherwise, the squares in $C'$ have width less than $\frac{w(B)}{18n}$. Since $C'$ can contain at most $9n$ squares, we conclude that $w(C')< \frac{w(B)}{2}$, and since $\xi$ is contained in $B^+$ as well as in $(C')^+$, we conclude that $(C')^+\subset 4B$, and thus $\psi(B)=\phi(C')\in 4B\cap (C')^+\subset 4B\cap C^+$.
Now, consider the canonical path $P_{\xi}=C_1,\ldots,C_s$, with $C_1:=\mathcal{B}$, of an arbitrary root $\xi\in2\mathcal{B}$. Then, a component $C$ can only map to $\xi$ via $\phi$ if $C=C_i$ for some $i$ with $s-i\le s_{\max}\cdot (\log |\MMM(2\mathcal{B})|+1)$. Hence, the pre- image of $\xi$ has size $O(s_{\max}\cdot\LOG |\MMM(2\mathcal{B})|)$. For the map $\psi$, notice that a square $B$ can only map to $\xi$ if $B$ is contained in a component $C=C_i$ for some $i$ with $s-i=s_{\max}\cdot(\log |\MMM(2\mathcal{B})|+1)+\lceil\log(18n)\rceil$. Since, for each component $C_{i}$, there exist at most a constant number of squares $B'\in C_i$ with $\xi\in 4B'$, we conclude that the pre-image of $\xi$ under $\psi$ is also of size $O(s_{\max}\cdot\LOG \MMM(2\mathcal{B}))$. Hence, the total number of squares produced by our algorithm is bounded by $O(|\MMM(2\mathcal{B})|\cdot s_{\max}\cdot \LOG |\MMM(2\mathcal{B})|)$. We summarize:
\[mapping\] Let $\xi\in 2\mathcal{B}$ be a root of $F$ contained in the enlarged square $2\mathcal{B}$. Then, with mappings $\phi$ and $\psi$ as defined in Definition \[def:maps\], the pre-image of $\xi$ under each of the two mappings has size $O(s_{\max}\cdot\LOG |\MMM(2\mathcal{B})|)$. The total number of squares produced by the algorithm $\mathbb{C}\textsc{Isolate}$ is bounded by $$O(s_{\max}\cdot |\MMM(2\mathcal{B})|\cdot \LOG |\MMM(2\mathcal{B})|)=\tilde{O}\left(n\cdot\log\left(\LOG(w(\mathcal{B}))\cdot\LOG(\sigma_F(2\mathcal{B})^{-1})\right)\right)$$
We can also state a corresponding result for polynomials with integer coefficients:
Let $f\in\mathbb{Z}[x]$ and $F:=f/\operatorname{lcf}(f)$ be polynomials and $\mathcal{B}$ be a square as in Corollary \[cor:treesize\]. Then, for isolating all roots of $f$ contained in $\mathcal{B}$, the algorithm $\mathbb{C}\textsc{Isolate}$ (with input $F$ and $\BBB$) produces a number of squares bounded by $$O(|\MMM(2\mathcal{B})|\cdot \log(n\tau)\cdot \log n)=O(n\log^2(n\tau)).$$
Bit Complexity {#subsec:bitcomplexity}
--------------
For our analysis, we need to introduce the notion of a square or component being *weakly centered* and *centered*:
We say that a square $B$ of width $w:=w(B)$ is *weakly centered*, if $\min\{|z|:z\in B\} \le 4\cdot w$. Similarly, we say that a square is *centered* if $\min\{|z|:z\in B\} \le w/4$. In addition, we define a (weakly) centered component to be a component that contains a (weakly) centered square.
Notice that the child of a component that is *not* weakly centered can never become weakly centered. Hence, it follows that the set of weakly centered components forms a subtree ${\mathcal{T}_{\operatorname{wcent}}}$ of the subdivision tree $\TTT$ that is either empty or contains the root component $\BBB$; see Figure \[figure:centralpath\] for an illustration.
Moreover, let $C$ and $C'$ be siblings in ${\mathcal{T}_{\operatorname{wcent}}}$ and let $w$ and $w'$ be the sizes of the boxes in the components $C$ and $C'$, respectively. We already argued that the distance between $C$ and $C'$ is at least $\max\{w,w'\}$. W.l.o.g. let $\min\{|z|:z\in C\}\le \min\{|z|:z\in C'\}$, then the distance of $C'$ to the origin is at least $w'/2$, and thus $C'$ is not centered. We further conclude that a descendant of depth 3 of $C'$ is not weakly centered because the width of the boxes in the component is at least halved in each step. It follows that each path in ${\mathcal{T}_{\operatorname{wcent}}}$ consisting of only weakly centered components has length at most 3. From this observation, we conclude that the subtree ${\mathcal{T}_{\operatorname{wcent}}}$ has a very special structure. Namely, it consists of only one (possibly empty) *central path* $P=C_1,\ldots, C_\ell$ of all centered components, to which some trees of depth at most 4 of weakly centered components are attached, see Figure \[figure:centralpath\]. Since there can only be a constant number of disjoint not weakly centered squares of the same size, it further holds that the degree of each node is bounded by a constant. Hence, each of the attached trees has constant size, and each node in the tree contains at most a constant number of weakly centered squares.
Notice that not weakly centered components $C\in \mathcal{T}\setminus {\mathcal{T}_{\operatorname{wcent}}}$ have the crucial property that any two points in $C^+$ have absolute values of comparable size; see Lemma \[lem:non-centered uniform\]. This is not true in general for (weakly) centered components as the size of $C$ might be very large whereas the distance from $C^+$ to the origin is small.
\[lem:non-centered uniform\] If $B$ is a not weakly centered square, it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
\max_{z\in 4B}\LOG(z)\le 5+\min_{z\in 4B}\LOG z.
\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, if $C$ is a not weakly centered component, then it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
\max_{z\in C^+}\LOG(z)\le \log(64n)+\min_{z\in C^+}\LOG z.
\end{aligned}$$
We first prove the claim for a not weakly centered square $B$. Let $\underline z:=\argmin\{|z|:z\in 4B\}$ and $\overline z:=\argmax\{|z|:z\in 4B\}$. By definition the distance of $B$ to the origin is at least $4w$, where $w$ denotes the size of $B$. Moreover, with $x:=\argmin\{|z|:z\in B\}$, we get $
|\underline z| \ge |x| - |x-\underline z| \ge 4w - \sqrt{12.5}w\ge w/4.
$ Thus $$\begin{aligned}
|\overline z|-|\underline z|
\le |\overline z-\underline z|
\le 4\sqrt{2} w
\le 16\sqrt{2}\cdot |\underline z|,
\end{aligned}$$ and the statement follows.
It remains to prove the claim for a not weakly centered component. Let $\underline z:=\argmin\{|z|:z\in C^+\}$, $\overline z:=\argmax\{|z|:z\in C^+\}$, and let $B\subset C$ be a square in $C$ such that $\underline z\in 4B$. Then, as above, it follows that $\underline z\ge w/4$ and since $C$ contains at most $9n$ squares it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
|\overline z|-|\underline z|
\le |\overline z-\underline z|
\le \sqrt{2} \cdot (9n w+w)
\le \sqrt{2}\cdot 10nw
\le 57n |\underline z|,
\end{aligned}$$ and thus $\max_{z\in C^+}\LOG(z)\le \log(64n)+\min_{z\in C^+}\LOG z$.
In the previous section, we introduced mappings $\phi$ and $\psi$ that map components $C$ and squares $B$ to roots contained in $C^+$ and $4B\cap C^+$, respectively, such that the preimage (under each of the two mappings) of each root has size at most $O(s_{\max}\cdot\LOG |\MMM(2\BBB)|)=O(s_{\max}\cdot\log n)$, with $$s_{\max}=O(\log(n\LOG(w(\BBB))\LOG(\sigma_F(2\BBB)^{-1})))$$ as defined in Lemma \[pathlength\]. The crucial idea in our analysis is to bound the cost for processing a certain component $C$ (square $B$) in terms of values that depend only on the root $\phi(C)$ ($\psi(B)$), such as its absolute value, its separation, or the absolute value of the derivative $F'$ at the root; see Lemma \[lem:costTk\]. Following this approach, each root in $2\BBB$ is “charged” only a small (i.e. logarithmic in the “common” parameters) number of times, and thus we can profit from amortization when summing the cost over all components (squares). For each not weakly centered component $C$, the width of $C$ and the absolute value of any point in $C$ is upper bounded by $64n\cdot |\phi(C)|$, which allows us to bound each occurring term $\LOG w(C)$ by $O(\log n+\LOG |\phi(C)|)$. However, for weakly centered components (squares), this does not hold in general, and thus some extra treatment is required. For this, we will introduce slightly modified mappings $\hat{\phi}$ and $\hat{\psi}$ that coincide with $\phi$ and $\psi$ on all not weakly centered components and squares, respectively, but map a weakly centered component (square) to a root of absolute value that is comparable to the size of the component (square). In the next step, we will show that this can be done in a way such that the pre-image of each root is still of logarithmic size. We give details:
Let $i_1,\ldots,i_s$, with $1\le i_1<i_2 < \ldots < i_s\le \ell-1$, be the indices of components in the central path $P=C_1,\ldots, C_\ell$ such that $\MMM(C_{i_j}^+)\supsetneq \MMM(C_{i_j+1}^+)$ for $j=1,\ldots,s$. That is, $C_{i_j}$ are the weakly centered components that are also special according to Definition \[def:splitting\]. In addition, we say that $z_0:=\max\{|x|:x\in 2\BBB\}$ is the *pseudo-root of $2\BBB$*, and define $\MMM^+(2\BBB):=\MMM(2\BBB)\cup\{z_0\}$ as the set consisting of all (pseudo-) roots in $2\BBB$.
\[def:canonicalmap\] Let $C$ be a component and $B\subset C$ be a square contained in $C$.
1. If the component $C$ is not weakly centered, we define $\hat{\phi}(C):=\phi(C)$.
2. If the component $C$ is weakly centered, let $C_i\in P$ be the first centered predecessor of $C$ in ${\mathcal{T}_{\operatorname{wcent}}}$. If there exists no such $C_i$ or if $i\in[1,i_1]$, we define $\hat{\phi}(C)=z_0$. For $i\in(i_2,\ell]$, let $j$ be maximal with $i_j< i$. Then, there exists a root $\xi\in \MMM(C^+_{i_j})\setminus \MMM(C^+_{i_j+1})$. We define $\hat{\phi}(C):=\xi$.
3. If $B$ is weakly centered, we define $\hat{\psi}(B):=\hat{\phi}(C)$. Otherwise, we define $\hat\psi(B):=\psi(B)$.
We derive the first crucial property of the mappings $\hat\phi$ and $\hat\psi$:
It holds that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{property:maps}
\max_{z\in C^+}\LOG z\le \log(64n)+\LOG\hat{\phi}(C) \;\text{ and }\;
\max_{z\in 4B}\LOG z\le \log(64n)+\LOG\hat{\psi}(B)
\end{aligned}$$ for all components $C$ (squares $B$).
For a not weakly centered component $C$ (square $B\subset C'$), this follows directly from Lemma \[lem:non-centered uniform\] and the fact that $\hat\phi(C)=\phi(C)$ ($\hat\psi(B)=\psi(B)$) and that $\phi(C)\in C^+$ ($\psi(B)\in 4B\cap C^+$).
For a centered component $C$, we either have $\hat{\phi}(C)=z_0$ or $\hat\phi(C)\notin C^+$ due to the definition of $\hat\phi$. The first case is trivial, hence, we may assume that $\hat\phi(C)\notin C^+$. Since $C$ is centered, it contains a centered square $B$, and thus the distance of $B$ to the origin is at most $w/4$. It follows that $C^+$ contains the disk of radius $w/4$ around the origin, hence $|\hat\phi(C)|\ge w/4$. Since the distance between any two points in $C^+$ is upper bounded by $10\sqrt{2}nw$, we conclude that $|z|\le w/4+10\sqrt{2}nw\le (1+40\sqrt{2})\cdot |\hat\phi(C)|\le 64n\cdot |\hat\phi(C)|$ for all $z\in C^+$. The same argument further shows that $|z|\le 64n\cdot |\hat\psi(B)|$ for all centered squares and all $z\in 4B$.
It remains to show the claim for a weakly centered component $C$ (square $B$) that is not centered. In this case, we either have $\hat{\psi}(C)=z_0$ or $\hat{\psi}(C)=\hat{\phi}(C')$, where $C'$ is a centered component on the central path that contains $C$; see Definition \[def:canonicalmap\]. In the first case, there is nothing to prove. In the second case, we have have already shown that Inequality (\[property:maps\]) holds for $C'$, hence, it must hold for $C$ as well. The same argument also applies to squares $B$ in $C$ that are weakly centered but not centered.
Notice that, for a centered component $C$ (square $B$), the image of the corresponding mapping $\hat{\phi}$ ($\hat{\psi}$) may no longer be contained in the enlarged component $C^+$ (enlarged square $4B$), as it is the case for the mappings $\phi$ and $\psi$. However, it still holds that the preimage of its (pseudo-) root under each of the two mappings $\hat\phi$ and $\hat\psi$ is of small size:
\[lem:canonicalhit\] Let $\xi\in\MMM^+(2\BBB)$. Then, the preimage of $\xi$ under $\hat{\phi}$ and $\hat{\psi}$ has size at most $O(s_{\max}\cdot\LOG |\MMM(2\BBB)|)=O(s_{\max}\cdot\log n)$.
Since $\hat{\phi}$ coincides with $\phi$ on all components $C\notin {\mathcal{T}_{\operatorname{wcent}}}$, it suffices to show the claim for the restriction $\hat{\phi}|_{{\mathcal{T}_{\operatorname{wcent}}}}$ of $\hat\phi$ to the components $C\in{\mathcal{T}_{\operatorname{wcent}}}$ that are weakly centered. Let $\xi=\hat{\psi}(C)$, with $C\in{\mathcal{T}_{\operatorname{wcent}}}$, be an arbitrary root contained in the image of $\hat{\phi}|_{{\mathcal{T}_{\operatorname{wcent}}}}$, and let $C_i$ be the first predecessor of $C$ that is central and located on the central path. Then, there exists a $j\in\{1,\ldots,\ell-1\}$ with $i_j<i\le i_{j+1}$, and we have $\xi\in\mathcal{Z}(C_{i_j}^+)\setminus \mathcal{Z}(C_{i_{j}+1}^+)$. In addition, $C$ is connected with $C_i$ via a path of constant length as the distance from $C$ to the central path on ${\mathcal{T}_{\operatorname{wcent}}}$ is bounded by a constant and there cannot be more than $3$ consecutive components that are weakly centered but not centered. Since there exists at most $s_{\max}$ components on the central path between $C_{i_j}$ and $C_{i_{j+1}}$, it follows that the number of components $C\in{\mathcal{T}_{\operatorname{wcent}}}$ that are mapped to $\xi$ is bounded by $O(s_{\max})$. The same argument applies to the special case, where $C$ is mapped to the pseudo-root $z_0$. Also, from the same argument and the definition of $\hat\psi$, it further follows that there can be at most $O(s_{\max})$ many weakly centered squares that are mapped to the same (pseudo-) root, since each component contains at most constantly many weakly centered squares.
We can now start with the bit complexity analysis of . Let $C=\{B_1,\ldots,B_{s_{C}}\}$ be any component produced by the algorithm. When processing $C$, our algorithm calls the $\T$-test in up to three steps. More specifically, in line \[testbeforenewton\] of the $\T(2\Delta_C)$ and the $\T(4\Delta_C)$-test are called. In the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewtonTest</span>, the $\T(\Delta')$-test is called, with $\Delta'$ as defined in line \[deltaprime\] in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewtonTest</span>. Finally, in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bisection</span>, the $\T(\Delta_{B'})$-test is called for each of the $4$ sub-squares $B'$ into which each square $B_i$ of $C$ is decomposed. Our goal is to provide bounds for the cost of each of these calls. For this, we mainly use Lemma \[allkcost\], which provides a bound on the cost for calling $\T(\Delta)$ that depends on the degree of $F$, the value $\tau_F$, the size of the radius and the center of $\Delta$, and the maximal absolute value that $F(x)$ takes on the disk $\Delta$. Under the assumption that $\Delta$ has non-empty intersection with $C$, we may reformulate the latter value in terms of parameters (such as the absolute value, the separation, etc.) that depend on an arbitrary root contained in $C^+$.
\[Fmbighelp\] Let $C$ be a component, and let $\Delta:=\Delta(m,r)$ be a disk that has non-empty intersection with $C$. If $\MMM(C^+)\ge 1$, then it holds that $\sigma_F(z_i)<n\cdot 2^{\ell_C+6}$ and $$\max_{z\in\Delta}|F(z)|>2^{-16n}\cdot\sigma_F(z_i)\cdot|F'(z_i)|\cdot (|\MMM(C^+)|\cdot\max\nolimits_1\lambda)^{-2n},$$ where $z_i$ is an arbitrary root of $F$ contained in $C^+$ and $\lambda:=\frac{2^{\ell_C}}{r}$ the ratio of the size of a square in $C$ and the radius of $\Delta$. If $\MMM(C^+)=0$, then $C$ is the component consisting of the single input square $\BBB$, and it holds that $\max_{z\in\Delta}|F(z)|>(2w(\BBB))^{-n-2}$.
Notice that $|\MMM(C^+)|=0$ is only possible if $C=\mathcal{B}$ as $C^+$ contains at least one root for each component $C$ that is not equal to the single input square $\BBB$. Hence, each point $z\in\Delta\cap C$ has distance at least $w(B)/2$ to each of the roots of $F$, and thus $|F(z)|\ge (2w(\BBB))^{-n-2}$.
In what follows, we now assume that $C^+$ contains at least one root $\xi$. Let us first bound the separation of $\xi$: If there exists another root $\xi'\in C^+$, then we must have $\sigma_F(\xi)\le |\xi-\xi'|<(9\cdot|\MMM(C^+)|+1)\cdot \frac{3}{2}\cdot 2^{\ell_C}<n\cdot 2^{\ell_C+5}$, where we used that each component $C$ consists of at most $9\cdot|\MMM(C^+)|$ squares, each of size $2^{\ell_C}$. Now, let $|\MMM(C^+)|=1$, and let $C'$ be the direct ancestor of $C$. When processing $C'$, the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewtonTest</span> failed as its success would imply that $k:=|\MMM((C')^+)|=|\MMM(C^+)|\ge 2$. In addition, since $C'$ is non-terminal, the disk $8\Delta_{C'}$ must contain at least two roots as otherwise $\mathbf{T_*}(2\Delta_{C'})$ as well as $\mathbf{T_*}(4\Delta_{C'})$ would return $1$. Hence, we have $\sigma_F(\xi)<n\cdot 2^{\ell_{C'}+5}=n\cdot 2^{\ell_C+6}$. We conclude that, in any case, any root $\xi\in C^+$ has separation $\sigma_F(\xi)<n\cdot 2^{\ell_C+6}$.
In the next step, we show that there exists an $m'\in\Delta\cap C^+$ whose distance to $C$ is at most $2^{\ell_C-2}$ and whose distance to any root of $F$ is at least $\frac{\min(2^{\ell_C-2},r)}{2\sqrt{n}}$. Namely, due to our assumption, there exists a point $p\in\Delta\cap C$. Then, the two disks $\Delta(p,2^{\ell_C-2})$ and $\Delta$ share an area of size larger than $\min(2^{\ell_C-2},r)^2$, and thus there must exist an $m'\in\Delta(p,2^{\ell_C-2})\cap\Delta\subset C^+$ whose distance to any root of $F$ is lower bounded by $\left(\frac{\min(2^{\ell_C-2},r)^2}{\pi\cdot n}\right)^{1/2}$.
Now, let $z_i\in C^+$ be an arbitrary but fixed root of $F$. If $z_j$ is a root not contained in $C^+$, then $|m'-z_j|>2^{\ell_C-2}$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{|z_i-z_j|}{|m'-z_j|}
& \le
\frac{|z_i-m'|+|m'-z_j|}{|m'-z_j|}
\le
1+\frac{|z_i-m'|}{|m'-z_j|}<1+\frac{9\cdot n\cdot 2^{\ell_C+1}}{2^{\ell_{C}-2}}\\
& = 1+72\cdot |\MMM(C^+)|<2^7\cdot n.
\end{aligned}$$ If $z_j$ is a root in $C^+$, then $$\frac{|z_i-z_j|}{|m'-z_j|}\le\frac{9 n 2^{\ell_C+1}}{\delta}= \frac{18\cdot n^{3/2}\cdot 2^{\ell_C+1}}{\min(2^{\ell_C-2},r)}\le 2^8\cdot n^{3/2}\cdot \max\nolimits_1\lambda.$$ Hence, we get $$\begin{aligned}
|F(m')|
& =
|F_n|\cdot\prod_{j=1}^{n}|m'-z_j|
=
|F'(z_i)|\cdot|m'-z_i|\cdot\prod_{j\neq i}\frac{|m'-z_j|}{|z_j-z_i|}\\
& \ge
|F'(z_i)|\cdot|m'-z_i|\cdot (2^8 n^{3/2}\max\nolimits_1\lambda)^{-|\MMM(C^+)|}\cdot (2^7 n)^{-(n-\MMM(C^+))}\\
& >
|F'(z_i)|\cdot \frac{\min(2^{\ell_C-2},r)}{2\sqrt{n}}\cdot (2^8n^{3/2}\max\nolimits_1\lambda)^{-n}\\
& >
|F'(z_i)|\cdot\frac{\sigma_F(z_i)}{2^9n^{3/2}\max\nolimits_1\lambda}\cdot (2^8n^{3/2}\max\nolimits_1\lambda)^{-n}\\
& >
2^{-16n}\cdot\sigma_F(z_i)\cdot|F'(z_i)|\cdot (n\cdot\max\nolimits_1\lambda)^{-2n},
\end{aligned}$$ where, in the second to last inequality, we used that $\sigma_F(z_i)<2^{\ell_{C}+6}\cdot n$.
We can now bound the cost for processing a component $C$:
\[lem:costTk\] When processing a component $C=\{B_1,\ldots,B_{s_C}\}$ with $|\MMM(C^+)|\ge 1$, the cost for all steps outside the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewtonTest</span> are bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
& \tilde{O}(n\cdot(n\LOG\hat{\phi}(C)+\LOG(\sigma_F(\phi(C))^{-1})+\LOG(F'(\phi(C))^{-1})))\text{ }+ \\
& \tilde{O}(n\cdot(\sum_{i=1}^{s_C} n\LOG\hat{\psi}(B_{i})+\tau_F+\LOG\sigma_F(\psi(B_{i}))^{-1}+\LOG F'(\psi(B_{i}))^{-1}))
\label{cost:component:nonewton}
\end{aligned}$$ bit operations. The cost for the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewtonTest</span> is bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cost:component:newton}
\tilde{O}(n( & n\LOG\hat{\phi}(C)+\LOG \sigma_F(\phi(C))^{-1}+\LOG F'(\phi(C))^{-1}+|\MMM(C^+)|\cdot\log N_C))
\end{aligned}$$ bit operations. If $C^+$ contains no root, then $C$ is the component consisting of the single input square $\BBB$, and the total cost for processing $C$ is bounded by $\tilde{O}(n (\tau_F+n\LOG(w(\BBB),w(\BBB)^{-1})))$ bit operations.
We start with the special case, where $C^+$ contains no root. Notice that this is only possible if $C=\mathcal{B}$ and $2\mathcal{B}$ contains no root. Hence, in this case, the algorithm performs four $\T(\Delta)$-tests in the preprocessing phase and then discards $\mathcal{B}$. Due to Lemma \[allkcost\] and Lemma \[Fmbighelp\], the cost for each of these tests is bounded by $\tilde O(n(\tau_F + n\LOG(w(\BBB),w(\BBB)^{-1}))$ bit operations. Hence, in what follows, we may assume that $C^+$ contains at least one root. We first estimate the cost for calling $\T$ on a disk $\Delta=\Delta(m,r)$, where $\Delta=2\Delta_C$, $\Delta=4\Delta_C$, or $\Delta=\Delta_{B'}$, where $B'$ is one of the four sub-squares into which a square $B_i$ is decomposed. If $\Delta=2\Delta_C$ or $\Delta=4\Delta_C$, then $\LOG(m,r)=O(\log n+\LOG \hat{\phi}(C))$, and thus the cost for the corresponding tests is bounded by $$\tilde{O}(n\cdot (n\LOG\hat{\phi}(C)+\tau_F+\LOG \sigma_F(\phi(C))^{-1}+\LOG F'(\phi(C))^{-1}))$$ bit operations, where we again use Lemma \[allkcost\] and Lemma \[Fmbighelp\]. For $\Delta=\Delta_{B'}$, we have $\LOG(m,r)=O(\log n+\LOG \hat{\psi}(C))$, and thus Lemma \[allkcost\] and Lemma \[Fmbighelp\] yields the bound $$\tilde{O}(n\cdot (n\LOG\hat{\psi}(B_{i})+\tau_F+\LOG\sigma_F(\psi(B_{i}))^{-1}+\LOG F'(\psi(B_{i}))^{-1}))$$ for processing each of the four sub-squares $B'\subset B_i$ into which $B_i$ is decomposed. Hence, the bound in (\[cost:component:nonewton\]) follows. We now consider the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewtonTest</span>: In line \[resultless\] of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewtonTest</span>, we have to compute an approximation $\tilde{x}_C'$ of the Newton iterate $x_C'$ such that $|\tilde{x}_C'-x'_C|<\frac{1}{64}\cdot \frac{2^{\ell_C}}{N_C}$. For this, we choose a point $x_C\in\mathcal{B}\backslash C$ in line \[ChoosePoint\] of whose distance to $C$ is $2^{\ell_C-1}$ and whose distance to the boundary of $\mathcal{B}$ is at least $2^{\ell_C-1}$. Since the union of all components covers all roots of $F$ that are contained in $\mathcal{B}$, and since the distance from $C$ to any other component is at least $2^{\ell_C}$, it follows that the distance from $x_C$ to any root of $F$ is larger than $2^{\ell_C-1}$. With $\Delta:=\Delta(x_C,2^{\ell_C-3})$, it thus follows that $|F(x_C)|\ge 2^{-n}\cdot\max_{z\in\Delta}|F(z)|$, and using Lemma \[Fmbighelp\], we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{boundF(xC)}
\LOG F(x_C)^{-1} & =O(n\log n+\LOG \sigma_F(\phi(C))^{-1}+\LOG F'(\phi(C))^{-1}).
\end{aligned}$$ It follows that the cost for calling Algorithm \[algo:softpredicate\] in Line \[softcallinnewton\] of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewtonTest</span> is bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
& \tilde{O}(n\cdot (\LOG F(x_C)^{-1}+\tau_F+n\LOG x_C)) \\ &\hspace{2cm}=
\tilde{O}(n\cdot (\tau_F+\LOG \sigma_F(\phi(C))^{-1}+\LOG F'(\phi(C))^{-1}+n\LOG \hat{\phi}(C)))
\end{aligned}$$ bit operations, Namely, Algorithm \[algo:softpredicate\] succeeds with an absolute precision bounded by $O(\LOG |F(x_C)|^{-1})$ and, within Algorithm \[algo:softpredicate\], we need to approximately evaluate $F$ and $F'$ at the point $x_C$ to such a precision; see also [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1104-1362 Lemma 3] for the cost of evaluating a polynomial of degree $n$ to a certain precision. If we pass line \[softcallinnewton\], then we must have $|F'(x_C)|>\frac{|F(x_C)|}{6r(C)}$. Hence, in the for-loop of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewtonTest</span>, we succeed for an $L$ of size $O(\LOG F(x_C)^{-1}+n\LOG w(C)-\ell_C +\log N_C)$, and thus the cost for computing $\tilde{x}_C'$ is bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{O}(n\cdot (\LOG \sigma_F(\phi(C))^{-1}+\LOG F'(\phi(C))^{-1}+\LOG \hat{\phi}(C)+\log N_C)),
\end{aligned}$$ where we again use (\[boundF(xC)\]) and the fact that $\sigma_F(\phi(C))<n\cdot 2^{\ell_C+6}$ and $\LOG w(C)=O(\log n+\LOG \hat{\phi}(C))$. It remains to bound the cost for calling $\T$ on $\Delta':=\Delta(\tilde{x}_C',\frac{1}{8}\cdot\frac{2^{\ell_C}}{N_C})$ in the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewtonTest</span>. Again, we use Lemma \[allkcost\] and Lemma \[Fmbighelp\] to derive an upper bound of size $$O(n\log n+\LOG \sigma_F(\phi(C))^{-1}+\LOG F'(\phi(C))^{-1}+|\MMM(C^+)|\cdot \log N_C)$$ for $\LOG (\max_{z\in\Delta'}|F(z)|)^{-1}$, and thus a bit complexity bound of size $$\tilde{O}(n\cdot (\LOG\hat{\phi}(C)+\LOG \sigma_F(\phi(C))^{-1}+\LOG F'(\phi(C))^{-1}+|\MMM(C^+)|\cdot \log N_C))$$ for $\T(\Delta')$. This proves correctness of the bound in (\[cost:component:newton\]). We finally remark that the cost for all other (mainly combinatorial) steps are negligible. Namely, the bit size $b_C$ of a square in a component $C$ is bounded by $O(\LOG(w(C),w(C)^{-1})+\log n)=O(\log n+\LOG\sigma_F(\phi(C))^{-1}+\LOG\hat{\phi(C)})$. Hence, each combinatorial step outside the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewtonTest</span>, such as grouping together squares into maximal connected components in Line \[grouping\] of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bisection</span>, needs $\tilde{O}(n)$ arithmetic operations with a precision $O(b_C)$, and thus a number of bit operations bounded by (\[cost:component:nonewton\]).
In the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewtonTest</span>, we need to determine the squares $B_{i,j}$ of size $2^{\ell_C-1}/N_C$ that intersect the disk $\Delta'$. This step requires only a constant number of additions and multiplication, each carried out with a precision bounded by $O(\LOG(w(C),w(C)^{-1})+\log n+\log N_C)$. Hence, the cost for these steps is bounded by (\[cost:component:newton\]).
When summing up the bound in (\[cost:component:nonewton\]) over all components $C$ produced by the algorithm, we obtain the bit complexity bound $$\begin{aligned}
\label{totalbound1}
\begin{split}
& \tilde{O}\Big(n\cdot (n\cdot(|\MMM(2\BBB)| +\LOG\Mea_{F}(2\BBB)+\LOG(w(\BBB),w(\BBB)^{-1}))+\tau_F\cdot |\MMM(2\BBB)| \\
& \hspace{1cm} +\sum_{z_i\in \MMM(2\BBB)}(\LOG\sigma_F(z_i)^{-1}+\LOG F'(z_i)^{-1}))\Big),
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ for all steps outside the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewtonTest</span>. Here, we exploit the fact that the preimage of each (pseudo-) root in $\MMM^+(2\BBB)$ under each of the mappings $\phi,\hat{\phi},\psi,\hat{\psi}$ has size $O(s_{\max}\cdot \log n)$, and that $|z_0|>w(\BBB)/2$ for the pseudo-root $z_0\in\MMM^+(2\BBB)$. If we now sum up the bound (\[cost:component:newton\]) for the cost of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewtonTest</span> over all components, we obtain a comparable complexity bound; however, with an additional term $n\cdot \sum_C |\MMM(C^+)|\cdot\log N_C$, where the sum is only taken over the components for which the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewtonTest</span> is called. The following considerations show that the latter sum is also dominated by the bound in (\[totalbound1\]).
\[bound:sumZNC\] Let $\mathcal{T}_{\textsc{New}}\subset \mathcal{T}$ be the set of all components in the subdivision tree $\mathcal{T}$ for which the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewtonTest</span> is called. Then, $\sum_{C\in\mathcal{T}_{\textsc{New}}}|\MMM(C^+)|\cdot\log N_C$ is bounded by $$\tilde{O}(n\cdot(\LOG w(\BBB)+\LOG\Mea_{F}(2\BBB)+|\MMM(2\BBB)|)+\tau_F\cdot |\MMM(2\BBB)|+\sum_{z_i\in\MMM(2\BBB)}\LOG F'(z_i)^{-1}).$$
We define $\mathcal{T}_{\textsc{New}}^{=4}:=\{C\in\mathcal{T}_\textsc{New}:N_C=4\}$ and $\mathcal{T}_{\textsc{New}}^{>4}:=\{C\in\mathcal{T}_\textsc{New}:N_C>4\}$. Then, we have $$\sum_{C\in \mathcal{T}_{\textsc{New}}^{=4}}|\MMM(C^+)|\cdot\log N_C
\le \sum_{C\in\mathcal{T}_{\textsc{New}}^{=4}}2n
\le \sum_{C\in\mathcal{T}}2n
\le 2n\cdot |\MMM(2\BBB)|\cdot s_{\max},$$ hence it remains to consider only the components $C\in\mathcal{T}_{\textsc{New}}^{>4}$. For such a component, let $\anc^*(C)\in\mathcal{T}$ be the last ancestor for which the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewtonTest</span> succeeded. According to Theorem \[thm:termination\] (f), we have $N_C\le 4\cdot(w(\anc^*(C))/w(C))^2$, and thus $|\MMM(C^+)|\cdot\log N_C\le 2\cdot|\MMM(C^+)|\cdot (1+\log w(\anc^*(C))-\log w(C))$. In order to bound the later expression in terms of values that depend on the roots of $F$, let $z_i\in C^+$ be an arbitrary root in $C^+$. Then, assuming $w(C)\le 1$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
|F'(z_i)|
& =|a_n|\cdot\prod_{j\neq i: z_j\in \MMM(2\Delta_C)}|z_i-z_j|\prod_{j:z_j\notin \MMM(2\Delta_C)}|z_i-z_j| \\
& \le |a_n|\cdot (2 w(C))^{|\MMM(2\Delta_C)|-1}\cdot\frac{\Mea_{F(z_i-x)}}{|a_n|} \\
& \le 2^{2n+\tau_F} w(C)^{|\MMM(2\Delta_C)|-1}\cdot \MAX(z_i)^n ,
\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality follows from Landau’s inequality [@vzGG03 Theorem 6.31], that is, $\Mea_p\le \|p\|_2$ for any complex polynomial $p\in\CC[x]$, and $\|F(z_i-x)\|_2 \le \|F(z_i-x)\|_1 \le 2^{\tau_F}\MAX(z_i)^n2^{n+1}$. For a more detailed derivation of the latter see [@Sagraloff2015 Lemma 22]. Furthermore, using that $\MMM(2\Delta_C)$ contains at least two roots (as the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewtonTest</span> is called) and that $C^+\subset 2\Delta_C$, yields $$\begin{aligned}
|F'(z_i)|
\le 2^{2n+\tau_F}\MAX(z_i)^n w(C)^{\frac{|\MMM(2\Delta_C)|}{2}}
\le 2^{2n+\tau_F} \MAX(z_i)^n w(C)^{\frac{|\MMM(C^+)|}{2}}.
\end{aligned}$$ With $z_i:=\phi(C)$ and $\LOG\phi(C)\le \log(64n)+\LOG\hat{\phi}(C)$, we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bound:ZNC}
-|\MMM(C^+)|\cdot\log w(C)\le 6n\log(64n)+2\tau_F+2n\LOG\hat{\phi}(C)+\LOG F'(\phi(C))^{-1}.
\end{aligned}$$ Notice that the latter inequality is trivially also fulfilled for a component $C$ with $w(C)<1$. In addition, it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bound:wanc}
|\MMM(C^+)|\cdot \log w(\anc^*(C))\le|\MMM(C^+)|\cdot (\LOG \hat{\phi}(\anc^*(C))+\log(128n)).
\end{aligned}$$ The sum of the term at the right side of (\[bound:ZNC\]) over all $C$ can be bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
& \tilde{O}(s_{\max}\cdot (|\MMM(2\BBB)|\cdot\tau_F+\sum_{z_i\in\MMM^*(2\BBB)}n\LOG(z_i)+\sum_{z_i\in\MMM(2\BBB)}\LOG F'(z_i)^{-1})) \\
& \quad= \tilde{O}(s_{\max}\cdot (|\MMM(2\BBB)|\cdot\tau_F+n\LOG w(\BBB)+n\LOG\Mea_{F}(2\BBB)+\sum_{z_i\in\MMM(2\BBB)}\LOG F'(z_i)^{-1})),
\end{aligned}$$ as the preimage of each (pseudo-) root $z_i\in 2\BBB$ (under $\phi$ and $\hat{\phi}$) has size at most $s_{\max}\log n$. We may further omit the factor $s_{\max}$ in the above bound as $\log\LOG\sigma_F(z_i)^{-1}=O(\log(\tau_F+n\LOG(z_i)+\LOG F'(z_i)^{-1}))$ for an arbitrary root $z_i$ of $F$, and thus $$\begin{aligned}
& s_{\max}=O(\log n+\log\LOG w(\BBB)+\log\LOG\sigma_{F}(2\BBB)^{-1}) \\
& =O(\log n+\log\LOG w(\BBB)+\log\tau_F+\log\LOG\Mea_F(2\BBB)+\log\sum_{z_i\in\MMM(2\BBB)}\LOG F'(z_i)^{-1}).
\end{aligned}$$
It remains to bound the sum of the term $|\MMM(C^+)|\cdot\LOG\hat{\phi}(\anc^*(C))$ on the right side of (\[bound:wanc\]) over all $C\in \mathcal{T}_{\textsc{New}}^{>4}$. Let $\mathcal{T}_{\anc^*}:=\{C^*\in\mathcal{T}:\exists C\in\mathcal{T}\text{ with }\anc^*(C)=C^*\}$. Then, for a fixed $C^*\in\mathcal{T}_{\anc^*}$, it holds that any $C\in\mathcal{T}_{\textsc{New}}^{>4}$ with $\anc^*(C)=C^*$ is connected with $C^*$ in $\mathcal{T}$ via a path of length at most $\hat{s}:=\log\LOG w(\BBB)+\log\LOG \sigma_F(2\BBB)^{-1}$. Namely, we have already shown that $\log\log N_C\le \hat{s}$ for all $C\in\mathcal{T}$, and thus $N_{C}>4$ implies that the path connecting $C$ and $C^*$ must have length at most $\hat{s}$. Hence, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
& \sum_{C\in\mathcal{T}_{\textsc{New}}^{>4}:\anc^*(C)=C^*} |\MMM((C)^+)|\cdot\log w(\anc^*(C)) \\
& =\sum_{C\in\mathcal{T}_{\textsc{New}}^{>4}:\anc^*(C)=C^*} |\MMM((C)^+)|\cdot\log w(C^*) \\
& \le (\LOG \hat{\phi}(C^*)+\log(128n))\cdot \sum_{C\in\mathcal{T}_{\textsc{New}}^{>4}:\anc^*(C)=C^*} |\MMM(C^+)| \\
& \le \hat{s}\cdot |\MMM((C^*)^+)|\cdot (\LOG \hat{\phi}(C^*)+\log(128n)) \\
& \le \hat{s}\cdot |\MMM(2\BBB)|\cdot (\LOG \hat{\phi}(C^*)+\log(128n)),
\end{aligned}$$ where we use the fact that, for any two components $C_1,C_2$ in the above sum, either $C_1^+\cap C_2^+=\emptyset$, $C_1^+\subset C_2^+$, or $C_2^+\subset C_1^+$. We conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
& \sum_{C\in\mathcal{T}_{\textsc{New}}^{>4}} |\MMM(C^+)|\cdot\log w(\anc^*(C)) \\
& \hspace{0.5cm} \le \hat{s}\cdot |\MMM(2\BBB)|\cdot\sum_{C^*\in \mathcal{T}_{\anc^*}}(\LOG \hat{\phi}(C^*)+\log(128n)) \\
& \hspace{0.5cm} =O(s_{\max}\cdot\hat{s}\cdot n\log n\cdot\sum_{z_i\in\MMM^+(2\BBB)}(\LOG(z_i)+\log(128n)) \\
& \hspace{0.5cm} =\tilde{O}(s_{\max}\cdot \hat{s}\cdot n\cdot(\LOG w(\BBB)+\LOG\Mea_{F}(2\BBB)+|\MMM(2\BBB)|)) \\
& \hspace{0.5cm} =\tilde{O}(n\cdot(\LOG w(\BBB)+\LOG\Mea_{F}(2\BBB)+|\MMM(2\BBB)|+\log\sum_{z_i\in\MMM(2\BBB)}\LOG F'(z_i)^{-1})).\qedhere
\end{aligned}$$
Let us summarize our results:
\[thm:main1\] Let $F$ be a polynomial as defined in (\[def:polyF\]) and let $\mathcal{B}\subset\mathbb{C}$ be an arbitrary axis-aligned square. Then, the algorithm with input $\BBB$ uses $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bound:main2}
& \tilde{O}(n\cdot (n\cdot(\MMM(2\BBB)+\LOG\Mea_{F}(2\BBB)+\LOG(w(\BBB),w(\BBB)^{-1}))+\tau_F\cdot |\MMM(2\BBB)| \\ \nonumber
& \quad+\sum_{z_i\in \MMM(2\BBB)}(\LOG\sigma_F(z_i)^{-1}+\LOG F'(z_i)^{-1}))),
\end{aligned}$$ bit operations. As input, the algorithm requires an $L$-bit approximation of $F$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bound:precision}
& \tilde{O}(n\cdot(\MMM(2\BBB)+\LOG\Mea_{F}(2\BBB)+\LOG(w(\BBB),w(\BBB)^{-1}))+\tau_F\cdot |\MMM(2\BBB)| \\ \nonumber
& \quad+\sum_{z_i\in \MMM(2\BBB)}(\LOG\sigma_F(z_i)^{-1}+\LOG F'(z_i)^{-1})).
\end{aligned}$$
The bound (\[bound:main2\]) on the bit complexity follows immediately from Lemma \[lem:costTk\], Lemma \[bound:sumZNC\], and the remark following Lemma \[lem:costTk\]. The bound (\[bound:precision\]) on the precision demand follows directly from our considerations in the proof of Lemma \[lem:costTk\] and Lemma \[allkcost\].
Notice that the above complexity bounds are directly related to the size of the input box $\BBB$ as well as to parameters that only depend on the roots located in $2\BBB$. This makes our complexity bound adaptive in a very strong sense. In contrast, one might also be interested in (probably simpler) bounds when using our algorithm to isolate all complex roots of $F$? In this case, we may first compute an input box $\BBB$ of width $w(\BBB)=2^{\Gamma+2}$ that is centered at the origin. Here, $\Gamma\in\mathbb{N}_{\ge 1}$ is an integer bound for $\Gamma_F$ with $\Gamma=\Gamma_F+O(\log n)$. We have already argued in Section \[sec:definitions\] that such a bound $\Gamma$ can be computed using $\tilde{O}(n^2\Gamma_F)$ bit operations. Such a box $\BBB$ contains all complex roots of $F$, and thus running with input $\BBB$ yields corresponding isolating disks. Hence, we obtain the following result:
Let $F$ be a square-free polynomial as in (\[def:polyF\]). Then, for isolating all complex roots of $F$, needs $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bound:main3}
& =\tilde{O}(n\cdot(n^2+n \LOG \Mea_F+\sum_{i=1}^n \LOG F'(z_i)^{-1})) \\ \label{bound:main4}
& = \tilde{O}(n\cdot (n^2 + n \LOG\Mea_F +\LOG \Disc_F^{-1})).
\end{aligned}$$ bit operations, where $\Disc_F := |A_n|^{2n - 2} \prod_{1 \le i < j \le n} (z_j - z_i)^2$ is the *discriminant of $F$*. As input, the algorithm requires an $L$-bit approximation of $F$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bound:precision2}
\tilde{O}(n^2 +n \LOG \Mea_F + \LOG \Disc_F^{-1})
\end{aligned}$$
The above bounds follow directly from the bounds in (\[bound:main2\]) and (\[bound:precision\]), and the fact that $n\LOG(w(\BBB),w(\BBB)^{-1})+n\tau_F=O(n^2+n\LOG\Mea_F)$, $$\sum_{i=1}^n \LOG \sigma_F(z_i)^{-1}=O(n^2+n\LOG(\Mea_F)+\sum_{i=1}^n\LOG F'(z_i)^{-1}),$$ and $$\sum_{i=1}^{n}\LOG F'(z_i)^{-1}=O(n^2+n\LOG \Mea_F+\LOG \Disc_F^{-1});$$ e.g., see [@Sagraloff2015 Section 2.5] and the proof of [@Sagraloff2015 Theorem 31] for proofs of the latter bounds.
Again, we provide simpler bounds for the special case, where the input polynomial $f$ has integer coefficients:
\[thm:main2\] Let $f\in\mathbb{Z}[x]$ be a square-free integer polynomial of degree $n$ with integer coefficients of bit size less than $\tau$, let $F:=f/\operatorname{lcf}(f)$, and let $\mathcal{B}\subset\mathbb{C}$ be an axis-aligned square with $2^{-O(\tau)}\le w(\BBB)\le 2^{O(\tau)}$. Then, $\mathbb{C}$<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Isolate</span> with input $\BBB$ needs $\tilde{O}(n^3+n^2\tau)$ bit operations. The same bound also applies when using to compute isolating disks for all roots of $f$.
The claimed bound follows immediately from (\[bound:main4\]) and the fact that $\Disc_F=\operatorname{lcf}(f)^{2n-2}\cdot \Disc_f\ge 2^{-(2n-2)\tau}$. For the second claim, we may simply run on a box $\BBB$ of width $2^{\tau+2}$ centered at the origin. According to Cauchy’s root bound, $\BBB$ contains all roots of $f$, and thus yields corresponding isolating disks.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
We proposed a simple and efficient subdivision algorithm to isolate the complex roots of a polynomial with arbitrary complex coefficients. Our algorithm achieves complexity bounds that are comparable to the best known bounds for this problem, which are achieved by methods based on fast polynomial factorization [@Pan:survey; @MSW-rootfinding2013; @Pan:alg]. Compared to these methods, our algorithm is quite simple and uses only fast algorithms for polynomial multiplication and Taylor shift computation but no other, more involved, asymptotically fast subroutines. Hence, also by providing a self-contained presentation and pseudo-code for all subroutines of the algorithm, we hope that there will soon be implementations of our method. So far, we have not discussed a series of questions concerning an efficient implementation, including heuristics and filtering techniques to speed up the computations in practice. In particular, we remark that Graeffe iteration is not well suited for implementations that are restricted to single- or double precision arithmetic. This is due to the fact that, after only a few iterations, it produces very large intermediate values with exponents in the corresponding floating point representations that are outside of the allowed range of the IEEE 754 specifications. However, when using multi-precision arithmetic, which would be a natural choice when implementing our solver, this issue is no longer relevant. In fact, preliminary tests on a few examples show that, when using multi-precision arithmetic, the relative error in the $T^G_k$-test stays quite stable even after a number of Graeffe iterations.[^19] Hence, we are confident that a careful implementation of the $\mathbf{T_*}$ will turn out to be efficient.
Another possible direction of future research is to extend our current Newton-bisection technique and complexity analysis to the analytic roots algorithm in [@DBLP:conf/cie/YapS013]. See [@Strzebonski2012282] for an alternative approach for the computation of the real roots of analytic functions obtained by composing polynomials and the functions $\log$, $\operatorname{exp}$, and $\operatorname{arctan}$.
At the end of Section \[subsec:algorithm\], we sketched how to use our algorithm to isolate the roots of a not necessarily square-free polynomial for which the number of distinct complex roots is given as additional input. Also, we may use our algorithm to further refine the isolating disks for the roots of a polynomial in order to compute $L$-bit approximations of all roots. There exist dedicated methods [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1104-1362; @MSW-rootfinding2013; @Pan:alg; @pantsi:ISSAC13; @DBLP:conf/snc/PanT14a] for refining intervals or disks, that are already known to be isolating for the roots of a polynomial. For large $L$, that is if $L$ dominates other parameters, their bit complexity is $\tilde{O}(nL)$. In comparison, using $\mathbb{C}\textsc{Isolate}$ for the refinement directly, its bit complexity would be of size $\tilde{O}(n^2L)$. We suspect that this bound can be further improved by using a proper modification of the $T_*$-test, which only needs to evaluate $F$ and its first derivative, and approximate multipoint evaluation. We have not analyzed these extensions, however, we are confident that our approach yields similar bit complexity bounds as provided in [@MSW-rootfinding2013] for the modified variant of Pan’s method. This will be subject of future work.
[^1]: MPI for Informatics, Saarland Informatics Campus, Saarbrücken, Germany.
[^2]: MPC-VCC and Saarbrücken Graduate School of Computer Science.
[^3]: Institute of Mathematical Sciences Chennai, India.
[^4]: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University, New York, USA.
[^5]: Pan considers a similar model of computation, where it is assumed that the coefficients of the input polynomial are complex numbers that can be accessed to an arbitrary precision. Then, for a polynomial $F$ with roots $z_1,\ldots,z_n$ contained in the unit disk and an integer $L\ge n\log n$, Pan’s algorithm computes approximations $\tilde{z}_i$ of $z_i$ with $\|F-\operatorname{lcf}(F)\cdot \prod_{i=1}^n (x-\tilde{z}_i)\|_1<2^{-L}\cdot\|F\|_1$ using only $\tilde{O}(n\log L)$ arithmetic operations with a precision of $O(L)$. For a lower bound on the bit complexity of the approximate polynomial factorization, Pan considers a polynomial whose coefficients must be approximated with a precision of $\Omega(L)$ as, otherwise, the above inequality is not fulfilled. This shows that already the cost for reading sufficiently good approximations of the input polynomial is comparable to the cost for running the entire algorithm. Hence, near-optimality of his algorithm follows. In the considered computational model, Pan’s algorithm also performs near-optimal with respect to the Boolean complexity of the problem of approximating all roots. However, we remark that this *does not* imply near-optimality of his method for the benchmark problem of isolating the complex roots of an integer polynomial. Namely, Pan’s argument for the lower bound is based on a lower bound on the precision to which the coefficients have to be approximated. In the case of integer polynomials, the coefficients are given exactly, hence the cost for reading an arbitrary good approximation of the polynomial never exceeds the cost for reading the integer coefficients.
[^6]: With $\tilde O(\cdot)$, we indicate that poly-logarithmic factors are omitted, i.e., for a function $p$, we denote with $\tilde O(p)$ the set of functions in $O(p \log^c p)$, where $c$ is a constant.
[^7]: So far, the bound $\tilde{O}(n^2\tau)$ can only be achieved by running Pan’s factorization algorithm with an $L$ of size $\Omega(n(\tau+\log n))$, which means that $\tilde{\Theta}(n^2\tau)$ bit operations are needed for any input polynomial; see [@Pan:survey Theorem 3.1] for details. The adaptive algorithm from [@MSW-rootfinding2013] needs $\tilde{O}(n^3+n^2\tau)$ bit operations, however its cost crucially depends on the hardness of the input polynomial (e.g., the separations of its roots), hence the actual cost is typically much lower.
[^8]: Notice that we only require approximations of the coefficients, hence our method also applies to polynomials with algebraic, or even transcendental coefficients. In any case, the given bounds for the cost of isolating the roots of such a polynomial do not encounter the cost for computing sufficiently good $L$-bit approximations of the coefficients. Depending on the type of the coefficients, this cost might be considerably larger than the cost for just reading such approximations.
[^9]: If the requirement is not fulfilled, our algorithm does not terminate. However, using an additional stopping criteria, it can be used to compute arbitrarily good approximations of all (multiple) roots; see the remark at the end of Section \[subsec:algorithm\] for more details.
[^10]: The Bolzano method is based on Pellet’s theorem (with $k=0$). It is used to test an interval $I$ for roots of the input polynomial $F$ and its derivative $F'$. $I$ contains no root if Pellet’s theorem applies to $F$. If it applies to $F'$, the function $F$ is monotone on $I$, and thus $I$ is either isolating for a root or it contains no root depending on whether there is a sign change of $F$ at the endpoints of $I$ or not.
[^11]: The superscript “$G$” indicates the use of Graeffe iteration.
[^12]: We assume that the predicate $\cal P$ either returns “True” or “False”. We say that $\cal P$ succeeds if it returns True. Otherwise, we say that it fails.
[^13]: You may replace $\frac{3}{2}$ by an arbitrary real constant $K$ larger than $1$.
[^14]: As already mentioned in Section \[sec:definitions\], we only consider closed, axis-aligned squares $B\subset\mathbb{C}$. Hence, these properties are not further mentioned throughout the following considerations.
[^15]: In fact, it suffices to just call the $\tilde{T}_0^G(\Delta_B,F)$-test. However, since $\tilde{T}_0^G$ and $\T$ have comparable complexity, we just stick to $\T$ to simplify the presentation.
[^16]: We will later prove that even the total number of squares produced by the algorithm in *all iterations* is near-linear in the number $\MMM(2\mathcal{B})$ of roots contained in $2\mathcal{B}$.
[^17]: More precisely, it is linear in $|\MMM(2\mathcal{B})|$ up to a factor that is polynomially bounded in $\log n$, $\log\LOG(w(\mathcal{B}))$, and $\log\LOG(\sigma_F(2\mathcal{B})^{-1})$. If $2\mathcal{B}$ contains no root, then there is only one iteration.
[^18]: Notice that we can compute such a square $\mathcal{B}$ with $\tilde{O}(n^2\Gamma_F)$ bit operations; see Section \[sec:definitions\].
[^19]: Personal communication with Alexander Kobel from Max-Planck-Institute for Informatics in Saarbrücken.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'This paper provides an overview of interpolation of Banach and Hilbert spaces, with a focus on establishing when equivalence of norms is in fact equality of norms in the key results of the theory. (In brief, our conclusion for the Hilbert space case is that, with the right normalisations, all the key results hold with equality of norms.) In the final section we apply the Hilbert space results to the Sobolev spaces $H^s(\Omega)$ and $\widetilde{H}^s(\Omega)$, for $s\in \mathbb{R}$ and an open $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$. We exhibit examples in one and two dimensions of sets $\Omega$ for which these scales of Sobolev spaces are not interpolation scales. In the cases when they [*are*]{} interpolation scales (in particular, if $\Omega$ is Lipschitz) we exhibit examples that show that, in general, the interpolation norm does not coincide with the intrinsic Sobolev norm and, in fact, the ratio of these two norms can be arbitrarily large.'
author:
- 'S. N. Chandler-Wilde, D. P. Hewett, A. Moiola'
bibliography:
- 'BEMbib\_short2014.bib'
title: |
Interpolation of Hilbert and Sobolev Spaces:\
Quantitative Estimates and Counterexamples
---
\[section\] \[thm\][Lemma]{} \[thm\][Definition]{} \[thm\][Proposition]{} \[thm\][Corollary]{} \[thm\][Remark]{} \[thm\][Example]{}
[*Dedicated to Vladimir Maz’ya, on the occasion of his 75th Birthday*]{}
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
This paper provides in the first two sections a self-contained overview of the key results of the real method of interpolation for Banach and Hilbert spaces. This is a classical subject of study (see, e.g., [@BeLo; @Triebel78ITFSDO; @BeSh; @Tartar] and the recent review paper [@Ameur2014] for the Hilbert space case), and it might be thought that there is little more to be said on the subject. The novelty of our presentation—this the perspective of numerical analysts who, as users of interpolation theory, are ultimately concerned with the computation of interpolation norms and the computation of error estimates expressed in terms of interpolation norms—is that we pay particular attention to the question: “When is equivalence of norms in fact equality of norms in the interpolation of Banach and Hilbert spaces?”
At the heart of the paper is the study, in Section \[sec:interpHil\], of the interpolation of Hilbert spaces $H_0$ and $H_1$ embedded in a larger linear space $V$, in the case when the interpolating space is also Hilbert (this the so-called problem of [*quadratic interpolation*]{}, see, e.g., [@Donoghue; @LiMaI; @McCarthy; @Ameur2004; @Ameur2014]). The one line summary of this section is that all the key results of interpolation theory hold with “equality of norms” in place of “equivalence of norms” in this Hilbert space case, and this with minimal assumptions, in particular we assume nowhere that our Hilbert spaces are separable (as, e.g., in [@LiMaI; @McCarthy; @Ameur2004; @Ameur2014]).
Real interpolation between Hilbert spaces $H_0$ and $H_1$ produces interpolation spaces $H_\theta$, $0<\theta<1$, intermediate between $H_0$ and $H_1$. In the last section of the paper we apply the Hilbert space interpolation results of §\[sec:interpHil\] to the Sobolev spaces $H^s(\Omega):= \{U|_\Omega: U\in H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)\}$ and ${\widetilde{H}}^s(\Omega)$ (defined as the closure of $C_0^\infty(\Omega)$ in $H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)$), for $s\in {\mathbb{R}}$. Questions we address are:
1. For what ranges of $s$ are $H^s(\Omega)$ and ${\widetilde{H}}^s(\Omega)$ interpolation scales, meaning that the interpolation space $H_\theta$, when interpolating between $s=s_0$ and $s=s_1$, is the expected intermediate Sobolev space with $s=s_0(1-\theta)+s_1\theta$?
2. When the interpolation space is the expected intermediate Sobolev space, do the interpolation space norm and intrinsic Sobolev norm coincide (the interpolation scale is exact), or, if not, how different can they be?
A main result of the paper is to exhibit one- and two-dimensional counterexamples that show that $H^s(\Omega)$ and ${\widetilde{H}}^s(\Omega)$ are not in general interpolation scales. It is well-known that these Sobolev spaces [*are*]{} interpolation scales for all $s\in {\mathbb{R}}$ when $\Omega$ is Lipschitz. In that case we demonstrate, via a number of counterexamples that, in general (we suspect, in fact, whenever $\Omega \subsetneqq {\mathbb{R}}^n$), $H^s(\Omega)$ and ${\widetilde{H}}^s(\Omega)$ are not exact interpolation scales. Indeed, we exhibit simple examples where the ratio of interpolation norm to intrinsic Sobolev norm may be arbitrarily large. Along the way we give explicit formulas for some of the interpolation norms arising that may be of interest in their own right. We remark that our investigations, which are inspired by applications arising in boundary integral equation methods (see [@ChaHewMoi:13]), in particular are inspired by McLean [@McLean], and by its appendix on interpolation of Banach and Sobolev spaces. However a result of §\[sec:sob\] is that one result claimed by McLean ([@McLean Theorem B.8]) is false.
Much of the Hilbert space Section \[sec:interpHil\] builds strongly on previous work. In particular, our result that, with the right normalisations, the norms in the $K$- and $J$-methods of interpolation coincide in the Hilbert space case is a (corrected version of) an earlier result of Ameur [@Ameur2004] (the normalisations proposed and the definition of the $J$-method norm seem inaccurate in [@Ameur2004]). What is new in our Theorem \[thm:JequalK\] is the method of proof—all of our proofs in this section are based on the spectral theorem that every bounded normal operator is unitarily equivalent to a multiplication operator on $L^2(\mathcal{X},M,\mu)$, for some measure space $(\mathcal{X},M,\mu)$, this coupled with an elementary explicit treatment of interpolation on weighted $L^2$ spaces—which deals seamlessly with the general Hilbert space case without an assumption of separability or that $H_0\cap H_1$ is dense in $H_0$ and $H_1$. Again, our result in Theorem \[thm:unique\] that there is only one (geometric) interpolation space of exponent $\theta$, when interpolating Hilbert spaces, is a version of McCarthy’s [@McCarthy] uniqueness theorem. What is new is that we treat the general Hilbert space case by a method of proof based on the aforementioned spectral theorem. Our focus in this section is real interpolation, but we note in Remark \[rem:functor\] that, as a consequence of this uniqueness result (as noted in [@McCarthy]), complex and real interpolation coincide in this Hilbert space case.
While our focus is primarily on interpolation of Hilbert spaces, large parts of the theory of interpolation spaces are appropriately described in the more general Banach space context, not least when trying to clarify those results independent of the extra structure a Hilbert space brings. The first §\[sec:interp\] describes real interpolation in this general Banach space context. Mainly this section sets the scene. What is new is that our perspective leads us to pay close attention to the precise choice of normalisation in the definitions of the $K$- and $J$-methods of real interpolation (while at the same time making definitions suited to the later Hilbert space case).
We intend primarily that, throughout, vector space, Banach space, Hilbert space, should be read as [*complex*]{} vector space, Banach space, Hilbert space. But all the definitions and results proved apply equally in the real case with fairly obvious and minor changes and extensions to the arguments.
We finish this introduction by a few words on the history of interpolation (and see [@BeLo; @Triebel78ITFSDO; @BeSh; @Tartar]). There are two standard procedures for constructing interpolation spaces (see, e.g., [@BeLo]) in the Banach space setting. The first is the [*complex method*]{} due to Lions and Calderón, this two closely-related procedures for constructing interpolation spaces [@BeLo Section 4.1], inspired by the classical proof of the Riesz–Thorin interpolation theorem. (These two procedures applied to a compatible pair $\overline X =(X_0,X_1)$ (defined in §\[sec:interp\]) produce the identical Banach space (with the identical norm) if either one of $X_0$ or $X_1$ is reflexive, in particular if either is a Hilbert space [@BeLo Theorem 4.3.1].) We will mention the complex method only briefly, in Remark \[rem:functor\]. Our focus is on the so-called [*real interpolation method*]{}. This term is used to denote a large class of methods for constructing interpolation spaces from a compatible pair, all these methods constructing the same interpolation spaces [@Triebel78ITFSDO] (to within isomorphism, see Theorem \[JKsame\] below). In this paper we focus on the two standard such methods, the [*K-method*]{} and the [*J-method*]{}, which are complementary, dual constructions due to Peetre and Lions (see e.g. [@Peetre]), inspired by the classical Marcinkiewicz interpolation theorem [@BeLo Section 1.3].
Real interpolation of Banach spaces {#sec:interp}
===================================
Suppose that $X_0$ and $X_1$ are Banach spaces that are linear subspaces of some larger vector space $V$. In this case we say that $\overline X = (X_0,X_1)$ is a [*compatible pair*]{} and $\Delta = \Delta(\overline X) := X_0\cap X_1$ and $\Sigma =\Sigma(\overline X) := X_0+X_1$ are also linear subspaces of $V$: we equip these subspaces with the norms $$\|\phi\|_{\Delta} := \max\big\{ \|\phi\|_{X_0},\|\phi\|_{X_1} \big\}
$$ and $$\|\phi\|_{\Sigma} := \inf\big\{\|\phi_0\|_{X_0} + \|\phi_1\|_{X_1} :\phi_0\in X_0, \, \phi_1\in X_1, \, \phi_0+\phi_1=\phi\big\},
$$ with which $\Delta$ and $\Sigma$ are Banach spaces [@BeLo Lemma 2.3.1]. We note that, for $j=0,1$, $
\Delta \subset X_j\subset \Sigma
$, and these inclusions are continuous as $\|\phi\|_{\Sigma} \leq \|\phi\|_{X_j}$, $\phi \in X_j$, and $\|\phi\|_{X_j} \leq \|\phi\|_{\Delta}$, $\phi\in \Delta$. Thus every compatible pair is a pair of Banach spaces that are subspaces of, and continuously embedded in, a larger Banach space. In our later application to Sobolev spaces we will be interested in the important special case where $X_1\subset X_0$. In this case $\Delta= X_1$ and $\Sigma=X_0$ with equivalence of norms, indeed equality of norms if $\|\phi\|_{X_1} \geq \|\phi\|_{X_0}$, for $\phi \in X_1$. If $X$ and $Y$ are Banach spaces and $B:X\to Y$ is a bounded linear map, we will denote the norm of $B$ by $\|B\|_{X,Y}$, abbreviated as $\|B\|_X$ when $X=Y$. Given compatible pairs $\overline X = (X_0,X_1)$ and $\overline Y = (Y_0,Y_1)$ one calls the linear map $A:\Sigma(\overline X)\to \Sigma(\overline Y)$ a [*couple map*]{}, and writes $A:\overline X\to \overline Y$, if $A_j$, the restriction of $A$ to $X_j$, is a bounded linear map from $X_j$ to $Y_j$. Automatically $A:\Sigma(\overline X)\to\Sigma(\overline Y)$ is bounded and $A_\Delta$, the restriction of $A$ to $\Delta(\overline X)$, is also a bounded linear map from $\Delta(\overline X)$ to $\Delta(\overline Y)$. On the other hand, given bounded linear operators $A_j:X_j\to Y_j$, for $j=0,1$, one says that $A_0$ and $A_1$ are [*compatible*]{} if $A_0\phi = A_1\phi$, for $\phi\in \Delta(\overline X)$. If $A_0$ and $A_1$ are compatible then there exists a unique couple map $A:\Sigma(\overline X)\to \Sigma(\overline Y)$ which has $A_0$ and $A_1$ as its restrictions to $X_0$ and $X_1$, respectively.
Given a compatible pair $\overline X=(X_0,X_1)$ we will call a Banach space $X$ an [*intermediate space*]{} between $X_0$ and $X_1$ [@BeLo] if $\Delta\subset X\subset \Sigma$ with continuous inclusions. We will call an intermediate space $X$ an [*interpolation space*]{} relative to $\overline X$ if, whenever $A:\overline X\to \overline X$, it holds that $A(X) \subset X$ and $A:X\to X$ is a bounded linear operator. Generalising this notion, given compatible pairs $\overline X$ and $\overline Y$, and Banach spaces $X$ and $Y$, we will call $(X,Y)$ [*a pair of interpolation spaces relative to $(\overline X, \overline Y)$*]{} if $X$ and $Y$ are intermediate with respect to $\overline X$ and $\overline Y$, respectively, and if, whenever $A:\overline X\to \overline Y$, it holds that $A(X)\subset Y$ and $A:X\to Y$ is a bounded linear operator [@BeLo]. If $(X,Y)$ is a pair of interpolation spaces relative to $(\overline X, \overline Y)$ then [@BeLo Theorem 2.4.2] there exists $C>0$ such that, whenever $A:\overline X\to \overline Y$, it holds that $$\label{eq:is}
\|A\|_{X,Y} \leq C \max\big\{\|A\|_{X_0,Y_0},\|A\|_{X_1,Y_1}\big\}.$$ If the bound holds for every $A:\overline X\to \overline Y$ with $C=1$, then $(X,Y)$ are said to be [*exact*]{} interpolation spaces: for example the pairs $(\Delta(\overline X), \Delta(\overline Y))$ and $(\Sigma(\overline X), \Sigma(\overline Y))$ are exact interpolation spaces with respect to $(\overline X,\overline Y)$, for all compatible pairs $\overline X$ and $\overline Y$ [@BeLo Section 2.3]. If, for all $A:\overline X\to\overline Y$, $$\label{eq:is1}
\|A\|_{X,Y} \leq \|A\|^{1-\theta}_{X_0,Y_0}\,\|A\|^\theta_{X_1,Y_1},$$ then the interpolation space pair $(X,Y)$ is said to be [*exact of exponent* ]{} $\theta$.
The K-method for real interpolation {#sec:K}
-----------------------------------
To explain the $K$-method, for every compatible pair $\overline X=(X_0,X_1)$ define the $K$[*-functional*]{} by $$\label{eq:Kfunct}
K(t,\phi) = K(t,\phi, \overline X) := \inf \left\{\left(\|\phi_0\|^2_{X_0} + t^2 \|\phi_1\|^2_{X_1}\right)^{1/2}: \phi_0\in X_0, \, \phi_1\in X_1, \, \phi_0+\phi_1=\phi \right\},$$ for $t>0$ and $\phi\in \Sigma(\overline X)$; our definition is precisely that of [@LiMaI p. 98], [@Bramble; @McLean]. (More usual, less suited to the Hilbert space case, but leading to the same interpolation spaces and equivalent norms, is to replace the 2-norm $\left(\|\phi_0|^2_{X_0} + t^2 \|\phi_1\|^2_{X_1}\right)^{1/2}$ by the 1-norm $\|\phi_0\|_{X_0} + t \|\phi_1\|_{X_1}$ in this definition, e.g. [@BeLo].) Elementary properties of this $K$-functional are noted in [@McLean p. 319]. An additional elementary calculation is that, for $\phi\in \Delta$, $$\label{K1boundsK}
K(t,\phi) \leq K_1(t,\phi) := \inf_{a\in {\mathbb{C}}} \left(|a|^2\|\phi\|^2_{X_0} + t^2|1-a|^2 \|\phi\|^2_{X_1}\right)^{1/2} = \frac{t\|\phi\|_{X_0}\|\phi\|_{X_1}}{\left(\|\phi\|_{X_0}^2 + t^2\|\phi\|_{X_1}^2\right)^{1/2}\,}\, ,$$ this infimum achieved by the choice $a = t^2\|\phi\|_{X_1}^2/(\|\phi\|_{X_0}^2 + t^2\|\phi\|_{X_1}^2)$. Next we define a weighted $L^q$ norm by $$\|f\|_{\theta,q} := \left(\int_0^\infty |t^{-\theta} f(t)|^q \,\frac{{\mathrm{d}}t}{t}\right)^{1/q}, \quad \mbox{for } 0<\theta<1 \mbox{ and } 1\leq q<\infty,$$ with the modification when $q=\infty$, that $$\label{eqInfCase}
\|f\|_{\theta,\infty} := \mathrm{ess}\,\sup_{t>0} |t^{-\theta} f(t)|.$$ Now define, for every compatible pair $\overline X=(X_0,X_1)$, and for $0<\theta<1$ and $1\leq q\leq \infty$, $$\label{defKnorm}
K_{\theta,q}(\overline X) := \big\{\phi\in \Sigma(\overline X): \|K(\cdot,\phi)\|_{\theta,q} <\infty\big\},$$ this a normed space (indeed a Banach space [@BeLo Theorem 3.4.2]) with the norm $$\label{eq:normK}
\|\phi\|_{K_{\theta,q}(\overline X)} := N_{\theta,q} \|K(\cdot,\phi)\|_{\theta,q}.$$ Here the constant $N_{\theta,q}>0$ is an arbitrary normalisation factor. We can, of course, make the (usual) choice $N_{\theta,q}=1$, but our preferred choice of $N_{\theta,q}$ will be, where $g(s) := s/\sqrt{1+s^2}$, $$\label{Ntheta}
N_{\theta,q} := \|g\|^{-1}_{\theta,q} = \left\{\begin{array}{cc}
\left(\int_0^\infty s^{q(1-\theta)-1}(1+s^2)^{-q/2} \,{\mathrm{d}}s\right)^{-1/q}, & 1\leq q<\infty, \\
\theta^{-\theta/2}(1-\theta)^{-(1-\theta)/2}, & q=\infty;
\end{array}\right.$$ the supremum in when $f=g$ achieved for $t=\sqrt{(1-\theta)/\theta}$. We note that, with this choice, $N_{\theta,q}=N_{1-\theta,q}$ (substitute $s=t^{-1}$ in ). Further, $\min(1,s)/\sqrt{2}\leq g(s)\leq \min(1,s)$, so that $N^\prime_{\theta,q}\leq N_{\theta,q}\leq\sqrt{2}\,N_{\theta,q}^\prime$, where $$N^\prime_{\theta,q} := \|\min(1,\cdot)\|^{-1}_{\theta,q} = \left\{\begin{array}{cc}
[q\theta(1-\theta)]^{1/q}, & 1\leq q<\infty, \\
1, & q=\infty.
\end{array}\right.$$ We note also that [@McLean Exercise B.5], with the choice , $$\label{eq:Nchoice}
N_{\theta,2} = \big((2/\pi)\sin(\pi\theta)\big)^{1/2}.$$ The normalisation $N^\prime_{\theta,q}$ is used in [@McLean (B.4)] (and see [@BeLo Theorem 3.4.1(e)]); is used in [@McLean (B.9)], [@Bramble p. 143], and dates back at least to [@LiMaI p. 99].
$K_{\theta,q}(\overline X)$, for $0<\theta<1$ and $1\leq q\leq \infty$, is the family of spaces constructed by the $K$-method. We will often use the alternative notation $(X_0,X_1)_{\theta,q}$ for $K_{\theta,q}(\overline X)$.
Our preference for the normalisation is explained by part (iii) of the following lemma.
\[intnormub\] Suppose that $\overline X=(X_0,X_1)$ is a compatible pair and define the norm on $K_{\theta,q}(\overline X)$ with the normalisation .
1. If $\phi\in \Delta(\overline X)$ then $\phi\in K_{\theta,q}(\overline X)$ and $\displaystyle{
\|\phi\|_{K_{\theta,q}(X)} \leq \|\phi\|_{X_0}^{1-\theta} \, \|\phi\|_{X_1}^\theta \leq \|\phi\|_{\Delta(\overline X)}
}$.
2. If $\phi\in K_{\theta,q}(\overline X)$ then $\phi\in \Sigma(\overline X)$ and $
\|\phi\|_{\Sigma(\overline X)} \leq \|\phi\|_{K_{\theta,q}(X)}.
$
3. If $X_0=X_1$ (with equality of norms) then $X_0=X_1=\Sigma(\overline X)=\Delta(\overline X) = K_{\theta,q}(\overline X)$, with equality of norms.
If $\phi\in \Delta(\overline X)$ is non-zero then, for $0<\theta<1$, $1\leq q<\infty$, using , $$\|\phi\|^q_{K_{\theta,q}(X)} \leq N^q_{\theta,q} \|K_1(\cdot,\phi)\|_{\theta,q}^q = N^q_{\theta,q} \|\phi\|^q_{X_0}\|\phi\|^q_{X_1}\int_0^\infty \left[\frac{t^{1-\theta}}{\left(\|\phi\|_{X_0}^2 + t^2\|\phi\|_{X_1}^2\right)^{1/2}}\right]^q \,\frac{{\mathrm{d}}t}{t} = \|\phi\|_{X_0}^{q(1-\theta)} \, \|\phi\|_{X_1}^{q\theta}\, ,$$ the last equality a consequence of the identity $$\label{useful}
\int_0^\infty \frac{t^\alpha}{(a+bt^2)^{q/2}}\, {\mathrm{d}}t
= a^{(\alpha+1-q)/2} \,b^{-(1+\alpha)/2} \int_0^\infty \frac{t^\alpha}{(1+t^2)^{q/2}}\, {\mathrm{d}}t
=a^{(\alpha+1-q)/2} \,b^{-(1+\alpha)/2} N_{(q-\alpha-1)/q,q}^{-q},$$ for $a,b>0$ and $-1<\alpha<q-1$. Similarly, $$\|\phi\|_{K_{\theta,\infty}(X)} \leq N_{\theta,\infty} \|K_1(\cdot,\phi)\|_{\theta,\infty} = N_{\theta,\infty} \|\phi\|_{X_0}^{1-\theta} \, \|\phi\|_{X_1}^{\theta} \sup_{s>0} \frac{s^{1-\theta}}{\sqrt{1+s^2}} = \|\phi\|_{X_0}^{1-\theta} \, \|\phi\|_{X_1}^{\theta}\, .$$ Clearly also $\|\phi\|_{X_0}^{1-\theta} \, \|\phi\|_{X_1}^\theta \leq \|\phi\|_{\Delta(\overline X)}$ so that (i) holds.
For $\phi_0\in X_0$, $\phi_1\in X_1$, $\|\phi_0\|_{X_0}^2 + t^2 \|\phi_1\|_{X_1}^2 \geq (t^2/(1+t^2))(\|\phi_0\|_{X_0} + \|\phi_1\|_{X_1})^2$, from which it follows that $$K(t,\phi) \geq g(t) \|\phi\|_{\Sigma(\overline X)}, \quad \mbox{for } \phi\in \Sigma(\overline X), \; t>0,$$ where $g(t)=t/\sqrt{1+t^2}$, which implies (ii).
To see (iii), we recall that we have observed already that, if $X_1\subset X_0$, with $\|\phi\|_{X_0}\leq \|\phi\|_{X_1}$, then $X_1=\Delta(\overline X)$ and $X_0=\Sigma(\overline X)$, with equality of norms. Thus (iii) follows from (i) and (ii).
The following theorem collects key properties of the spaces $K_{\theta,q}(\overline X)$, in the first place that they are indeed interpolation spaces. Of these properties: (i) is proved, for example, as [@McLean Theorem B.2]; (ii) in [@BeLo Theorem 3.4.1]; (iii) follows immediately from the definitions and Lemma \[intnormub\]; (iv) and (v) are part of [@BeLo Theorem 3.4.2]; (vi) is obvious from the definitions. Finally (vii) is the [*reiteration*]{} or [*stability*]{} theorem, that $K$-method interpolation of $K$-interpolation spaces gives the expected $K$-interpolation spaces, proved, for example, in [@McLean Theorem B.6].
\[thm:interp\] Suppose that $\overline X=(X_0,X_1)$ and $\overline Y=(Y_0,Y_1)$ are compatible pairs. Then:
1. For $0<\theta<1$, $1\leq q\leq \infty$, $(K_{\theta,q}(\overline X),K_{\theta,q}(\overline Y))$ is a pair of interpolation spaces with respect to $(\overline X,\overline Y)$ that is exact of exponent $\theta$.
2. For $0<\theta<1$, $1\leq q\leq \infty$, $(X_0,X_1)_{\theta,q} = (X_1,X_0)_{1-\theta,q}$, with equality of norms if $N_{\theta,q}=N_{1-\theta,q}$ (which holds for the choice ).
3. For $0<\theta_1<\theta_2<1$ and $1\leq q\leq \infty$, if $X_1\subset X_0$, then $X_1 \subset K_{\theta_2,q}(\overline X)\subset K_{\theta_1,q}(\overline X) \subset X_0$, and the inclusion mappings are continuous. Furthermore, if $\|\phi\|_{X_0}\leq \|\phi\|_{X_1}$, for $\phi\in X_1$, then, with the choice of normalisation , $\|\phi\|_{K_{\theta_1,q}(\overline X)}\leq \|\phi\|_{K_{\theta_2,q}(\overline X)}$ for $\phi\in K_{\theta_2,q}(\overline X)$, $$\|\phi\|_{X_0} \leq \|\phi\|_{K_{\theta_1,q}(\overline X)}, \; \mbox{ for } \phi \in K_{\theta_1,q}(\overline X), \quad \mbox{and} \quad \|\phi\|_{K_{\theta_2,q}(\overline X)}\leq \|\phi\|_{X_1}, \; \mbox{ for } \phi \in X_1.$$
4. For $0<\theta < 1$, $1\leq q<\infty$, $\Delta(\overline X)$ is dense in $K_{\theta,q}(\overline X)$.
5. For $0<\theta < 1$, $1\leq q<\infty$, where $X_j^\circ$ denotes the closure of $\Delta(\overline X)$ in $X_j$, $$(X_0,X_1)_{\theta,q} = (X_0^\circ,X_1)_{\theta,q} = (X_0,X_1^\circ)_{\theta,q} = (X_0^\circ,X_1^\circ)_{\theta,q},$$ with equality of norms.
6. For $0<\theta < 1$, $1\leq q\leq \infty$, if $Z_j$ is a closed subspace of $X_j$, for $j=0,1$, and $\overline Z=(Z_0,Z_1)$, then $$K_{\theta,q}(\overline Z) \subset K_{\theta,q}(\overline X), \quad \mbox{with} \quad \|\phi\|_{K_{\theta,q}(\overline X)} \leq \|\phi\|_{K_{\theta,q}(\overline Z)}, \; \mbox{ for } \phi\in K_{\theta,q}(\overline Z).$$
7. Suppose that $1\leq q\leq \infty$, $\theta_0,\theta_1\in [0,1]$, and, for $j=0,1$, $Z_j := (X_0,X_1)_{\theta_j,q}$, if $0<\theta_j<1$, while $Z_j:= X_{\theta_j}$, if $\theta_j\in \{0,1\}$. Then $(Z_0,Z_1)_{\eta,q} = (X_0,X_1)_{\theta,q}$, with equivalence of norms, for $\theta = (1-\eta)\theta_0 + \eta \theta_1$ and $0<\eta<1$.
The J-method {#sec:J}
------------
We turn now to study of the $J$-method, which we will see is complementary and dual to the $K$-method. Given a compatible pair $\overline X = (X_0,X_1)$, define the [*J-functional*]{} by $$J(t,\phi) = J(t,\phi,\overline X) := \left(\|\phi\|^2_{X_0} + t^2 \|\phi\|^2_{X_1}\right)^{1/2}, \quad \mbox{for }t>0 \mbox{ and } \phi\in \Delta(\overline X),$$ our precise definition here that of [@McLean]. (More usual, less suited to the Hilbert space case but leading to the same interpolation spaces and equivalent norms, is to define $J(t,\phi):=\max(\|\phi\|_{X_0},t \|\phi\|_{X_1})$, e.g. [@BeLo].) The space $J_{\theta,q}(\overline X)$ is now defined as follows. The elements of $J_{\theta,q}(\overline X)$ are those $\phi\in \Sigma(\overline X)$ that can be represented in the form $$\label{eq:intcon}
\phi = \int_0^\infty f(t)\,\frac{{\mathrm{d}}t}{t},$$ for some function $f:(0,\infty)\to \Delta(\overline X)$ that is strongly $\Delta(\overline X)$-measurable (see, e.g., [@McLean p. 321]) when $(0,\infty)$ is equipped with Lebesgue measure, and such that $$\label{Jconstraint}
\int_a^b \|f(t)\|_{\Delta(\overline X)} \,\frac{{\mathrm{d}}t}{t} < \infty \; \mbox{ if } 0<a<b<\infty, \quad \mbox{and }\int_0^\infty \|f(t)\|_{\Sigma(\overline X)} \,\frac{{\mathrm{d}}t}{t} < \infty.$$ $J_{\theta,q}(\overline X)$ is a normed space with the norm defined by $$\label{Jnormdef}
\|\phi\|_{J_{\theta,q}(\overline X)} := N^{-1}_{\theta,q^*}\inf_f \|g_f\|_{\theta,q},$$ where $$\label{qstar}
\frac{1}{q^*}+\frac{1}{q} = 1,$$ $g_f(t) := J(t,f(t))$, and the infimum is taken over all measurable $f:(0,\infty)\to \Delta(\overline X)$ such that and hold. Our definition is standard (precisely as in [@McLean]), except for the normalisation factor $N^{-1}_{\theta,q^*}$. It is a standard result, e.g. [@McLean Theorem B.3], that the spaces $K_{\theta,q}(\overline X)$ and $J_{\theta,q}(\overline X)$ coincide.
\[JKsame\] For $0<\theta < 1$, $1\leq q\leq \infty$, $J_{\theta,q}(\overline X)=K_{\theta,q}(\overline X)$, with equivalence of norms.
A major motivation for introducing the $J$-method is the following duality result. Here, for a Banach space $X$, $X^*$ denotes the dual of $X$.
\[JKdual\] If $\overline X=(X_0, X_1)$ is a compatible pair and $\Delta(\overline X)$ is dense in $X_0$ and $X_1$, then $\Delta(\overline X)$ is dense in $\Sigma(\overline X)$ and $\overline X^*:=(X_0^*,X_1^*)$ is a compatible pair, and moreover $$\label{JKdual1}
\Delta(\overline X)^* = \Sigma(\overline X^*) \quad \mbox{and} \quad \Sigma(\overline X)^* = \Delta(\overline X^*),$$ with equality of norms. Further, for $0<\theta<1$, $1\leq q< \infty$, with $q^*$ defined by , $$(X_0,X_1)_{\theta,q}^* = (X_0^*,X_1^*)_{\theta,q^*},$$ with equivalence of norms: precisely, if we use the normalisation , for $\phi\in (X_0,X_1)_{\theta,q}$, $$\|\phi\|_{K_{\theta,q}(\overline X)^*} \leq \|\phi\|_{J_{\theta,q^*}(\overline X^*)} \quad \mbox{and} \quad \|\phi\|_{K_{\theta,q^*}(\overline X^*)} \leq \|\phi\|_{J_{\theta,q}(\overline X)^*}.$$
We embed $X_j^*$ in $\Delta(\overline X)^*$, for $j=0,1$, in the obvious way, mapping $\psi\in X_j^*$ to its restriction to $\Delta(\overline X)$, this mapping injective since $\Delta(\overline X)$ is dense in $X_j$. That holds is shown as Theorem 2.7.1 in [@BeLo]. The remainder of the theorem is shown in the proof of [@McLean Theorem B.5].
The above theorem has the following corollary that is one motivation for our choice of normalisation in (cf., the corresponding result for $K$-norms in Lemma 2.1 (iii)).
\[Jlemma\] If $\overline X=(X,X)$ then $J_{\theta,q}(\overline X)=X$ with equality of norms.
It is clear, from Lemma \[intnormub\] and Theorem \[JKsame\], that $J_{\theta,q}(\overline X)=X$. It remains to show equality of the norms which we will deduce from Theorem \[JKdual\] for $1<q\leq \infty$.
We first observe (cf. part (vi) of Theorem \[thm:interp\]) that, for $0<\theta < 1$, $1\leq q\leq \infty$, it follows immediately from the definitions that if $Z_j$ is a closed subspace of $Y_j$, for $j=0,1$, and $\overline Z=(Z_0,Z_1)$, $\overline Y = (Y_0,Y_1)$, then $\|\phi\|_{J_{\theta,q}(\overline Y)} \leq \|\phi\|_{J_{\theta,q}(\overline Z)}$, for $\phi\in J_{\theta,q}(\overline Z)$. We will apply this result in the case that, for some Banach space $X$ and $j=0,1$, $Z_j=X$, and $Y_j=X^{**}$, the second dual of $X$, recalling that $X$ is canonically and isometrically embedded as a closed subspace of $X^{**}$ (the whole of $X^{**}$ if $X$ is reflexive).
Now suppose that $0<\theta<1$ and $1<q\leq \infty$. Then, for every Banach space $X$, where $\overline X = (X,X)$ and $\overline X^* = (X^*,X^*)$, it holds by Lemma \[intnormub\] that $X^*=K_{\theta,q^*}(\overline X^*)$ with equality of norms. Applying Theorem \[JKdual\] it holds for $\phi\in X$ that $$\|\phi\|_X = \|\phi\|_{X^{**}} = \|\phi\|_{K_{\theta,q^*}(\overline X^*)^*} \leq \|\phi\|_{J_{\theta,q}(\overline X^{**})} \leq \|\phi\|_{J_{\theta,q}(\overline X)}$$ and, where $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$ is the duality pairing on $X\times X^*$, $$\|\phi\|_{J_{\theta,q}(\overline X)} = \sup_{0\neq \psi\in X^*} \frac{|\langle \phi, \psi \rangle|}{\|\psi\|_{J_{\theta,q}(\overline X)^*}} \leq
\sup_{0\neq \psi\in X^*} \frac{|\langle \phi, \psi \rangle|}{\|\psi\|_{K_{\theta,q^*}(\overline X^*)}}
= \sup_{0\neq \psi\in X^*} \frac{|\langle \phi, \psi \rangle|}{\|\psi\|_{X^*}} = \|\phi\|_X.$$ Thus, for $\phi\in X$, $\|\phi\|_{J_{\theta,q}(\overline X)} = \|\phi\|_X$ for $0<\theta< 1$ and $1<q\leq \infty$.
To see that this holds also for $q=1$ we note that, for $1\leq q < \infty$, $0<\theta<1$, and $\phi \in X$, $$\|\phi\|_{J_{\theta,q}(\overline X)} = \inf_f \mathcal{J}_{\theta,q}(f), \mbox{ where } \mathcal{J}_{\theta,q}(f) := N^{-1}_{\theta,q^*}\left(\int_0^\infty \left(\frac{\|f(t)\|_X}{g_\theta(t)}\right)^q \frac{{\mathrm{d}}t}{t}\right)^{1/q},$$ $g_\theta(t) := t^\theta/\sqrt{1+t^2}$, and the infimum is taken over all $f$ that satisfy with $\int_0^\infty (\|f(t)\|_X\,/t)\, {\mathrm{d}}t < \infty$. Note that $g_\theta(t)$ has a global maximum on $[0,\infty)$ at $t_0=\sqrt{\theta/(1-\theta)}$, with $g_\theta(t_0)= N_{\theta,\infty}^{-1}\leq 2^{-1/2}<1$, and is decreasing on $[t_0,\infty)$. Given $\epsilon>0$ set $f(t) = \epsilon^{-1} t\,\chi_{(t_0,t_0+\epsilon)} \,\phi$, for $t>0$, where $\chi_{(a,b)}$ denotes the characteristic function of $(a,b)\subset{\mathbb{R}}$. Then holds and $$\|\phi\|_{J_{\theta,1}(\overline X)} \leq \mathcal{J}_{\theta,1}(f) = \frac{\|\phi\|_X}{\epsilon\, N_{\theta,\infty}} \int_{t_0}^{t_0+\epsilon} \frac{{\mathrm{d}}t}{g_\theta(t)} \leq \frac{g_\theta(t_0)}{g_\theta(t_0+\epsilon)}\, \|\phi\|_X\, .$$ As this holds for arbitrary $\epsilon >0$, $\|\phi\|_{J_{\theta,1}(\overline X)} \leq \|\phi\|_X$.
On the other hand, if $\epsilon>0$ and $f$ satisfies with $\int_0^\infty (\|f(t)\|_X\,/t)\, {\mathrm{d}}t < \infty$ and $\mathcal{J}_{\theta,1}(f)\leq \|\phi\|_{J_{\theta,1}(\overline X)} + \epsilon$, then, choosing $\eta\in (0,1)$ such that $\int_{(0,\infty)\setminus (\eta,\eta^{-1})} (\|f(t)\|_X/(tg_\theta(t))){\mathrm{d}}t <\epsilon$, it follows (since $g_\theta(t)\leq 1$) that $\|\phi-\phi_\eta\|_X < \epsilon$, where $\phi_\eta := \int_0^\infty (f_\eta(t)/t){\mathrm{d}}t$ and $f_\eta := f\, \chi_{(\eta,\eta^{-1})}$. Thus $$\|\phi\|_X -\epsilon \leq \|\phi_\eta\|_X = \lim_{q\to 1^+} \|\phi_\eta\|_{J_{\theta,q}(\overline X)}\leq \lim_{q\to 1^+} \mathcal{J}_{\theta,q}(f_\eta) = \mathcal{J}_{\theta,1}(f_\eta) \leq \mathcal{J}_{\theta,1}(f) + \epsilon \leq \|\phi\|_{J_{\theta,1}(\overline X)} + 2\epsilon.$$ As $\epsilon>0$ here is arbitrary, it follows that $\|\phi\|_{J_{\theta,1}(\overline X)} = \|\phi\|_X$.
Interpolation of Hilbert spaces {#sec:interpHil}
===============================
We focus in this section on so-called [*quadratic interpolation*]{}, meaning the special case of interpolation where the compatible pairs are pairs of Hilbert spaces and the interpolation spaces are also Hilbert spaces. For the remainder of the paper we assume the normalisations and for the $K$- and $J$-methods, and focus entirely on the case $q=2$, in which case the normalisation factors are given explicitly by . With the norms we have chosen, the $K$-method and $J$-method interpolation spaces $K_{\theta,2}(\overline X)$ and $J_{\theta,2}(\overline X)$ are Hilbert spaces (in fact, as we will see, the same Hilbert space if $\overline X$ is a Hilbert space compatible pair).
The K- and J-methods in the Hilbert space case
----------------------------------------------
We begin with a result on real interpolation that at first sight appears to be a special case, but we will see later is generic.
\[thm:L2case\] Let $(\mathcal{X},M,\mu)$ be a measure space and let $\mathcal{Y}$ denote the set of measurable functions $\mathcal{X}\to {\mathbb{C}}$. Suppose that, for $j=0,1$, $w_j\in \mathcal{Y}$, with $w_j> 0$ almost everywhere, and let $H_j:= L^2(\mathcal{X},M,w_j\mu)\subset \mathcal{Y}$, a Hilbert space with norm $$\|\phi\|_{H_j} := \left(\int_{\mathcal{X}} w_j |\phi|^2 \, {\mathrm{d}}\mu\right)^{1/2}\,, \quad \mbox{for } \phi \in H_j \, .$$ For $0<\theta < 1$, where $w_\theta:= w_0^{1-\theta}w_1^\theta$, let $H^\theta := L^2(\mathcal{X}, M, w_\theta\mu)$, a Hilbert space with norm $$\|\phi\|_{H^\theta} := \left(\int_{\mathcal{X}} w_\theta|\phi|^2 \, {\mathrm{d}}\mu\right)^{1/2},\quad \mbox{for } \phi \in H^\theta \, .$$ Then, for $0<\theta<1$, where $\overline H=(H_0,H_1)$, $$H^\theta=K_{\theta,2}(\overline H) = J_{\theta,2}(\overline H),$$ with equality of norms.
We have to show that, for $\phi\in \Sigma(\overline H)$, $\|\phi\|_{H^\theta}=\|\phi\|_{K_{\theta,2}(\overline H)}=\|\phi\|_{J_{\theta,2}(\overline H)}$, for $0<\theta<1$. Now $$\begin{aligned}
\|\phi\|^2_{K_{\theta,2}(\overline H)}
& = & N^2_{\theta,2} \int_0^\infty t^{-1-2\theta} \inf_{\phi_0+\phi_1=\phi} \left(\|\phi_0\|^2_{H_0} + t^2 \|\phi_1\|^2_{H_1}\right) \,{\mathrm{d}}t\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\|\phi_0\|^2_{H_0} + t^2 \|\phi_1\|^2_{H_1} = \int_{\mathcal{X}}\left( w_0 |\phi_0|^2 + w_1t^2 |\phi_1|^2\right)\, {\mathrm{d}}\mu.\end{aligned}$$ Further (by applying [@McLean B.4, p. 333] pointwise inside the integral), $$\inf_{\phi_0+\phi_1=\phi} \int_{\mathcal{X}}\left( w_0 |\phi_0|^2 + w_1t^2 | \phi_1|^2\right)\, {\mathrm{d}}\mu = \int_{\mathcal{X}} \frac{w_0w_1t^2}{w_0+t^2w_1} | \phi|^2\, {\mathrm{d}}\mu,$$ this infimum achieved by $\phi_1 = w_0 \phi/(w_0+t^2w_1)$. Hence, and by Tonelli’s theorem and , $$\begin{aligned}
\|\phi\|^2_{K_{\theta,2}(\overline H)}
& = & N^2_{\theta,2} \int_{\mathcal{X}}\left(\int_0^\infty t^{-1-2\theta} \frac{w_0w_1t^2}{w_0+t^2w_1} \, {\mathrm{d}}t\right) | \phi|^2\, {\mathrm{d}}\mu = \|\phi\|^2_{H^\theta}\, .\end{aligned}$$ Also, $$\begin{aligned}
\|\phi\|_{J_{\theta,2}(\overline H)}^2
& = & N^{-2}_{\theta,2} \inf_f\int_0^\infty t^{-1-2\theta} \left(\|f(t)\|^2_{H_0} + t^2 \|f(t)\|^2_{H_1}\right) \,{\mathrm{d}}t\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\|f(t)\|^2_{H_0} + t^2 \|f(t)\|^2_{H_1} = \int_{\mathcal{X}} (w_0 + w_1t^2) |f(t)|^2\, {\mathrm{d}}\mu,\end{aligned}$$ so that, by Tonelli’s theorem, $$\label{eq:norm}
\|\phi\|_{J_{\theta,2}(\overline H)}^2
= N^{-2}_{\theta,2} \inf_f\int_{\mathcal{X}}\left(\int_0^\infty t^{-1-2\theta} (w_0 + w_1t^2) |f(t)|^2\, {\mathrm{d}}t\right) \,{\mathrm{d}}\mu.$$ Now we show below that this infimum is achieved for the choice $$\label{eq:choice}
f(t) = \frac{t^{2\theta}\phi}{(w_0+w_1t^2)\int_0^\infty s^{2\theta-1}/(w_0+w_1s^2)\, {\mathrm{d}}s} = \frac{w_\theta N_{\theta,2}^2 t^{2\theta}\phi}{ w_0+w_1t^2}\, ;$$ to get the second equality we use that, from , $$\int_0^\infty \frac{s^{2\theta-1}}{w_0+w_1s^2}\, {\mathrm{d}}s = \int_0^\infty \frac{s^{1-2\theta}}{w_0s^2+w_1}\, {\mathrm{d}}s = \frac{w_{1-\theta}}{N_{\theta,2}^2 w_0 w_1}= \frac{1}{w_\theta N_{\theta,2}^2}.$$ Substituting from in gives that $$\|\phi\|_{J_{\theta,2}(\overline H)}^2
= N^{2}_{\theta,2} \int_{\mathcal{X}} w_\theta^2 |\phi|^2 \left(\int_0^\infty \frac{t^{-1+2\theta}}{w_0 + w_1t^2}\, {\mathrm{d}}t\right) \,{\mathrm{d}}\mu
= \int_{\mathcal{X}} w_\theta| \phi|^2\, {\mathrm{d}}\mu = \|\phi\|_{H^\theta}^2.$$ It remains to justify that the infimum is indeed attained by . We note first that the definition of $f$ implies that $\int_0^\infty (f(t)/t){\mathrm{d}}t = \phi$, so that holds. Now suppose that $g$ is another eligible function such that holds, and let $\delta = g-f$. Then $\int_0^\infty (\delta(t)/t)\, {\mathrm{d}}t = 0$ and, using , $$\begin{aligned}
& & \int_{\mathcal{X}}\left(\int_0^\infty t^{-1-2\theta} (w_0 + w_1t^2) |g(t)|^2\, {\mathrm{d}}t\right) {\mathrm{d}}\mu - \int_{\mathcal{X}}\left(\int_0^\infty t^{-1-2\theta} (w_0 + w_1 t^2) |f(t)|^2\, {\mathrm{d}}t\right) {\mathrm{d}}\mu\\
&\geq&2\Re \int_{\mathcal{X}}\left(\int_0^\infty t^{-1-2\theta} (w_0 + w_1t^2) f(t) \bar \delta(t){\mathrm{d}}t\right) {\mathrm{d}}\mu = 2N_{\theta,2}^2\Re \int_{\mathcal{X}}w_\theta \phi \left(\int_0^\infty \frac{ \bar\delta(t)}{t}{\mathrm{d}}t\right) {\mathrm{d}}\mu= 0.\end{aligned}$$
The following is a straightforward corollary of the above theorem.
\[thm:choiceoftheta\] Let $\overline H = (H_0,H_1)$ be a compatible pair of Hilbert spaces, $(\mathcal{X},M,\mu)$ be a measure space and let $\mathcal{Y}$ denote the set of measurable functions $\mathcal{X}\to {\mathbb{C}}$. Suppose that there exists a linear map $\mathcal{A}:\Sigma(\overline H)\to \mathcal{Y}$ and, for $j=0,1$, functions $w_j\in \mathcal{Y}$, with $w_j>0$ almost everywhere, such that the mappings $\mathcal{A}:H_j\to L^2(\mathcal{X},M,w_j\mu)$ are unitary isomorphisms. For $0<\theta < 1$ define intermediate spaces $H^\theta$, with $\Delta(\overline H)\subset H^\theta \subset \Sigma(\overline H)$, by $$H^\theta := \bigg\{\phi\in \Sigma(\overline H): \|\phi\|_{H^\theta} := \bigg(\int_{\mathcal{X}} \big|w_\theta \mathcal{A}\phi\big|^2 \, {\mathrm{d}}\mu\bigg)^{1/2} < \infty\bigg\},$$ where $w_\theta:= w_0^{1-\theta}w_1^\theta$. Then, for $0<\theta<1$, $H^\theta=K_{\theta,2}(\overline H) = J_{\theta,2}(\overline H)$, with equality of norms.
In the next theorem we justify our earlier statement that the situation described in Theorem \[thm:L2case\] is generic, the point being that it follows from the spectral theorem for bounded normal operators that every Hilbert space compatible pair is unitarily equivalent to a compatible pair of weighted $L^2$-spaces. We should make clear that, while our method of proof that the $K$-method and $J$-method produce the same interpolation space, with equality of norms, appears to be new, this result (for the somewhat restricted separable Hilbert space case, with $\Delta(\overline H)$ dense in $H_0$ and $H_1$) is claimed recently in Ameur [@Ameur2004 Example 4.1] (see also [@Ameur2014 Section 7]), though the choice of normalisation, details of the argument, and the definition of the $J$-method norm appear inaccurate in [@Ameur2004].
In the following theorem and subsequently, for a Hilbert space $H$, $(\cdot,\cdot)_H$ denotes the inner product on $H$. We note that $\Delta(\overline H)$ and $\Sigma(\overline H)$ are Hilbert spaces if we equip them with the equivalent norms defined by $\|\phi\|^\prime_{\Delta(\overline H)} := J(1,\phi,\overline H)$ and $\|\phi\|^\prime_{\Sigma(\overline H)} := K(1,\phi,\overline H)$, respectively. In the next theorem we use standard results (e.g., [@Kato Section VI, Theorem 2.23]) on non-negative, closed symmetric forms and their associated self-adjoint operators.
\[thm:JequalK\] Suppose that $\overline H=(H_0,H_1)$ is a compatible pair of Hilbert spaces. Then, for $0<\theta<1$, $\|\phi\|_{K_{\theta,2}(\overline H)} = \|\phi\|_{J_{\theta,2}(\overline H)}$, for $\phi\in (H_0,H_1)_{\theta,2}$. Further, where $H^\circ_1$ denotes the closure in $H_1$ of $\Delta(\overline H)$, defining the unbounded, self-adjoint, injective operator $T:H^\circ_1\to H^\circ_1$ by $$(T\phi,\psi)_{H_1} = (\phi,\psi)_{H_0}, \quad \phi,\psi\in \Delta(\overline H),$$ and where $S$ is the unique non-negative square root of $T$, it holds that $$\|\phi\|_{H_0} = \|S\phi\|_{H_1} \; \mbox{ and } \; \|\phi\|_{K_{\theta,2}(\overline H)} = \|\phi\|_{J_{\theta,2}(\overline H)} =\|S^{1-\theta}\phi\|_{H_1}, \quad \mbox{for } \phi \in \Delta(\overline H),$$ so that $K_{\theta,2}(\overline H)$ is the closure of $\Delta(\overline H)$ in $\Sigma(\overline H)$ with respect to the norm defined by $\|\phi\|_\theta := \|S^{1-\theta}\phi\|_{H_1}$.
For $j=0,1$, define the non-negative bounded, injective operator $A_j:\Delta(\overline H)\to \Delta(\overline H)$ by the relation $(A_j\phi,\psi)_{\Delta(\overline H)} = (\phi,\psi)_{H_j}$, for $\phi,\psi\in \Delta(\overline H)$, where $(\cdot,\cdot)_{\Delta(\overline H)}$ denotes the inner product induced by the norm $\|\cdot\|^\prime_{\Delta(\overline H)}$. By the spectral theorem [@DSII Corollary 4, p. 911] there exists a measure space $(\mathcal{X},M,\mu)$, a bounded $\mu$-measurable function $w_0$, and a unitary isomorphism $U:\Delta(\overline H)\to L^2(\mathcal{X},M,\mu)$ such that $$A_0\phi = U^{-1}w_0U\phi, \quad \mbox{for }\phi\in \Delta(\overline H),$$ and $w_0> 0$ $\mu$-almost everywhere since $A_0$ is non-negative and injective. Defining $w_1 := 1-w_0$ we see that $A_1\phi = U^{-1}w_1 U\phi$, for $\phi\in \Delta(\overline H)$, so that also $w_1>0$ $\mu$-almost everywhere.
For $\phi\in \Delta(\overline H)$, $$\|\phi\|_{H_j}^2 = (U^{-1}w_jU\phi,\phi)_{\Delta(\overline H)} = (w_jU\phi,U\phi)_{L^2(\mathcal{X},M,\mu)} = \|U\phi\|_{L^2(\mathcal{X},M,w_j\mu)}^2, \quad \mbox{for } j=0,1.$$ Thus, where (similarly to $H_1^\circ$) $H_0^\circ$ denotes the closure of $\Delta(\overline H)$ in $H_0$, $U$ extends to an isometry $U:H^\circ_j\to L^2(\mathcal{X},M,w_j\mu)$ for $j=0,1$. These extensions are unitary operators since their range contains $L^2(\mathcal{X},M,\mu)$, which is dense in $L^2(\mathcal{X},M,w_j\mu)$ for $j=0,1$. Where $\overline H^\circ:=(H_0^\circ,H_1^\circ)$, $U$ extends further to a linear operator $U:\Sigma(\overline H^\circ)\to \mathcal Y$, the space of $\mu$-measurable functions defined on $\mathcal{X}$. Thus, applying Corollary \[thm:choiceoftheta\] and noting part (v) of Theorem \[thm:interp\], we see that $H^\theta=K_{\theta,2}(\overline H) = J_{\theta,2}(\overline H)$, with equality of norms, where $$H^\theta := \big\{\phi\in \Sigma(\overline H): \|\phi\|_{H^\theta} := \|U\phi\|_{L^2(\mathcal{X},M,w_\theta\mu)} < \infty\big\},$$ and $w_\theta := w_0^{1-\theta}w_1^\theta$. Moreover, for $\phi\in \Delta(\overline H)$, the unbounded operator $T:H_1^\circ\to H_1^\circ$ satisfies $T\phi = U^{-1}(w_0/w_1)U\phi$ so that $\|S^{1-\theta}\phi\|_{H_1}^2 = (T^{1-\theta}\phi,\phi)_{H_1} = (A_1T^{1-\theta}\phi,\phi)_{\Delta(\overline H)} = (w_\theta U\phi,U\phi)_{L^2(\mathcal{X},M,\mu)}= \|\phi\|_{H^\theta}^2$, for $0<\theta<1$, and $\|S\phi\|_{H_1}^2 = (w_0 U\phi,U\phi)_{L^2(\mathcal{X},M,\mu)}= \|\phi\|_{H_0}^2$.
Suppose that $\phi\in \Delta(\overline H)$. The above proof shows that $$\|\phi\|_{H_j} = \left(\int_{\mathcal{X}}w_j|U\phi|^2\, {\mathrm{d}}\mu\right)^{1/2}, \;\; \mbox{for } j=0,1, \quad \mbox{and} \quad \|\phi\|_{K_{\theta,2}(\overline H)} = \left(\int_{\mathcal{X}}w_\theta|U\phi|^2\, {\mathrm{d}}\mu\right)^{1/2}, \;\; \mbox{for } 0<\theta<1,$$ with $U\phi\in L^2(\mathcal{X},M, \mu)$, $0<w_j\leq 1$ $\mu$-almost everywhere, for $j=0,1$, and $w_\theta := w_0^{1-\theta}w_1^\theta$. It follows from the dominated convergence theorem that $\|\phi\|_{K_{\theta,2}(\overline H)}$ depends continuously on $\theta$ and that $$\lim_{\theta\to 0^+}\|\phi\|_{K_{\theta,2}(\overline H)} = \|\phi\|_{H_0} \quad \mbox{and} \quad \lim_{\theta\to 1^-}\|\phi\|_{K_{\theta,2}(\overline H)} = \|\phi\|_{H_1}.$$
In the special case, considered in [@LiMaI], that $H_0$ is densely and continuously embedded in $H_1$, when $\Delta(\overline H) = H_0$ and $\Sigma(\overline H) = H_1$, the above theorem can be interpreted as stating that $(H_0,H_1)_{\theta,2}$ is the domain of the unbounded self-adjoint operator $S^{1-\theta}:H_1\to H_1$ (and $H_0$ the domain of $S$), this a standard characterisation of the $K$-method interpolation spaces in this special case, see, e.g., [@LiMaI p. 99] or [@Bramble]. The following theorem (cf., [@Bramble Theorem B.2]), further illustrating the application of Corollary \[thm:choiceoftheta\], treats the special case when $H_1\subset H_0$, with a compact and dense embedding (which implies that both $H_0$ and $H_1$ are separable).
\[thm:compact\] Suppose that $\overline H=(H_0,H_1)$ is a compatible pair of Hilbert spaces, with $H_1$ densely and compactly embedded in $H_0$. Then the operator $T:H_1\to H_1$, defined by $$(T\phi,\psi)_{H_1} = (\phi,\psi)_{H_0}, \quad \phi,\psi\in H_1,$$ is compact, self-adjoint, and injective, and there exists an orthogonal basis, $\{\phi_j:j\in {\mathbb{N}}\}$, for $H_1$, where each $\phi_j$ is an eigenvector of $T$ with corresponding eigenvalue $\lambda_j$. Further, $\lambda_1\geq \lambda_2 \geq ... > 0$ and $\lambda_j\to 0$ as $j\to\infty$. Moreover, normalising this basis so that $\|\phi_j\|_{H_0}=1$ for each $j$, it holds for $0<\theta< 1$ that $$(H_0,H_1)_{\theta,2} = \Bigg\{\phi = \sum_{k=1}^\infty a_j \phi_j \in H_0: \|\phi\|_\theta^* := \bigg(\sum_{j=1}^\infty \lambda_j^{-\theta} |a_j|^2\bigg)^{1/2} < \infty\Bigg\}.$$ Further, for $0<\theta<1$, $\|\phi\|_\theta^* =\|\phi\|_{K_{\theta,2}(\overline H)} = \|\phi\|_{J_{\theta,2}(\overline H)}$, for $\phi \in (H_0,H_1)_{\theta,2}$, and, for $j=0,1$, $\|\phi\|_j^* =\|\phi\|_{H_j}$, for $\phi \in H_j$.
Clearly $T$ is injective and self-adjoint, and we see easily (this a standard argument) that $T$ is compact. The existence of an orthogonal basis of $H_1$ consisting of eigenvectors of $T$, and the properties of the eigenvalues claimed, follow from standard results [@McLean Theorem 2.36], and the positivity and injectivity of $T$. Further, $(\phi_i,\phi_j)_{H_0} = (T\phi_i,\phi_j)_{H_1} = \lambda_i (\phi_i,\phi_j)_{H_1}$. Thus, normalising by $\|\phi_j\|_{H_0}=1$, it holds that $(\phi_i,\phi_j)_{H_0} = \delta_{ij}$, and $(\phi_i,\phi_j)_{H_1} = \lambda_i^{-1} \delta_{ij}$, for $i,j\in {\mathbb{N}}$. Since $H_1$ is dense in $H_0$, $\{\phi_j\}$ is an orthonormal basis of $H_0$. Further, for $\phi\in H_1$ and $j\in {\mathbb{N}}$, $(\phi_j,\phi)_{H_1} = \lambda_j^{-1} (T\phi_j,\phi)_{H_1} = \lambda_j^{-1} (\phi_j,\phi)_{H_0}.$ Thus, for $\phi\in H_0$, $\|\phi\|_{H_0}^2 = \sum_{j=1}^\infty |(\phi_j,\phi)_{H_0}|^2$, while, for $\phi\in H_1$, $$\|\phi\|_{H_1}^2 = \sum_{j=1}^\infty \lambda_i |(\phi,\phi_j)_{H_1}|^2 = \sum_{j=1}^\infty \lambda_i^{-1} |(\phi,\phi_j)_{H_0}|^2.$$ To complete the proof we use Corollary \[thm:choiceoftheta\], with the measure space $({\mathbb{N}}, 2^{\mathbb{N}}, \mu)$, where $\mu$ is counting measure, and where $\mathcal{A}\phi$, for $\phi\in H_0$, is the function $\mathcal{A}\phi:{\mathbb{N}}\to{\mathbb{C}}$ defined by $\mathcal{A}\phi(j) = (\phi,\phi_j)_{H_0}$, $j\in{\mathbb{N}}$, and $w_0$ and $w_j$ are defined by $w_0(j) = 1$ and $w_1(j) = \lambda_j^{-1/2}$, $j\in{\mathbb{N}}$.
Uniqueness of interpolation in the Hilbert space case {#sec:unique}
-----------------------------------------------------
Theorem \[thm:JequalK\] is a statement that, in the Hilbert space case, three standard methods of interpolation produce the same interpolation space, with the same norm. This is illustrative of a more general result. It turns out, roughly speaking, that all methods of interpolation between Hilbert spaces that produce, for $0<\theta<1$, interpolation spaces that are Hilbert spaces and that are exact of exponent $\theta$, must coincide. To make a precise statement we need the following definition: given a Hilbert space compatible pair $\overline H = (H_0,H_1)$, an intermediate space $H$ between $H_0$ and $H_1$ is said to be a [*geometric interpolation space of exponent $\theta$*]{} [@McCarthy], for some $0<\theta<1$, relative to $\overline H$, if $H$ is a Hilbert space, $\Delta(\overline H)$ is dense in $H$, and the following three conditions hold for linear operators $T$:
1. If $T$ maps $\Delta(\overline H)$ to $\Delta(\overline H)$ and $\|T\phi\|_{H_0} \leq \lambda_0 \|\phi\|_{H_0}$ and $\|T\phi\|_{H_1} \leq \lambda_1\|\phi\|_{H_1}$, for all $\phi\in \Delta(\overline H)$, then $\|T\phi\|_{H} \leq \lambda_0^{1-\theta}\lambda_1^\theta \|\phi\|_{H}$, for all $\phi\in \Delta(\overline H)$;
2. If $T$ maps $\Delta(\overline H)$ to $\mathcal{H}$, for some Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$, and $\|T\phi\|_{\mathcal{H}} \leq \lambda_0 \|\phi\|_{H_0}$ and $\|T\phi\|_{\mathcal{H}} \leq \lambda_1\|\phi\|_{H_1}$, for all $\phi\in \Delta(\overline H)$, then $\|T\phi\|_{\mathcal{H}} \leq \lambda_0^{1-\theta}\lambda_1^\theta \|\phi\|_{H}$, for all $\phi\in \Delta(\overline H)$;
3. If $T$ maps $\mathcal{H}$ to $\Delta(\overline H)$, for some Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$, and $\|T\phi\|_{H_0} \leq \lambda_0 \|\phi\|_{\mathcal{H}}$ and $\|T\phi\|_{H_1} \leq \lambda_1\|\phi\|_{\mathcal{H}}$, for all $\phi\in \mathcal{H}$, then $\|T\phi\|_{H} \leq \lambda_0^{1-\theta}\lambda_1^\theta \|\phi\|_{\mathcal{H}}$, for all $\phi\in \mathcal{H}$.
More briefly but equivalently, in the language introduced in Section \[sec:interp\], $H$ is a geometric interpolation space of exponent $\theta$ if $\Delta(\overline H)\subset H\subset \Sigma(\overline H)$, with continuous embeddings and $\Delta(\overline H)$ dense in $H$, and if: (i) $(H,H)$ is a pair of interpolating spaces relative to $(\overline H,\overline H)$ that is exact of exponent $\theta$; and (ii) for every Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$, where $\overline{\mathcal{H}} := (\mathcal{H},\mathcal{H})$, $(H,\mathcal{H})$ and $(\mathcal{H},H)$ are pairs of interpolation spaces, relative to $(\overline H,\overline{\mathcal{H}})$ and $(\overline{\mathcal{H}},\overline H)$, respectively, that are exact of exponent $\theta$.
The following is the key uniqueness and existence theorem; the uniqueness part is due to McCarthy [@McCarthy] in the separable Hilbert space case with $\Delta(\overline H)$ dense in $H_0$ and $H_1$. We emphasise that this theorem states that, given a Hilbert space compatible pair, two geometric interpolation spaces with the same exponent must have equal norms, not only equivalent norms.
\[thm:unique\]Suppose that $\overline H = (H_0,H_1)$ is a compatible pair of Hilbert spaces. Then, for $0<\theta<1$, $K_{\theta,2}(\overline H)$ is the unique geometric interpolation space of exponent $\theta$ relative to $\overline H$.
That $H_\theta:= K_{\theta,2}(\overline H)$ is a geometric interpolation space of exponent $\theta$ follows from Lemma \[intnormub\](iii) and Theorem \[thm:interp\] (i) and (iv). To see that $H_\theta$ is the unique geometric interpolation space we adapt the argument of [@McCarthy], but using the technology (and notation) of the proof of Theorem \[thm:JequalK\].
So suppose that $G$ is another geometric interpolation space of exponent $\theta$ relative to $\overline H$. To show that $G=H_\theta$ with equality of norms it is enough to show that $\|\phi\|_G = \|\phi\|_{H_\theta}$, for $\phi\in \Delta(\overline H)$.
Using the notation of the proof of Theorem \[thm:JequalK\], recall that $T:H^\circ_1\to H^\circ_1$ is given by $T=U^{-1}\omega U$, where $\omega:= w_0/w_1$. For $0\leq a<b$ let $\chi_{a,b}\in \mathcal{Y}$ denote the characteristic function of the set $\{x\in \mathcal{X}: a\leq \omega(x) < b\}$, and define the projection operator $P(a,b):\Sigma(\overline H^\circ)\to \Delta(\overline H)$ by $P(a,b)\phi = U^{-1} \chi_{a,b} U\phi$. Recalling that $U:H_j^\circ\to L^2(\mathcal{X},M,w_j\mu)$ is unitary, we see that the mapping $P(a,b):H_j^\circ \to H_j^\circ$ has norm one, for $j=0,1$: since $G$ and $H_\theta$ are geometric interpolation spaces, also $P(a,b):G\to G$ and $P(a,b):H_\theta\to H_\theta$ have norm one. Thus $P(a,b)$ is an orthogonal projection operator on each of $H_j^\circ$, $j=0,1$, $G$, and $H_\theta$, for otherwise there exists a $\psi$ in the null-space of $P(a,b)$ which is not orthogonal to some $\phi$ in the range of $P(a,b)$, and then, for some $\eta\in{\mathbb{C}}$, $\|\phi\|> \|\phi+\eta \psi\| \geq
\|P(\phi+\eta\psi)\| =\|\phi\|$, a contradiction.
Let $\mathcal{H}$ denote the range of $P(a,b):\Sigma(\overline H)\to \Delta(\overline H)$ equipped with the norm of $H_1$. Clearly $P(a,b):H^\circ_1\to \mathcal{H}$ has norm one, while it is a straightforward calculation that $P(a,b):H^\circ_0\to \mathcal{H}$ has norm $\leq \|\chi_{a,b} \omega^{-1/2}\|_{L^\infty(\mathcal{X},M,\mu)}\leq a^{-1/2}$, so that $P(a,b):G\to \mathcal{H}$ has norm $\leq a^{-(1-\theta)/2}$. Similarly, where $R$ is the inclusion map (so $R\phi=\phi$), $R:\mathcal{H}\to H^\circ_1$ has norm one, $R:\mathcal{H}\to H^\circ_0$ has norm $\leq \|\chi_{a,b} \omega^{1/2}\|_{L^\infty(\mathcal{X},M,\mu)}\leq b^{1/2}$, so that $R:\mathcal{H}\to G$ has norm $\leq b^{(1-\theta)/2}$. Thus, for $\phi \in \mathcal{H}$, $$\label{MC2}
a^{1-\theta}\|\phi\|^2_{H_1} \leq \|\phi\|^2_G\leq b^{1-\theta}\|\phi\|^2_{H_1}.$$
Finally, for every $p>1$, we observe that, for $\phi \in \Delta(\overline H)$, where $\phi_n := P(p^n,p^{n+1})\phi$, since $\{x:\omega(x)=0\}$ has $\mu$-measure zero, $$\label{MC1}
\|\phi\|_{H_\theta}^2 = \sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty \|\phi_n\|^2_{H_\theta}
\quad\mbox{ and } \quad
\|\phi\|_{G}^2 = \sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty \|\phi_n\|^2_{G}\, .$$ Further, for each $n$, $$\|\phi_n\|_{H_\theta}^2 = \int_{\mathcal X} w_\theta |U\phi_n|^2 \, {\mathrm{d}}\mu = \int_{\mathcal X} \chi_{p^n,p^{n+1}}w_\theta |U\phi_n|^2 \, {\mathrm{d}}\mu = \int_{\mathcal X} \chi_{p^n,p^{n+1}}\omega^{1-\theta}w_1 |U\phi_n|^2 \, {\mathrm{d}}\mu$$ so that $$p^{n(1-\theta)} \|\phi_n\|_{H_1}^2\leq \|\phi_n\|_{H_\theta}^2 \leq p^{(n+1)(1-\theta)} \|\phi_n\|_{H_1}^2\, .$$ Combining these inequalities with (taking $a=p^n$, $b=p^{n+1}$) and , we see that $$p^{-(1-\theta)} \|\phi\|_{G}^2\leq \|\phi\|_{H_\theta}^2 \leq p^{1-\theta} \|\phi\|_{G}^2.$$ Since this holds for all $p>1$, $\|\phi\|_{H_\theta}=\|\phi\|_G$.
\[rem:functor\] For those who like the language of category theory (commonly used in the interpolation space context, e.g. [@BeLo; @Triebel78ITFSDO]), the above theorem says that there exists a unique functor $F$ from the category of Hilbert space compatible pairs to the category of Hilbert spaces such that: *(i)* for every Hilbert space compatible pair $\overline H$, $\Delta(\overline H) \subset F(\overline H) \subset \Sigma (\overline H)$, with the embeddings continuous and $\Delta(\overline H)$ dense in $F(\overline H)$; *(ii)* for every Hilbert space $H$, where $\overline H := (H,H)$, it holds that $F(\overline H) = H$; *(iii)* for every pair $(\overline H,\overline{\mathcal{H}})$ of Hilbert space compatible pairs, $(F(\overline H),F(\overline{\mathcal{H}}))$ is a pair of interpolation spaces, relative to $(\overline H,\overline{\mathcal{H}})$, that is exact of exponent $\theta$. Theorems \[thm:unique\], \[thm:interp\] (i), and \[thm:JequalK\] tell us that the $K$-method and the $J$-method are both instances of this functor. It follows from Theorems 4.1.2, 4.2.1(c), 4.2.2(a) in [@BeLo] that the complex interpolation method is also an instance of this functor, so that, for every Hilbert space compatible pair $\overline H=(H_0,H_1)$, the standard complex interpolation space $(H_0,H_1)_{[\theta]}$ (in the notation of [@BeLo]) coincides with $K_{\theta,2}(\overline H)$, with equality of norms.
Duality and interpolation scales {#sec:dualscales}
--------------------------------
Theorems \[thm:JequalK\] and \[thm:unique\] and Remark \[rem:functor\] make clear that life is simpler in the Hilbert space case. Two further simplications are captured in the following theorem (cf., Theorem \[thm:interp\] (vii) and Theorem \[JKdual\]).
\[simpler\] Suppose that $\overline H=(H_0, H_1)$ is a Hilbert space compatible pair.
1. If $\theta_0,\theta_1\in [0,1]$, and, for $j=0,1$, $\mathcal{H}_j := (H_0,H_1)_{\theta_j,2}$, if $0<\theta_j<1$, while $\mathcal{H}_j:= H_{\theta_j}$, if $\theta_j\in \{0,1\}$, then $(\mathcal{H}_0,\mathcal{H}_1)_{\eta,2} = (H_0,H_1)_{\theta,2}$, with equal norms, for $\theta = (1-\eta)\theta_0 + \eta \theta_1$ and $0<\eta<1$.
2. If $\Delta(\overline H)$ is dense in $H_0$ and $H_1$, so that $\overline H^*:=(H_0^*,H_1^*)$ is a Hilbert space compatible pair, then $$(H_0,H_1)_{\theta,2}^* = (H_0^*,H_1^*)_{\theta,2},$$ for $0<\theta<1$, with equality of norms.
To prove (i) we note first that, by Theorem \[thm:interp\] (v), we can assume $\Delta(\overline H)$ is dense in $H_0$ and $H_1$.
With this assumption it holds—see the proof of Theorem \[thm:JequalK\]—that there exists a measure space $(\mathcal{X},M,\mu)$, a unitary operator $U:\Delta(\overline H)\to L^2(\mathcal{X},M,\mu)$, and functions $w_j:\mathcal{X}\to [0,\infty)$ that are $\mu$-measurable and non-zero $\mu$-almost everywhere, such that $U:H_j\to L^2(\mathcal{X},M,w_j\mu)$ is a unitary operator for $j=0,1$ and $U:(H_0,H_1)_{\theta,2}\to L^2(\mathcal{X},M,w_\theta \mu)$ is a unitary operator for $0<\theta<1$, where $w_\theta:=w_0^{1-\theta}w_1^\theta$. But this identical argument, repeated for $(\mathcal{H}_0,\mathcal{H}_1)_{\eta,2}$, gives that $U:(\mathcal{H}_0,\mathcal{H}_1)_{\eta,2}\to L^2(\mathcal{X},M,W_\eta\mu)$ is a unitary operator, where $W_\eta := W_0^{1-\eta}W_1^\eta$ and $W_j := w_{\theta_j}$. But this proves the result since $W_\eta=w_\theta$ if $\theta = (1-\eta)\theta_0 + \eta \theta_1$ and $0<\eta<1$.
That (ii) holds is immediate from Theorems \[JKdual\] and \[thm:JequalK\].
\[rem:scales\] A useful concept, used extensively in Section \[sec:sob\] below, is that of an interpolation scale. Given a closed interval $\mathcal{I}\subset {\mathbb{R}}$ (e.g., $\mathcal{I} = [a,b]$, for some $a<b$, $\mathcal{I} = [0,\infty)$, $\mathcal{I} = {\mathbb{R}}$) we will say that a collection of Hilbert spaces $\{H_s:s \in \mathcal{I}\}$, indexed by $\mathcal{I}$, is an [*interpolation scale*]{} if, for all $s,t\in \mathcal{I}$ and $0<\eta<1$, $$(H_s,H_t)_{\eta,2} = H_\theta, \quad \mbox{for } \theta = (1-\eta)s + \eta t.$$ We will say that $\{H_s:s \in \mathcal{I}\}$ is an [*exact*]{} interpolation scale if, moreover, the norms of $(H_s,H_t)_{\eta,2}$ and $H_\theta$ are equal, for $s,t\in\mathcal{I}$ and $0<\eta<1$.
In this terminology part (i) of the above theorem is precisely a statement that, for every Hilbert space compatible pair $\overline H=(H_0,H_1)$, where $H_s:= (H_0,H_1)_{s,2}$, for $0<s<1$, $\{H_s:0\leq s\leq 1\}$ is an exact interpolation scale. If $\Delta(\overline H)$ is dense in $H_0$ and $H_1$, part (ii) implies that also $\{H^*_s:0\leq s\leq 1\}$ is an exact interpolation scale.
Interpolation of Sobolev spaces {#sec:sob}
===============================
In this section we study Hilbert space interpolation, analysed in Section \[sec:interpHil\], applied to the classical Sobolev spaces $H^s(\Omega)$ and ${\widetilde{H}}^s(\Omega)$, for $s\in {\mathbb{R}}$ and an open set $\Omega$. (Our notations here, which we make precise below, are those of [@McLean].) This is a classical topic of study (see, e.g., notably [@LiMaI]). Our results below provide a more complete answer than hitherto available to the following questions:
1. Let $H_s$, for $s\in {\mathbb{R}}$, denote $H^s(\Omega)$ or ${\widetilde{H}}^s(\Omega)$. For which classes of $\Omega$ and what range of $s$ is $\{H_s\}$ an (exact) interpolation scale?
2. In cases where $\{H_s\}$ is an interpolation scale but not an exact interpolation scale, how different are the $H_s$ norm and the interpolation norm?
Our answers to (i) and (ii) will consist mainly of examples and counterexamples. In particular, in the course of answering these questions we will write down, in certain cases of interest, explicit expressions for interpolation norms that may be of some independent interest. Our investigations in this section are in very large part prompted and inspired by the results and discussion in [@McLean Appendix B], though we will exhibit a counterexample to one of the results claimed in [@McLean].
We talk a little vaguely in the above paragraph about “Hilbert space interpolation”. This vagueness is justified in Section \[sec:unique\] which makes clear that, for $0<\theta<1$, there is only one method of interpolation of a pair of compatible Hilbert spaces $\overline H=(H_0,H_1)$ which produces an interpolation space $\overline H_\theta$ that is a geometric interpolation space of exponent $\theta$ (in the terminology of §\[sec:unique\]). Concretely this intermediate space is given both by the real interpolation methods, the $K$- and $J$-methods with $q=2$, and by the complex interpolation method: to emphasise, these methods give the identical interpolation space with identical norm (with the choice of normalisations we have made for the $K$- and $J$-methods). We will, throughout this section, use $\overline H_\theta$ and $(H_0,H_1)_\theta$ as our notations for this interpolation space and $\|\cdot\|_{\overline H_\theta}$ as our notation for the norm, so that $\overline H_\theta = (H_0,H_1)_\theta$ and $\|\cdot\|_{\overline H_\theta}$ are abbreviations for $(H_0,H_1)_{\theta,2} = K_{\theta,2}(\overline H)= J_{\theta,2}(\overline H)$ and $\|\cdot\|_{K_{\theta,2}(\overline H)}=\|\cdot\|_{J_{\theta,2}(\overline H)}$, respectively, the latter defined with the normalisation .
The spaces Hs(Rn)
-----------------
Our function space notations and definitions will be those in [@McLean]. For $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$ let ${\mathscr{S}}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ denote the Schwartz space of smooth rapidly decreasing functions, and ${\mathscr{S}}^*({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ its dual space, the space of tempered distributions. For $u\in {\mathscr{S}}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, $v\in {\mathscr{S}}^*({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, we denote by $\langle u,v\rangle$ the action of $v$ on $u$, and we embed $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n)\supset {\mathscr{S}}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ in ${\mathscr{S}}^*({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ in the usual way, i.e., $\langle u,v\rangle:= (u,v)$, where $(\cdot,\cdot)$ denotes the usual inner product on $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, in the case that $u\in {\mathscr{S}}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, $v\in L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n)$. We define the Fourier transform $\hat{u}={\cal F} u\in {\mathscr{S}}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, for $u\in {\mathscr{S}}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{u}(\xi):= \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{n/2}}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}{{\mathrm{e}}}^{-{{\mathrm{i}}}\xi\cdot x}u(x)\,{\mathrm{d}}x ,
\quad \mbox{for }\xi\in{\mathbb{R}}^n, $$ and then extend $\mathcal{F}$ to a mapping from ${\mathscr{S}}^*({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ to ${\mathscr{S}}^*({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ in the canonical way, e.g., [@McLean]. For $s\in {\mathbb{R}}$ we define the Sobolev space $H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)\subset {\mathscr{S}}^*({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ by $$\label{eq:Hsdef}
H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n):=\bigg\{u\in {\mathscr{S}}^*({\mathbb{R}}^n): \|u\|_{H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)} :=
\bigg(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}(1+|\xi|^2)^{s}|\hat{u}(\xi)|^2\,{\mathrm{d}}\xi\bigg)^{1/2}<\infty\bigg\}.$$ ${\mathscr{D}}({\mathbb{R}}^n)\subset {\mathscr{S}}({\mathbb{R}}^n)\subset H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ are dense in $H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ [@McLean] (for an open set $\Omega$, ${\mathscr{D}}(\Omega)$ denotes the space of those $u\in C^\infty(\Omega)$ that are compactly supported in $\Omega$). Hence and from it is clear that $H^t({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ is continuously and densely embedded in $H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, for $s<t$, with $\|u\|_{H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)}\leq \|u\|_{H^t({\mathbb{R}}^n)}$, for $u\in H^t({\mathbb{R}}^n)$. By Plancherel’s theorem, $H^0({\mathbb{R}}^n)=L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ with equality of norms, so that $H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)\subset L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ for $s\geq 0$. Moreover, from the definition , $$\label{eq:normint}
\|u\|^2_{H^{m}({\mathbb{R}}^n)} = \sum_{|\alpha|\leq m}
\binom{m}{|\alpha|}\binom{|\alpha|}{\alpha} \|\partial^\alpha u\|_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n)}^2, \quad \mbox{for } m\in {\mathbb{N}}_0:={\mathbb{N}}\cup \{0\},$$ where, for $\alpha = (\alpha_1,...\alpha_n)\in {\mathbb{N}}_0^n$, $|\alpha| := \sum_{i=1}^n \alpha_i$, $\binom{|\alpha|}{\alpha}:=|\alpha|!/(\alpha_1!\cdots\alpha_n!)$, $\partial^\alpha:= \prod_{i=1}^n\partial^{\alpha_i}_i$, and $\partial_j := \partial /\partial x_j$ (the derivative in a distributional sense).
The following result ([@McLean Theorem B.7]) is all there is to say about $H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ and Hilbert space interpolation.
\[thm:wholespace\] $\{H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n):s\in {\mathbb{R}}\}$ is an exact interpolation scale, i.e., for $s_0,s_1\in {\mathbb{R}}$, $0<\theta<1$, $(H^{s_0}({\mathbb{R}}^n),H^{s_1}({\mathbb{R}}^n))_\theta = H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, with equality of norms, if $s = s_0(1-\theta)+s_1\theta$.
This follows from Corollary \[thm:choiceoftheta\], applied with $\mathcal{A}=\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal X={\mathbb{R}}^n$, and $w_j(\xi) = (1+|\xi|^2)^{s_j/2}$.
The spaces Hs(Omega)
--------------------
For $\Omega\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ there are at least two definitions of $H^s(\Omega)$ in use (equivalent if $\Omega$ is sufficiently regular). Following [@McLean] (or see [@Triebel78ITFSDO Section 4.2.1]), we will define $$H^s(\Omega):= \big\{u\in {\mathscr{D}}^*(\Omega): u = U|_\Omega, \mbox{ for some } U\in H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)\big\},$$ where ${\mathscr{D}}^*(\Omega)$ denotes the space of Schwartz distributions, the continuous linear functionals on ${\mathscr{D}}(\Omega)$ [@McLean p. 65], and $U|_\Omega$ denotes the restriction of $U\in {\mathscr{D}}^*({\mathbb{R}}^n)\supset {\mathscr{S}}^*({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ to $\Omega$. $H^s(\Omega)$ is endowed with the norm $$\|u\|_{H^s(\Omega)} := \inf \left\{\|U\|_{H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)}:U|_\Omega = u\right\}, \quad \mbox{for } u\in H^s(\Omega).$$ With this norm, for $s\in {\mathbb{R}}$, $H^s(\Omega)$ is a Hilbert space, ${\mathscr{D}}(\overline \Omega):= \{U|_\Omega:U\in {\mathscr{D}}({\mathbb{R}}^n)\}$ is dense in $H^s(\Omega)$, and $H^t(\Omega)$ is continuously and densely embedded in $H^s(\Omega)$ with $\|u\|_{H^s(\Omega)}\leq \|u\|_{H^t(\Omega)}$, for $s<t$ and $u\in H^t(\Omega)$ [@McLean]. Further $L^2(\Omega)=H^0(\Omega)$ with equality of norms, so that $H^s(\Omega)\subset L^2(\Omega)$ for $s>0$.
For $m\in{\mathbb{N}}_0$, let $$W^m_2(\Omega):=\big\{u\in L^2(\Omega):\partial^\alpha u \in L^2(\Omega)\mbox{ for } |\alpha|\leq m\big\}$$ (our notation is that of [@McLean] and other authors, but the notation $H^m(\Omega)$ for this space is very common, e.g. [@LiMaI]). $W^m_2(\Omega)$ is a Hilbert space with the norm $$\|u\|_{W_2^m(\Omega)} := \Bigg(\sum_{|\alpha|\leq m} a_{\alpha,m} \|\partial^\alpha u\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2\Bigg)^{1/2},$$ for any choice of positive coefficients $a_{\alpha,m}$. The usual choice is $a_{\alpha,m}=1$, but, comparing with , we see that the choice $a_{\alpha,m} = \binom{m}{|\alpha|}\binom{|\alpha|}{\alpha}
$ ensures that $\|u\|_{H^m(\Omega)} \geq \|u\|_{W_2^m(\Omega)}$, for $u\in H^m(\Omega),
$ with equality when $\Omega = {\mathbb{R}}^n$. Clearly, $H^m(\Omega)$ is continuously embedded in $W^m_2(\Omega)$, for all $\Omega$.
Whether $H^s(\Omega)$ is an interpolation scale depends on the smoothness of $\Omega$. As usual (see, e.g., [@McLean p. 90]), for $m\in {\mathbb{N}}_0$ we will say that $\Omega\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is a $C^{m}$ open set if $\partial \Omega$ is bounded and if, in a neighbourhood of every point on $\partial \Omega$, $\partial \Omega$ is (in some rotated coordinate system) the graph of a $C^m$ function, and the part of $\Omega$ in that neighbourhood is part of the hypograph of the same function. Likewise, for $0<\beta\leq 1$, we will say that $\Omega$ is a $C^{0,\beta}$ open set, if it is a $C^0$ open set and $\partial \Omega$ is locally the graph of a function that is Hölder continuous of index $\beta$. In particular, a $C^{0,1}$ or [*Lipschitz*]{} open set has boundary that is locally the graph of a Lipschitz continuous function. We say that $\{x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n:x_n<\ell(x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1})\}$ is a *Lipschitz hypograph* if $\ell:{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ is a Lipschitz function.
Let $\mathcal{R}:H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)\to H^s(\Omega)$ be the restriction operator, i.e., $\mathcal{R}U=U|_\Omega$, for $U\in H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)$: this is an operator with norm one for all $s\in {\mathbb{R}}$. It is clear that $W^m_2(\Omega) = H^m(\Omega)$, with equivalence of norms, if there exists a continuous [*extension operator*]{} $\mathcal{E}:W^m_2(\Omega)\to H^m({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ that is a right inverse to $\mathcal{R}$, so that $\mathcal{RE}u = u$, for all $u\in W^m_2(\Omega)$. Such an extension operator is also a continuous extension operator $\mathcal{E}: H^m(\Omega) \to H^m({\mathbb{R}}^n)$. An extension operator $\mathcal{E}_s: H^s(\Omega) \to H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ exists for all $\Omega$ and all $s\in {\mathbb{R}}$: for $u\in H^s(\Omega)$, set $U:= \mathcal{E}_s u$ to be the unique minimiser in $H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ of $\|U\|_{H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)}$ subject to $U|_\Omega = u$ (see [@McLean p. 77]). These operators $\mathcal{E}_s$ have norm one for all $s\in {\mathbb{R}}$ and all $\Omega$. But whether $H^s(\Omega)$ is an interpolation scale, for some range of $s$, depends on the existence of an extension operator which, [*simultaneously*]{}, maps $H^{s}(\Omega)$ to $H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, for two distinct values of $s$. The following lemma is a quantitative version of standard arguments, e.g. [@Triebel78ITFSDO Section 4.3].
\[lem:ext\] Suppose that $s_0\leq s_1$, $0<\theta<1$, and set $s = s_0(1-\theta) + s_1\theta$, $\overline H =(H^{s_0}(\Omega),H^{s_1}(\Omega))$. Then $H^s(\Omega)\subset \overline H_\theta = (H^{s_0}(\Omega),H^{s_1}(\Omega))_\theta$, with $\|u\|_{\overline H_\theta}\leq \|u\|_{H^s(\Omega)}$, for $u\in H^s(\Omega)$. If also, for some $\lambda_0,\lambda_1\geq 1$, $\mathcal{E}:H^{s_0}(\Omega)\to H^{s_0}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ is an extension operator, with $\|\mathcal{E}u\|_{H^{s_j}({\mathbb{R}}^n)}\leq \lambda_j \|u\|_{H^{s_j}(\Omega)}$ for $u\in H^{s_1}(\Omega)$ and $j=0,1$, then $H^s(\Omega)=\overline H_\theta$ with equivalence of norms, precisely with $$\lambda_0^{\theta-1}\lambda_1^{-\theta}\|u\|_{H^s(\Omega)}\leq \|u\|_{\overline H_\theta} \leq \|u\|_{H^s(\Omega)}, \quad \mbox{for } u\in H^s(\Omega).$$ Further, $\{H^s(\Omega): s_0\leq s\leq s_1\}$ is an interpolation scale.
By Theorem \[thm:wholespace\], $(H^{s_0}({\mathbb{R}}^n),H^{s_1}({\mathbb{R}}^n))_\theta = H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ with equality of norms. For all $t\in {\mathbb{R}}$, $\mathcal{R}:H^t({\mathbb{R}}^n)\to H^t(\Omega)$ has norm one. Thus, by Theorem \[thm:interp\] (i), $H^s(\Omega) = \mathcal{R}(H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)) \subset \overline H_\theta$ and $\mathcal{R}:H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n) \to \overline H_\theta$ with norm one, so that, for $u\in H^s(\Omega)$, $\|u\|_{\overline H_\theta} = \|\mathcal{R}\mathcal{E}_s u\|_{\overline H_\theta} \leq \|\mathcal{E}_s u\|_{H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)}= \|u\|_{H^s(\Omega)}$, where $\mathcal{E}_su$ is the extension with minimal $H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ norm, described above.
If also the extension operator $\mathcal{E}$ has the properties claimed, then, by Theorem \[thm:interp\] (i), $\mathcal{E}(\overline H_\theta) \subset H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ so that $\overline H_\theta = \mathcal{R}\mathcal{E}(\overline H_\theta) \subset \mathcal{R}(H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n))=H^s(\Omega)$. Further, $\mathcal{E}:\overline H_\theta \to H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ with norm $\leq \lambda_0^{1-\theta}\lambda_1^\theta$, so that, for $u\in H^s(\Omega)=\overline H_\theta$, $\|u\|_{H^s(\Omega)}=\|\mathcal{R}\mathcal{E} u\|_{H^s(\Omega)} \leq \|\mathcal{E}u\|_{H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)} \leq \lambda_0^{1-\theta}\lambda_1^\theta \|u\|_{\overline H_\theta}$.
Hence, noting Theorem \[simpler\] (i), $\{H^s(\Omega): s_0\leq s\leq s_1\}$ is an interpolation scale.
\[ex:hs\] As an example, consider the case that $\Omega$ is the half-space $\Omega = \{x=(x_1,...,x_n):x_1>0\}$, $s_0=0$, and $s_1=1$. In this case a simple extension operator is just reflection: $\mathcal{E}u(x) := u(x)$, for $x_1\geq 0$, and $\mathcal{E}u(x) := u(x^\prime)$, for $x_1<0$, where $x^\prime = (-x_1, x_2,...,x_n)$. In this example $\mathcal{E}:H^s(\Omega)\to H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ has norm $2$ for $s=0,1$ and, applying Lemma \[lem:ext\], $H^s(\Omega) = \overline H_s := (L^2(\Omega),H^1(\Omega))_s$, for $0<s<1$, with $$\frac{1}{2}\|u\|_{H^s(\Omega)}\leq \|u\|_{\overline H_s} \leq \|u\|_{H^s(\Omega)}, \quad \mbox{for } u\in H^s(\Omega).$$
The construction of a continuous extension operator $\mathcal{E}:W^m_2(\Omega)\to H^m({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, for each $m\in {\mathbb{N}}_0$ in the case $\Omega$ Lipschitz, dates back to Calderón [@Calderon61]. Stein [@Stein p. 181], in the case $\Omega$ Lipschitz, constructed an extension operator $\mathcal{E}:W^m_2(\Omega)\to H^m({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, not depending on $m\in {\mathbb{N}}_0$, that is continuous for all $m$. It is well known that if an open set is merely $C^{0,\beta}$, for some $\beta<1$, rather than $C^{0,1}$, then, for each $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$, there may exist no extension operator $\mathcal{E}:W^m_2(\Omega)\to H^m({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, so that $H^m(\Omega)\subsetneqq W^m_2(\Omega)$. This is the case, for example, for the cusp domain in Lemma \[lem:segment\] below: see [@Maz'ya p. 88]. (Here, as usual, [*domain*]{} means connected open set.) A strictly larger class than the class of $C^{0,1}$ domains for which continuous extension operators do exist is the class of [*locally uniform*]{} domains [@Jones].
\[jones\] A domain $\Omega\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is said to be [*$(\epsilon,\delta)$ locally uniform*]{} if, between any pair of points $x$, $y\in \Omega$ such that $|x-y| < \delta$, there is a rectifiable arc $\gamma \subset \Omega$ of length at most $|x-y|/\epsilon$ and having the property that, for all $z \in \gamma$, $$\operatorname{dist}(z, \partial \Omega) \geq \frac{\epsilon|z-x|\,|z-y|}{|x-y|}\, .$$
All Lipschitz domains are locally uniform, but the class of locally uniform domains contains also sets $\Omega\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ with wilder, fractal boundaries, in fact with $\partial \Omega$ having any Hausdorff dimension in $[n-1,n)$ [@Jones p. 73]. Jones [@Jones] proves existence of an extension operator $\mathcal{E}:W^m_2(\Omega)\to H^m({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ for each $m\in {\mathbb{N}}$ when $\Omega$ is locally uniform. More recently the following uniform result is proved.
\[rogers\] If $\Omega\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is an $(\epsilon,\delta)$ locally uniform domain then there exists an extension operator $\mathcal{E}:W^m_2(\Omega)\to H^m({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, not depending on $m\in {\mathbb{N}}_0$, that is continuous for all $m$.
The following uniform extension theorem for the spaces $H^s(\Omega)$ is a special case of a much more general uniform extension theorem for Besov spaces [@Rychkov], and generalises Stein’s classical result to negative $s$. Rychkov’s [@Rychkov] result is stated for Lipschitz hypographs and bounded Lipschitz domains, but his localisation arguments for bounded domains [@Rychkov p. 244] apply equally to all Lipschitz open sets.
\[rychkov\] If $\Omega\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is a Lipschitz open set or a Lipschitz hypograph, then there exists an extension operator $\mathcal{E}:H^s(\Omega)\to H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, not depending on $s\in {\mathbb{R}}$, that is continuous for all $s$.
Combining Theorems \[rogers\] and \[rychkov\] with Lemma \[lem:ext\] and Theorem \[simpler\] (i) we obtain the following interpolation result.
\[cor:int\] If $\Omega\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is a Lipschitz open set or a Lipschitz hypograph, then $\{H^s(\Omega):s\in {\mathbb{R}}\}$ is an interpolation scale. If $\Omega\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is an $(\epsilon,\delta)$ locally uniform domain then $\{H^s(\Omega):s\geq 0\}$ is an interpolation scale.
Except in the case $\Omega={\mathbb{R}}^n$, it appears that $\{H^s(\Omega):s\in {\mathbb{R}}\}$ is not an exact interpolation scale. In particular, Lemma \[lem:segment\] below shows that, for $\Omega = (0,a)$ with $0<a<1$, $\{H^s(\Omega):0\leq s\leq 2\}$ is not an exact interpolation scale, indeed that, for interpolation between $L^2(\Omega)$ and $H^2(\Omega)$, the ratio of the interpolation norm to the intrinsic norm on $H^1(\Omega)$ can be arbitrarily small for small $a$. Example \[ex:1Dfrac\] below is a bounded open set $\Omega\subset {\mathbb{R}}$ for which $$\label{subnot}
H^1(\Omega) \subsetneqq \big(L^2(\Omega),H^2(\Omega)\big)_{1/2},$$ so that $\{H^s(\Omega):0\leq s\leq 2\}$ is not an interpolation scale. The following lemma exhibits for a $C^{0,\beta}$ domain in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$, for every $\beta\in (0,1)$. These results contradict [@McLean Theorem B.8] which claims that $\{H^s(\Omega):s\in{\mathbb{R}}\}$ is an exact interpolation scale for any non-empty open $\Omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$. (The error in McLean’s proof lies in the wrong deduction of the bound $K(t,U;Y)\le K(t,u;X)$ (in his notation) from $K(t,U;Y)^2\le \|u_0\|_{X_0}^2+t^2\|u_1\|_{X_1}^2$.)
\[lem:CuspNotIntp\] For some $p > 1$ let $\Omega := \{(x_1,x_2)\in {\mathbb{R}}^2: 0<x_1<1 \mbox{ and } |x_2|< x_1^p\}$. Then $\Omega$ is a $C^{0,\beta}$ domain for $\beta = p^{-1}<1$ and holds, so that $\{H^s(\Omega):0\leq s\leq 2\}$ is not an interpolation scale.
Let $\overline H_\theta:= (H^0(\Omega),H^2(\Omega))_\theta$, for $0<\theta<1$. Choose an even function $\chi\in C^\infty({\mathbb{R}})$ such that $0\leq \chi(t)\leq 1$ for $t\in{\mathbb{R}}$, with $\chi(t)=0$ if $|t|>1$, and $\chi(t)=1$ if $|t|<1/2$. For $0<h\leq 1$ define $\phi_h\in H^2(\Omega)$ by $\phi_h(x) = \chi(x_1/h)$, $x\in \Omega$. We observe that $\phi_h(x) = 0$ for $x_1>h$ so that, where $\Omega_h := \{x\in \Omega:0<x_1<h\}$, $$\|\phi_h\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2 \leq \int_{\Omega_h} {\mathrm{d}}x = 2\int_0^h x_1^p {\mathrm{d}}x_1 = \frac{2h^{p+1}}{p+1} \, .$$ Further, defining $\phi_h^+(x) = \chi(x_1/h)\chi(x_2/(2h))$, for $x=(x_1,x_2)\in {\mathbb{R}}^2$ and $0<h\leq 1$, it is clear that $\phi_h= \phi_h^+|_\Omega$. Moreover, $\|\partial ^\alpha \phi_h^+\|_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^2)} = h^{1-|\alpha|}\|\partial ^\alpha \phi_1^+\|_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^2)}$, for $\alpha\in {\mathbb{N}}_0^2$. Thus, using the identity , $$\|\phi_h\|_{H^2(\Omega)} \leq \|\phi^+_h\|_{H^2({\mathbb{R}}^2)} = O(h^{-1}), \quad \mbox{as } h\to 0,$$ so that, applying Lemma \[intnormub\](i), $\|\phi_h\|_{\overline H_\theta} = O(h^\beta)$, as $h\to 0$, where $\beta := (1-\theta)(p+1)/2 - \theta$. Let $\theta=1/2$, so that $\beta = (p-1)/4>0$. Put $h_n = n^{-q}$, for $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, for some $q>\beta^{-1}$. Then $\|\phi_{h_n}\|_{\overline H_{1/2}} = O(n^{-q\beta})$ as $n\to\infty$, so that $\sum_{n=1}^\infty \phi_{h_n}$ is convergent in $\overline H_{1/2}$ to some $\psi\in \overline H_{1/2}$. Let $\Omega_b$ be some $C^1$ bounded domain containing $\Omega$. Then, by the Sobolev embedding theorem (e.g. [@Adams p. 97]), $H^1(\Omega_b)\subset L^r(\Omega_b)$ for all $1\leq r<\infty$, so that $H^1(\Omega)\subset L^r(\Omega)$. We will show by showing $\psi\not\in L^r(\Omega)$ if $r$ is sufficiently large.
Clearly, $\psi = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \phi_{h_n}$ satisfies $\psi(x)\geq n$, for $0<x_1< h_n/2 = n^{-q}/2$, so that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_\Omega |\psi|^r {\mathrm{d}}x & \geq2\sum_{n=1}^\infty n^r \int_{(n+1)^{-q}/2}^{n^{-q}/2} x_1^p {\mathrm{d}}x_1\\
&= \frac{1}{(p+1)2^{p}}\sum_{n=1}^\infty n^r \left(n^{-q(p+1)}-(n+1)^{-q(p+1)}\right)\geq \frac{q}{2^{p}}\sum_{n=1}^\infty n^r(n+1)^{-q(p+1)-1},\end{aligned}$$ where in the last step we use the mean value theorem, which gives that, for some $\xi\in (n,n+1)$, $n^{-t}-(n+1)^{-t} = t\xi^{-t-1}\geq t (n+1)^{-t-1}$, where $t=q(p+1)>0$. Thus $\psi\not\in L^r(\Omega)$ if $r-q(p+1)-1 \geq -1$, i.e., if $r \geq q(p+1)$. Since we can choose any $q>\beta^{-1}$, we see that, in fact, $\overline H_{1/2} \not\subset L^r(\Omega)$ for $r>4(p+1)/(p-1)$.
The spaces tildeHs(Omega)
-------------------------
For $s\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and $\Omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ we define ${\widetilde{H}}^s(\Omega):= \overline{{\mathscr{D}}(\Omega)}^{H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)}$, the closure of ${\mathscr{D}}(\Omega)$ in $H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)$. We remark that if $\Omega$ is $C^0$ then ${\widetilde{H}}^s(\Omega)=\{u\in H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n):\operatorname{supp}{u}\subset \overline{\Omega} \}$ [@McLean Theorem 3.29], but that these two spaces are in general different if $\Omega$ is not $C^0$ [@ChaHewMoi:13]. Also, for any $m\in{\mathbb{N}}_0$, ${\widetilde{H}}^m(\Omega)$ is unitarily isomorphic (via the restriction operator $\mathcal{R}$) to $H^m_0(\Omega)$, the closure of ${\mathscr{D}}(\Omega)$ in $H^m(\Omega)$. For any open $\Omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$, ${\widetilde{H}}^s(\Omega)$ is a natural unitary realisation of the dual space of $H^{-s}(\Omega)$, with duality paring (cf. [@McLean Theorem 3.14]) $$\langle u,v \rangle_{{\widetilde{H}}^{s}(\Omega)\times {H}^{-s}(\Omega)}:= \langle u,V \rangle_{-s},
\quad \mbox{ for } u\in{\widetilde{H}}^s(\Omega), \,v\in H^{-s}(\Omega),$$ where $V\in H^{-s}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ denotes any extension of $v$ with $V|_\Omega=v$, and $\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle_{-s}$ is the standard duality pairing on $H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)\times H^{-s}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, the natural extension of the duality pairing $\langle\cdot, \cdot\rangle$ on ${\mathscr{S}}({\mathbb{R}}^n)\times {\mathscr{S}}^*({\mathbb{R}}^n)$. This result is well known when $\Omega$ is $C^0$ [@McLean]; that it holds for arbitrary $\Omega$ is shown in [@ChaHewMoi:13; @CoercScreen].
The following corollary follows from this duality result and Theorem \[simpler\] (ii).
\[cor:duall\] Suppose that $s_0\leq s_1$, $0<\theta<1$, and set $s= s_0(1-\theta)+s_1\theta$, $\overline H = (H^{s_0}(\Omega), H^{s_1}(\Omega))$, and $\overline H^* = ({\widetilde{H}}^{-s_0}(\Omega), {\widetilde{H}}^{-s_1}(\Omega))$. Then $\overline H^*_\theta = ({\widetilde{H}}^{-s_0}(\Omega), {\widetilde{H}}^{-s_1}(\Omega))_\theta \subset {\widetilde{H}}^{-s}(\Omega)$, with $\|u\|_{{\widetilde{H}}^{-s}(\Omega)}\leq \|u\|_{\overline H^*_\theta}$, for $u\in \overline H^*_\theta$. Further, $\overline H_\theta = H^s(\Omega)$ if and only if $\overline H^*_\theta = {\widetilde{H}}^{-s}(\Omega)$ and, if both these statements are true, then, for $a>1$, $$a^{-1} \|u\|_{H^s(\Omega)} \leq \|u\|_{\overline H_\theta},\; \forall u\in H^s(\Omega) \quad
\mbox{ if and only if } \quad \|u\|_{\overline H^*_\theta} \leq a\|u\|_{\tilde H^{-s}(\Omega)},\; \forall u\in {\widetilde{H}}^{-s}(\Omega).$$
Combining this with Corollary \[cor:int\], we obtain the following result.
\[cor:tildeint\] If $\Omega\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is a Lipschitz open set or a Lipschitz hypograph, then $\{{\widetilde{H}}^s(\Omega):s\in {\mathbb{R}}\}$ is an interpolation scale. If $\Omega\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is an $(\epsilon,\delta)$ locally uniform domain then $\{{\widetilde{H}}^s(\Omega):s\leq 0\}$ is an interpolation scale.
Except in the case $\Omega={\mathbb{R}}^n$, it appears that $\{{\widetilde{H}}^s(\Omega):s\in {\mathbb{R}}\}$ is not an exact interpolation scale. Example \[ex:tildeinterval\] below shows, for the simple one-dimensional case $\Omega=(0,1)$, that $\{{\widetilde{H}}^s(\Omega): 0\leq s\leq 1\}$ is not an exact interpolation scale, using a representation for the norm for interpolation between $L^2(\Omega)={\widetilde{H}}^0(\Omega)$ and ${\widetilde{H}}^1(\Omega)$ given in the following lemma that illustrates the abstract Theorem \[thm:compact\] (cf., [@Kress Chapter 8]). For the cusp domain example of Lemma \[lem:CuspNotIntp\], by Lemma \[lem:CuspNotIntp\] and Corollary \[cor:duall\], $\{{\widetilde{H}}^s(\Omega):-2\leq s\leq 0\}$ is not an interpolation scale at all.
\[ex:tildeLipschitz\] Let $\Omega$ be bounded and set $H_0:={\widetilde{H}}^0(\Omega)=L^2(\Omega)$, $H_1:={\widetilde{H}}^1(\Omega)=H^1_0(\Omega)$. Then $\overline{H}:=(H_0,H_1)$ satisfies the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:compact\], since the embedding of $H_0^1(\Omega)$ into $L^2(\Omega)$ is compact. The orthogonal basis for $H_1$, $\{\phi_j:j\in {\mathbb{N}}\}$, of eigenvectors of $T$ (with $\lambda_j$ the eigenvalue corresponding to $\phi_j$ and $\|\phi_j\|_{H_0} = 1$), is a basis of eigenfunctions of the Laplacian. \[This follows since $T\phi=\lambda \phi$, for $\lambda>0$ and $\phi\in H_1=H_0^1(\Omega)$, if and only if $$\label{eq:weak}
\int_{\Omega} \left(\nabla \phi \cdot \nabla \bar \psi - \rho \phi\bar\psi\right)\, {\mathrm{d}}x=0, \quad \mbox{for } \psi\in H_0^1(\Omega),$$ with $\rho = \lambda^{-1}-1$. In turn, by local elliptic regularity, holds if and only if $\phi\in H_0^1(\Omega)\cap C^2(\Omega)$ and $-\Delta \phi = \rho \phi$ in $\Omega$ (in a classical sense).\] From Theorem \[thm:compact\], the interpolation norm on $\overline{H}_s$ is $$\label{th:rangeLap}
\|\phi\|_{\overline{H}_s}=\|\phi\|_{s}^*
:= \bigg(\sum_{j=1}^\infty \lambda_j^{-s} |a_j|^2\bigg)^{1/2}
=\bigg(\sum_{j=1}^\infty (1+\rho_j)^{s} |a_j|^2\bigg)^{1/2}, \quad \mbox{for } 0<s<1 \mbox{ and } \phi\in \overline H_s,$$ where, for $j\in {\mathbb{N}}$, $\rho_j := \lambda_j^{-1}-1$ and $a_j:= \int_\Omega \phi \bar \phi_j {\mathrm{d}}x$. Further, $\|\phi\|_{{\widetilde{H}}^j(\Omega)} = \|\phi\|_j^*$ for $\phi\in H_j = {\widetilde{H}}^j(\Omega)$ and $j=0,1$. Moreover, by Corollary \[cor:tildeint\], if $\Omega$ is Lipschitz, $\overline H_s = {\widetilde{H}}^s(\Omega)$ for $0<s<1$, with equivalence of norms.
One-dimensional examples and counterexamples
--------------------------------------------
Our first example, Lemma \[lem:segment\], which illustrates that $\{H^s(\Omega):0\leq s\leq 2\}$ needs not be an exact interpolation scale, requires explicit values for the $H^1(\Omega)$ and $H^2(\Omega)$ norms, for $\Omega = (0,a)$ with $a>0$. These norms are computed using the minimal extension operator $\mathcal E_s:H^s(\Omega)\to H^s({\mathbb{R}})$ for $s=1,2$.
\[lem:H1H2\] For $\Omega=(0,a)\subset{\mathbb{R}}$, with $a>0$, the $H^1(\Omega)$ and $H^2(\Omega)$ norms are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:H1norm0a}
\|\phi\|_{H^1(\Omega)}^2 =&
|\phi(0)|^2 + |\phi(a)|^2 + \int_{0}^a\left(|\phi|^2+ |\phi^\prime|^2\right) \,{\mathrm{d}}x,\\
\|\phi\|_{H^2(\Omega)}^2=
&|\phi(0)|^2+|\phi'(0)|^2+|\phi(0)-\phi'(0)|^2+
|\phi(a)|^2+|\phi'(a)|^2+|\phi(a)-\phi'(a)|^2
\nonumber\\
&+\int_0^a (|\phi|^2+2|\phi'|^2+|\phi''|^2) \,{\mathrm{d}}x.
\label{eq:H2norm0a}\end{aligned}$$
By the definitions and , $\|\phi\|^2_{H^1(\Omega)}=\|\mathcal E_1\phi\|^2_{H^1({\mathbb{R}})}
=\int_{\mathbb{R}}(|\mathcal E_1\phi|^2+|(\mathcal E_1\phi)'|^2){\mathrm{d}}x$, where the extension $\mathcal E_1\phi$ of $\phi\in H^1(\Omega)$ with minimal $H^1({\mathbb{R}})$ norm is computed as an easy exercise in the calculus of variations, recalling that $H^1({\mathbb{R}})\subset C^0({\mathbb{R}})$, to be $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal E_1 \phi(x)=\begin{cases}
\phi(0)\,{{\mathrm{e}}}^x, & x\le0,\\
\phi(x), & 0<x<a,\\
\phi(a)\,{{\mathrm{e}}}^{a-x}, &x\ge a.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ The assertion follows by computing $\int_{\mathbb{R}}(|\mathcal E_1\phi|^2+|(\mathcal E_1\phi)'|^2){\mathrm{d}}x$.
Similarly, for $\phi\in H^2(\Omega)$, $\|\phi\|_{H^2(\Omega)}= \|\mathcal{E}_2\phi\|_{H^2({\mathbb{R}})}$ and $\mathcal E_2\phi$ is computed by minimizing the functional $$\mathcal J_2(\psi)=\|\psi\|^2_{H^2({\mathbb{R}})}=\int_{\mathbb{R}}(1+\xi^2)^2|\hat \psi|^2{\mathrm{d}}\xi
= \int_{\mathbb{R}}(|\psi|^2+2|\psi'|^2+|\psi''|^2){\mathrm{d}}x$$ under the constraint $\psi|_\Omega=\phi$. By computing the first variation of the functional $\mathcal J_2$ and integrating by parts, we see that $\psi$ solves the differential equation $\psi''''-2\psi''+\psi=0$ (whose solutions are $e^x,e^{-x},xe^x,xe^{-x}$) in the complement of $\Omega$, and, recalling that $H^2({\mathbb{R}})\subset C^1({\mathbb{R}})$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal E_2\phi(x) =
\begin{cases}
xe^x\phi'(0)+(1-x)e^x\phi(0), & x\le 0,\\
\phi(x), & 0<x<a,\\
(x-a)e^{a-x}\phi'(a)+(1-a+x)e^{a-x}\phi(a), & x\ge a.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ The assertion is obtained by computing $\int_{\mathbb{R}}(|\mathcal E_2\phi|^2 + 2|(\mathcal E_2\phi )'|^2+|(\mathcal E_2\phi )''|^2){\mathrm{d}}x$.
\[lem:segment\] If $\Omega=(0,a)$, with $a>0$, then $\{H^s(\Omega):0\leq s\leq 2\}$ is not an exact interpolation scale. In particular, where $\overline H_\theta := (L^2(\Omega),H^2(\Omega)_\theta$, it holds that $\overline H_\theta = H^{2\theta}(\Omega)$, for $0<\theta<1$, but $\|1\|_{\overline H_{1/2}} \neq \|1\|_{H^{1}(\Omega)}$. Precisely, $$\label{ratio}
\frac{\|1\|_{\overline H_{1/2}}}{\|1\|_{H^{1}(\Omega)}} \leq \left(\frac{a^2+4a}{a^2+4a+4}\right)^{1/4} < \min(a^{1/4},1).$$
The inequality follows from Lemma \[lem:H1H2\] and Lemma \[intnormub\](i), which give that $$\begin{aligned}
\|1\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}= a,\;\;
\|1\|^2_{H^1(\Omega)}= 2+a,\;\;
\|1\|^2_{H^2(\Omega)}= 4+a,\;\;
\|1\|^2_{\overline H_{1/2}(\Omega)}
\le \|1\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\|1\|_{H^2(\Omega)}
=\sqrt{a^2+4a}.\end{aligned}$$
Lemma \[lem:segment\] shows that, for the regular domain $\Omega=(0,a)$, the spaces $H^s(\Omega)$ are not an *exact* interpolation scale, and that the ratio between the interpolation norm and the $H^s(\Omega)$ norm can be arbitarily small. (However, the two norms are equivalent: Corollary \[cor:int\] shows that $H^s(\Omega)$ constitutes an interpolation scale in this case.) The next example provides an irregular open set for which $\{H^s(\Omega):0\le s\le2\}$ is [*not*]{} an interpolation scale so that, by Corollary \[cor:duall\], also $\{{\widetilde{H}}^s(\Omega):-2\le s\le0\}$ is not an interpolation scale
\[ex:1Dfrac\] Let $\underline a:=(a_1, a_2, \ldots)$ be a real sequence satisfying $a_1 := 1$, $0< a_{n+1} < a_n/4$, $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, and let $\Omega := \bigcup_{n=1}^\infty (a_n/2,a_n)\subset(0,1)$. Let $H_0:=L^2(\Omega)$, $H_1:=H^2(\Omega)$, $\overline H:=(H_0,H_1)$, and $\overline H_{1/2}:=(H_0,H_1)_{1/2}$. We note first that if $u\in H^1({\mathbb{R}})$ then, by standard Sobolev embedding results [@Adams p. 97], $u\in C^0({\mathbb{R}})$, so $u|_\Omega\in L^\infty(\Omega)$ and $H^1(\Omega)\subset L^\infty(\Omega)$. We will see that there is a choice of the sequence $\underline a=(a_1,a_2,...)$ such that $\overline H_{1/2}\not\subset L^\infty(\Omega)$ so that $\overline H_{1/2}\neq H^1(\Omega)$.
To see this, choose an even function $\chi\in C^\infty({\mathbb{R}})$ such that $\chi(t) = 0$ for $|t|>1$ and $\chi(0)=1$, and consider the sequence of functions in $H_1 \subset \overline H_{1/2}\cap H^1(\Omega)$ defined by $$\phi_n(t) = \left\{\begin{array}{cc}
1, & t\in [0,a_n]\cap \Omega, \\
0, & t\in (a_n,\infty) \cap \Omega,\end{array}\right.$$ for $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$. Clearly $$\|\phi_n\|_{H_0} \leq a_n^{1/2}\qquad \text{and}\qquad
\|\phi_n\|_{H_1} = \inf_{\psi\in H^2({\mathbb{R}}), \, \psi|_\Omega = \phi_n} \|\psi\|_{H^2({\mathbb{R}})} \leq \|\psi_n\|_{H^2({\mathbb{R}})},$$ where $\psi_n\in C^1({\mathbb{R}})\cap H^2({\mathbb{R}})$ is defined by $$\psi_n(t) = \left\{\begin{array}{cc}
\chi(t), & t<0, \\
1, & 0\leq t\leq a_n, \\
\chi((t-a_n)/b_n), & t>a_n, \end{array}\right.$$ with $b_1:=1$ and $b_n := a_{n-1}/2-a_{n}$, for $n\geq 2$. Further, where $\alpha:=\|\chi\|_{H^2({\mathbb{R}})}$, $$\|\psi_n\|^2_{H^2({\mathbb{R}})} = \int_{-\infty}^\infty \left(|\psi_n|^2 + 2|\psi^\prime_n|^2 + |\psi^{\prime\prime}_n|^2\right) \, {\mathrm{d}}t
= \frac{\alpha}{2} + a_n + \int_{0}^\infty \left(b_n|\chi(r)|^2 + 2b_n^{-1}|\chi^\prime(r)|^2 + b_n^{-3}|\chi^{\prime\prime}(r)|^2\right) \, {\mathrm{d}}r,$$ and, for $n\geq 2$, $a_n\leq 1/2$, $1/2\geq b_{n} \geq a_{n-1}/4$, so that $$\|\psi_n\|^2_{H^2({\mathbb{R}})} \leq \frac{1}{2} \left(1 + \left(1+b_n^{-3}\right)\alpha\right)
\leq \frac{1}{2} \left(1 + \left(1+64 a_{n-1}^{-3}\right)\alpha\right).$$ Applying Lemma \[intnormub\](i) we see that, for $n\geq 2$, $$\|\phi_n\|_{\overline H_{1/2}} \leq \|\phi_n\|_{H_0}^{1/2}\|\phi_n\|_{H_1}^{1/2} \leq 2^{-1/4}a_n^{1/4} \left(1 + \left(1+64 a_{n-1}^{-3}\right)\alpha\right)^{1/4}.$$ Now choosing $a_n$ according to the rule $$a_1 = 1, \quad a_n = \frac{a_{n-1}}{4}\left(1 + \left(1+64 a_{n-1}^{-3}\right)\alpha\right)^{-1} < \frac{a_{n-1}}{4}, \quad n = 2,3,\ldots,$$ it follows that $a_n \leq 4^{-n}$ and that $\|\phi_n\|_{\overline H_{1/2}} \leq 2^{-1/4}4^{-n/4}
\le (\sqrt{2})^{-n}\to 0$ as $n\to\infty$. In fact $\phi_n\to 0$ so rapidly that $\sum_{n=1}^\infty \phi_n$ is convergent in $\overline H_{1/2}$ to a limit $\Phi\in \overline H_{1/2}$. This limit is not in $H^1(\Omega)$ as $\Phi\not\in L^\infty(\Omega)$: explicitly, $\Phi(t) = n$, for $a_n/2<t<a_n$.
Our last example uses the results of Lemma \[ex:tildeLipschitz\], and shows that $\{{\widetilde{H}}^s(0,1):0\leq s\leq 1\}$ is not an exact interpolation scale by computing values of the Sobolev and interpolation norms for specific functions. This example also demonstrates that no normalisation of the interpolation norm can make the two norms equal.
\[ex:tildeinterval\] Let $\Omega=(0,1)$, $H_0={\widetilde{H}}^0(\Omega)=L^2(\Omega)$ and $H_1={\widetilde{H}}^1(\Omega)=H^1_0(\Omega)$. The eigenfunctions and eigenvalues in Lemma \[ex:tildeLipschitz\] are $\phi_j(x)=\sqrt{2}\sin(j\pi x)$ and $\rho_j = j^2\pi^2$, so that, for $0<\theta<1$, the interpolation norm on $\overline H_\theta={\widetilde{H}}^\theta (\Omega)$ is given by . In particular, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
\|\phi_j\|^*_\theta = (1+ j^2\pi^2)^{\theta/2}, \quad \mbox{for }j\in {\mathbb{N}}.\end{aligned}$$ Noting that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
\hat{\phi_j}(\xi) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}}\int_{0}^1 \sin(j\pi x) {{\mathrm{e}}}^{-{{\mathrm{i}}}\xi x} \,{\mathrm{d}}x
= \frac{j\sqrt{\pi}\left(1-(-1)^j{{\mathrm{e}}}^{-{{\mathrm{i}}}\xi} \right)}{j^2\pi^2-\xi^2}
= \frac{2j\sqrt{\pi}{{\mathrm{e}}}^{-{{\mathrm{i}}}\xi/2}}{j^2\pi^2-\xi^2}
\begin{cases}
\cos\xi/2, & j \textrm{ odd}, \\
{{\mathrm{i}}}\sin\xi/2, & j \textrm{ even},
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
\|\phi_j\|_{{\widetilde{H}}^\theta(\Omega)}
=\left(\int_{-\infty}^\infty (1+\xi^2)^\theta|\hat{\phi_j}(\xi)|^2 \,{\mathrm{d}}\xi\right)^{1/2}
=2j\sqrt{2\pi}\left(\int_{0}^\infty \frac{(1+\xi^2)^\theta}{(j^2\pi^2-\xi^2)^2}\left\lbrace \begin{array}{ll}
\cos^2(\xi/2)\\
\sin^2(\xi/2)
\end{array}\right\rbrace \,{\mathrm{d}}\xi\right)^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ A comparison of $\|\phi_j\|^*_{\theta}$ and $\|\phi_j\|_{{\widetilde{H}}^\theta(\Omega)}$ for $j=1,2$ and $\theta\in(0,1)$ is shown in Figure \[fig:norms\](a). It is clear from Figure \[fig:norms\](a) that the interpolation and Sobolev norms do not coincide in this case. In particular, for $\theta=1/2$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
\|\phi_1\|^*_{1/2}\approx 1.816, \quad
\|\phi_1\|_{{\widetilde{H}}^{1/2}(\Omega)}\approx 1.656, \qquad
\|\phi_2\|^*_{1/2} \approx 2.522, \quad
\|\phi_2\|_{{\widetilde{H}}^{1/2}(\Omega)} \approx 2.404.\end{aligned}$$
The ratio between the two norms is plotted for both $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ in Figure \[fig:norms\](b). In particular, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
\|\phi_1\|^*_{1/2}/\|\phi_1\|_{{\widetilde{H}}^{1/2}(\Omega)}\approx 1.096, \qquad
\|\phi_2\|^*_{1/2}/\|\phi_2\|_{{\widetilde{H}}^{1/2}(\Omega)} \approx 1.049.\end{aligned}$$ As the values of these two ratios are different, not only are the two norms not equal with the normalisation we have chosen, it is clear that there is no possible choice of normalisation factor in the definition that could make the interpolation and Sobolev norms equal.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We establish necessary and sufficient conditions for an arbitrary polynomial of degree $n$, especially with only real roots, to be trivial, i.e. to have the form $a(x-b)^n$. To do this, we derive new properties of polynomials and their roots. In particular, it concerns new bounds and genetic sum’s representations of the Abel -Goncharov interpolation polynomials. Moreover, we prove the Sz.-Nagy type identities, the Laguerre and Obreshkov-Chebotarev type inequalities for roots of polynomials and their derivatives. As applications these results are associated with the known problem, conjectured by Casas- Alvero in 2001, which says, that any complex univariate polynomial, having a common root with each of its non-constant derivative must be a power of a linear polynomial. We investigate particular cases of the problem, when the conjecture holds true or, possibly, is false.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, Fac. Sciences of University of Porto,Rua do Campo Alegre, 687; 4169-007 Porto (Portugal)'
author:
- 'S. Yakubovich'
title: 'Polynomial problems of the Casas-Alvero type'
---
Introduction and preliminary results
====================================
It is well known from elementary calculus that an arbitrary polynomial $f$ with complex coefficients (complex polynomial) of degree $n \in \mathbb{N}$ $$f(z)= a_0 z^{n}+ a_1 z^{n-1}+ \dots + a_{n-1} z + a_n, \ a_0\neq
0,\eqno(1)$$ having a root $\lambda \in \mathbb{C}$ of multiplicity $\mu, \ 1\le
\mu\le n$, shares it with each of its derivatives up to order $\mu-1$, but $f^{(\mu)}(\lambda)\neq 0$. When $\lambda$ is a unique root of $f$, it has the form $f(z)=a(z-\lambda)^n$, $\mu=n$ and $\lambda$ is the same root of each derivative of $f$ up to order $n-1$. We will call such a polynomial as a trivial polynomial. Obviously, as it follows from fundamental theorem of algebra, $f$ has at least two distinct roots, i.e. a polynomial of degree $n$ is non-trivial, if and only if its maximum multiplicity of roots $r$ does not exceed $n-1$.
In 2001 Casas- Alvero [@CA] conjectured that an arbitrary polynomial $f$ degree $n
\ge 1$ with complex coefficients is of the form $f(z)=
a(z-b)^n, a, b \in \mathbb{C}$, if and only if $f$ shares a root with each of its derivatives $f^{(1)}, f^{(2)},
\dots, f^{(n-1)}.$
We will call a possible non-trivial polynomial, which has a common root with each of its non-constant derivatives as the CA-polynomial. The conjecture says that there exist no CA-polynomials. The problem is still open. However, it is proved for small degrees, for infinitely many degrees, for instance, for all powers $n$, when $n$ is a prime (see in [@Drai], [@Graf], [@Pols] ). We observe that such a kind of CA-polynomial of degree $n \ge 2$ cannot have all distinct roots since at least one root is common with its first derivative. Therefore it has a multiplicity at least 2 and a maximum of possible distinct roots is $n-1$.
Our main goal here is to derive necessary and sufficient conditions for an arbitrary polynomial (1) to be trivial. For example, solving a simple differential equation of the first order, we easily prove that a polynomial is trivial, if and only if it is divisible by its first derivative. In the sequel we establish other criteria, which will guarantee that an arbitrary polynomial has a unique joint root.
Without loss of generality one can assume in the sequel that $f$ is a monic polynomial of degree $n$, i.e. $a_0=1$ in (1). Generally, it has $k$ distinct roots $\lambda_j$ of multiplicities $r_j, \ j= 1, \dots, k, 1\le k\le n$ such that $$r_1+ r_2+ \dots r_{k} = n\eqno(2).$$ By $r$ we will denote the maximum of multiplicities (2), $r= \hbox{max}_{1\le j\le k} (r_j)$, $r_0= \hbox{min}_{1\le j\le k} (r_j)$ and by $ \xi^{(m)}_\nu, \ \nu = 1,\dots, n-m$ zeros of $m$-th derivative $f^{(m)}, \ m=1,\dots, n-1.$ For further needs we specify zeros of the $n-1$-th and $n-2$-th derivatives, denoting them by $\xi^{(n-1)}_1=z_{n-1}$ and $\xi^{(n-2)}_2=z_{n-2}$, respectively. It is easy to find another zero of the $n-2$-th derivative, which is equal to $\xi^{(n-2)}_1= 2z_{n-1} -z_{n-2} $. When zeros $ z_{n-1},\ z_{n-2}$ are real we write, correspondingly, $ x_{n-1},\ x_{n-2}$. The value $z_{n-1}$ is called the centroid. It is a center of gravity of roots and by Gauss-Lucas theorem it is contained in the convex hull of all non-constant polynomial derivatives (see details in [@Rah]).
The paper is structured as follows: In Section 2 we study properties of the Abel-Goncharov interpolation polynomials, including integral and series representations and upper bounds. Section 3 deals with the Sz.-Nagy type identities and Obreshkov-Chebotarev type inequalities for roots of polynomials and their derivatives. As applications new criteria are found for an arbitrary polynomial with only real roots to be trivial. Section 4 is devoted to the Laguerre type inequalities for polynomials with only real roots to localize their zeros. The final Section 5 contains applications of these results towards solution of the Casas-Alvero conjecture and its particular cases.
Abel-Goncharov polynomials, their upper bounds and integral and genetic sum’s representations
=============================================================================================
We begin, choosing a sequence of complex numbers (repeated terms are permitted) $z_0, z_1, z_2, \dots, z_{n-1}, n \in \mathbb{N}$, where $z_0 \in \{\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \dots, \lambda_k\},\
z_m \in \{\xi^{(m)}_1,\ \xi^{(m)}_2, \dots, \xi^{(m)}_{n-m}\}, \ m=1,2,\dots, n-1$, satisfying conditions $f^{(m)}(z_m) =0, \
m =0, 1,\dots, \ n-1$ and, clearly $f^{(n)} (z)= n!$. Then we represent $f(z)$ in the form
$$f(z)= z^n + P_{n-1} (z),\eqno(3)$$ where $P_{n-1} (z)$ is a polynomial of degree at most $n-1$. To determine $P_{n-1} (z)$ we differentiate the latter equality $m$ times, and we calculate the corresponding derivatives in $z_m$ to obtain $$P_{n-1}^{(m)} (z_m) = - \frac{n!}{ (n-m)!} z_m ^{n- m} , \quad m= 0,1, \dots, n-1.\eqno(4)$$ But this is the known Abel-Goncharov interpolation problem (see [@Evgrafov]) and the polynomial $P_{n-1}(z)$ can be uniquely determined via the linear system (4) of $n$ equations with $n$ unknowns and triangular matrix with non-zero determinant. So, following [@Evgrafov], we derive
$$P_{n-1} (z) = - \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \frac{n!}{ (n- k)!} z_k ^{n- k} G_k(z) , \eqno(5)$$ where $G_k(z), k=0, 1,\dots, n-1$ is the system of the Abel-Goncharov polynomials [@Evgrafov], [@Levinson1], [@Levinson2]. On the other hand it is known that
$$G_n(z)= z^n - \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \frac{n!}{ (n- k)!} z_k ^{n- k} G_k(z).\eqno(6)$$ Thus comparing with (3), we find that $$G_n(z)\equiv G_n\left(z, z_0, z_1, z_2,\dots, z_{n-1}\right)=f(z),$$ and $$G_n\left(\lambda_j, z_0, z_1, z_2,\dots, z_{n-1}\right) = f(\lambda_j)= 0, \quad
j= 1,2, \dots, k.$$ Plainly, one can make a relationship of possible CA-polynomials with the corresponding Abel-Goncharov polynomials, fixing a sequence $\{z_m\}_0^{n-1}$ such that $$z_m \in \{\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \dots, \lambda_k\}, \ m=0,1,\dots,\ n-1.$$
Further, It is known [@Evgrafov] that the Abel-Goncharov polynomial can be represented as a multiple integral in the complex plane $$G_n(z)= n! \int_{z_0}^z \int_{z_1}^{s_{1}} \dots
\int_{z_{n-1}}^{s_{n-1}} d s_{n} \dots d s_{1}.\eqno (6)$$ Moreover, making simple changes of variables in (6), it can be verified that $G_n(z)$ is a homogeneous function of degree $n$ (cf. [@Levinson1]). Therefore $$G_n(\alpha z)= G_n\left(\alpha z, \alpha z_0, \alpha z_1,\dots, \alpha z_{n-1}\right)
= \alpha^n G_n(z), \ \alpha \neq 0.\eqno(7)$$ The following Goncharov upper bound holds for $G_n$ (see [@Gon], [@Evgrafov], [@Levinson1], [@Ibra]) $$\left| G_n(z) \right| \le \left( |z-z_0| + \sum_{s=0}^{n-2} \left
|z_{s+1}- z_s\right| \right)^n.\eqno(8)$$ Let us represent the Abel-Goncharov polynomials $G_n(z)$ in a different way. To do this, we will use the following representation of the Gauss hypergeometric function given by relation (2.2.6.1) in [@Prud], namely $$\int_a^b (z-a)^{\alpha-1} (b-z)^{\beta-1}(z + c)^\gamma dz = (b-a)^{\alpha+\beta-1} (a+c)^\gamma
B(\alpha,\beta) {}_2F_1 \left(\alpha, -\gamma; \alpha +\beta;
\frac{a-b}{ a+c} \right),\eqno(9)$$ where $\alpha, \beta, \gamma $ are positive integers, $a, b, c \in \mathbb{C}$ and $B(\alpha,\beta)$ is the Euler beta-function. So, our goal will be a representation of the Abel-Goncharov polynomials in terms of the so-called genetic sums considered, for instance, in [@Apteka]. Moreover, this will drive us to a sharper upper bound for these polynomials, improving the Goncharov bound (8). Indeed, $G_1(z)= z-z_0$. When $n \ge 2$, we employ multiple integral (6), and appealing to representation (9), we obtain recursively $$G_n(z)= n! \int_{z_0}^z \int_{z_1}^{s_{1}} \dots \int_{z_{n-2}}^{s_{n-2}} \ (s_{n-1} - z_{n-1})
d s_{n-1} \dots d s_{1}$$ $$= n! (z_{n-2} - z_{n-1}) \int_{z_0}^z \int_{z_1}^{s_{1}} \dots \int_{z_{n-3}}^{s_{n-3}} \ (s_{n-2} - z_{n-2})
{}_2F_1 \left(1, -1 ; \ 2; \ \frac{ z_{n-2} - s_{n-2}}{ z_{n-2} - z_{n-1} } \right) d s_{n-2} \dots d s_{1}$$ $$= n! \sum_{j_1=0} ^ 1\frac{(-1)_{j_1}(-1)^{j_1} }{(2)_{j_1}} (z_{n-2} - z_{n-1})^{1-j_1} \int_{z_0}^z
\int_{z_1}^{s_{1}} \dots \int_{z_{n-3}}^{s_{n-3}} \ (s_{n-2} - z_{n-2})^{1+j_1} d s_{n-2} \dots d s_{1} .$$ Hence, employing properties of the Pochhammer symbol and repeating this process, we find $$G_n(z)= n! \sum_{j_1=0} ^ 1\frac{(z_{n-2} - z_{n-1})^{1-j_1} }{(2)_{j_1} (1-j_1)!} \int_{z_0}^z \int_{z_1}^{s_{1}}
\dots \int_{z_{n-3}}^{s_{n-3}} \ (s_{n-2} - z_{n-2})^{1+j_1} d s_{n-2} \dots d s_{1}$$ $$= n! \sum_{j_1=0} ^ 1 \sum_{j_2=0} ^{1+j_1} \frac{(z_{n-2} - z_{n-1})^{1-j_1} (z_{n-3} - z_{n-2})^{1+j_1-j_2} }
{(2)_{j_2} (1-j_1)!(1+j_1 -j_2)!} \int_{z_0}^z \int_{z_1}^{s_{1}} \dots \int_{z_{n-4}}^{s_{n-4}} \
(s_{n-3} - z_{n-3})^{1+j_2} d s_{n-3} \dots d s_{1} .$$ Continuing to calculate iterated integrals with the use of (9), we arrive finally at the following genetic sum’s representation of the Abel-Goncharov polynomials ($j_0 = j_n=0,\ z_{-1}\equiv z $) $$G_n(z)= n! \sum_{j_1=0} ^ 1 \sum_{j_2=0} ^{1+j_1} \dots \sum_{j_{n-1}=0} ^{1+j_{n-2}} \
\prod_{s=0}^{n-1} \frac{ (z_{n-2-s}- z_{n-1-s} )^ {1+ j_s- j_{s+1}} }{ (1+ j_s- j_{s+1})!}.\eqno(10)$$ Analogously, we derive the genetic sum’s representation for the $m$-th derivative $G_{n}^{(m)}(z)$, namely ($j_0 =0 $) $$G_n^{(m)} (z)= n! \sum_{j_1=0} ^ 1 \sum_{j_2=0} ^{1+j_1} \dots \sum_{j_{n-1-m }=0} ^{1 +j_{n-2-m}}
\frac{ (z - z_{m} )^ {1 + j_{n-1-m}} }{ (1 + j_{n-1-m})!} \
\prod_{s=0}^{n-2-m} \frac{ (z_{n-2-s}- z_{n-1-s} )^ {1 + j_s- j_{s+1}} }{ (1+ j_s- j_{s+1} )!},\eqno(11)$$ where $m= 0,1,\dots, n-1$.
Meanwhile, the Taylor expansions of $ G_n^{(m)} (z)$ in the neighborhood of points $z_m$ give the formulas $$G_n^{(m)} (z) = \frac{n!}{(n- m)!} (z-z_m)^{n-m} + \frac {G_n^{(n-1)} (z_m)}{(n-m-1)!} (z-z_m)^{n-m- 1} + \dots
+ G_n^{(1+m)} (z_m) (z-z_m),\eqno(12)$$ where $m= 0,1,\dots, n-1$. Thus comparing coefficients in front of $(z-z_m)^s, \ s= 1, \dots , n- m-1$ in (11) and (12), we find the values of derivatives $G_n^{(s+ m)} (z_m)$ in terms $z_m, z_{m+1}, \dots, z_{n-1}$. Precisely, we obtain ($j_0 =0 $) $$G_n^{(s+m)} (z_m) = n! \sum_{j_1=0} ^ 1 \sum_{j_2=0} ^{1+j_1} \dots
\sum_{j_{n-2-m }=0} ^{1 +j_{n-3-m}} \frac{ (z_m - z_{m+1} )^ {2 + j_{n-2-m}-s} }{ (2 + j_{n- 2-m}-s)!} \
\prod_{l=0}^{n-3-m} \frac{ (z_{n-2-l}- z_{n-1-l} )^ {1 + j_l- j_{l+1}} }{ (1+ j_l- j_{l+1} )!},\eqno(13)$$ where $s=1,2,\dots, n-m, \ m=0,1,\dots, n-1$.
Finally, in this section, we will establish a sharper upper bound for the Abel-Goncharov polynomials. We have
[**Theorem 1**]{}. [*Let $z, z_0, z_1, z_2,\dots, z_{n-1} \in
\mathbb{C},\ n \ge 1$. The following upper bound holds for the Abel-Goncharov polynomials $$| G_n\left(z, z_0, z_1, z_2,\dots, z_{n-1}\right)| \le
\sum_{k_0=0}^1 \sum_{k_1=0} ^{2-k_0} \dots \sum_{k_{n-2}=0} ^{n-1
- k_0-k_1-\dots- k_{n-3}} \ {n! \choose k_0! k_1! \dots k_{n-2}! \
(n - k_0-k_1-\dots- k_{n-2})! }$$ $$\times \prod_{s=0}^{n-1} |z_{n-2-s}- z_{n-1-s}|^ {k_s},\eqno(14)$$ where $ z_{-1}\equiv z$ and $${n! \choose l_0! l_1! \dots l_m!} = \frac{n!}{l_0! l_1! \dots
l_m!}, \ l_0+l_1+\dots +l_m= n$$ are multinomial coefficients. This bound is sharper than the Goncharov upper bound $(8)$.*]{}
In fact, making simple substitutions $k_s= 1+j_s- j_{s+1}, \ s=0,1,\dots, n-1, j_0=j_n=0$ and writing identity (10) for the Abel-Goncharov polynomials (6), we estimate their absolute value, coming out immediately with inequality (14). Furthermore, appealing to the multinomial theorem, we estimate the right-hand side of (14) in the following way $$\sum_{k_0=0}^1 \sum_{k_1=0} ^{2-k_0} \dots \sum_{k_{n-2}=0} ^{n-
1- k_0-k_1-\dots- k_{n-3}} \ {n! \choose k_0! k_1! \dots k_{n-2}\
(n - k_0-k_1-\dots- k_{n-2})! } \prod_{s=0}^{n-1} |z_{n-2-s}-
z_{n-1-s}|^ {k_s}$$$$\le \sum_{l_0+l_1+\dots+ l_{n-1} = n} \ {n!
\choose l_0! l_1!\dots l_{n-1}!} \prod_{s=0}^{n-1} |z_{n-2-s}-
z_{n-1-s}|^{l_s}$$ $$= \left(\sum_{m=0}^{n-1} \left |z_{m-1}- z_{m}\right|\right)^n,$$ where the summation now is taken over all combinations of nonnegative integer indices $l_0$ through $l_{n-1}$ such that the sum of all $l_j$ is $n$. Thus it yields (8) and completes the proof.
Sz.-Nagy type identities for roots of polynomials and their derivatives
=======================================================================
In this section we prove Sz.-Nagy type identities [@Rah] for zeros of monic polynomials with complex coefficients and their derivatives. All notations of roots and their multiplicities given in Section 1 are involved.
We begin with
[**Lemma 1.**]{} [*Let $f$ be a monic polynomial of degree $n \ge 2$ with complex coefficients, $m= 0,1,\dots, n-2$ and $z \in \mathbb{C}$. Then the following Sz.-Nagy type identities, which are related to the roots of $f$ and its $m$-th derivative, hold* ]{}
$$z_{n-1} - z = {1\over n} \sum_{j=1}^k r_{j}(\lambda_j- z) = {1\over n-m} \sum_{j=1}^{n-m} (\xi^{(m)}_j - z),\eqno(15)$$
$$(z_{n-1} - z_{n-2})^2={1\over n(n-1)} \left[ \sum_{j=1}^k r_{j}(\lambda_j- z)^2- n (z_{n-1} - z)^2\right]
= {1\over (n-m)(n-m -1)}$$$$\times \left[ \sum_{j=1}^{n-m}
(\xi^{(m)}_j - z)^2 - (n-m) (z_{n-1} - z)^2\right],\eqno(16)$$
$$(z_{n-1} - z_{n-2})^2={1\over n^2(n-1)} \sum_{1\le j < s\le k} r_{j}r_{s}(\lambda_j- \lambda_s)^2
= {1\over (n-m)^2(n-m -1)} \sum_{1\le j < s \le n-m} (\xi^{(m)}_j -
\xi^{(m)}_s)^2.\eqno(17)$$
In fact, the first Viéte formula (see [@Rah]) says that the coefficient $a_1$ ($a_0=1$) in (1) is equal to $$- a_1= r_{1}\lambda_1 + r_{2} \lambda_{2} + \dots + r_{k}\lambda_{k}.$$ On the other hand, differentiating (1) $n-1$ times, we find $z_{n-1}
= - a_1/ n$. Thus minding (2) we prove the first equality in (15). The second equality can be done similarly, using the properties of centroid, which is differentiation invariant, see, for instance, in [@Rah]. In order to establish the first equality in (16), we call formula (11) to find $$\frac{f^{(n-2)} (z)}{(n-2)!} = \frac{n(n-1)}{2} (z - z_{n-2}) (z + z_{n-2}- 2 z_{n-1}).\eqno(18)$$ Moreover, as a consequence of the second Viéte formula, the coefficient $a_2$ in (1), which equals $$a_2= \frac{f^{(n-2)} ( z)}{(n-2)!} - \frac{n(n-1)}{2} z^2 + n(n-1) z_{n-1}z\eqno(19)$$ can be expressed as follows $$a_2= {1\over 2} \left(\sum_{j=1}^k r_{j} \lambda_j\right)^2 - {1\over 2} \sum_{j=1} ^k r_j\lambda_j^2.\eqno(20)$$ Hence letting $z=z_{n-2}$ in (18), and taking into account (15) with $z=0$, we deduce
$$2a_2= n^2z^2_{n-1} - \sum_{j=1} ^k r_{j} \lambda_j^2 = 2 n(n-1) z_{n-1}z_{n-2} - n(n-1) z_{n-2}^2 .$$ Therefore, using again (15) and (2), we easily come out with the first equality in (16). The second one can be prove in the same manner, involving roots of derivatives. Finally, we prove the first equality in (17). Concerning the second equality, see Lemma 6.1.5 in [@Rah]. Indeed, calling the first equality in (16), letting $z= z_{n-1}$ and employing (15), we derive
$$n^2(n-1)(z_{n-1} - z_{n-2})^2= n \sum_{j=1}^k r_{j}\lambda^2_j +
\left(\sum_{s=1}^k r_{s}\lambda_s\right)^2 - 2\left(\sum_{s=1}^k
r_{s}\lambda_s\right)\left(\sum_{j=1}^k r_{j}\lambda_j\right)$$ $$= n \sum_{j=1}^k r_{j}\lambda^2_j - \sum_{s=1}^k r^2_{j}\lambda^2_j -
2\sum_{1\le j < s\le k} r_{j}r_{s}\lambda_j\lambda_s= \sum_{1\le j
< s\le k} r_{j}r_{s}(\lambda_j- \lambda_s)^2.$$
The following result gives an identity, which is associated with zeros of a monic polynomial and common zeros of its derivatives. Precisely, we have
[**Lemma 2.**]{} [*Let $f$ be a monic polynomial of exact degree $n\ge 2$, having $k$ distinct roots of multiplicities $(2)$. Let $z_{n-1}=\lambda_1$ be a common root of $f$ of multiplicity $r_1$ with the unique root of its $n-1$-th derivative. Let also $z_m= \xi_{n-m}^{(m)}= \lambda_{k_m}$ be a common root of $f$ of multiplicity $r_{k_m}$ and its $m$-th derivative, $m \in \{1,2,\dots, n-2\}$. Then, involving other roots of $f^{(m)}$, the following identity holds*]{}
$$\left[\frac{n-m-2}{(n-m)^2} + \frac{r_{k_m}+r_1-n}{n (n-1)}\right]\sum_{s=1}^{n-m-1} (z_m- \xi^{(m)}_s)^2
+ \frac{n-m-2}{(n-m)^2}\sum_{1\le s < t \le n-m-1} (\xi^{(m)}_s- \xi^{(m)}_t)^2$$$$= \frac{(n-m)^2 r_{k_m}- (n-r_1)(n-m+2)}{n (n-1)} (z_m- z_{n-1})^2$$$$+ \
\frac{2}{n (n-1)}\sum_{j\neq 1, k_m} r_j \sum_{1 \le s < t \le
n-m-1} (\lambda_j- \xi^{(m)}_s)(\lambda_j- \xi^{(m)}_t).\eqno(21)$$
We begin, appealing to (15) and letting $z=0$. We get $$\sum_{s=1}^{n-m} \xi^{(m)}_s= (n-m) z_{n-1}, \quad \xi_{n-m}^{(m)}=z_m.\eqno(22)$$ Hence via identities (17) with $z=z_m$ we write the chain of equalities $$\sum_{1\le s < t \le n-m} (\xi^{(m)}_s- \xi^{(m)}_t)^2=
\frac{(n-m-1)(n-m)^2}{n (n-1)} r_{k_m}(z_m- z_{n-1})^2 +
\frac{(n-m-1)(n-m)^2}{n (n-1)}\sum_{j\neq 1, k_m} r_j (\lambda_j -
z_{n-1})^2$$ $$=\frac{(n-m-1)(n-m)^2}{n (n-1)} r_{k_m}(z_m- z_{n-1})^2 +
\frac{n-m-1}{n (n-1)}\sum_{j\neq 1, k_m} r_j \left(\lambda_j - z_m+
\sum_{s=1}^{n-m-1} (\lambda_j- \xi^{(m)}_s) \right)^2$$ $$=\frac{(n-m-1)(n-m)^2}{n (n-1)} r_{k_m}(z_m- z_{n-1})^2 +
\frac{n-m-1}{n (n-1)}\left[\sum_{j\neq 1, k_m} r_j (\lambda_j -
z_m)^2 + \sum_{j\neq 1, k_m} r_j \left(\sum_{s=1}^{n-m-1}
(\lambda_j- \xi^{(m)}_s) \right)^2\right.$$ $$\left.+ 2 \sum_{j\neq 1, k_m} r_j \sum_{s=1}^{n-m-1} (\lambda_j -
z_m)(\lambda_j- \xi^{(m)}_s)\right]= \frac{(n-m-1)(n-m)^2}{n (n-1)}
r_{k_m}(z_m- z_{n-1})^2$$ $$+ \frac{n-m-1}{n (n-1)}\left[(2(n-m)-1) \sum_{j\neq 1, k_m} r_j (\lambda_j -
z_m)^2 + \sum_{j\neq 1, k_m} r_j \left(\sum_{s=1}^{n-m-1}
(\lambda_j- \xi^{(m)}_s) \right)^2\right.$$ $$\left.+ 2 \sum_{j\neq 1, k_m} r_j \sum_{s=1}^{n-m-1} (\lambda_j -
z_m)(z_m - \xi^{(m)}_s)\right]= \frac{(n-m-1)(n-m)^2}{n (n-1)}
r_{k_m}(z_m- z_{n-1})^2$$ $$+ \frac{n-m-1}{n (n-1)}\left[(2(n-m)-1) \sum_{j\neq 1, k_m} r_j (\lambda_j -
z_m)^2 + \sum_{j\neq 1, k_m} r_j \left(\sum_{s=1}^{n-m-1}
(\lambda_j- \xi^{(m)}_s) \right)^2\right.$$ $$\left. - 2 (n-m)(n-r_1)(z_m-z_{n-1})^2 \right]= \frac{(n-m-1)}{n (n-1)}
\left((n-m)^2 r_{k_m}- n+r_1\right) (z_m- z_{n-1})^2$$ $$+ (n-m-1)(3(n-m)-2)(z_{n-1}- z_{n-2})^2 + \frac{(n-m-1)(n-r_1)}{n (n-1)}\sum_{s=1}^{n-m-1}
(z_{n-1}- \xi^{(m)}_s)^2$$$$- \frac{r_{k_m}(n-m-1)}{n
(n-1)}\sum_{s=1}^{n-m-1} (z_{m}- \xi^{(m)}_s)^2+ 2 \ \frac{n-m-1}{n
(n-1)}\sum_{j\neq 1, k_m} r_j \sum_{1 \le s < t \le n-m-1}
(\lambda_j- \xi^{(m)}_s)(\lambda_j- \xi^{(m)}_t).$$ Applying again (17), (22), we split the right-hand side of the latter equality in (17) in two parts, selecting the root $z_m$. Thus in the same manner after straightforward calculations it becomes $$\left[\frac{n-m-2}{(n-m)^2} + \frac{r_{k_m}+r_1-n}{n (n-1)}\right]\sum_{s=1}^{n-m-1} (z_m- \xi^{(m)}_s)^2
+ \frac{n-m-2}{(n-m)^2}\sum_{1\le s < t \le n-m-1} (\xi^{(m)}_s-
\xi^{(m)}_t)^2$$$$= \frac{(n-m)^2 r_{k_m}- (n-r_1)(n-m+2)}{n (n-1)} (z_m- z_{n-1})^2+ \
\frac{2}{n (n-1)}\sum_{j\neq 1, k_m} r_j \sum_{1 \le s < t \le
n-m-1} (\lambda_j- \xi^{(m)}_s)(\lambda_j- \xi^{(m)}_t),$$ completing the proof of Lemma 2.
[**Remark 1**]{}. It is easy to verify identity (21) for the least case $m=n-2$, when double sums are empty and $\xi^{(n-2)}_1= 2z_{n-1} -z_{n-2} $ (see above).
[**Corollary 1.**]{} [*A polynomial with only real roots of degree $n\ge 2$ is trivial, if and only if its $n-2$-th derivative has a double root*]{}.
Indeed, necessity is obvious. To prove sufficiency we see that since the $n-2$-th derivative has a double real root $x_{n-2}$, it is equal to the root $x_{n-1}$ of the $n-1$-th derivative. Therefore letting in (16) $z= x_{n-1}$, we find that its left-hand side becomes zero and, correspondingly, all squares in the right-hand side are zeros. This gives a conclusion that all roots are equal to $x_{n-1}$.
[**Corollary 2.**]{} [*Let $f$ be an arbitrary polynomial of degree $n \ge 3$ with at least two distinct roots, whose $n-2$-th derivative has a double root. Then it contains at least one complex root*]{}.
In fact, if all roots are real it is trivial via Corollary 1.
Evidently, each derivative up to $f^{(r-1)}$ of a polynomial $f$ with only real roots, where $r$ is the maximum of multiplicities of roots shares a root with $f$. Moreover, since via the Rolle theorem all roots of $f^{(m)}, \ m=r,r+1,\dots, n-1$ are simple, we have that a possible common root with $f$ is simple too (we note, that a number of common roots does not exceed $k-2$, because minimal and maximal roots cannot be zeros of $f^{(m)},\ m\ge r$). This circumstance gives an immediate
[**Corollary 3.**]{} [*There exists no non-trivial polynomial with only real roots, having two distinct zeros and sharing a root with at least one of its derivatives, whose order exceeds $r-1,\ r= \hbox{max}_{1\le j\le k} (r_j)$.* ]{}
Indeed, in the case of existence of such a polynomial, these two distinct roots cannot be within zeros of any derivative $f^{(m)},\ m > r$ owing to the Rolle theorem. Moreover, if any of two roots is in common with roots of $f^{(r)}$, its multiplicity is greater than $r$, which is impossible.
We extend Corollary 3 on three distinct real roots. Precisely, it drives to
[**Corollary 4.**]{} [*There exists no non-trivial polynomial $f$ of degree $n \ge 3$ with only real roots, having three distinct zeros and sharing a root with its $n-2$-th and $n-1$-th derivatives.* ]{}
Let such a polynomial exist. Calling its roots $\lambda_1= x_{n-1}, \ \lambda_2= x_{n-2}$ and $\lambda_3$ of multiplicities $r_1, \ r_2, \ r_3$, respectively. Hence employing identities (16), we write for this case $$(n^2- n- r_2) (x_{n-1} - x_{n-2})^2= r_{3}(\lambda_3 - x_{n-1}) ^2.$$ In the meantime, making square of both sides of the first equality in (15) for this case after simple modifications , we obtain $$r_2^2(x_{n-1} - x_{n-2})^2= r_{3}^2 (\lambda_3 - x_{n-1}) ^2.$$ Hence, comparing with the previous equality, we come out with the relation $$(n^2- n- r_2) r_3= r_2^2.$$ But $n=r_1+r_2+r_3,\ r_j \ge 1, j=1,2,3.$ Consequently, $$r_2^2 \ge n(n-1)- r_2 > (n-1)^2- r_2 \ge (r_1+r_2)^2-r_2 \ge r_2^2+ r_2+ r_1^2 > r_2^2,$$ which is impossible.
[**Remark 2.**]{} If we omit the condition for $f$ to have a common root with the $n-2$-th derivative in Corollary 4, it becomes false. In fact, this circumstance can be shown by the counterexample $f(x)= x^3-x.$
The following result deals with the case of 4 distinct roots. We have,
[**Corollary 5.**]{} [*There exists no non-trivial polynomial $f$ of degree $n \ge 4$ with only real roots, having four distinct zeros and sharing a root with its $n-2$-th and $n-1$-th derivatives.* ]{}
Similarly to the previous corollary, we assume the existence of such a polynomial and call its roots $\lambda_1= x_{n-1}, \ \lambda_2= x_{n-2}$ and $\lambda_3, \lambda_4$ of multiplicities $r_j, \ j=1,2,3,4$, respectively. Hence the first identity in (16) yields $$(n^2- n- r_2) (x_{n-1} - x_{n-2})^2= r_{3}(\lambda_3 - x_{n-1}) ^2+ r_{4}(\lambda_4 - x_{n-1}) ^2 .\eqno(23)$$ Meanwhile, using the first equality in (15) for this case, we derive in a similar manner $$r_2^2(x_{n-1} - x_{n-2})^2= r_{3}^2 (\lambda_3 - x_{n-1}) ^2+ r_{4}^2 (\lambda_4 - x_{n-1}) ^2+
2 r_{3}r_4 (\lambda_3 - x_{n-1}) (\lambda_4 - x_{n-1}).$$ Thus, after straightforward calculations, we come out with the quadratic equation $$Ay^2+ By+ C=0$$ in variable $y= (\lambda_3 - x_{n-1}) / (\lambda_4 - x_{n-1})$ with coefficients $A= r_3r_2^2- r_3^2(n^2-n-r_2),\
B= - 2 r_3r_4 (n^2-n-r_2),\ C= r_4r_2^2- r_4^2(n^2-n-r_2).$ But, it is easy to verify that $B^2-4AC >0.$ Therefore the quadratic equation has two distinct real roots. Writing $\lambda_3 - x_{n-1}= y (\lambda_4 - x_{n-1})$ and substituting into (23), we obtain $$(n^2- n- r_2) (x_{n-1} - x_{n-2})^2= ( r_{3}y^2+ r_4) (\lambda_4 - x_{n-1})^2.$$ At the same time, since $y\neq 0$, we have $ \lambda_4 - x_{n-1}=
y^{-1} (\lambda_3 - x_{n-1})$ and $$y^2 (n^2- n- r_2) (x_{n-1} - x_{n-2})^2= ( r_{3}y^2+ r_4) (\lambda_3 - x_{n-1})^2.$$ Hence, $$\lambda_4= x_{n-1} \pm \sqrt{\frac{n^2- n- r_2}{ r_{3}y^2+ r_4}} \ |x_{n-1} - x_{n-2}|,$$ $$\lambda_3= x_{n-1} \pm |y| \sqrt{\frac{n^2- n- r_2}{ r_{3}y^2+ r_4}}\ |x_{n-1} - x_{n-2}|.$$ Consequently, $$\lambda_4- \lambda_3 = \sqrt{\frac{n^2- n- r_2}{ r_{3}y^2+ r_4}} \ |x_{n-1} - x_{n-2}| ( 1-|y|)=
- \sqrt{\frac{n^2- n- r_2}{ r_{3}y^2+ r_4}} \ |x_{n-1} - x_{n-2}| ( 1+|y|)$$ $$= \sqrt{\frac{n^2- n- r_2}{ r_{3}y^2+ r_4}} \ |x_{n-1} - x_{n-2}| ( 1+|y|)=
\sqrt{\frac{n^2- n- r_2}{ r_{3}y^2+ r_4}} \ |x_{n-1} - x_{n-2}| (|y|-1),$$ which are possible only in the case $x_{n-1}=x_{n-2},$ $\lambda_3=\lambda_4$. Thus we get a contradiction with Corollary 1 and complete the proof.
In the same manner we prove
[**Corollary 6.**]{} [*There exists no non-trivial polynomial $f$ of degree $n \ge 5$ with only real roots, having five distinct zeros and sharing roots with its $n-2$-th and $n-1$-th derivatives.* ]{}
Assuming its existence, it has the roots $\lambda_1= x_{n-1}, \ \lambda_2= x_{n-2}$, $\lambda_3= 2x_{n-1}- x_{n-2}, \ \lambda_4$ and $\lambda_5$ of multiplicities $r_j, \ j=1,2,3,4, 5$, respectively. Hence $$(n^2- n- r_2-r_3) (x_{n-1} - x_{n-2})^2= r_{4}(\lambda_4 - x_{n-1}) ^2+ r_{5}(\lambda_5 - x_{n-1}) ^2 .$$ Therefore using similar ideas as in the proof of Corollary 5, we come out again to the contradiction.
For general number of distinct zeros we establish the following
[**Corollary 7.**]{} [*There exists no non-trivial polynomial $f$ of degree $n$ with only real roots, having $k \ge 2$ distinct zeros of multiplicities $(2)$ $r_j,\ j=1,\dots, k$ and among them all roots of $f^{(m)}$ for some $m$, satisfying the relations $$r \le m < {1\over 2}\left(1-{1\over r_0}\right)(n-1),\eqno(24)$$ where $r,\ r_0$ are maximum and minimum multiplicities of roots of $f$.*]{}
In fact, as a consequence of (16) we have the identity $${(n-m)(n-m -1)\over n(n-1)} \sum_{j=1}^k r_{j}(\lambda_j- x_{n-1})^2 =
\sum_{j=1}^{n-m} (\xi^{(m)}_j - x_{n-1})^2\eqno(25)$$ for some $m$, satisfying condition (24). Hence, since $m\ge r$, it has $n-m \le k-2$ and $\xi^{(m)}_j= \lambda_{m_j}, \ m_j \in \{1,\dots, k\}, \ j= 1,\dots, n-m$ are simple roots of $f^{(m)}$. Thus we find $$\sum_{j=1}^{n-m} \left[ r_{m_j} {(n-m)(n-m -1)\over n(n-1)} -1\right] (\lambda_{m_j}- x_{n-1})^2 +
{(n-m)(n-m -1)\over n(n-1)} \sum_{j=n-m+1}^k r_{m_j}(\lambda_{m_j} - x_{n-1})^2 = 0.$$ But, owing to condition (24) $$r_{m_j} {(n-m)(n-m -1)\over n(n-1)} -1 \ge r_{0} {(n-m)(n-m -1)\over n(n-1)} -1 \ge 0, \ j= 1,\dots, n-m.$$ Indeed, we have from the latter inequality $$m \le n- {1\over 2} - \sqrt{\frac{n^2-n}{r_0} + {1\over 4}}$$ and, in turn, $$n- {1\over 2} - \sqrt{\frac{n^2-n}{r_0} + {1\over 4}}= \frac{2 (1-r_0^{-1}) (n^2-n)}
{ 2n- 1 + \sqrt{4(n^2-n)r^{-1}_0 + 1}}\ge \frac{ (1-r_0^{-1}) (n^2-n)}
{ 2n- 1} > {1\over 2}\left(1-{1\over r_0}\right)(n-1).$$ Therefore $\lambda_j= x_{n-1}, \ j=1,\dots, k$ and this contradicts to the fact that all roots are distinct.
Finally, in this section, we will employ identities (17) to prove an analog of the Obreshkov- Chebotarev theorem for multiple roots (see [@Rah], Theorem 6.4.3), involving estimates for smallest and largest of distances between consecutive zeros of polynomials and their derivatives. Namely, it has
[**Theorem 2.**]{}
*Let $f$ be a polynomial of degree $n > 2$ with only real zeros. Denote the largest and the smallest of the distances between consecutive zeros of $f$ by $\Delta$ and $\delta$, respectively. Denoting the corresponding quantities associated with $f^{(m)}, \ m=1,2,\dots,\ n-2$ by $\Delta^{(m)}$ and $\delta^{(m)}$, the following inequalities take place*
$$\delta^{(m)} \le \Delta \ {rk \over n} \ \sqrt{ \frac{k^2-1}{ (n-m+1)(n-1)}},\eqno(26)$$ $$\delta \ {r_0 k \over n} \ \sqrt{ \frac{k^2-1}{ (n-m+1)(n-1)}}\le \Delta^{(m)} ,\eqno(27)$$ $$\delta \ {r_0 k \over 2 n} \ \sqrt{ \frac{k^2-1}{ 3 (n-1)}}\le |x_{n-1} - x_{n-2}| \le
\Delta \ {rk \over 2 n} \ \sqrt{ \frac{k^2-1}{ 3(n-1)}},\eqno(28)$$ where $r_0,\ r$ are minimum and maximum multiplicities of roots of $f$, respectively, and $k \ge 2$ is a number of distinct roots.
Following similar ideas as in the proof of Theorem 6.4.3 in [@Rah], we assume distinct roots of $f$ in the increasing order and roots of its $m$-th derivative in the non-decreasing order, and taking the second identity in (17), we deduce $${[\delta^{(m)}]^2 \over (n-m)^2(n-m -1)} \sum_{1\le j < s \le n-m} (s-j)^2 \le {[\Delta r]^2 \over n^2(n-1)} \sum_{1\le j < s \le k} (s-j)^2.$$ Hence, minding the value of the sum $$\sum_{1\le j < s \le q} (s-t)^2 = {1\over 12} q^2(q^2-1),$$ after simple manipulations we arrive at the inequality (26). In the same manner (cf. [@Rah]) we establish inequalities (27), (28), basing Sz.-Nagy type identities (17).
Laguerre’s type inequalities
=============================
In 1880 Laguerre proved his famous theorem for polynomials with only real roots, which provides their localization with upper and lower bounds (see details in [@Rah]). Precisely, we have the following Laguerre inequalities $$x_{n-1}- (n-1)\left|x_{n-1}- x_{n-2}\right| \le w_j \le x_{n-1} + (n-1)\left|x_{n-1}- x_{n-2}\right|, \
j=1,\dots, n,$$ where $w_j$ are roots of the polynomial $f$ of degree $n$ and $x_{n-1}, \ x_{n-2}$ are roots of $f^{(n-1)},\ f^{(n-2)}$, respectively. First we prove an analog of the Laguerre inequalities for multiple roots.
[**Lemma 3.**]{} [*Let $f$ be a polynomial with only real roots of degree $n \in \mathbb{N}$, having $k$ distinct roots $\lambda_j, \ j=1,\ \dots, k$ of multiplicities $(2)$ and $x_{n-1}, \ x_{n-2}$ be roots of $f^{(n-1)},\ f^{(n-2)}$, respectively. Then the following Laguerre type inequalities hold*]{} $$x_{n-1}- \sqrt{\frac{(n-r_j)(n-m-1)}{r_j-m} }\left|x_{n-1}- x_{n-2}\right| \le \lambda_j \le x_{n-1} +
\sqrt{\frac{(n-r_j)(n-m-1)}{r_j-m} }\left|x_{n-1}- x_{n-2}\right|,\eqno(29)$$ where $ j=1,\dots, k, \ m= 0,1,\dots, r_j-1.$
In fact, appealing to the Sz.-Nagy type identities (15), (16) and the Cauchy -Schwarz inequality, we find $$(x_{n-1} - x_{n-2})^2={1\over (n-m)(n-m-1)} \left[ \sum_{s=1}^{n-m} (\xi^{(m)}_s- \lambda_j)^2- (n-m) (x_{n-1} -
\lambda_j)^2\right]$$$$\ge {1\over (n-m)(n-m-1)} \left[
\frac{1}{n-r_j} \left( \sum_{s=1}^{n-m} (\xi^{(m)}_s-
\lambda_j)\right)^2- (n-m) (x_{n-1} - \lambda_j)^2\right]$$$$=
\frac{r_j-m} {(n-r_j)(n-m-1)} \left(x_{n-1}- \lambda_j\right)^2, \
m= 0,1,\dots, r_j-1,$$ which yields (29).
As a corollary we improve the Laguerre inequality (28) for multiple roots.
[**Corollary 8.**]{} [*Let $f$ be a polynomial with only real roots of degree $n \in \mathbb{N}$. Then the multiple zero $\lambda_j$ of multiplicity $r_j\ge 1, \ j=1,\dots, k$ lies in the interval*]{} $$\left[ x_{n-1}- \sqrt{\left(\frac{n}{r_j}-1\right)(n-1) }\left|x_{n-1}- x_{n-2}\right|, \quad x_{n-1} +
\sqrt{\left(\frac{n}{r_j}-1\right)(n-1) }\left|x_{n-1}- x_{n-2}\right| \right].\eqno(30)$$
Indeed, the fraction $\frac{(n-r_j)(n-m-1)}{r_j-m}$ attains its minimum value, letting $m=0$ in (29).
[**Remark 3.**]{} When all roots are simple, the latter interval coincides with the one generated by (28).
A localization of roots of the $m$-th derivative $f^{(m)}, \ m=0,1,\dots, n-2$ is given by
[**Lemma 4.**]{} [*Roots of the $m$-th derivative $f^{(m)}, \ m=0,1,\dots, n-2$ satisfy the following Laguerre type inequalities*]{} $$x_{n-1}- (n-m-1)\left| x_{n-1}- x_{n-2}\right| \le \xi^{(m)}_\nu \le
x_{n-1} + (n-m-1)\left| x_{n-1}- x_{n-2}\right|,\eqno(31)$$ where $\nu=1,\dots, n-m.$
Similarly to the proof of Lemma 3, we employ the Sz.-Nagy type identities (15), (16) and the Cauchy -Schwarz inequality to deduce $$(x_{n-1} - x_{n-2})^2={1\over (n-m)(n-m-1)} \left[ \sum_{s=1}^{n-m} (\xi^{(m)}_s- \xi^{(m)}_\nu)^2- (n-m) (x_{n-1} -
\xi^{(m)}_\nu)^2\right]$$$$\ge {1\over (n-m)(n-m-1)} \left[
\frac{1}{n-m-1} \left( \sum_{s=1}^{n-m} (\xi^{(m)}_s-
\xi^{(m)}_\nu)\right)^2- (n-m) (x_{n-1} -
\xi^{(m)}_\nu)^2\right]$$$$= \frac{1}{(n-m-1)^2} \left(x_{n-1}-
\xi^{(m)}_\nu\right)^2, \ m= 0,1,\dots, n-2.$$ Thus we come out with (31) and complete the proof.
When $x_{n-1}=\lambda_1$ be in common with $f$ of multiplicity $r_1$, we have
[**Lemma 5.**]{} [*Let $f$ be a polynomial with only real roots of degree $n \ge 2$ and $x_{n-1}=\lambda_1$ be a common zero with $f$ of multiplicity $r_1$, having $k \ge 2$ distinct roots $\lambda_j$ of multiplicities $r_j, j=1,\dots, k$. Then the following Laguerre type inequalities hold*]{} $$x_{n-1}- \sqrt{\left({1\over r_s}- {1\over n-r_1}\right) (n^2-n)}\left| x_{n-1}- x_{n-2}\right| \le \lambda_s \le x_{n-1}$$$$+ \sqrt{\left({1\over r_s}- {1\over n-r_1}\right) (n^2-n)}\left| x_{n-1}- x_{n-2}\right|,\eqno(32)$$ where $s=2,\dots, k.$
In the same manner we involve the first Sz.-Nagy type identity in (15) with $z= \lambda_s$, which can be written in the form $$(n-r_1) (x_{n-1} - \lambda_s) = \sum_{j=2}^k r_{j}(\lambda_j- \lambda_s).$$ Hence squaring both sides of the latter equality and appealing to the Cauchy -Schwarz inequality, we derive by virtue of (16) $$(n-r_1)^2 (x_{n-1} - \lambda_s)^2 = \left( \sum_{j=2}^k r_{j}(\lambda_j- \lambda_s)\right)^2$$ $$\le (n-r_1-r_s)\sum_{j=2}^k r_{j}(\lambda_j- \lambda_s)^2= (n-r_1-r_s)\left[ (n^2-n) ( x_{n-1}- x_{n-2})^2 +
(n-r_1)(x_{n-1}- \lambda_s)^2\right].$$ Thus after simple calculations we easily arrive at (32).
[**Remark 4**]{}. Inequalities (27) are sharper than the corresponding relations, generated by interval (30).
The following result gives a Laguerre type localization for common roots of a possible CA-polynomial with only real roots and its $m$-th derivative.
[**Lemma 6.**]{} [*Let $f$ be a CA-polynomial of degree $n \ge
2$ with only real distinct zeros of multiplicities $(2)$, including common roots $x_{n-1}=\lambda_1$ of its $n-1$-th derivative and $x_m$ of its $m$-th derivative, $m= r, r+1, \dots, n-2$, where $r=
\hbox{max}_{1\le j\le k} (r_j)$. Then the following Laguerre type inequality holds $$\frac{n-r_1- r_{k_m}}{(n-r_1)^2}
\left(n^2-r_1+ (n-r_1)(n-m) (n-m-2)\right) (x_{n-1}- x_{n-2})^2 \ge (x_{n-1}- x_{m})^2,\eqno(33)$$ where $x_{n-2}$ is a root of $f^{(n-2)}$ and $r_{k_m}$ is the multiplicity of $x_m$ as a root of $f$*]{}.
Appealing again to Sz.-Nagy’s type identities (15), (16) with $z=x_m$, inequality (31) and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we find $$(x_{n-1} - x_{n-2})^2={1\over n(n-1)} \left[ \sum_{j=2}^k r_{j}(\lambda_j- x_m)^2- (n-r_1) (x_{n-1} -
x_m)^2\right]$$$$\ge {1\over n(n-1)} \left[ \sum_{j=2}^k
r_{j}(\lambda_j- x_m)^2- (n-r_1)(n-m-1)^2(x_{n-1}- x_{n-2})^2\right]$$ $$\ge {1\over n(n-1)} \left[ {1\over n-r_1- r_{j_m}} \left(\sum_{j=2}^k
r_{j}(\lambda_j- x_m)\right)^2 - (n-r_1)(n-m-1)^2(x_{n-1}- x_{n-2})^2\right]$$ $$= {n-r_1\over n(n-1)} \left[ {n-r_1\over n-r_1- r_{j_m}} (x_{n-1}- x_m)^2 - (n-m-1)^2(x_{n-1}- x_{n-2})^2\right].$$ Hence, making straightforward calculations, we derive (33), completing the proof of Lemma 6.
Let us denote by $d,\ d^{(m)},\ D, D^{(m)}$ the following values $$d= \hbox{min}_{2\le j\le k} |\lambda_j- x_{n-1}|, \quad
d^{(m)}= \hbox{min}_{1\le j\le n-m} |\xi^{(m)}_j - x_{n-1}|,\eqno(34)$$ $$D= \hbox{max}_{2\le j\le k} |\lambda_j- x_{n-1}|, \quad
D^{(m)}= \hbox{max}_{1\le j\le n-m} |\xi^{(m)}_j - x_{n-1}|,\eqno(35)$$ and by $$\hbox{span} (f) = \lambda^*- \lambda_*,$$ where $$\lambda^*= \hbox{max}_{1\le j\le k} (\lambda_j), \quad \lambda_*= \hbox{min}_{1\le j\le k} (\lambda_j)$$ are roots of $f$ of multiplicities $r^*, \ r_*$, respectively. It has the properties $ D^{(m+1)} \le D^{(m)}\le D$ and (cf. [@Rah]) $\hbox{span}(f^{(m+1)}) \le \hbox{span}(f^{(m)}) \le \hbox{span}(f)$, where $\hbox{span}(f^{(m)})$ is the span of the $m$-th derivative. Moreover, the strict inequalities $ D^{(m)} < D$, $\hbox{span}(f^{(m)}) < \hbox{span}(f)$ hold when $m$ is sufficiently large.
[**Lemma 7**]{}. [*Let $x_{n-1}=\lambda_1, \ x_{n-2}=\lambda_2$ be common roots of $f$ with its $n-1$-th, $n-2$-th derivatives, respectively, of multiplicities $r_1, r_2$ as roots of $f$, and the maximum distance $D$ (see $(35)$) be attained at the root $\lambda_{s_0}, \ s_0 \in \{ 3,\dots, k\},\ k \ge 3$ of $f$ of multiplicity $r_{s_0}$. Then the following inequalities hold* ]{} $$\sqrt{\frac{n^2-n- r_2}{n-r_1-r_2}}\ \left|x_{n-1} - x_{n-2}\right| \le D \le \sqrt{\frac{n^2-n-r_2}{r_{s_0}}}
\left|x_{n-1} - x_{n-2}\right|,\eqno(36)$$ $${1\over 2} \sqrt{ {r_{s_0} \over 3(n-r_1) }\left(5 + \frac{ r_2} {n^2-n-r_2}\right)}\hbox{span}(f) \le D \le \sqrt{{1\over n-r_1} \left[ n-r_1- {r_{s_0} \over 4}\left(5 + \frac{ r_2} {n^2-n-r_2}\right)\right] } \hbox{span}(f).\eqno(37)$$
In order to establish (36), we employ identities (16) and under condition of the lemma we write $$(n^2-n- r_2)(x_{n-1} - x_{n-2})^2 = \sum_{j=3}^k r_{j}(\lambda_j- x_{n-1})^2 \le (n-r_1-r_2) D^2.$$ Since $n > r_1+r_2$ and $x_{n-2}\neq \lambda_{s_0}$ (otherwise $f$ is trivial, because equalities $x_{n-2}= \lambda_{s_0}= \lambda^*$ or $x_{n-2}= \lambda_{s_0}= \lambda_*$ mean that the maximum multiplicity $r > n-2$, and we appeal to Corollary 3), we come up with the lower bound (36) for $D$. The lower bound comes immediately from the estimate $$(n^2-n- r_2)(x_{n-1} - x_{n-2})^2 = \sum_{j=3}^k r_{j}(\lambda_j- x_{n-1})^2 \ge r_{s_0} D^2.$$ Now, since $2D \ge \hbox{span}(f)$, we find from (36) $$\hbox{span}(f) \le 2 \sqrt{\frac{n^2-n-r_2}{r_{s_0}}} \ \left|x_{n-1} - x_{n-2}\right|.$$ Hence, since $D = \hbox{max} \left(|\lambda^*- x_{n-1}|, \ |\lambda_*- x_{n-1}|\right)$, the $n-2$-th derivative has roots $x_{n-2}$ and $2x_{n-1}- x_{n-2}$ and $\hbox{span}(f)= D + \Lambda$, where $\Lambda = \hbox{min}
\left(|\lambda^*- x_{n-1}|, \ |\lambda_*- x_{n-1}|\right)$, we appeal to the first equality in (16), letting $z= \lambda_{s_0}$ and writing it in the form $$(n-r_1)(x_{n-1} - \lambda_{s_0})^2 = \sum_{j=2}^k r_{j}(\lambda_j- \lambda_{s_0})^2 - n(n-1)(x_{n-1} -
x_{n-2})^2.$$ Therefore, $$(n-r_1)D^2 \le \left[ n-r_1- {5\over 4} r_{s_0} - \frac{r_{s_0} r_2} {4(n^2-n-r_2)}\right] [\hbox{span}(f)]^2$$ and we establish the upper bound (37) for $D$. On the other hand $\hbox{span}(f)= D+ \Lambda$. So, $$D^2 \le \left(1 - {r_{s_0} \over 4(n-r_1) }\left(5 + \frac{ r_2} {n^2-n-r_2}\right)\ \right) \left(D^2 + \Lambda^2 +
2D\Lambda\right)$$ and we easily come out with the lower bound (37) for $D$, completing the proof of Lemma 7.
[**Lemma 8**]{}. [*Let $x_{n-1}=\lambda_1, x_{n-2}=\lambda_2$ be common roots of $f$ with its $n-1$-th, $n-2$-th derivatives of multiplicities $r_1, r_2,\ r_1+r_2 < n$, respectively. Then we have the following lower bound for $\hbox{span}(f)$*]{} $$\hbox{span}(f)\ge \sqrt{\frac{n^2-r_1}{n-r_1-r_2}}\ |x_{n-1}-x_{n-2}|.\eqno(38)$$
Indeed, identities (16) with $z=x_{n-2}$ yield $$(n^2-r_1)(x_{n-1}-x_{n-2})^2=\sum_{j=3}^k r_{j}(\lambda_j- x_{n-2})^2$$ and we derive $$(n^2-r_1)(x_{n-1}-x_{n-2})^2\le (n-r_1-r_2)[\hbox{span}(f)]^2,$$ which implies (38).
Next, we establish an analog of Lemma 5 for roots of derivatives. Precisely, it has [**Lemma 9**]{}. [*Let $x_{n-1}, \ x_{n-2}$ be roots of the $n-1$-, $n-2$-th derivatives of $f$, respectively. Then $$D^{(m)} \ge \sqrt{n-m-1}\ |x_{n-1}-x_{n-2}|,\eqno(39)$$ where $m \in \{r, r+1,\dots, n-2 \}, \ r= \hbox{max}_{1\le j\le k} (r_j).$ Besides, if $x_{n-1}$ is a root of $f^{(m)}$, then we have a stronger inequality $$D^{(m)} \ge \sqrt{n-m}\ |x_{n-1}-x_{n-2}|.\eqno(40)$$ Moreover, $$2\ D^{(m)} \ge \hbox{span}(f^{(m)}) \ge \frac{n-m}{n-m-1}\ D^{(m)}.\eqno(41)$$ and if $x_{n-1}$ is a root of $f^{(m)}$, it becomes $$2\ D^{(m)} \ge \hbox{span}(f^{(m)}) \ge \sqrt{ \frac{(n-m)(n-m-1)+1}{(n-m-1)(n-m-2)}}\ D^{(m)},\eqno(42)$$ where $m \in \{r, r+1,\dots, n-3 \}.$*]{}
In fact, since (see (16)) $$(n-m)(n-m-1)(x_{n-1} - x_{n-2})^2= \sum_{j=1}^{n-m} (\xi^{(m)}_{j} - x_{n-1})^2 \le (n-m) \left[ D^{(m)}\right]^2,$$ we get (39). Analogously, we immediately come out with (40), when $x_{n-1}$ is a root of $f^{(m)}$, because one element of the sum of squares is zero. In order to prove (41), we appeal again to (16), letting $z= \xi^{(m)}_{s_0}, \ s_0 \in \{1,2, \dots, n-m\}$, $m \in \{r, r+1,\dots, n-2 \}, \ r= \hbox{max}_{1\le j\le k} (r_j)$, which is a root of $f^{(m)}$, where the maximum $D^{(m)}$ is attained. Hence owing to Laguerre type inequality (31) $$(n-m)\left[D^{(m)}\right]^2\le (n- m-1) [\hbox{span}(f^{(m)})]^2 - \frac{n-m}{n-m-1} \left[D^{(m)}\right]^2,$$ which drives to the lower bound for $ \hbox{span}(f^{(m)})$ in (41). The upper bound is straightforward since $x_{n-1}$ belongs to the smallest interval containing roots of $f^{(m)}$. In the same manner we establish (42), since in this case $$(n-m-1)\left[D^{(m)}\right]^2\le (n- m-2) [\hbox{span}(f^{(m)})]^2 - \frac{n-m}{n-m-1} \left[D^{(m)}\right]^2.$$
[**Remark 5**]{}. The case $m=n-2$ gives equalities in (39), (41). Letting the same value of $m$ in (40), we easily get a contradiction, which means that the only trivial polynomial is within polynomials with only real roots, whose derivatives $f^{(n-2)}, \ f^{(n-1)}$ have a common root (see Corollary 1).
Applications to the Casas- Alvero conjecture
============================================
In this final section we will discuss properties of possible CA-polynomials, which share roots with each of their non-constant derivatives. We will investigate particular cases of the Casas-Alvero conjecture, especially for polynomials with only real roots, showing when it holds true or, possibly, is false.
We begin with
[**Proposition 1**]{}. [*The Casas-Alvero conjecture holds true, if and only if it is true for common roots $\{z_\nu \}_0^{n-1}$ lying in the unit circle.*]{}
The necessity is trivial. Let’s l prove the sufficiency. Let the conjecture be true for common roots $\{z_\nu \}_0^{n-1}$ of a complex polynomial $f$ and its non-constant derivatives, which lie in the unit circle. Associating with $f$ an Abel-Goncharov polynomial $G_n$ (6), one can choose an arbitrary $\alpha >0$ such that $\ |z_\nu| < \alpha^{-1}, \ \nu=0, 1, \dots , n-1. $ Hence owing to (7) $$f (\alpha z_\nu) = G_n\left(\alpha z_0, \alpha z_\nu, \alpha z_1,\dots, \alpha z_{n-1}\right)
= \alpha^n G_n( z_\nu) = \alpha^n f ( z_\nu)= 0,\ \nu=0, 1,\dots , n-1,$$ and $$f^{(\nu)} _n(\alpha z ) = n! {d^{\nu}\over d z^{\nu}}
\int_{\alpha z_0}^{\alpha z} \int_{\alpha z_1}^{s_{1}} \dots \int_{\alpha z_{n-1}}^{s_{n-1}} d s_{n} \dots d s_{1}
=n! \alpha ^\nu \int_{\alpha z_\nu}^{\alpha z} \int_{\alpha z_{\nu+1}}^{s_{\nu+ 1}} \dots \int_{\alpha z_{n-1}}^{s_{n-1}} d s_{n} \dots d s_{\nu+1},$$ we find $f^{(\nu)} _n(\alpha z_\nu ) =0$. Hence $\alpha z_\nu, \ \nu=0, 1,\dots , n-1$ are common roots of $\nu$-th derivatives $f^{(\nu)}$ and $f$, lying in the unit circle. Consequently, since via assumption the Casas-Alvero conjecture is true when common roots are inside the unit circle, we have that $f$ is trivial and $z_0=z_1=\dots = z_{n-1} = a$ is a unique joint root of $f$ of the multiplicity $n$. Proposition 1 is proved.
The following lemma will be useful in the sequel.
[**Lemma 10**]{}. [*Let $f$ be a CA-polynomial with only real roots of degree $n \ge 2$ and $\{x_\nu
\}_{0}^{n-1}$ be a sequence of common roots of $f$ and the corresponding derivatives $f^{(\nu)}$. Let $f^{(s+\nu)} (x_\nu) \ge 0, \ s =1,2,\dots, n-\nu-1$ and $\nu=0,1,\dots, n-1$. Then $x_\nu$ is a maximal root of the derivative $f^{(\nu)}$.*]{}
In fact, the proof is an immediate consequence of expansion (12), where we let $G_n(x)=f(x)$. Indeed, $f^{(\nu)} (x_\nu) =0, \nu=0,1,\dots, n-1$ and when $ x > x_\nu$ we have from (12) $f^{(\nu)} (x) > 0, \nu=0,1,\dots, n-1$. So, this means that there is no roots, which are bigger than $x_\nu$. This completes the proof of Lemma 10.
[**Proposition 2**]{}. [*Under conditions of Lemma 10 the Casas-Alvero conjecture holds true for polynomials with only real roots.*]{}
We will show that under conditions of Lemma 10 there exists no CA-polynomial $f$ with only real roots. Indeed, assuming its existence, we find via conditions of the lemma that the root $x_0$ is a maximal zero of $f(x)$. This means that $x_0 \ge x_1$. On the other hand, classical Rolle’s theorem states that between zeros $x_0, \ x_1$ in the case $x_0 > x_1$ there exists at least one zero of the derivative $f^{(1)} (x)$, say $\xi_1^{(1)}$, which is bigger than $x_1$. But this is impossible because $x_1$ is a maximal zero of the first derivative. Thus $x_0=x_1\ge x_2$. Then between $x_1$ and $x_2$ in the case $x_1 > x_2$ there exists a zero $\xi_2^{(1)}$ of the first derivative such that $x_1> \xi_2^{(1)} > x_2$. Hence between $x_1$ and $\xi_2^{(1)}$ there exists at least one zero of the second derivative, which is bigger than $x_2$. But this is impossible, since $x_2$ is a maximal zero of $f^{(2)} (x)$. Therefore $x_0=x_1=x_2$. Continuing this process we observe that the sequence $\{x_\nu \}_0^{n-1}$ is stationary and $f$ has a unique joint root, which contradicts the definition of the CA-polynomial.
[**Corollary 9**]{}. [*There exists no CA-polynomial $f$ with only real roots, having non-increasing sequence $\{x_\nu \}_0^{n-1}$ of roots in common with $f$ and its non-constant derivatives.*]{}
Obviously, via (13) $f^{(s+\nu)} (x_\nu) \ge 0, \ s=1,2,\dots, n-\nu-1$ and conditions of Lemma 10 are satisfied.
[**Corollary 10**]{}. [*There exists no CA-polynomial $f$ with only real roots, such that each $x_\nu$ in the sequence $\{x_\nu \}_0^{n-1}$ is a maximal root of the derivative $f^{(\nu)} (x), \ \nu=0,1,\dots, n-1$.*]{}
The proof is similar to the proof of Proposition 2.
An immediate consequence of Corollaries 3,4,5 is
[**Corollary 11**]{}. [*The CA-polynomial, if any, with only real roots has at least 5 distinct zeros.* ]{}
Let us denote by $l(m)$ the number of distinct roots of the $m$-th derivative $f^{(m)},\ m=0, 1,\dots, n-2$, which are in common with $f$ and different from $\lambda_1=x_{n-1}$, which is a common root with $f^{(n-1)}$, i.e. the $m$-th derivative $f^{(m)}$ has $l(m)$ common roots with $f$
$$\lambda_{j_1}, \dots, \lambda_{j_{l(m)}} \subseteq \{ \lambda_2, \lambda_3, \dots, \ \lambda_k\}$$ of multiplicities $$r_{j_1}, \dots, r_{j_{l(m)}} \subseteq \{ r_2, r_3, \dots, \ r_k\} .$$ For instance, $l(0)= k-1, \ l(1)= k-1-s$, where $s$ is a number of simple roots of $f$. So, we see that $n-m \ge l(m) \ge 0$ and since $f$ is a CA-polynomial, $l(m)=0$ if and only if $x_{n-1}=\lambda_1$ is the only common root of $f$ with $f^{(m)}$.
[**Lemma 11**]{}. [*There exists no CA-polynomial with only real roots, having the property $l(m)= l(m+1)=0$ for some $m \in \{r, r+1, \dots,n-2\},$ where $r= \hbox{max}_{1\le j\le k} (r_j)$.*]{}
In fact, as we saw above, since all roots are real, it follows that all roots of $f^{(m)}, \ m \ge r$ are simple, which contradicts equalities $l(m)= l(m+1)=0$. Indeed, the latter equalities yield that $x_{n-1}$ is a multiple root of $f^{(m)}$. Therefore $r\ge r_1 > m+1\ge r+1$, which is impossible.
Further, as in Lemma 7 we involve the root $\lambda_{s_0}$ of multiplicity $r_{s_0}$, and $D= |\lambda_{s_0}- x_{n-1}|$ (see (35)). Thus $\lambda_{s_0}= \lambda_*$ or $\lambda_{s_0}= \lambda^*$ and, correspondingly, $r_{s_0}=r_*$ or $r_{s_0}=r^*$. Hence, calling Sz.-Nagy identities (15), we let $z= x_{n-1}$ and assume without loss of generality that $\lambda_{s_0}= \lambda^*$. Then we obtain for $m \ge r$ $$r_*(x_{n-1}- \lambda_*) = r^*D + \sum_{j=2, \ r_j\neq r_*,\ r^*}^{k} r_j(\lambda_j - x_{n-1}) \ge r^*D - D^{(m)}
\sum_{s=1}^{l(m)} r_{j_s} - D^{(m+1)} \sum_{s=1}^{l(m+1)} r_{l_s}$$ $$- \left(n-r_1- r^*- r_*- \sum_{s=1}^{l(m)} r_{j_s}- \sum_{s=1}^{l(m+1)} r_{l_s}\right)D.$$ But $x_{n-1}- \lambda_*= \hbox{span}(f)- D$. Therefore, $$r_* \hbox{span}(f) + \left(n-r_1- 2( r^*+ r_*)\right) D \ge (D- D^{(m)}) \sum_{s=1}^{l(m)} r_{j_s} +
(D- D^{(m+1)}) \sum_{s=1}^{l(m+1)} r_{l_s}.$$ The right-hand side of the latter inequality is, obviously, greater or equal to $r_0 \left(l(m)+ l(m+1)\right) (D- D^{(m)}) $, where $1 \le r_0= \hbox{min}_{1\le j\le k} (r_j)$. Moreover, since $ \hbox{span}(f) \le 2D$, the left-hand side does not exceed $\left(n-r_1\right) D- r^* \hbox{span}(f)$. Thus we come out with the inequality $$r_0 \left(l(m)+ l(m+1)\right) (D- D^{(m)}) \le \left(n-r_1\right) D- r^* \hbox{span}(f)$$ or since $D- D^{(m)} > 0$ ($m \ge r$), it becomes $$l(m)+ l(m+1)\le \frac{\left(n-r_1\right) D- r^* \hbox{span}(f)}{r_0(D- D^{(m)}) }.\eqno(43)$$ Meanwhile, appealing to (16), we get similarly $$n(n-1) ( x_{n-1}- x_{n-2})^2 = r^*D^2 + r_* (\lambda_*- x_{n-1})^2 + \sum_{j=2, \ r_j\neq r_*,\ r^*}^{k}
r_{j}(\lambda_j- x_{n-1})^2$$$$\le r^*D^2 + r_*\left(\hbox{span}(f)- D\right)^2+ \left[D^{(m)}\right]^2 \sum_{s=1}^{l(m)} r_{j_s} + \left[D^{(m+1)}\right]^2 \sum_{s=1}^{l(m+1)} r_{l_s}$$$$+ \left(n-r_1- r^*- r_*- \sum_{s=1}^{l(m)} r_{j_s}-
\sum_{s=1}^{l(m+1)} r_{l_s}\right)D^2.$$ Therefore, analogously to (43), we arrive at the inequality $$l(m)+ l(m+1)\le \frac{(n-r_1)D^2 + r_* \left[\hbox{span}(f)\right]^2 - n(n-1) ( x_{n-1}- x_{n-2})^2 -2D r_*\ \hbox{span}(f)}{r_0(D^2- \left[D^{(m)}\right]^2) }.$$ [**Proposition 3**]{}. [*There exists no CA- polynomial with only real roots of degree $n$ such that* ]{} $$\hbox{span}(f) > \left(r^*\right)^{-1} \left[ (n-r_1-r_0)D + r_0 D^{(m)}\right],\ m\ge r.\eqno(44)$$
Under condition (44), the right-hand side of (43) is less than one. Thus $l(m)= l(m+1)=0$ and Lemma 11 completes the proof.
Let $m=n-2$. Then since $l(n-1)=0$, inequality (43) becomes $$l(n-2) \le \frac{ (n-r_1)D - r^* \hbox{span}(f)}{r_0(D- \left|x_{n-1}- x_{n-2}\right|)}.\eqno(45)$$ [**Proposition 4**]{}. [*There exists no CA- polynomial with only real roots of degree $n$ such that* ]{} $$D < \left[r^* \ \sqrt{ \frac{n^2-r_1}{n-r_1-r_2}} -r_0\right] \frac{ \left|x_{n-1}- x_{n-2}\right|}{n-r_1-r_0}.\eqno(46)$$
Indeed, employing the lower bound (38) for $ \hbox{span}(f)$, we find that under condition (46) the right-hand side of (45) is strictly less than one. Consequently, $l(n-2)=0$ and owing to Corollary 1 $f$ is trivial. If the maximum of multiplicities $r > n-2$, $f$ has at most 2 distinct zeros and it is trivial via Corollary 3.
Finally, we prove
[**Proposition 5**]{}. [*Let CA- polynomial with only real roots exist. Then it has the property $$\frac{d}{D} \le \sqrt{\frac{2(n-m-1)}{2(k-1)-1}},\eqno(47)$$ where $d, D$ are defined by $(34), (35)$, respectively, and $m,\ m+1$ belong to the interval $\left[r, \ {1\over 2}\left(1-{1\over r_0}\right)(n-1) \right)$.*]{}
Since $m,\ m+1$ are chosen from the interval $\left[r, \ {1\over 2}\left(1-{1\over r_0}\right)(n-1) \right)$, condition (24) holds for these values. Hence assuming the existence of the CA-polynomial, we return to the Sz.-Nagy type identity (25) to have the estimate $$0 \ge l(m) \left( r_{0} {(n-m)(n-m -1)\over n(n-1)} -1\right) d^2 + \left(k-1-l(m)\right) d^2- (n-m-l(m)) D^2$$ $$\ge (k-1) d^2- (n-m) D^2 + l(m) (D^2-d^2).$$ Writing the same inequality for $m+1$ $$0 \ge (k-1) d^2- (n-m-1) D^2 + l(m+1) (D^2-d^2)$$ and adding two inequalities, we find $$0 \ge 2 (k-1) d^2- (2(n-m) -1) D^2 +(l(m)+ l(m+1)) (D^2-d^2),$$ which means $$l(m)+ l(m+1) \le \frac{(2(n-m) -1) D^2 - 2 (k-1) d^2}{D^2-d^2}.$$ So, for the existence of the CA-polynomial it is necessary that the right-hand side of the latter inequality is more or equal to 1. Thus we come out with condition (47) and complete the proof.
[**Acknowledgment**]{}. The present investigation was supported, in part, by the “Centro de Matem[á]{}tica” of the University of Porto.
[10]{}
E. Casas-Alvero, Higher order polar germs, *J. Algebra* 240, (2001), N 1, 326-337. J. Draisma and J. P. de Jong, On the Casas-Alvero conjecture, *Eur. Math.Soc. Newsl.,* (2011), N 80, 29-33. H.-C. Graf von Bothmer, O. Labs, J. Schicho and C. van de Woestijne, The Casas-Alvero conjecture for infinitely many degrees, *J. Algebra*, 316 (2007), N 1, 224-230. T.Posltra, Convex hulls and the Casas-Alvero conjecture for the complex plane, *Rose-Hulman Undegrad. Math. J.*, 13 (2012), N 1, 33-42. Q.I. Rahman and G. Schmeisser, *Analytic Theory of Polynomials*, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2002. M.A. Evgrafov, *The Abel-Goncharov Interpolation Problem*, Gosudarstv. Izdat. Tehn.-Teor. Lit., Moscow, 1954. N. Levinson, The Gontcharoff polynomials, *Duke Math. J.*, 11 (1944), 729- 733. N. Levinson, Corrections to “The Gontcharoff polynomials”, *Duke Math. J.*, 12 (1945), p. 335.
V.L. Goncharov, Recherche sur les deriv[' e]{}es successives de fonctions analytiques. I. Generalization de la serie d’ Abel., *Ann. [' E]{}cole Norm.*, 47 (1930), 1-78 (in French).
A. Aptekarev, V. Kaliaguine, J. Van Iseghem, The genetic sum’s representation for the moments of a system of Stieltjes functions and its application, *Constr. Approx.* 16, (2000), N 4, 487-524.
I.I. Ibragiumoff, Sur quelques syst[' e]{}mes complets de fonctions analytiques, *Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, S.M.*, (1939), 553-568.
A.P. Prudnikov, Yu.A. Brychkov and O.I. Marichev, *Integrals and Series: Elementary Functions*, Gordon and Breach, New York, 1986.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Press-Schechter theory gives a simple, approximate functional form of the mass function of dark matter haloes. Sheth and Tormen (ST) refined this mass function to give an improved analytical fit to results of $N$-body simulations. These forms of the halo mass function are universal (independent of cosmology and power spectrum) when scaled in suitable variables. Using large suites of LCDM $N$-body simulations, studies in the last few years have shown that this universality is only approximate. We explore whether some of the deviations from universality can be attributed to the power spectrum by computing the mass function in $N$-body simulations of various scale-free models in an Einstein-de Sitter cosmology. This choice of cosmology does not introduce any scale into the problem. These models have the advantage of being self-similar, hence stringent checks can be imposed while running these simulations. This set of numerical experiments is designed to isolate any power spectrum dependent departures from universality of mass functions. We show explicitly that the best fit ST parameters have a clear dependence on power spectrum. Our results also indicate that an improved analytical theory with more parameters is required in order to provide better fits to the mass function.'
author:
- |
J. S. Bagla, Nishikanta Khandai and Girish Kulkarni\
Harish-Chandra Research Institute, Chhatnag Road, Jhunsi,\
Allahabad 211019, INDIA\
E-Mail: jasjeet, nishi, girish@hri.res.in
title: 'Mass function of haloes: scale invariant models'
---
gravitation, methods: N-Body simulations, cosmology: large scale structure of the universe
Introduction
============
The halo mass function describes number density of dark matter haloes of a given mass in a given cosmology, and is an essential input for a diverse set of tools used for making theoretical predictions. The halo model of large scale structure, for example, is based on the theory of mass functions [@2002PhR...372....1C]. Accurate knowledge of the mass function is important for several cosmological applications, including semi-analytic theories of galaxy formation [@1991ApJ...379...52W]; constraints on cosmological parameters using galaxy cluster abundance [@2003ApJ...585..603M], merger rates for haloes [@1994MNRAS.271..676L; @2001MNRAS.325.1053C], gravitational lensing and constraints on non-Gaussianity in the primordial power spectrum [@2005JCAP...10..010B; @2008arXiv0811.4176P] of matter perturbation.
It is possible to develop the theory of mass functions in a manner that makes no reference to the details of the cosmological model or the power spectrum of fluctuations. That is, we expect the mass function to take a universal form, when scaled appropriately. Simple theoretical arguments have been used to obtain this universal functional form of the mass function [@1974ApJ...187..425P; @1991ApJ...379..440B; @2001MNRAS.323....1S]. @1991ApJ...379..440B and @2001MNRAS.323....1S used the excursion set theory to derive the mass function. Much work has also been done to determine the extent to which this form is consistent with results from N-body simulations [@2001MNRAS.321..372J; @2002ApJS..143..241W; @2003MNRAS.346..565R; @2006ApJ...646..881W; @2007MNRAS.374....2R; @2007ApJ...671.1160L; @2008MNRAS.385.2025C; @2008ApJ...688..709T] with the conclusion that the agreement is fairly good. Recent comparisons with very large N-Body simulations also provide hints that the form of the mass function is not universal.
The Press-Schechter mass function [@1974ApJ...187..425P] is based on the spherical collapse model [@1972ApJ...176....1G] and the ansatz that the mass in collapsed objects is related to the volume with density above a certain threshold. The shape of the mass function agrees with numerical results qualitatively: at a quantitative level there are deviations at the low mass and the high mass ends [@1988MNRAS.235..715E; @2001MNRAS.321..372J]. Improvements to the Press-Schechter mass function have been made to overcome this limitation. In particular, the Sheth-Tormen mass function is based on the more realistic ellipsoidal collapse model [@1999MNRAS.308..119S; @2001MNRAS.323....1S] and it fits numerical results better. These mass functions relate the abundance of haloes to the initial density field in a universal manner, independent of cosmology and power spectrum. Many fitting functions with three or four fitting parameters have been proposed. These are based on results of simulations of the LCDM model [@2001MNRAS.321..372J; @2003MNRAS.346..565R; @2006ApJ...646..881W].
In the last few years, large N-Body simulations of the LCDM model have demonstrated that the mass function is not universal [@2002ApJS..143..241W], and epoch dependent fitting functions have been given for this model [@2007MNRAS.374....2R; @2008ApJ...688..709T]. The results of @1994MNRAS.271..676L also show a small dependence of the mass function on the power spectrum but given the size of simulations these deviations are small. These studies show non-universality by noting variations in the form of mass function with redshift or cosmology in successively larger simulations that explore a large range in mass. Much of the numerical work in this area during the last decade has focused on the LCDM model, it being the model favored by observations.
It is expected that this non-universality is a result of variation of mass function parameters either with cosmology or with the power spectrum or both. Cosmology dependence is introduced by the variation in the threshold density for collapse [@1993MNRAS.262..717B]. The CDM class of models have a power spectrum of density fluctuations with a gradually varying slope or the spectral index, $n(k)$, which decreases with decreasing scale (increasing wavenumber $k$). As perturbations at smaller scales collapse earlier, the effective index of the power spectrum is small at early times and increases towards late times. The threshold overdensity for collapse also changes as the cosmological constant becomes more important at late times. Thus the variation in mass function may be due to the shape of the power spectrum, or cosmology, or both. This makes the published results difficult to interpret in terms of a theoretical model. It is then hard to discern any trends in non-universality that will potentially provide a physical understanding. Given the number of applications of the theory of mass function like computation of merger rates, halo formation rates, etc., it is essential to develop a clear understanding of the origin of non-universality. The only other option is to work with fitting functions for each of these quantities derived from N-Body simulations.
The problem of an unclear origin of deviations of universality can be partially addressed by studying a wider variety of models in the CDM class of models. This approach has been taken by, for example, @2009arXiv0903.1640N in the context of universality in halo mergers. The effect of perturbations at larger scales in terms of the tidal field, which is relevant for ellipsoidal collapse, also changes with time due to the variation in the slope of the power spectrum with scale. Given that the tidal field is generated by larger scales, it is not very clear whether a prescription based on the local index of the power spectrum alone can provide a detailed explanation for the mass function. Since the CDM spectra lack the simplicity of the scale-free spectra, we approach this problem differently. We specifically look for departures from non-universality in the mass function for scale-free power spectra of initial fluctuations with an Einstein-de Sitter background to check if the non-universal description can be attributed to a spectrum dependence. Our choice of cosmology does not introduce any scale in the problem and the threshold overdensity does not vary with time in any non-trivial manner. Thus we can isolate the non-universality of mass functions arising from the slope of the power spectrum. We provide spectrum dependent fits for the parameters in the Sheth-Tormen mass function, and show that this allows us to fit simulation data much better.
We start with a discussion of the basic framework of mass functions in §\[massfunction\], where we also set up the notation. Our numerical simulations are described in §\[simulations\]. We present our analysis of the data in §\[results\] along with the results. A discussion of their implications appears in §\[discussion\] and we summarize our conclusions in §\[conclusions\].
The Mass Function {#massfunction}
=================
The mass function is described by the following function in the Press-Schechter formalism: f()=(-\^2/2) \[fps\] where $\nu= \delta_c/ \left(\sigma(m) D_+(z)\right)$. Here $\delta_c$ is the threshold overdensity for a spherically symmetric perturbation, above which it collapses and forms a virialised halo. It has only a weak dependence on cosmology and its value is $1.69$ for $\Omega_0 = 1$ [@1972ApJ...176....1G; @1980lssu.book.....P]. Fitting functions that describe the dependence of $\delta_c$ on cosmology are available in the literature [@1993MNRAS.262..717B; @1996MNRAS.282..263E; @1996ApJ...462..563N; @1997PThPh..97...49N; @1998ApJ...495...80B; @2000ApJ...534..565H]. We take the value of $1.686$ throughout our analysis as we are working with the Einstein-de Sitter cosmology.
The [*rms*]{} fluctuations of the linearly evolved density field at present is denoted by $\sigma(m)$, smoothed with a spherical top hat filter enclosing mass $m$ and is calculated by convolving the linear density power spectrum $P(k)$, extrapolated to the current epoch, with the filter $W(k,m)$: \^2(m) = \_0\^W\^2(k,m). Lastly, $D_+(z)$ is the growth function [@1977MNRAS.179..351H]. All mass is contained in haloes in this formalism, this provides the normalization: \_[0]{}\^ f()d=1 This mass function is related to the number of haloes of a given mass per unit comoving volume by =f(). \[norm\] The dependence on cosmology and power spectrum is absorbed in $\nu$, and the theory of mass functions can be developed without reference to the detailed dependence of $\nu$ on the power spectrum or cosmology, so we expect the form of Equation (\[fps\]) to be universal.
The Sheth-Tormen mass function is a modification to the Press-Schechter model and is based on ellipsoidal collapse instead of spherical collapse. It has been shown to reproduce simulation results better. f()= A (-q\^2/2). \[fst\] Clearly, this is also a universal form.
$n$ $N_\mathrm{box}$ $N_\mathrm{part}$ $\rnl^i$ $\rnl^f$ $\rnl^\mathrm{max}$ $z_i$
------------------------ ------------------ ------------------- ---------- ---------- --------------------- ----------
$-2.5$ $512^3$ $512^3$ $0.2$ $1.0$ $0.1$ $36.21$
$-2.2$ $512^3$ $512^3$ $0.5$ $2.0$ $2.0$ $51.23$
$-2.0$ $512^3$ $512^3$ $1.0$ $4.5$ $4.2$ $62.80$
$-1.8$ $512^3$ $512^3$ $2.5$ $9.0$ $8.5$ $78.82$
$-1.5$ $400^3$ $400^3$ $2.5$ $12.0$ $10.0$ $103.38$
$-1.0$ $400^3$ $400^3$ $2.5$ $10.0$ $22.2$ $171.52$
$-0.5$ $256^3$ $256^3$ $2.5$ $12.0$ $18.2$ $291.53$
$+0.0$ $256^3$ $256^3$ $2.5$ $12.0$ $21.2$ $470.81$
\[table\_nbody\_runs\]
: Details of $N$-body simulations used in this work.
Numerical Simulations {#simulations}
=====================
We run a suite of models with a power law power spectrum ($P(k) = Ak^n$) of initial fluctuations, in the range $-2.5 \geq n \geq 0.0$. We use the Einstein-de Sitter cosmological background where the growing mode of perturbations $D_+(t)$ is the same as the scale factor $a(t)$. We used the TreePM code [@2009RAA.9...861] for these simulations. The TreePM [@2002JApA...23..185B; @2003NewA....8..665B] is a hybrid N-Body method which improves the accuracy and performance of the Barnes-Hut (BH) Tree method [@1986Natur.324..446B] by combining it with the PM method . The TreePM method explicitly breaks the potential into a short-range and a long-range component at a scale $r_s$: the PM method is used to calculate long-range force and the short-range force is computed using the BH Tree method. Use of the BH Tree for short-range force calculation enhances the force resolution as compared to the PM method.
The mean interparticle separation between particles in the simulations used here is $l_\mathrm{mean} = 1.0 $ in units of the grid-size used for the PM part of the force calculation. In our notation this is also cube root of the ratio of simulation volume $N_\mathrm{box}^3$ to the total number of particles $N_\mathrm{part}$.
-------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------
{width="2.85truein"} {width="2.85truein"}
{width="2.85truein"} {width="2.85truein"}
{width="2.85truein"} {width="2.85truein"}
-------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------
{width="2.85truein"} {width="2.85truein"}
{width="2.85truein"} {width="2.85truein"}
-------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------
Power law models do not have any intrinsic scale apart from the scale of non-linearity introduced by gravity. We can therefore identify an epoch in terms of the scale of non-linearity $\rnl$. This is defined as the scale for which the linearly extrapolated value of the mass variance at a given epoch $\sigma_L(a,\rnl)$ is unity. All simulations are normalized such that $\sigma^2(a=1.0,\rnl=8.0) =
1.0$. The softening length in grid units is $\epsilon = 0.03 $ in all runs.
Simulations introduce an inner and an outer scale in the problem and in most cases we work with simulation results where $L_{box} \gg r_{nl} \geq L_{grid}$, where $L_{grid}$, the size of a grid cell is the inner scale in the problem. $L_{box}$ is the size of the simulation and represents the outer scale.
Finite volume effects can lead to significant errors in N-Body simulations since modes greater than the size of the box are ignored while generating initial conditions and during evolution [@2005MNRAS.358.1076B; @2006MNRAS.370..993B; @2006MNRAS.370..691P; @2009MNRAS.395..918B]. The errors in the mass variance and hence most descriptors of clustering can become arbitrarily large as the index of the power spectrum $n$ approaches $-3.0$. The prescription provided by @2006MNRAS.370..993B and @2009MNRAS.395..918B can be used to find the regime where the results of a simulation are reliable at a given level of tolerance. We require that the error in $\sigma^2$ be less than $3\%$ at the scale of non-linearity. This requirement severely restricts the level of non-linearity that can be probed in simulations with indices $n=-2.5$, $-2.2$ and $-2.0$ amongst the set of models we use here. We will use these simulations mainly to illustrate the severity of finite box size effects and compare the mass function obtained in the simulations with our expectations, but we do not use these simulations for an explicit determination of the mass function. In Table (\[table\_nbody\_runs\]) we list the power law models simulated for the present study. We list the index of the power spectrum $n$ (column 1), size of the simulation box $N_\rmn{box}$ (column 2), number of particles $N_\rmn{part}$ (column 3), the scale of non-linearity at the earliest epoch used in this study (column 4), and, the maximum scale of non-linearity, $\rnl^\rmn{max}$ (column 6) given our tolerance level of $3\%$ error in the mass variance at this scale. For some models with very negative indices we have run the simulations beyond this epoch. This can be seen in column 5 where we list the actual scale of non-linearity for the last epoch.
In the next section we describe a procedure to put an upper limit on the high mass bins since in these haloes counts are reduced due to finite boxsize considerations, especially at late times. The counts of haloes in low mass bins are relatively unaffected by finite box considerations. We therefore limit errors in the mass function by running the simulation up to $\rnl^{max}$ . Column 7 lists the starting redshift of the simulations for every model.
Models with a large slope of the power spectrum have more power at small scales and the relative amplitude of fluctuations at small scales is large. Care is required for running simulations of these models as small scales become non-linear at early times the $r_{nl}$ grows very slowly with the scale factor. A very large number of time steps are required in order to evolve the system to epochs with a large $\rnl$. We require that the evolution of the two point correlation function $\bar\xi$ [@1980lssu.book.....P] be strictly self-similar in the range of epochs where we use the simulation data. This allows us to verify the correctness of evolution.
------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
{width="2.15truein"} {width="2.15truein"} {width="2.15truein"}
------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
Analysis and Results {#results}
====================
We use the Friends-of-Friends (FOF) [@1985ApJ...292..371D] algorithm with a linking length $l=0.2$ to identify haloes and construct a halo catalog. In order to avoid spurious identification of haloes and also discreteness noise, we do not use haloes with a small number of particles — only haloes with more than $60$ particles are used in our analysis.
Given the halo catalog one can compute the mass function by first binning the haloes in mass bins. We constructed logarithmic bins in mass with size $\Delta\log m = 0.2$. Given the halo count per logarithmic mass bin $dn/d\log m$ and using the fact that $\bar{\rho}=1$, we write Equation \[norm\] f() = \[eq\_nu\_powlaw\] with $\nu = \delta_c/a\,\sigma(m)$. For a power law power spectrum, we have (m) = ()\^[-(n+3)/6]{} \[eq\_sigma\_powlaw\] where $m=4\pi r^3/3$, and we take $\rnl(z=0)\equiv8.0$. Note that Equation (\[eq\_sigma\_powlaw\]) tells us that it is much easier to probe the small $\nu$ end of the mass function with larger indices. The scale of non-linearity evolves as $\rnl \propto D_+^{2/\left(n+3\right)} =
a^{2/\left(n+3\right)}$, where the second equality follows for the Einstein-de Sitter universe.
We choose to fit the Sheth-Tormen mass function of Equation (\[fst\]) to our data by the method of $\chi^2$ minimization. The correspondence with the mass function for ellipsoidal collapse makes the Sheth-Tormen mass function physically motivated. The usefulness of this approach is that the best fit values can potentially be used to compute merger rates, etc. This however may not be the best choice of the functional form of the mass function and we comment on it in the following discussion. The ST mass function has two free parameters, which we denote by $p$ and $q$. The condition that all mass must be in haloes provides normalization for this function (Equation (\[norm\])). This gives A=1+ as a function of $p$ [@2002PhR...372....1C].
We assume Poisson errors for counts of haloes in a mass bin. As discussed before, the effect of a finite volume simulation volume suppresses the count of haloes in the large mass end. One can either correct it [@2007MNRAS.374....2R; @2009MNRAS.394..624R] or remove these points from the $\chi^2$ analysis. Correcting for these points is a tricky issue since it assumes an a priori knowledge of the mass function, the quantity which is being constructed. One can however follow an iterative procedure by first starting out with the standard ST mass function or the Press-Schechter mass function, then use it to correct the counts at the large mass end of the mass function and then do the $\chi^2$ analysis to compute a better ST mass function and repeat the exercise all over again until one obtains a reasonable convergence in the fit. As we shall see, the dispersion and the goodness of fit does not warrant this approach and in this paper we choose to remove points affected by more than $10\%$ in counts (as estimated for the PS mass function) due to box size effects.
We begin by fitting the ST mass function to the indices $n=0.0$, $-0.5$, $-1.0$, $-1.5$ and $-1.8$. The raw mass function, i.e., data points, and the best fit ST curve is plotted in the left column of Figures (\[fig\_best\_fit1\]) and (\[fig\_best\_fit2\]). The right hand column shows the residuals with respect to the best fit mass function. We also show the PS and the standard ST mass functions in each panel. Table (\[table\_bestfitpq\]) shows the best fit values of $p$ and $q$ and the reduced $\chi^2_\rmn{red}$.
---------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
{width="1.6truein"} {width="1.6truein"} {width="1.6truein"} {width="1.6truein"}
{width="1.6truein"} {width="1.6truein"} {width="1.6truein"} {width="1.6truein"}
---------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
$n$ $p$ $q$ $\chi^2_\mathrm{red}$ $p^\mathrm{new}$ $q^\mathrm{new}$ $\chi^{2(\mathrm{new})}_\mathrm{red}$
---------------------- --------- --------- ----------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ---------------------------------------
$0.0$ $0.141$ $1.065$ $4.933$ $-$ $-$ $-$
$-0.5$ $0.172$ $0.861$ $3.24$ $-$ $-$ $-$
$-1.0$ $0.201$ $0.712$ $31.31$ $-$ $-$ $-$
$-1.5$ $0.199$ $0.698$ $4.87$ $0.232$ $0.684$ $5.64$
$-1.8$ $0.181$ $0.698$ $4.760$ $0.250$ $0.677$ $6.23$
$-2.0$ $-$ $-$ $-$ $0.262$ $0.677$ $3.94$
$-2.2$ $-$ $-$ $-$ $0.274$ $0.698$ $4.56$
\[table\_bestfitpq\]
: Best fit parameters of Sheth-Tormen mass function
Discussion
==========
At the outset a visual inspection of Figure (\[fig\_best\_fit1\]) shows a clear trend in the shape of the mass function with index $n$ of the power spectrum. We also see that the evolution is self-similar across different epochs for all indices. This is as expected for power law models in Einstein-de Sitter background.
In Figures (\[fig\_best\_fit1\]) and (\[fig\_best\_fit2\]) we find that for the more negative indices $n=-1.8$, $-1.5$, $-1.0$ we have a smaller dynamic range in $\nu$ as compared to $n=-0.5$, $0.0$. This is expected given that we have not evolved simulations with these indices over a large range of epochs due to finite boxsize considerations. Since the slope of $f(\nu)$ at the small $\nu$ end is related to $p$ — it is $f(\nu) \propto \nu^{1-2p}$ as $\nu\rightarrow 0$ — one cannot trust these results as much as the results with $n=-0.5$ and $0.0$ which probe $f(\nu)$ out to much smaller values in $\nu$. The best fit values of $(p,~q)$ and $\chi^2_{\rmn{red}}$ are shown in columns 2, 3 and 4 of Table \[table\_bestfitpq\] for every model (column 1). Surprisingly $\chi^2_{\rmn{red}}$ is relatively low for all indices as compared to the index $n=-1.0$. Part of this is due to several outliers for the $n=-1.0$ spectrum which have more than $10\sigma$ deviations. Removing these points we find that $\chi^2_{\rmn{red}} = 11.3$ from the original value of $\chi^2_{\rmn{red}} = 31.6$. The corresponding values of $(p,~q) $ changes to $(p,~q) = (0.22,~0.73)$ from $(p,~q) = (0.20,~0.71)$. In Figure (\[fig\_npq\_relation\]) we also add the best fit value of $p$ and $q$ from the recent work of @2009arXiv0906.1314M, which used $49$ realizations of an LCDM simulation with $640^3$ particles in a box of side $L_\mathrm{box} = 1280 h^{-1}$Mpc. We identify the effective index at $z=0$, by computing .|\_[=1]{} = -
Next we look at the dependence of the two ST parameters $(p,~q)$ on the index of the spectrum $n$ and also their interdependence. In Figure (\[fig\_npq\_relation\]) we find that all the trends seen between $p$, $q$ and $n$ ($n_\rmn{eff}$ for LCDM) are smooth when one considers the LCDM model and the power law models with indices $n=0.0, -0.5,
-1.0$. We find that the relation between $p$ and $n$ is approximately p(n) -0.0605 n + 0.141 \[eq\_pn\] The trends in these parameters show deviations when one adds the models $n=-1.5$ and $-1.8$, especially in the values of $p$; deviations in $q$ are not as drastic. However if we use Equation (\[eq\_pn\]) and fix $p$ for the indices $n=-1.5, -1.8$ and redo the $\chi^2$ analysis to fit $q$ then the $\chi^2$ does not change much, thereby corroborating our argument that the values of $p$ for the models $n=-1.5$, $-1.8$ are unreliable due to the small range in $\nu$. The new values of $p^\mathrm{new}, q^\mathrm{new},
\chi^{2(\mathrm{new})}_{\mathrm{red}}$ are listed in columns 5-7 of Table ( \[table\_bestfitpq\]). Figure (\[extrapol\]) plots the best fit ST curve using the extrapolated value of $p$ for the models $n=-1.5, -1.8$, $n=-2.0$ and $-2.2$. Since we have not probed highly non-linear scales for these models the range of $\nu$ is even more limited, so much so that a full $\chi^2$ minimization for $(p,~q)$ is futile. We therefore do not list the best fit values of $(p,~q)$ in Table ( \[table\_bestfitpq\]) and proceed to do a similar fitting using Equation (\[eq\_pn\]) for the models $n=-2.0$, $-2.2$ and find that $\chi^{2(\mathrm{new})}_{\mathrm{red}}$ is is in the same range as for other models. The values $p^\mathrm{new}, ~q^\mathrm{new}, ~\chi^{2(\mathrm{new})}_{\mathrm{red}}$ for these models are given in columns 5-7 of Table ( \[table\_bestfitpq\]). Again we find that the $\chi^{2(\mathrm{new})}_{\mathrm{red}}$ is reasonable giving credence to the extrapolation of Equation (\[eq\_pn\]).
However the trend between $p,~q$ and $n_\rmn{eff}$ is reversed when we compare with the LCDM runs of @2009arXiv0906.1314M. Here $p$ decreases and $q$ increases with increasing redshift (increasing $n_\rmn{eff}$), at $z=0.5$. It is important to note that in the simulations used in @2009arXiv0906.1314M, it is not possible to probe $\nu < 1$. However at this redshift, $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ has a dominant role thereby making a simple interpretation difficult. We are carrying out a series of numerical experiments where we simulate power law models in a background cosmology with a cosmological constant to develop further understanding of this issue.
@2006ApJ...646..881W reported a reduced $\chi^2_\rmn{red}\sim
5$ for the Sheth-Tormen mass function with their data. Our values of $\chi^2_\rmn{red}$ are similar and confirm that the Sheth-Tormen mass function is inadequate in fitting the data in power law models.
The Sheth-Tormen parameters also show a clear dependence on the index of the spectrum. One approach of alleviating this problem would be to better model barrier shape using simple models like the ones we have here. These can then be used to construct and compare with more complicated barriers arising due to different cosmology and a scale dependant index like the CDM class of models. The other approach can be purely phenomenological: one can use results from simpler models like those studied here and understand how further complications in the model, like running index and different cosmologies, affect the shape of the mass function.
Our focus has been on demonstrating that the mass function has a dependence on the slope of the power spectrum. In this study we have not looked at how a change in the definition of the halo—for example, change in the linking length in FOF halo finder or using the SO halo finder instead of FOF [@1994MNRAS.271..676L; @2008ApJ...688..709T]—affects the mass function. Indeed one expects that the halo definition changes the amplitude of the mass function [@2008MNRAS.385.2025C; @2002ApJS..143..241W; @2008ApJ...688..709T] but we do not expect it to affect our results in a significant manner. We postpone a study of the dependence of the Sheth-Tormen parameters on halo definition to a later paper.
At least one mass function model with dependence on spectrum index have been considered in the literature [@2001NYASA.927....1S]. This is derived by modifying the peaks picture of @1986ApJ...304...15B, in which the initial Gaussian density field is filtered at a certain scale and number density of peaks of a certain height in the smoothed field is taken to be the number density of haloes of mass corresponding to the smoothing scale. @2001NYASA.927....1S modifies this mass function by smoothing the density field with a range of filter sizes and identifying haloes with peaks of varying heights so that more massive haloes correspond to higher peaks. For a power law spectrum of initial density fluctuations, this mass function can be derived analytically and has an explicit dependence on the spectral index.
We compare the @2001NYASA.927....1S mass function with our simulations by using a Gaussian filter instead of real-space top hat in Equation (\[norm\]). We find that the model does not fit our results well.
Conclusions
===========
We summarize the conclusions of the present study here.
- We find that the mass function is not universal and has an explicit dependence on the power spectrum.
- The Sheth-Tormen parameters show a systematic trend with index of the power law power spectrum. We also find that there is a correlation between these parameters.
- Evolution of the mass function $f(\nu)$ in power law models in an Einstein de Sitter background is self-similar, i.e., the functional form does not change with time for a given power law model. We do not expect this in the CDM class of spectra since the effective index, $\neff$, changes with redshift. However, the spectrum dependence of $p$ and $q$ is not very strong, and the range over which $\neff$ varies is not very large, hence the usual ST parameters are an adequate first approximation. Variation of ST parameters becomes relevant if we require a very precise description of the mass function.
- Our $\chi^2$ analysis shows that Sheth-Tormen mass function is inadequate and that better modeling of collapse with more parameters is needed.
- Finite box size considerations impose serious limitations on running simulations with large negative indices of the power spectrum. This end of the spectrum probes the mass function of high redshift objects. The way out would be to run orders of magnitude larger simulations for indices with $n\rightarrow -3$. This is a challenge and would be overcome only in the next generation of simulations. One can possibly use zoom in simulations but the displacements for these models are large, as is the large scale tidal field, and hence the extent to which one can benefit from zoom in simulations is not obvious.
- For models with $n \gg -3$, the rate of growth for $\rnl$ with time is very slow and as a result a large number of time steps are required for evolving the system. The Adaptive TreePM [@2009MNRAS.396.2211B] may be useful for running such simulations.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Computational work for this study was carried out at the cluster computing facility in the Harish-Chandra Research Institute (http://cluster.hri.res.in/index.html). This research has made use of NASA’s Astrophysics Data System. The authors would like to thank Ravi Sheth for useful discussions.
Bagla J. S., Padmanabhan T., 1997, Pramana, 49, 161 Bagla J. S., Prasad J., 2006, MNRAS, 370, 993 Bagla J. S., Ray S., 2003, NewA, 8, 665 Bagla J. S., Ray S., 2005, MNRAS, 358, 1076 Bagla J. S., Prasad J., Khandai N., 2009, MNRAS, 395, 918 Bagla J. S., 2002, JApA, 23, 185 Bagla J. S., Khandai N., 2009, MNRAS, 396, 2211 Bardeen, J. M., Bond, J. R., Kaiser, N., & Szalay, A. S. 1986, ApJ, 304, 15 Barnes J., Hut P., 1986, Nature, 324, 446 Barrow J. D., Saich P., 1993, MNRAS, 262, 717 Bartelmann M., Huss A., Colberg J. M., Jenkins A., Pearce F. R., 1998, A&A, 330, 1 Bartolo N., Matarrese S., Riotto A., 2005, JCAP, 10, 10 Bond J. R., Cole S., Efstathiou G., Kaiser N., 1991, ApJ, 379, 440 Bouchet F. R., Kandrup H. E., 1985, ApJ, 299, 1 Bouchet F. R., Adam J.-C., Pellat R., 1985, A&A, 144, 413 Bryan G. L., Norman M. L., 1998, ApJ, 495, 80 Cohn J. D., Bagla J. S., White M., 2001, MNRAS, 325, 1053 Cohn J. D., White M., 2008, MNRAS, 385, 2025 Cooray A., Sheth R., 2002, PhR, 372, 1 Davis M., Efstathiou G., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1985, ApJ, 292, 371 Efstathiou G., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., Davis M., 1988, MNRAS, 235, 715 Eke V. R., Cole S., Frenk C. S., 1996, MNRAS, 282, 263 Gunn J. E., Gott J. R. I., 1972, ApJ, 176, 1 Heath D. J., 1977, MNRAS, 179, 351 Henry J. P., 2000, ApJ, 534, 565 Hockney R. W., Eastwood J. W., 1988, Computer Simulation using Particles, McGraw-Hill Jenkins A., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., Colberg J. M., Cole S., Evrard A. E., Couchman H. M. P., Yoshida N., 2001, MNRAS, 321, 372 Khandai N., Bagla J. S., 2009, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 9, 861-873 Klypin A. A., Shandarin S. F., 1983, MNRAS, 204, 891 Lacey C., Cole S., 1994, MNRAS, 271, 676 Luki[ć]{} Z., Heitmann K., Habib S., Bashinsky S., Ricker P. M., 2007, ApJ, 671, 1160 Majumdar S., Mohr J. J., 2003, ApJ, 585, 603 Manera M., Sheth R. K, Scoccimarro R., 2009, arXiv, 0906.1314 Merz H., Pen U.-L., Trac H., 2005, NewA, 10, 393 Miller R. H., 1983, ApJ, 270, 390 Nakamura T. T., Suto Y., 1997, PThPh, 97, 49 Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1996, ApJ, 462, 563 Neistein E., Maccio A. V., Dekel A., 2009, arXiv, 0903.1640 Peebles P. J. E., 1980, The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe, Princeton University Press Pillepich A., Porciani C., Hahn O., 2008, arXiv:0811.4176 Power C., Knebe A., 2006, MNRAS, 370, 691 Press W. H., Schechter P., 1974, ApJ, 187, 425 Reed D., Gardner J., Quinn T., Stadel J., Fardal M., Lake G., Governato F., 2003, MNRAS, 346, 565 Reed D. S., Bower R., Frenk C. S., Jenkins A., Theuns T., 2007, MNRAS, 374, 2 Reed D. S., Bower R., Frenk C. S., Jenkins A., Theuns T., 2009, MNRAS, 394, 624 Sheth R. K., Tormen G., 1999, MNRAS, 308, 119 Sheth R. K., Mo H. J., Tormen G., 2001, MNRAS, 323, 1 Sheth, R. K. 2001, The Onset of Nonlinearity in Cosmology, 927, 1 Tinker J., Kravtsov A. V., Klypin A., Abazajian K., Warren M., Yepes G., Gottl[ö]{}ber S., Holz D. E., 2008, ApJ, 688, 709 Warren M. S., Abazajian K., Holz D. E., Teodoro L., 2006, ApJ, 646, 881 White S. D. M., Frenk C. S., 1991, ApJ, 379, 52 White M., 2002, ApJS, 143, 241
\[lastpage\]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'It has been conjectured that for every claw-free graph $G$ the choice number of $G$ is equal to its chromatic number. We focus on the special case of this conjecture where $G$ is perfect. Claw-free perfect graphs can be decomposed via clique-cutset into two special classes called elementary graphs and peculiar graphs. Based on this decomposition we prove that the conjecture holds true for every claw-free perfect graph with maximum clique size at most $4$.'
author:
- 'Sylvain Gravier[^1]'
- 'Frédéric Maffray[^2]'
- 'Lucas Pastor[^3]'
title: 'On the choosability of claw-free perfect graphs'
---
Introduction
============
We consider finite, undirected graphs, without loops. Given a graph $G$ and an integer $k$, a *$k$-coloring* of the vertices of $G$ is a mapping $c : V(G) \rightarrow \{1,2, \ldots, k\}$ for which every pair of adjacent vertices $x,y$ satisfies $c(x) \neq c(y)$. A *coloring* is a $k$-coloring for any $k$. The graph $G$ is called *$k$-colorable* if it admits a $k$-coloring. The *chromatic number* of $G$, denoted by $\chi(G)$, is the smallest integer $k$ such that $G$ is $k$-colorable.
The *list-coloring* variant of the coloring problem, introduced by Erdős, Rubin and Taylor [@ErRuTa79] and by Vizing [@JGT:JGT3190160510], is as follows. Assume that each vertex $v$ has a list $L(v)$ of prescribed colors; then we want to find a coloring $c$ such that $c(v) \in L(v)$ for all $v \in V(G)$. When such a coloring exists we say that the graph $G$ is *$L$-colorable* and that $c$ is an *$L$-coloring* of $G$. Given an integer $k$, a graph $G$ is *$k$-choosable* if it is $L$-colorable for every assignment $L$ that satisfies $|L(v)| = k$ for all $v \in V(G)$ (equivalently, if it is $L$-colorable for every assignment $L$ that satisfies $|L(v)| = k$ for all $v \in V(G)$). The *choice number* or *list-chromatic number* $ch(G)$ of $G$ is the smallest $k$ such that $G$ is $k$-choosable. It is easy to see that every $k$-choosable graph $G$ is $k$-colorable (consider the assignment $L(v) = \{1,2, \ldots, k\}$ for all $v \in V(G)$), and so $\chi(G) \leq ch(G)$ holds for every graph. There are graphs for which the difference between $ch(G)$ and $\chi(G)$ is arbitrarily large. (For example, it is easy to see that the choice number of the complete bipartite graph $K_{p,p^p}$ is $p+1$.)
The above notions can be extended to the problem of coloring the edges of a graph. The least number of colors necessary to color all edges of a graph in such a way that no two adjacent edges receive the same color is its *chromatic index* $\chi'(G)$. The least $k$ such that $G$ is $L'$-edge-colorable for any assignment $L'$ of colors to the edges of $G$ with $|L'(e)|=k$ for all $e\in E$ is called the *choice index* or *list-chromatic index* of $G$. Vizing (see [@JGT:JGT3190160510]), proposed the following conjecture:
\[conj1\] Every graph $G$ satisfies $ch'(G)=\chi'(G)$.
The special case of this conjecture dealing with list-coloring the edges of a complete bipartite graph was known as the Dinitz conjecture, as it was equivalent to a problem on Latin squares posed by Jeffrey Dinitz. Galvin [@Galvin1995153] established the following more general result.
Every bipartite graph $G$ satisfies $ch'(G)=\chi'(G)$.
The problem of edge-coloring can be reduced to a special instance of the problem of vertex-coloring via the line-graph. Given a graph $H$, the *line-graph* ${\cal L}(H)$ of $H$ is the graph whose vertices are the edges of $H$ and whose edges are the pairs of adjacent edges of $H$. Conversely, $H$ is called the *root* graph of ${\cal L}
(H)$. It is clear that $\chi({\cal L}(H)) =\chi'(H)$ and $ch({\cal
L}(H))=ch'(H)$.
In a graph $G$, we say that a vertex $v$ is *complete* to a set $S\subseteq V(G)$ when $v$ is adjacent to every vertex in $S$, and *anticomplete* to $S$ when $v$ has no neighbor in $S$. Given two sets $S,T\subseteq V(G)$ we say that $S$ is *complete* to $T$ is every vertex in $S$ is adjacent to every vertex in $T$, and *anticomplete* to $T$ when no vertex in $S$ is adjacent to any vertex in $T$. The neighborhood of a vertex $v$ is denoted by $N_G(v)$ (and the subscript $G$ may be dropped when there is no ambiguity). The complement of graph $G$ is denoted by $\overline{G}$.
A graph is *cobipartite* if its complement is bipartite, in other words if its vertex-set can be partitioned into at most two cliques. We let $P_n$, $C_n$ and $K_n$ respectively denote the path, cycle and complete graph on $n$ vertices.
Given any graph $F$, a graph $G$ is *$F$-free* if no induced subgraph of $G$ is isomorphic to $F$. The *claw* is the graph with four vertices $a,b,c,d$ and edges $ab$, $ac$, $ad$; vertex $a$ is called the *center* of the claw.
A graph $G$ is *perfect* if every induced subgraph $H$ of $G$ satisfies $\chi(H) = \omega(H)$. A *Berge* graph is any graph that does not contain as an induced subgraph an odd cycle of length at least five or the complement of an odd cycle of length at least five. Chudnovsky, Robertson, Seymour, Thomas solved the long-standing and famous problem known as the Strong Perfect Graph Conjecture by proving the following theorem.
A graph $G$ is perfect if and only if it is Berge.
The special case of the Strong Perfect Graph Conjecture concerning claw-free graphs had been resolved much earlier by Parthasarathy and Ravindra.
Every claw-free Berge graph $G$ is perfect.
Here we are interested in a restricted version of a question posed by two of us [@Gravier:1997:CNE:249460.249532; @Gravier:1998:GWC:1378752.1378756], asking whether it is true that every claw-free graph $G$ satisfies $ch(G) = \chi(G)$.
Every claw-free perfect graph $G$ satisfies $ch(G) = \chi(G)$.
This conjecture was proved in [@Gravier2004211] for every claw-free perfect graph $G$ with $\omega(G) \leq 3$. Here we will prove it for the case $\omega(G) \leq 4$. Our main result is the following.
\[theorem:claw-free-perfect\] Let $G$ be a claw-free perfect graph with $\omega(G) \leq 4$. Then $ch(G) = \chi(G)$.
Our proof is based on a decomposition theorem for claw-free perfect graphs due to Chvátal and Sbihi [@Chvatal1988154]. They proved that every claw-free perfect graph either admits a clique cutset or belongs to two specific classes of graphs, which we defined precisely below.
A *clique cutset* in a graph $G$ is a clique $C$ of $G$ such that $G \setminus C$ is disconnected. A *minimal clique cutset* is a clique cutset that does not contain another clique cutset.
If $C$ is a minimal clique cutset in a graph $G$ and $A_1, \ldots,
A_k$ are the vertex-sets of the components of $G \setminus C$, we consider that $G$ is decomposed into the collection of induced subgraphs $G[A_i \cup C]$ for $i = 1, \ldots, k$. These subgraphs themselves may admit clique cutsets, so the decomposition (via minimal clique cutsets) can be applied further. This decomposition can be represented by a tree, where each non-leaf node corresponds to an induced subgraph $G'$ of $G$ and a minimal clique cutset $C'$ of $G'$, and the children of the node are the induced subgraphs into which $G'$ is decomposed along $C'$. The leaves of $T$ are indecomposable subgraphs of $G$ (subgraphs that have no clique cutset), which we call *atoms*. (This tree may not be unique, depending on the choice of a clique cutset at each node.) Whitesides [@whi] and Tarjan [@tar] proved that for every graph $G$ on $n$ vertices every clique-cutset decomposition tree has at most $n$ leaves and that such a decomposition can be obtained in polynomial time $O(n^3)$. A nice feature is that every graph $G$ admits an *extremal* clique cutset, that is, a minimal clique cutset $C$ such that there is a component $H$ of $G\setminus C$ such that $G[V(H)\cup C]$ is an atom.
A graph is *elementary* if its edges can be colored with two colors (one color on each edge) in such a way that every induced two-edge path has its two edges colored differently.
A graph $G$ is *peculiar* if $V(G)$ can be partitioned into nine sets $A_i, B_i, Q_i$ ($i=1,2,3$) that satisfy the following properties for each $i$, where subsbcripts are understood modulo $3$:
- Each of the nine sets is non-empty and induces a clique.
- $A_i$ is complete to $B_i\cup A_{i+1}\cup A_{i+2} \cup B_{i+2}$ and not complete to $B_{i+1}$.
- $B_i$ is complete to $A_i\cup B_{i+1}\cup B_{i+2} \cup A_{i+1}$ and not complete to $A_{i+2}$.
- $Q_i$ is complete to $A_{i+1}\cup B_{i+1}\cup A_{i+2}\cup B_{i+2}$ and anticomplete to $A_i\cup B_i\cup Q_{i+1}\cup Q_{i+2}$.
We say that $(A_1, B_1, A_2, B_2, A_3, B_3, Q_1, Q_2, Q_3)$ is a peculiar partition of $G$.
\[thm:chvsbi\] Every claw-free perfect graph either has a clique cutset or is a peculiar graph or an elementary graph.
The structure of peculiar graphs is clear from their definition. Concerning elementary graphs, their structure was elucidated by Maffray and Reed [@Maffray1999134] as follows. Let us say that an edge is *flat* if it is not contained in a triangle.
Let $xy$ be a flat edge in a graph $G$, and let $A$ be a cobipartite graph such that $V(A)$ is disjoint from $V(G)$ and $V(A)$ can be partitioned into two cliques $X,Y$. We obtain a new graph $G'$ by removing $x$ and $y$ from $G$ and adding all edges between $X$ and $N_G(x) \setminus \{y\}$ and all edges between $Y$ and $N_G(y)
\setminus \{x\}$. This operation is called *augmenting* the flat edge $xy$ with the cobipartite graph $A$. In $G'$ the pair $(X,Y)$ is called the *augment*.
When $x_1y_1, \ldots, x_ky_k$ are pairwise non-adjacent flat edges in a graph $G$, and $A_1, \ldots, A_k$ are pairwise vertex-disjoint cobipartite graphs, also vertex-disjoint from $G$, one can augment each edge $x_iy_i$ with the graph $A_i$. Clearly the result is the same whatever the order in which the $k$ operations are performed. We say that the resulting graph is an *augmentation* of $G$.
\[thm:mafree\] A graph $G$ is elementary if and only if it is an augmentation of the line-graph $H$ of a bipartite multigraph $B$. Moreover we may assume that each augment $A_i$ satisfies the following:
- There is at least one pair of non-adjacent vertices in $A_i$,
- The bipartite graph whose vertex-set is $X_i\cup Y_i$ and whose edges are the edges of $A_i$ with one end in $X_i$ and one in $Y_i$ is connected (and consequently both $|X_i|,|Y_i|\ge 2$).
In a directed graph $D$, for every vertex $v$ we let $d^+(v)$ denote the number of vertices $w$ such that $vw$ is an arc of $D$.
\[thm:galvin\] Let $G$ be the line-graph of a bipartite graph $B$, where $V(B)$ is partitioned into two stable set $X,Y$. Let $f$ be an $\omega(G)$-coloring of the vertices of $G$, with colors $1,2,\ldots,\omega(G)$. Let $D$ be the directed graph obtained from $G$ by directing every edge $uv$ as follows, assuming that $f(u)<f(v)$: when the common end of edges $u,v$ in $B$ is in $X$, then give the orientation $u\rightarrow v$, and when it is in $Y$ give the orientation $u\leftarrow v$. Assume that $L$ is a list assignment on $V(G)$ such that every vertex $v$ of $G$ satisfies $|L(v)|\ge
d_D^+(v)+1$. Then $G$ is $L$-colorable.
Let $G$ be a graph and let $L$ be a list assignment on $V(G)$. For every set $S\subseteq V(G)$ we set $L(S) = \bigcup_{x \in S} L(x)$. If $f$ is a coloring of $G$, we set $f(S)=\{f(x)\mid x\in S\}$. If $H$ is an induced subgraph of $G$, we may also write $L(H)$ and $f(H)$ instead of $L(V(H))$ and $f(V(H))$ respectively.
For the sake of completeness we recall the classical theorems of Kőnig and Hall. Let $X_1, \ldots, X_k$ be a family of sets. A *system of distinct representatives* for the family is a subset $\{x_1, \ldots, x_k\}$ of $k$ distinct elements of $X_1\cup\cdots\cup
X_k$ such that $x_i\in X_i$ for all $i=1, \ldots, k$. Note that if $G$ is a graph and $L$ is a list assignment on $V(G)$, and the family $\{L(v)\mid v\in V(G)\}$ admits a system of distinct representatives, then this is an $L$-coloring of $G$.
A family $\cal F$ of $k$ sets has a system of distinct representatives if and only if, for all $\ell\in\{1,\ldots,k\}$, the union of any $\ell$ members of $\cal F$ has size at least $\ell$.
A *matching* in a graph $G$ is a set of pairwise non-incident edges.
In a bipartite graph on $n$ vertices, let $\mu$ be the size of a maximum matching and $\alpha$ be the size of a maximum stable set. Then $\mu+\alpha=n$.
Peculiar graphs
===============
\[lem:peculiar\] Let $G$ be a connected claw-free graph that contains a peculiar subgraph, and assume that $G$ is also $C_5$-free. Then $G$ is peculiar.
Let $H$ be a peculiar subgraph of $G$ that is maximal. If $H=G$ we are done. So let us assume that $H\neq G$. Since $G$ is connected there is a vertex $x$ of $V(G)\setminus V(H)$ that has a neighbor in $H$. Let $A_1, B_1, A_2, B_2, A_3, B_3, Q_1, Q_2, Q_3$ be nine cliques that form a partition of $V(H)$ as in the definition of a peculiar graph. For $i=1, 2, 3$ we pick a pair of non-adjacent vertices $a_i\in A_i$ and $b_{i+1}\in B_{i+1}$, and we pick any $q_i\in Q_i$. (All subscripts are modulo $3$.)
If $x$ has no neighbor in $Q_1\cup Q_2\cup Q_3$, then it has a neighbor $a$ in $A_i\cup B_i$ for some $i$; but then $\{a, x,
q_{i+1}, q_{i+2}\}$ induces a claw. Therefore $x$ has a neighbor in $Q_1\cup Q_2\cup Q_3$.
Suppose that $x$ has a neighbor $k$ in $Q_1$ and none in $Q_2\cup
Q_3$. Then $x$ has no neighbor $z$ in $A_1\cup B_1$, for otherwise $\{z, x, q_2, q_3\}$ induces a claw. Also $x$ is adjacent to one of $a_2, b_3$, for otherwise $\{x, k, a_2, b_3\}$ induces a claw; up to symmetry we assume that $x$ is adjacent to $a_2$. Then $x$ is adjacent to every vertex $a\in A_3$, for otherwise $\{a_2, q_3, a,
x\}$ induces a claw; and to every vertex $y\in A_2\cup B_2\cup Q_1$, for otherwise $\{a_3, y, x, q_2\}$ induces a claw; and to every vertex $b\in B_3$, for otherwise $\{b_2, b, q_3, x\}$ induces a claw. Hence $x$ is complete to $A_2\cup B_2\cup A_3\cup B_3\cup Q_1$ and anticomplete to $A_1\cup B_1\cup Q_2\cup Q_3$. So $V(H)\cup\{x\}$ induces a peculiar subgraph of $G$, because $x$ can be added to $Q_1$, a contradiction to the choice of $H$.
Therefore we may assume up to symmetry that $x$ has a neighbor $k\in
Q_1$ and a neighbor $k'\in Q_2$. Note that $x$ has no neighbor $k''\in Q_3$, for otherwise $\{x, k, k', k''\}$ induces a claw.
Suppose that $x$ has a non-neighbor $a\in A_1$. Then $x$ is adjacent to every vertex $u\in A_2$, for otherwise $\{x, k, u, a, k'\}$ induces a $C_5$; and then to every vertex $v\in B_2$, for otherwise either $\{a_2, a, x, v\}$ induces a claw (if $av\notin E(G)$) or $\{x, k, v,
a, k'\}$ induces a $C_5$ (if $av\in E(G)$); and then to every vertex $w\in A_3\cup B_3\cup Q_1$, for otherwise $\{b_2,x,w,q_3\}$ induces a claw. Then $a$ is adjacent to every vertex $b\in B_2$, for otherwise $\{x,k',a,q_3,b\}$ induces a $C_5$; and by the same argument the set $A_1\setminus N(x)$ is complete to $B_2$. It follows that $a_1\in
N(x)$ since $a_1$ is not complete to $B_2$. Then $x$ is adjacent to every vertex $q\in Q_2$, for otherwise $\{a_1, x, q_3, q\}$ induces a claw. But now we observe that $V(H)\cup\{x\}$ induces a larger peculiar subgraph of $G$, because $x$ can be added to $A_3$ and the vertices of $A_1\setminus N(x)$ can be moved to $B_1$.
Therefore we may assume that $x$ is complete to $A_1$, and, similarly, to $B_2$. Then $x$ is adjacent to every vertex $u$ in $Q_2\cup B_3$, for otherwise $\{a_1, x, u, q_3\}$ induces a claw, and similarly $x$ is complete to $Q_1\cup A_3$. It cannot be that $x$ has both a non-neighbor $a'\in A_2$ and a non-neighbor $b'\in B_1$, for otherwise $\{x,k,a',b',k'\}$ induces a $C_5$. So, up to symmetry, $x$ is complete to $A_2$. But now $V(H)\cup\{x\}$ induces a larger peculiar subgraph of $G$, because $x$ can be added to $A_3$. This completes the proof of the lemma.
We observe that (up to isomorphism) there is a unique peculiar graph $G$ with $\omega(G)=4$. Indeed if $G$ is such a graph, with the same notation as in the definition of a peculiar graph, then for each $i$ the set $Q_i\cup A_{i+1} \cup B_{i+1}\cup A_{i+2}$ is a clique, so, since $G$ has no clique of size $5$, the four sets $Q_i, A_{i+1},
B_{i+1}, A_{i+2}$ have size $1$; and so the nine sets $A_i, B_i, Q_i$ ($i=1,2,3$) all have size $1$. Hence $G$ is the unique peculiar graph on nine vertices.
\[lem:colpec4\] Let $G$ be a peculiar graph with $\omega(G)=4$. Then $G$ is $4$-choosable.
Let $(A_1, B_1, A_2, B_2, A_3, B_3, Q_1, Q_2, Q_3)$ be a peculiar partition of $G$. As observed above, we have $|A_i|=|B_i|=|Q_i|=1$ for all $i=1,2,3$. Hence let $A_i=\{a_i\}$, $B_i=\{b_i\}$ and $Q_i=\{q_i\}$, for all $i=1,2,3$. Recall that $a_i$ is not adjacent to $b_{i+1}$, for each $i$. Let $Q=\{q_1,q_2,q_3\}$.
Let $L$ be a list assignment that satisfies $|L(v)|= 4$ for all $v\in
V(G)$. Let us prove that $G$ is $L$-colorable.
First suppose that for some $i\in\{1,2,3\}$ we have $L(a_i) \cap
L(b_{i+1}) \neq \emptyset$, say for $i=1$. Pick any $c\in L(a_1) \cap
L(b_{2})$. Let $G'=G\setminus\{a_1,b_{2}\}$ and let $L'(x)=L(x)\setminus\{c\}$ for all $x\in V(G')$. Clearly, $G'$ is a claw-free perfect graph and $\omega(G') = 3$. Moreover, $G'$ is elementary. To see this, define an egde coloring of $G'$ by coloring blue the edges in $\{q_3b_1, q_3a_2, b_1a_2, b_3a_3, q_2a_3, b_3q_1\}$ and red the edges in $\{q_2b_1, q_2b_3, b_3b_1, q_1a_2, q_1a_3,
a_2a_3\}$; it is a routine matter to check that this edge coloring is an elementary coloring. By [@Gravier2004211], $G'$ is $3$-choosable, so it admits an $L'$-coloring. We can extend this coloring to $a_1$ and $b_{2}$ by assigning color $c$ to them. Therefore we may assume that: $$\label{pec41}
L(a_i) \cap L(b_{i+1})=\emptyset \mbox{ for all } i=1,2,3.$$
Now suppose that there are vertices $u,v\in Q$ such that $L(u) \cap
L(v) \neq \emptyset$. Let $w$ be the unique vertex in $Q\setminus
\{u,v\}$. Pick any $c\in L(u) \cap L(v)$. Let $G'=G\setminus\{u,v\}$. Let $L'(x)=L(x)\setminus\{c\}$ for all $x\in
V(G')\setminus\{w\}$, and let $L'(w)=L(w)$. We claim that the family $\{L'(x)\mid x\in V(G')\}$ admits a system of distinct representatives. Suppose the contrary. By Hall’s theorem, there is a set $S\subseteq V(G')$ such that $|L'(S)|<|S|$. Since $|L'(x)|\ge 3$ for all $x\in V(G')$, we have $|L'(S)|\ge 3$, so $|S|\ge 4$; this implies that either (a) $S\supseteq \{a_i, b_{i+1}\}$ for some $i\in\{1,2,3\}$ or (b) $S$ contains $w$. In case (a), (\[pec41\]) implies that $c$ belongs to at most one of $L(a_i)$ and $L(b_{i+1})$, and so $|L'(S)|\ge |L'(a_i)\cup L'(b_{i+1})|\ge 7$, so $|S|\ge 8$, which is impossible because $|V(G')|=7$. In case (b), since $|L'(w)|=4$, we have $|L'(S)|\ge 4$, so $|S|\ge 5$, which implies that $S$ satisfies (a) again, a contradiction. Thus the family $\{L'(x)\mid x\in V(G')\}$ admits a system of distinct representatives, which is an $L'$-coloring of $G'$. We can extend this coloring to $u$ and $v$ by assigning color $c$ to them. Therefore we may assume that $$\label{pec42}
L(u) \cap L(v)=\emptyset \mbox{ for all } u,v\in Q.$$
We claim that the family $\{L(x)\mid x\in V(G)\}$ admits a system of distinct representatives. Suppose the contrary. By Hall’s theorem, there is a set $T\subseteq V(G)$ such that $|L(T)|<|T|$. Since $|L(x)|=4$ for all $x\in V(G)$, we have $|L(T)|\ge 4$, so $|T|\ge 5$; this implies that either (a) $T\supseteq \{a_i, b_{i+1}\}$ for some $i\in\{1,2,3\}$ or (b) $T$ contains two vertices from $Q$. In either case, (\[pec41\]) or (\[pec42\]) implies that $|L(T)|\ge 8$, so $|T|\ge 9$, that is, $T=V(G)$. But then $T\supset Q$, so (\[pec42\]) implies that $|L(T)|\ge 12$ and $|T|\ge 13$, which is impossible. Thus the family $\{L(x)\mid x\in V(G)\}$ admits a system of distinct representatives, which is an $L$-coloring of $G$.
Cobipartite graphs
==================
In this section we analyze the list-colorability of certain cobipartite graphs with certain list assignments.
\[lemma:x-y-4\] Let $H$ be a cobipartite graph, where $V(H)$ is partitioned into two cliques $X$ and $Y$. Assume that $|X| \leq |Y|$ and that there are $|X|$ non-edges between $X$ and $Y$ and they form a matching in $\overline{H}$. Let $L$ be a list assignment on $V(H)$ such that $|L(x)| \ge |X|$ for all $x \in X$ and $|L(y)| \ge |Y|$ for all $y \in
Y$. Then $H$ is $L$-colorable.
Let $X=\{x_1, \ldots, x_p\}$, and let $y_1,\ldots,y_p$ be vertices of $Y$ such that $\{x_1,y_1\}$, …, $\{x_p,y_p\}$ are the non-edges of $H$. The hypothesis implies that $y_1, \ldots, y_p$ are pairwise distinct. Since a clique in $H$ can contain at most one of $x_i,y_i$ for each $i=1,\ldots,p$, we have $\omega(H)=|Y|$.
We proceed by induction on $|X|$. If $|X| = 0$, then $H$ is a clique with $|L(v)| = |V(H)|$ for all $v \in V(H)$; so $H$ is $L$-colorable by Hall’s theorem. Now suppose that $|X| > 0$. If the family $\{L(v)
\mid v \in V(H)\}$ admits a system of distinct representatives, then this is an $L$-coloring. So suppose the contrary. By Hall’s theorem there is a set $T \subseteq V(H)$ such that $|L(T)| < |T|$. Then $|T|> |X|$, so $T$ contains a vertex $y$ from $Y$, and so $|T|>
|L(y)|\ge |Y|$. Since $\omega(H)=|Y|$, it follows that $T$ is not a clique. So $T$ contains non-adjacent vertices $x, y$ with $x \in X$ and $y \in Y$. We have $|L(x) \cup L(y)| \leq |L(T)| < |T| \leq |X| +
|Y|$, which implies $L(x) \cap L(y) \neq \emptyset$. Pick a color $c\in L(x)\cap L(y)$. Set $L'(w) = L(w) \setminus \{c\}$ for all $w
\in V(H) \setminus \{x, y\}$. Let $X'=X\setminus\{x\}$, $Y'=Y\setminus\{y\}$, and $H'= H\setminus\{x,y\}$. Clearly every vertex $x'\in X'$ satisfies $|L'(x')|\ge |X'|$ and every vertex $y'\in
Y'$ satisfies $|L'(y')|\ge |Y'|$, and $|X'|\le |Y'|$, and there are $|X'|$ non-edges between $X'$ and $Y'$, and they form a matching in $\overline{H'}$. By the induction hypothesis, $H'$ admits an $L'$-coloring. We can extend it to an $L$-coloring of $H$ by assigning the color $c$ to $x$ and $y$.
\[lemma:x-2-y-2\] Let $H$ be a cobipartite graph, where $V(H)$ is partitioned into two cliques $X = \{x_1, x_2\}$ and $Y = \{y_1, y_2\}$, and $E(\overline{H})= \{x_2y_2\}$. Let $L$ be a list assignment on $V(H)$ such that $|L(u)| \ge 2$ for all $u \in V(H)$. Then $H$ is $L$-colorable if and only if every clique $Q$ of $H$ satisfies $|L(Q)|
\geq |Q|$.
This is a corollary of Claim 1 in [@Gravier:1997:CNE:249460.249532]. For completeness, we restate the claim here: [*The graph $H$ is not $L$-colorable if and only if for some $v\in\{x_2,y_2\}$ we have $L(x_1) = L(y_1) = L(v)$ and these three lists are of size two.*]{}
Clearly, if $H$ is $L$-colorable, then every clique $Q$ of $H$ satisfies $|L(Q)| \geq |Q|$. Conversely, if every clique $Q$ of $H$ satisfies $|L(Q)| \geq |Q|$, then by the above claim, applied to the cliques $\{x_1,y_1,x_2\}$ and $\{x_1,y_1,y_2\}$, we obtain that $H$ is $L$-colorable.
\[lemma:x-3-y-2\] Let $H$ be a cobipartite graph, where $V(H)$ is partitioned into two cliques $X = \{x_1, x_2, x_3\}$ and $Y = \{y_1, y_2\}$, and $E(\overline{H})= \{x_3y_2\}$. Let $L$ be a list assignment on $V(H)$ such that $|L(x)| \ge 3$ for all $x \in X$ and $|L(y)| \ge 2$ for all $y \in Y$. Then $H$ is $L$-colorable if and only if every clique $Q$ of $H$ satisfies $|L(Q)|\ge |Q|$.
If $H$ is $L$-colorable then clearly every clique $Q$ of $H$ satisfies $|L(Q)|\ge |Q|$. Now let us prove the converse.
First suppose that $L(y_2)\subseteq L(x_3)$. Since $H\setminus
\{x_3\}$ is a clique, every subset $T$ of $V(H)\setminus\{x_3\}$ satisfies $|L(T)|\ge |T|$, and so, by Hall’s theorem there is an $L$-coloring of $H\setminus \{x_3\}$. Then we can extend any such coloring by assigning to $x_3$ the color assigned to $y_2$.
Now assume that $L(y_2)\not\subseteq L(x_3)$. This implies $|L(x_3)
\cup L(y_2)| \ge 4$. Suppose that the family $\{L(x) \mid x \in
V(H)\}$ does not have a system of distinct representatives. By Hall’s theorem there is a set $T\subseteq V(H)$ such that $|L(T)|< |T|$. By the assumption, $T$ is not a clique, so it contains $x_3$ and $y_2$. It follows that $|L(T)|\ge 4$. Hence $|T|=5$, so $T=V(H)$, and $|L(T)|=4$, and we may assume that $L(x_3)=\{1,2,3\}$ and $L(y_2)=\{3,4\}$ and $L(T)=\{1,2,3,4\}$. Assign color $3$ to $x_3$ and $y_2$. Now assign a color $c$ from $L(y_1)\setminus\{3\}$ to $y_1$ (there may be two choices for $c$). We may assume that this coloring fails to be extended to $\{x_1, x_2\}$; so it must be that $L(x_1)\setminus\{3,c\}$ and $L(x_2)\setminus\{3,c\}$ are equal and of size $1$; so $L(x_1)= L(x_2)= \{b,c,3\}$ for some $b\neq c$, with $b\in\{1,2,4\}$. Suppose that $3\notin L(y_1)$. Then there is a second choice for $c$, and we may assume that this attempt fails similarly. Hence $L(y_1)=\{b,c\}$, with $b,c\in\{1,2,4\}$. If $\{b,c\}=\{1,2\}$, then the clique $Q_1=\{x_1,x_2,x_3,y_1\}$ violates the assumption because $L(Q_1)= \{1,2,3\}$. If $\{b,c\}=\{1,4\}$ or $\{2,4\}$, then the clique $Q_2=\{x_1,x_2,y_1,y_2\}$ violates the assumption because $L(Q_2)= \{b,c,3\}$. So we may assume that $3\in
L(y_1)$, i.e., $L(y_1)= \{c,3\}$. If $c=4$, then $Q_2$ violates the assumption because $L(Q_2)=\{b,3,4\}$. So, up to symmetry, $c=1$. If $b=2$, then $Q_1$ violates the assumption because $L(Q_1)=\{1,2,3\}$. If $b=4$, then $Q_2$ violates the assumption because $L(Q_2)=\{1,3,4\}$. Hence the family $\{L(x) \mid x \in V(H)\}$ admits a system of distinct representatives, which is an $L$-coloring of $G$.
\[lemma:x-3-y-3\] Let $H$ be a cobipartite graph, where $V(H)$ is partitioned into two cliques $X = \{x_1, x_2, x_3\}$ and $Y = \{y_1, y_2, y_3\}$, and $E(\overline{H}) =\{x_2y_2, x_3y_3\}$. Let $L$ be a list assignment on $V(H)$ such that $|L(x)| \ge 3$ for all $x \in V(H)$. Then $H$ is $L$-colorable if and only if every clique $Q$ of $H$ satisfies $|L(Q)|\ge |Q|$. In particular, if $|L(x_1) \cup L(y_1)|\ge 4$, then $H$ is $L$-colorable.
If $H$ is $L$-colorable then clearly every clique $Q$ of $H$ satisfies $|L(Q)|\ge |Q|$. Now let us prove the converse. We first claim that: $$\label{lxiyi2}
\mbox{We may assume that $|L(x_i) \cap L(y_i)| \le 1$ for each
$i\in\{2,3\}$.}$$ Suppose on the contrary, and up to symmetry, that $|L(x_2) \cap
L(y_2)|\ge 2$. Let $H'= H \setminus \{x_2\}$, and set $L'(y_2)=
L(x_2)\cap L(y_2)$ and $L'(u)=L(u)$ for all $u\in
\{x_1,x_3,y_1,y_3\}$. Thus $H'$ and $L'$ satisfy the hypothesis of Lemma \[lemma:x-3-y-2\]. If every clique $Q$ in $H'$ satifies $|L'(Q)|\ge |Q|$, then Lemma \[lemma:x-3-y-2\] implies that $H'$ admits an $L'$-coloring, and we can extend it to an $L$-coloring of $H$ by giving to $x_2$ the color assigned to $y_2$. Hence assume that some clique $Q$ in $H'$ satisfies $|L'(Q)|< |Q|$. We have $|L'(Q)|\ge
2$, so $|Q|\ge 3$, so $3\le |L'(Q)|< |Q|\le 4$, and so $|L'(Q)|=3$ and $|Q|=4$. Since $x_3$ and $y_3$ play symmetric roles here, we may assume up to symmetry that $Q=\{x_1,y_1,y_2,y_3\}$, and $L'(Q)=\{a,b,c\}$, where $a,b,c$ are three distinct colors. Hence $L(x_1)= L(y_1)= L(y_3)=\{a,b,c\}$. Since $|L(Q)|\ge 4$, there is a color $d\in L(y_2)\setminus\{a,b,c\}$. Since $|L(\{x_1,y_1,x_2,y_3\})|\ge 4$, there is a color $e\in
L(y_2)\setminus\{a,b,c\}$. If $a\in L(x_3)$, then we can assign color $a$ to $x_3$ and $y_3$, colors $b$ and $c$ to $x_1$ and $y_1$, color $e$ to $x_2$ and color $d$ to $y_2$. So assume that $a\notin L(x_3)$, and similarly that $b,c\notin L(x_3)$. Then we can assign colors $a,b,c$ to $x_1$, $y_1$, $y_3$, color $e$ to $x_2$, color $d$ to $y_2$, and a color from $L(x_3)\setminus\{d,e\}$ to $x_3$. Thus (\[lxiyi2\]) holds.
It follows from (\[lxiyi2\]) that $|L(x_i)\cup L(y_i)|\ge 5$ for $i=2,3$. If the family $\{L(x) \mid x \in V(H)\}$ admits a system of distinct representatives, then this is an $L$-coloring. So suppose the contrary. By Hall’s theorem there is a set $T\subseteq V(H)$ such that $|L(T)|< |T|$. By the assumption, $T$ is not a clique, so it contains $x_i$ and $y_i$ for some $i\in\{2,3\}$. By (\[lxiyi2\]) we have $|L(T)|\ge 5$, so $|T|\ge 6$, hence $T=V(H)$, and $|L(T)|=5$, and consequently $|L(x_i)|=|L(y_i)|=3$ and $|L(x_i)\cap L(y_i)|= 1$ for each $i=2,3$. Let $L(x_i) \cap L(y_i) = \{c_i\}$ for $i = 2, 3$.
Suppose that $c_2 \neq c_3$. We assign color $c_i$ to $x_i$ and $y_i$ for each $i=2,3$. If this coloring can be extended to $\{x_1, y_1\}$ we are done. So suppose the contrary. Then it must be that $L(x_1)=
L(y_1)= \{b,c_2,c_3\}$ for some color $b\in L(H)\setminus\{c_2,c_3\}$. Then we can color $H$ as follows. Assign colors $c_2$ and $c_3$ to $x_1$ and $y_1$. There are four ways to color $x_2$ and $y_2$ with one color from $L(x_2)\setminus\{c_2\}$ for $x_2$ and one color from $L(y_2)\setminus\{c_2\}$ for $y_2$; at most two of them use a pair of colors equal to $L(x_3)\setminus\{c_3\}$ or $L(y_3)\setminus\{c_3\}$, so we can choose another way, and there will remain a color for $x_3$ and a color for $y_3$.
Now suppose that $c_2 = c_3$; call this color $c$. Let $L'(v) = L(v)
\setminus \{c\}$ for all $v \in V(H) \setminus \{x_3, y_3\}$. We may assume that the graph $H \setminus \{x_3, y_3\}$ does not admit an $L'$-coloring, for otherwise such a coloring can be extended to $H$ by assigning color $c$ to $x_3$ and $y_3$. Hence, by Lemma \[lemma:x-2-y-2\] there is a clique $Q$ of size $3$ in $H
\setminus \{x_3, y_3\}$ such that $|L'(Q)|=2$, say $L'(Q)=\{a,b\}$. So $L(u) = \{a, b, c\}$ for all $u \in Q$. Moreover $Q$ consists of $x_1,y_1$ and one of $x_2,y_2$. We assign color $a$ to $x_1$, color $b$ to $y_1$, and color $c$ to $x_2$ and $y_2$. Since $|L(Q\cup\{x_3\})|\ge 4$, there is a color $d\in
L(x_3)\setminus\{a,b,c\}$, and similarly there is a color $e\in
L(y_3)\setminus\{a,b,c\}$. We assign $d$ to $x_3$ and $e$ to $y_3$, and we obtain an $L$-coloring of $H$.
Finally we prove the last sentence of the lemma. Since $x_1$ and $y_1$ are in all cliques of size $4$, the assumption that $|L(x_1)
\cup L(y_1)|\ge 4$ implies that every clique $Q$ of $H$ satisfies $|L(Q)| \geq |Q|$. So $H$ is $L$-colorable.
\[lem:c2\] Let $H$ be a cobipartite graph with $\omega(H)\le 4$. Let $x,y$ be two adjacent vertices in $H$ such that $N(x)\setminus\{y\}$ and $N(y)\setminus\{x\}$ are cliques and $V(H)=N(x)\cup N(y)$. Let $L$ be a list assignment such that $|L(x)|\ge 2$, $|L(y)|\ge 2$, and $|L(v)|\ge 4$ for all $v\in V(H)\setminus \{x,y\}$. Then $H$ is $L$-colorable.
Let $X=N(x)\setminus\{y\}$ and $Y=N(y)\setminus\{x\}$. Let $I=X\cap
Y$. Since $\{x,y\}\cup I$ is a clique, we have $|I|\le 2$.
First suppose that $|I|=2$. Let $I=\{w,w'\}$. Since $\{x\}\cup X$ is a clique that contains $I$, we have $|X\setminus I|\le 1$. Likewise $|Y\setminus I|\le 1$. We may assume that we are in the situation where $X\setminus I$ and $Y\setminus I$ are non-empty and complete to each other, because any other situation can be reduced to that one by adding vertices or edges (which makes the coloring problem only harder). Let $X\setminus I=\{u\}$ and $Y\setminus I=\{v\}$. Suppose that $L(x)\cap L(v)\neq\emptyset$. Pick a color $a\in L(x)\cap L(v)$, assign it to $x$ and $v$, and remove it from the lists of all other vertices. Pick a color $b$ from $L(y)\setminus\{a\}$, assign it to $y$ and remove it from the list of the vertices in $I$. Let $L'$ be the reduced list assignment. Then $|L'(w)|\ge 2$, $|L'(w')|\ge 2$, and $|L'(u)|\ge 3$, so we can $L'$-color greedily $w,w',u$ in this order. Hence assume that $L(x)\cap L(v)=\emptyset$, and similarly that $L(y)\cap L(u)=\emptyset$. Then $|L(x)\cup L(v)|\ge 6$ and $|L(y)\cup L(u)|\ge 6$. It follows that the family $\{L(z)\mid z\in
V(H)\}$ satisfies Hall’s condition, so $H$ is $L$-colorable.
Now suppose that $|I|=1$. Let $I=\{w\}$. Then $|X\setminus \{w\}|\le
2$ and $|Y\setminus \{w\}|\le 2$. We may assume that we are in the situation where $X\setminus I$ and $Y\setminus I$ have size $2$ and there are three edges between them, because any other situation can be reduced to that one by adding vertices or edges. Let $X\setminus
I=\{u,v\}$ and $Y\setminus I=\{s,t\}$, and let $us,ut,vs\in E(H)$ and $vt\notin E(H)$. Suppose that $L(x)\cap L(s)\neq\emptyset$. We pick a color $a\in L(x)\cap L(s)$, assign it to $x$ and $s$, and remove it from the lists of all other vertices. Then it is easy to see that we can color $y,t,w,u,v$ in this order, using colors from the reduced lists. Hence assume that $L(x)\cap L(s)=\emptyset$, and similarly that $L(y)\cap L(u)=\emptyset$. So $|L(x)\cup L(s)|\ge 6$ and $|L(y)\cup L(u)|\ge 6$.\
Suppose that $L(x)\cap L(t)\neq\emptyset$. We pick a color $a\in
L(x)\cap L(t)$, assign it to $x$ and $t$, and remove it from the lists of all other vertices. Since $L(x)\cap L(s)=\emptyset$, the list $L(s)$ loses no color ($a\notin L(s)$). If $L(y)\setminus\{a\}$ and $L(v)\setminus \{a\}$ have a common element $b$, we assign it to $y$ and $v$, and it is easy to see that $w,u,s$ can be colored in this order with the reduced lists. On the other hand if $L(y)\setminus\{a\}$ and $L(v)\setminus \{a\}$ are disjoint, then it is easy to see that the family $\{L(z)\setminus\{a\}\mid z\in
V(H)\setminus\{x,t\}\}$ satisfies Hall’s condition, so $H$ is $L$-colorable. Hence assume that $L(x) \cap L(t) = \emptyset$, and similarly that $L(y) \cap L(v) = \emptyset$. So $|L(x)\cup L(t)|\ge
6$ and $|L(y)\cup L(v)|\ge 6$.\
Suppose that $L(t) \cap L(v) \neq \emptyset$. Pick a color $a \in
L(t) \cap L(v)$ and assign it to $t$ and $v$. Since $L(y) \cap L(v) =
\emptyset$ and $L(x) \cap L(t) = \emptyset$ we have $L(y) = L(y)
\setminus \{a\}$ and similarly $L(x) = L(x) \setminus \{a\}$. It follows that the family $\{L(z) \setminus \{a\} \mid z \in V(H)
\setminus \{t, v\}\}$ satisfies Hall’s condition. Finally assume that $L(t) \cap L(v) = \emptyset$. So $|L(t)\cup L(v)|\ge 8$. Then the family $\{L(z) \mid z \in V(H)\}$ satisfies Hall’s condition, so $H$ is $L$-colorable.
Finally suppose that $I=\emptyset$. We may assume that $X$ and $Y$ have size $3$ and that the non-edges between them form a matching of size $2$, because any other situation can be reduced to that one by adding vertices or edges. Let $X = \{u_1, u_2, u_3\}$, $Y = \{v_1,
v_2, v_3\}$, and $E(\overline{H})= \{u_2v_2, u_3v_3\}$. We can choose a color $a$ from $L(x)$ and a color $b$ from $L(y)$ such that $L(u_1)
\setminus \{a\} \neq L(v_1) \setminus \{b\}$. Let $L'(u) = L(u)
\setminus \{a\}$ for all $u \in X$ and $L'(v) = L(v) \setminus \{b\}$ for all $v \in Y$. By the last sentence of Lemma \[lemma:x-3-y-3\], $H \setminus \{x,y\}$ admits an $L'$-coloring, and we can extend it to an $L$-coloring of $H$ by assigning color $a$ to $x$ and color $b$ to $y$.
\[lem:c3elem\] Let $H$ be a cobipartite graph, where $V(H)$ is partitioned into two cliques $X = \{x_1, x_2, x_3\}$ and $Y = \{y_1, y_2, y_3\}$, and $E(\overline{H})= \{x_1y_1, x_2y_2, x_3y_3,$ $x_3y_1,$ $x_1y_2\}$. Let $L$ be a list assignment on $V(H)$ such that $|L(x_3)| = 2$, $|L(y_2)| = 2$, and $|L(w)| = 3$ for every $w \in V(H) \setminus
\{x_3, y_2\}$. Then $H$ is $L$-colorable.
Suppose that $L(x_2) \cap L(y_2) \neq \emptyset$. Assign a color $a$ from $L(x_2) \cap L(y_2)$ to $x_2$ and $y_2$. Let $L'(u) = L(u)
\setminus \{a\}$ for all $u\in \{x_1,x_3,y_1,y_3\}$. Then we can $L'$-color $x_3, x_1, y_3, y_1$ greedily in this order, because $x_3$-$x_1$-$y_3$-$y_1$ is an induced path and the reduced lists’ size pattern is $(\ge 1, \ge 2, \ge 2, \ge 2)$. The proof is similar when $L(x_3) \cap L(y_3) \neq \emptyset$. So we may assume that: $$\label{c3elem-eq1}
\mbox{$L(x_2) \cap L(y_2) = \emptyset$ and $L(x_3) \cup L(y_3) =
\emptyset$.}$$
Suppose that $L(x_1) \cap L(y_2) \neq \emptyset$. Assign a color $a$ from $L(x_1) \cap L(y_2)$ to $x_1$ and $y_2$. Let $L'(u)=L(u)\setminus\{a\}$ for all $u\in\{x_2,x_3,y_1,y_3\}$. By (\[c3elem-eq1\]), we have $a\notin L(x_2)$, so $L'(x_2)=L(x_2)$, and $a$ is in at most one of $L(x_3)$ and $L(y_3)$. If $a\in L(x_3)$, then we can $L'$-color greedily $x_3$, $x_2$, $y_1$, $y_3$ in this order. If $a\in L(y_3)$, then we can $L'$-color greedily $y_3$, $y_1$, $x_2$, $x_3$ in this order. The proof is similar when $L(x_3)
\cap L(y_1) \neq \emptyset$. So we may assume that: $$\label{c3elem-eq2}
\mbox{$L(x_1) \cap L(y_2) = \emptyset$ and $L(x_3) \cap L(y_1) =
\emptyset$.}$$
Suppose that $L(x_1) \cap L(y_1) \neq \emptyset$. Assign a color $a$ from $L(x_1) \cap L(y_1)$ to $x_1$ and $y_1$. Let $L'(u)=L(u)\setminus\{a\}$ for all $u\in\{x_2,x_3,y_2,y_3\}$. By (\[c3elem-eq2\]), we have $a\notin L(x_3)$ and $a\notin L(y_2)$. The graph $H\setminus\{x_1,y_1\}$ is an even cycle, and $|L'(u)|\ge 2$ for every vertex $u$ in that graph, so it is $L'$-colorable. So we may assume that: $$\label{c3elem-eq3}
\mbox{$L(x_1) \cap L(y_1) = \emptyset$.}$$
By (\[c3elem-eq1\]), (\[c3elem-eq2\]) and (\[c3elem-eq3\]), we have $|L(u) \cup L(v)| = 5$ whenever $\{u,v\}$ is any of $\{x_2,y_2\}$, $\{x_3,y_3\}$, $\{x_1,y_2\}$, $\{x_3,y_1\}$, and $|L(x_1) \cap L(y_1)| = 6$. It follows that the family $\{L(w) \mid w
\in V(H)\}$ admits a system of distinct representatives, which is an $L$-coloring for $H$.
\[lem:c3b\] Let $H$ be a cobipartite graph with $\omega(G)\le 4$. Let $V(H)$ be partitioned into two cliques $X,Y$ with $X=\{x_1,x_2,x_3\}$, such that $x_1$ is complete to $Y$. Let $L$ be a list assignment such that $|L(x_1)|\ge 3$, $|L(x_2)|\ge 2$, $|L(x_3)|\ge 2$, and $|L(y)|\ge 4$ for all $y\in Y$. Then $H$ is $L$-colorable.
Since $Y\cup\{x_1\}$ is a clique, we have $|Y|\le 3$. If $|Y| \leq
2$, then Lemma \[lemma:x-3-y-2\] implies that $H$ is $L$-colorable. So we may assume that $|Y| = 3$, say $Y = \{y_1, y_2, y_3\}$, and we may assume that $E(\overline{H})= \{x_2y_2,x_3y_3\}$. If the family $\{L(w) \mid w \in V(H)\}$ admits a system of distinct representatives, then this is an $L$-coloring of $H$, so assume the contrary. So there is a set $T\subseteq V(H)$ such that $|L(T)|<|T|$. We have $|L(T)|\ge 2$, so $|T|\ge 3$, so $|L(T)|\ge 3$, so $|T|\ge 4$, so $T\cap Y\neq\emptyset$, so $|L(T)|\ge 4$, and so $|T|\ge 5$. It follows that $T$ is not a clique. Hence assume that $x_2,y_2\in T$. If $L(x_2)\cap L(y_2)=\emptyset$, then $|L(T)|\ge |L(x_2) \cup L(y_2)|
= 6$, so $|T|\ge 7$, which is impossible. Hence $L(x_2) \cap L(y_2)
\neq \emptyset$. Assign a color $c_2$ from $L(x_2) \cap L(y_2)$ to $x_2$ and $y_2$. Define $L'(u) = L(u) \setminus \{c_2\}$ for all $u\in V(H)\setminus\{x_2,y_2\}$. If $L'(x_3) \cap L'(y_3) \neq
\emptyset$ assign a color $c_3$ from $L'(x_3) \cap L'(y_3)$ to $x_3$ and $y_3$. Then we have $|(L'(x_1) \cup L'(y_1)) \setminus \{c_2\}|
\geq 2$, so we can extend the coloring to $\{x_1,y_1\}$. On the other hand, if $L'(x_3) \cap L'(y_3) = \emptyset$, the family $\{L'(w) \mid
w \in V(H) \setminus \{x_2, y_2\}\}$ admits a system of distinct representatives. So $H$ admist an $L$-coloring.
\[lem:c4\] Let $H$ be a cobipartite graph, where $V(H)$ is partitioned into two cliques $X = \{x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4\}$ and $Y = \{y_1, y_2, y_3, y_4\}$, and $E(\overline{H})= \{x_1y_1, x_1y_3,$ $x_1y_4,$ $x_2y_2, x_2y_3,
x_2y_4, x_3y_3, x_4y_4\}$. Let $L$ be a list assignment on $V(H)$ such that $|L(x_1)| = 2$, $|L(x_2)| = 2$ and $|L(w)| = 4$ for all $w
\in V(H) \setminus \{x_1, x_2\}$. Then $H$ is $L$-colorable.
We choose colors $c_1,c_2$ with $c_1\in L(x_1)$, $c_2\in L(x_2)$ and $c_1\neq c_2$, such that if $|L(y_1)\cap L(y_2)|=3$, then either $\{c_1\}\neq L(y_2)\setminus L(y_1)$ or $\{c_2\}\neq L(y_1)\setminus
L(y_2)$. This is possible as follows: if $|L(y_1)\cap L(y_2)|=3$, let $\alpha$ be the color in $L(y_1)\setminus L(y_2)$, then choose $c_2\in
L(x_2)\setminus\{\alpha\}$ and $c_1\in L(x_1)\setminus\{c_2\}$. We assign color $c_1$ to $x_1$ and $c_2$ to $x_2$. Let $L'(y_1) = L(y_1)
\setminus \{c_2\}$, $L'(y_2) = L(y_2) \setminus \{c_1\}$, $L'(x_3) =
L(x_3) \setminus \{c_1, c_2\}$, $L'(x_4) = L(x_4) \setminus \{c_1,
c_2\}$, $L'(y_3) = L(y_3)$ and $L'(y_4) = L(y_4)$. So $|L'(u)|\ge 2$ for $u\in \{x_3,x_4\}$, $|L'(v)|\ge 3$ for $v\in \{y_1,y_2\}$, and $|L'(w)|=4$ for $w\in \{y_3,y_4\}$. Note that the choice of $c_1$ and $c_2$ implies that $|L'(y_1)\cup L'(y_2)|\ge 4$. Now we show that $H\setminus\{x_1,x_2\}$ is $L'$-colorable.
Suppose that $L'(x_3) \cap L'(y_3) \neq \emptyset$. Assign a color $c_3$ from $L'(x_3) \cap L'(y_3)$ to $x_3$ and $y_3$. Define $L''(u)
= L'(u) \setminus \{c_3\}$ for all $u\in\{x_4, y_1, y_2, y_4\}$. Note that $|L''(x_4)|\ge 1$, $|L''(u)|\ge 2$ for $u\in\{y_1,y_2\}$, and $|L''(y_4)|\ge 3$. Assign a color $c_4$ from $L''(x_4)$ to $x_4$. Since $|L'(y_1)\cup L'(y_2)|\ge 4$, it follows that $|(L''(y_1)\cup
L''(y_2))\setminus\{c_4\}|\ge 2$. So we can $L''$-color greedily $\{y_1,y_2\}$ and then $y_4$. The proof is similar if $L'(x_4) \cap
L'(y_4) \neq \emptyset$. Therefore we may assume that $L'(x_3) \cap
L'(y_3) = \emptyset$ and $L'(x_4) \cap L'(y_4) = \emptyset$, and so $|L'(x_3) \cup L'(y_3)| = 6$ and $|L'(x_4) \cup L'(y_4)| =6$. This and the choice of $c_1$, $c_2$ implies that the family $\{L'(w) \mid w
\in V(H) \setminus \{x_1, x_2\}\}$ admits a system of distinct representatives.
\[lem:c3\] Let $H$ be a cobipartite graph with $\omega(G)\le 4$. Let $C$ be a clique of size $3$ in $H$ such that for every $w\in C$, the set $N(w)\setminus C$ is a clique. Let $L$ be a list assignment such that $|L(w)|= 3$ for all $w\in C$ and $|L(v)|= 4$ for all $v\in
V(H)\setminus C$. Then $H$ is $L$-colorable.
If $H$ is not connected, it has two components $H_1,H_2$ and both are cliques of size at most $4$. The hypothesis implies easily that for each $i\in\{1,2\}$ the family $\{L(u)\mid u\in V(H_i)\}$ satisfies Hall’s theorem, and consequently $H$ is $L$-colorable. Hence we assume that $H$ is connected. Let $n=|V(H)|$ and $V(H)=\{v_1, \ldots,
v_n\}$. The hypothesis implies that $n\le 8$. Let $\mu=n-4$. Since $\omega(H)=4$, Kőnig’s theorem implies that $\overline{H}$ has a matching of size $\mu$. We may assume that the pairs $\{v_i,v_{i+\mu}\}$ ($i=1,\ldots,\mu$) form such a matching. We may also assume that $E(H)$ is maximal under the hypothesis of the lemma, since adding edges can only make the problem harder.
First suppose that $n=4$. The hypothesis implies that the family $\{L(u)\mid u\in V(H)\}$ satisfies Hall’s theorem, and consequently $H$ is $L$-colorable.
Now suppose that $n=5$. So $\mu=1$ and $v_1v_2 \in E(\overline{H})$. Up to symmetry, we have either $C=\{v_3,v_4,v_5\}$ or $C=\{v_1,v_3,v_4\}$. If $C=\{v_3,v_4,v_5\}$, then we can $L$-color greedily the vertices $v_3, v_4, v_5, v_1, v_2$ in this order. If $C=\{v_1,v_3,v_4\}$, then we can $L$-color greedily the vertices $v_1,
v_3, v_4, v_5, v_2$ in this order.
Now suppose that $n=6$. So $\mu=2$ and $\{v_1v_3, v_2v_4\}\subseteq
E(\overline{H})$. Up to symmetry, we have either $C=\{v_1,v_5,v_6\}$ or $C=\{v_1,v_2,v_5\}$. Suppose that $C=\{v_1,v_5,v_6\}$. Since $\{v_1,v_2,v_4\}$ is not a stable set of size $3$ and $N(v_1)\setminus
C$ is a clique, $v_1$ is adjacent to exactly one of $v_2,v_4$, say to $v_4$ and not to $v_2$. Then we can $L$-color greedily the vertices $v_1, v_5, v_6, v_4, v_3, v_2$ in this order. Suppose that $C=\{v_1,v_2,v_5\}$. By the maximality of $E(H)$ we may assume that $E(\overline{H})= \{v_1v_2,$ $v_3v_4\}$. Then Lemma \[lemma:x-3-y-3\] (with $X=C$, $Y=V(H)\setminus C$, $x_1=v_5$ and $y_1=v_6$) implies that $H$ is $L$-colorable.
Now suppose that $n=7$. So $\mu=3$, and $\{v_1v_4, v_2v_5,
v_3v_6\}\subseteq E(\overline{H})$. Up to symmetry, we have either $C=\{v_1,v_2,v_3\}$ or $C=\{v_1,v_2,v_7\}$. If $C=\{v_1,v_2,v_3\}$, then, by the maximality of $E(H)$ we may assume that $E(\overline{H})=
\{v_1v_4$, $v_2v_5$, $v_3v_6\}$, and by Lemma \[lemma:x-y-4\] (with $X=C$ and $Y=V(H)\setminus C$), $H$ is $L$-colorable. So suppose that $C=\{v_1,v_2,v_7\}$. For each $i\in\{1,2\}$, $v_i$ has exactly one neighbor in $\{v_3,v_6\}$, for otherwise either $\{v_i,v_3,v_6\}$ is a stable set of size $3$ or $N(v_i)\setminus C$ is not a clique. This leads to the following two cases (a) and (b):
\(a) $v_1$ and $v_2$ have the same neighbor in $\{v_3,v_6\}$. We may assume that $v_1v_3,$ $v_2v_3\in E(H)$ and $v_1v_6,v_2v_6\notin E(H)$. Since $H$ is cobipartite, $\{v_1,v_2,v_3\}$ and $\{v_4,v_5,v_6\}$ are cliques, and by the maximality of $E(H)$ we may assume that $\{v_1v_5,$ $v_2v_4,$ $v_3v_4,$ $v_3v_5\}\subseteq E(H)$ and that $v_7$ is complete to $\{v_1,\ldots,v_6\}$. Pick a color $c$ from $L(v_7)$, assign it to $v_7$, and set $L'(u)=L(u)\setminus \{c\}$ for all $u\in V(H)\setminus\{v_7\}$. By Lemma \[lemma:x-y-4\] (with $X=\{v_1,v_2\}$ and $Y=\{v_3,v_4,v_5\}$), $H\setminus\{v_6,v_7\}$ admits an $L'$-coloring. This can be extended to $v_6$ since $v_6$ has only two neighbors in $H\setminus\{v_7\}$. So $H$ is $L$-colorable.
\(b) $v_1$ and $v_2$ do not have the same neighbor in $\{v_3,v_6\}$. We may assume that $v_1v_3, v_2v_6\in E(H)$ and $v_1v_6,v_2v_3\notin
E(H)$. Since $H$ is cobipartite, $\{v_1,v_3,v_5\}$ and $\{v_2,v_4,v_6\}$ are cliques, and by the maximality of $E(H)$ we may assume that $v_4v_5,v_5v_6\in E(H)$ and that $v_7$ is complete to $\{v_1,\ldots,v_6\}$. Pick a color $c$ from $L(v_7)$, assign it to $v_7$, and set $L'(u)=L(u)\setminus \{c\}$ for all $u\in
V(H)\setminus\{v_7\}$. By Lemma \[lem:c3elem\], $H\setminus\{v_7\}$ is $L'$-colorable. So $H$ is $L$-colorable.
Now suppose that $n=8$. So $\mu=4$ and $\{v_1v_5, v_2v_6, v_3v_7,
v_4v_8\}\subseteq E(\overline{H})$. Up to symmetry we have $C=\{v_1,v_2,v_3\}$. For each $i\in\{1,2,3\}$, $v_i$ has exactly one neighbor in $\{v_4,v_8\}$, for otherwise either $\{v_i,v_4,v_8\}$ is a stable set of size $3$ or $N(v_i)\setminus C$ is not a clique. This leads to two cases: (a) $v_1, v_2,v_3$ have the same neighbor in $\{v_4,v_8\}$; (b) only two of $v_1,v_2,v_3$ have a common neighbor in $\{v_4,v_8\}$.
Suppose that (a) holds. We may assume that $v_1,v_2,v_3$ are all adjacent to $v_4$ and not adjacent to $v_8$. Since $H$ is cobipartite, $\{v_1,\ldots,v_4\}$ and $\{v_5,\ldots,v_8\}$ are cliques, and by the maximality of $E(H)$ we may assume that $E(\overline{H})=\{v_1v_5,v_2v_6,v_3v_7,v_4v_8,v_1v_8,v_2v_8,v_3v_8\}$. By Lemma \[lemma:x-y-4\] (with $X=\{v_1,v_2,v_3\}$ and $Y=\{v_4,v_5,v_6,v_7\}$), $H\setminus\{v_8\}$ admits an $L'$-coloring. This can be extended to $v_8$ since $v_8$ has only three neighbors in $H$. So $H$ is $L$-colorable.
Therefore we may assume that (b) holds. We may assume that $v_1v_4,$ $v_2v_4,$ $v_3v_8\in E(H)$ and $v_1v_8,v_2v_8, v_3v_4\notin E(H)$. Since $H$ is cobipartite, $\{v_1,v_2,v_4,v_7\}$ and $\{v_3,v_5,
v_6,v_8\}$ are cliques, and by the maximality of $E(H)$ we may assume that $E(\overline{H})= \{v_1v_5, v_2v_6, v_3v_7, v_4v_8, v_1v_8,v
_2v_8, v_3v_4\}$.
Suppose that $L(v_3) \cap L(v_7) \neq \emptyset$. Assign a color $c$ from $L(v_3) \cap L(v_7)$ to $v_3$ and $v_7$. Define $L'(w) = L(w)
\setminus \{c\}$ for every $w \in V(H) \setminus \{v_3, v_7\}$. By Lemma \[lemma:x-3-y-2\], $H \setminus \{v_3,v_7,v_8\}$ admits an $L'$-coloring. This can be extended to $v_8$ since $v_8$ has only two neighbors in $H\setminus\{v_3,v_7\}$. So we may assume that: $$\label{c3-eq2}
\mbox{$L(v_3) \cap L(v_7) =\emptyset$.}$$
Suppose that $L(v_1) \cap L(v_5) \neq \emptyset$. Assign a color $c$ from $L(v_1) \cap L(v_5)$ to $v_1$ and $v_5$. Define $L'(w) = L(w)
\setminus \{c\}$ for every $w \in V(H) \setminus \{v_1, v_5\}$. By Lemma \[lem:c3elem\] the graph $H \setminus \{v_1, v_5\}$ is $L'$-colorable. The proof is similar if $L(v_2)\cap L(v_6)\neq
\emptyset$. So we may assume that: $$\label{c3-eq3}
\mbox{$L(v_1) \cap L(v_5) = \emptyset$ and $L(v_2) \cup L(v_6) =
\emptyset$.}$$
Suppose that $L(v_3) \cap L(v_4) \neq \emptyset$. Assign a color $c$ from $L(v_3) \cap L(v_4)$ to $v_3$ and $v_4$. Define $L'(w) = L(w)
\setminus \{c\}$ for every $w \in V(H) \setminus \{v_3, v_4\}$. By (\[c3-eq2\]), we have $c\notin L(v_7)$, so $L'(v_7) = L(v_7)$. Hence and by (\[c3-eq2\]) and (\[c3-eq3\]), the family $\{L'(w)
\mid w \in V(H) \setminus \{v_3, v_4\}\}$ admits a system of distinct representatives. So we may assume that: $$\label{c3-eq4}
\mbox{$L(v_3) \cup L(v_4) = \emptyset$.}$$
Suppose that $L(v_4) \cap L(v_8) \neq \emptyset$. Assign a color $c$ from $L(v_4) \cap L(v_8)$ to $v_4$ and $v_8$. Define $L'(w) = L(w)
\setminus \{c\}$ for every $w \in V(H) \setminus \{v_4, v_8\}$. By (\[c3-eq4\]), we have $c\notin L(v_3)$, so $L'(v_3) = L(v_3)$. By (\[c3-eq2\]), (\[c3-eq3\]) and (\[c3-eq4\]), the family $\{L'(w)
\mid w \in V(H) \setminus \{v_4, v_8\}\}$ admits a system of distinct representatives. So we may assume that: $$\label{c3-eq5}
\mbox{$L(v_4) \cup L(v_8) = \emptyset$.}$$
By (\[c3-eq2\]), (\[c3-eq3\]), (\[c3-eq4\]) and (\[c3-eq5\]), we have $|L(v_i) \cup L(v_j)| = 7$ if the pair $\{i,j\}$ is any of $\{1,5\}$, $\{2,6\}$, $\{3,7\}$ and $\{3,4\}$, and $|L(v_4) \cup
L(v_8)| = 8$. It follows easily that the family $\{L(w) \mid w \in
V(H)\}$ admits a system of distinct representatives.
Elementary graphs
=================
Now we can consider the case of any elementary graph $G$ with $\omega(G) \leq 4$.
\[thm-elementary-omega4\] Let $G$ be an elementary graph with $\omega(G) \leq 4$. Then $ch(G) =
\chi(G)$.
This theorem holds for every graph $G$ with $\omega(G)\le 3$ as proved in [@Gravier2004211]. Hence we will assume that $\omega(G)=4$. By Theorem \[thm:mafree\], $G$ is the augmentation of the line-graph ${\cal L}(H)$ of a bipartite multigraph $H$. Let $e_1, \ldots, e_h$ be the flat edges of ${\cal L}(H)$ that are augmented to obtain $G$. We prove the theorem by induction on $h$. If $h = 0$, then $G={\cal
L}(H)$; in that case the equality $ch(G) = \chi(G)$ follows from Galvin’s theorem [@Galvin1995153]. Now assume that $h>0$ and that the theorem holds for elementary graphs obtained by at most $h-1$ augmentations. Let $(X,Y)$ be the augment in $G$ that corresponds to the edge $e_h$ of ${\cal L}(H)$. In ${\cal L}(H)$, let $e_h=xy$. So $x,y$ are incident edges of $H$. In $H$, let $x=q_xq_{xy}$ and $y=q_yq_{xy}$; so their common vertex $q_{xy}$ has degree $2$ in $H$. Let $G_{h-1}$ be the graph obtained from ${\cal L}(H)$ by augmenting only the $h-1$ other edges $e_1, \ldots, e_{h-1}$. So $G_{h-1}$ is an elementary graph.
Let $L$ be a list assignment on $V(G)$ such that $|L(v)|=\omega(G)$ for all $v\in V(G)$. We will prove that $G$ admits an $L$-coloring.
$$\label{eq:x-y-omega}
\mbox{We may assume that $|X \cup Y| > \omega(G)$.}$$
Suppose that $|X \cup Y| \le \omega(G)$. Let $H'$ be the graph obtained from $H$ by duplicating $|X|-1$ times the edge $x$ (so that there are exactly $|X|$ parallel edges between the two ends of $x$ in $H$) and duplicating $|Y|-1$ times the edge $y$. Let $G_{h-1}'$ be the graph obtained from ${\cal L}(H')$ by augmenting the $h-1$ edges $e_1, \ldots, e_{h-1}$ as in $G$. Then $G_{h-1}'$ can also be obtained from $G$ by adding all edges between non-adjacent vertices of $X\cup Y$. By the assumption, we have $\omega(G'_{h-1})=\omega(G)$. By the induction hypothesis, $G'_{h-1}$ admits an $L$-coloring. Then this is an $L$-coloring of $G$. Hence (\[eq:x-y-omega\]) holds.
Let $X=\{x_1, \ldots, x_{|X|}\}$ and $Y=\{y_1, \ldots, y_{|Y|}\}$. Let $N_X=\{v\in V(G)\setminus (X\cup Y)\mid v$ has a neighbor in $X\}$ and $N_Y=\{v\in V(G)\setminus (X\cup Y)\mid v$ has a neighbor in $Y\}$. By the definition of a line-graph and of an augment, the set $N_X$ is a clique and is complete to $X$; hence $|N_X|\le
\omega(G)-|X|$. Likewise $N_Y$ is a clique and is complete to $Y$, and $|N_Y|\le \omega(G)-|Y|$. Let $\mu$ be the size of a maximum matching in the bipartite graph $\overline{G}[X\cup Y]$. By Kőnig’s theorem we have $\mu+\omega(G)=|X|+|Y|$, so $\mu=|X|+|Y|-4$. Moreover, we may assume that the edges of $\overline{G}[X\cup Y]$ form a matching of size $\mu$ (for otherwise we can add some edges to $G$, in $X\cup Y$, which makes the coloring problem only harder).
The graph $G_{h-1}\setminus\{x,y\}$ is elementary, and it has $h-1$ augments, so, by the induction hypothesis, it admits an $L$-coloring $f$. We will try to extend $f$ to $G$; if this fails, we will analyse why and then show that we can find another $L$-coloring of $G_{h-1}\setminus\{x,y\}$ that does extend to $G$. Let $L'$ be the list assignment defined on $X\cup Y$ as follows: for all $u\in X$, let $L'(u)=L(u)\setminus f(N_X)$, and for all $v\in Y$, let $L'(v)=L(v)\setminus f(N_Y)$. Clearly, $f$ extends to an $L$-coloring of $G$ if and only if $G[X\cup Y]$ admits an $L'$-coloring. By (\[eq:x-y-omega\]) and up to symmetry, we may assume that either $|Y|=4$ (and $|X|\le 4$) or $(|X|, |Y|)$ is equal to $(3,3)$ or $(2,3)$. We deal with each case separately.
[**Case 1:**]{} $|Y| = 4$ and $|X|\le 4$. We have $|N_X|\le 4-|X|$ and $|N_Y|=0$, so $|L'(u)|\ge |X|$ for all $u\in X$ and $|L'(v)|=4$ for all $v\in Y$. Since $\omega(G)=4$, there are $|X|$ non-edges between $X$ and $Y$ that form a matching in $\overline{G}$. By Lemma \[lemma:x-y-4\], $G[X\cup Y]$ admits an $L'$-coloring.
[**Case 2:**]{} $|X| = |Y| = 3$. Here we have $\mu=2$, and we may assume that the non-edges between $X$ and $Y$ are $x_2y_2$ and $x_3y_3$. We have $|N_X|\le 1$ and $|N_Y|\le 1$, so $|L'(u)|\ge 3$ for all $u\in X\cup Y$. If $G[X\cup Y]$ is $L'$-colorable we are done, so assume the contrary. By Lemma \[lemma:x-3-y-3\], there is a clique $Q\subset X\cup Y$ such that $|L'(Q)|<|Q|$. Thus $3\le
|L'(Q)|<|Q| \le 4$. This implies that $|Q|=4$, and in particular $Q$ contains $x_1$ and $y_1$. Moreover $|L'(Q)|=3$, so $L'(x_1)$ and $L'(y_1)$ are equal and have size $3$, so $|N_X|= 1$ and $|N_Y|= 1$. Let $N_X=\{u\}$ and $N_Y=\{v\}$. Thus there are colors $a,b,c,d,d'$ such that $L(x_1) = \{a, b, c, d\}$, $L(y_1) = \{a, b, c, d'\}$, $f(u)=d$ and $f(v)=d'$ (possibly $d=d'$). In other words, $f$ satisfies the following “bad” property: $$\label{badf}
\longbox{Either $L(x_1)=L(y_1)$ and $f(u)=f(v)$, or $|L(x_1)\cap
L(y_1)|=3$ and $\{f(u)\}=L(x_1)\setminus L(y_1)$ and
$\{f(v)\}=L(y_1)\setminus L(x_1)$.}$$
Let $G^*$ be the graph obtained from $G$ by removing all edges between $X$ and $Y$ and adding two new vertices $u^*$ and $v^*$ with edges $u^*v^*$, $u^*x_i$ ($i=1,2,3$) and $v^*y_i$ ($i=1,2,3$). Let $H^*$ be the graph obtained from $H$ by removing the vertex $q_{xy}$ and adding three vertices $q_1,q_2,q_3$, with edges $q_1q_2$ and $q_2q_3$, plus three parallel edges between $q_x$ and $q_1$ and three parallel edges between $q_3$ and $q_y$. So $H^*$ is bipartite, and it is easy to see that $G^*$ is obtained from ${\cal L}(H^*)$ by augmenting $e_1,
\ldots, e_{h-1}$ as in $G$. So $G^*$ is elementary.
We define a list assignment $L^*$ on $G^*$ as follows. For all $v\in
V(G\setminus(X\cup Y))$, let $L^*(v)=L(v)$. For all $v\in X\cup\{u^*,
v^*\}$ let $L^*(v)= \{a, b, c, d\}$, and for all $v\in Y$ let $L^*(v)=
\{a, b, c, d'\}$. By the induction hypothesis on $h$, the graph $G^*$ admits an $L^*$-coloring $f^*$. In particular $f^*$ is an $L$-coloring of $G\setminus(X\cup Y)$. We claim that if $d=d'$ then $f^*(u)\neq f^*(v)$, and if $d\neq d'$ then either $f^*(u)\neq d$ or $f^*(v)\neq d'$. Indeed we have $f^*(X)=
\{a,b,c,d\}\setminus\{f^*(u)\}$ and $f^*(Y)=
\{a,b,c,d'\}\setminus\{f^*(v)\}$, so if the claim fails then $f^*(X)=f^*(Y)$ and consequently $f^*(u^*)=f^*(v^*)$, a contradiction. So the claim holds. By the claim, we can use $f^*$ instead of $f$ above (as an $L$-coloring of $G\setminus (X\cup Y)$), because $f^*$ does not satisfy (\[badf\]); so we can extend it to an $L$-coloring of $G$.
[**Case 3:**]{} $|X| = 3$ and $|Y| = 2$. Here we have $\mu=1$, and we may assume that the only non-edge between $X$ and $Y$ is $x_3y_2$. We have $|N_X|\le 1$ and $|N_Y|\le 2$, so $|L'(u)|\ge 3$ for all $u\in X$ and $|L'(v)|\ge 2$ for all $v\in Y$. If $G[X\cup Y]$ is $L'$-colorable we are done, so assume the contrary. By Lemma \[lemma:x-3-y-2\], there is a clique $Q\subset X\cup Y$ such that $|L'(Q)|<|Q|$. This inequality implies that $Q\not\subseteq Y$, so $Q\cap X\neq\emptyset$. Thus $3\le |L'(Q)|<|Q| \le 4$. This implies that $|Q|=4$, and in particular $Q$ contains $x_1$, $x_2$ and $y_1$. Moreover $|L'(Q)|=3$, so $L'(x_1)$ and $L'(x_2)$ are equal and have size $3$, so $|N_X|= 1$, and $L'(y_1)$ has size at most $3$, so $|N_Y|\ge 1$, and $L'(y_1) \subseteq L'(x_1)$. Let $N_X=\{u\}$. Thus $L(x_1) = L(x_2)$, and $f$ satisfies the following “bad” property: $$\label{badf2}
\mbox{$f(u)\in L(x_1)$ and $L(y_1)\setminus f(N_Y) \subseteq
L(x_1)\setminus \{f(u)\}$.}$$
Let $G^*=G\setminus \{x_3\}$. Clearly $G^*$ is elementary. Let $H^*$ be the graph obtained from $H$ by duplicating the edge $q_xq_{xy}$ (so that there are two parallel edges between $q_x$ and $q_{xy}$) and similarly duplicating $q_yq_{xy}$. It is easy to see that $G^*$ is obtained from ${\cal L}(H^*)$ by augmenting $e_1, \ldots, e_{h-1}$ as in $G$. We define a list assignment $L^*$ on $G^*$ as follows. For all $v\in V(G^*)\setminus \{y_2\}$, let $L^*(v)=L(v)$, and let $L^*(y_2)= L(y_1)$. By the induction hypothesis on $h$ the graph $G^*$ admits an $L^*$-coloring $f^*$. We claim that $f^*$ does not satisfy the bad property (\[badf2\]). Indeed if it does, then $f^*(u)\in L^*(x_1)$ and $L^*(y_1)\setminus f^*(N_Y) \subseteq
L^*(x_1)\setminus \{f^*(u)\}$. Since $L^*(y_2)=L^*(y_1)$, we also have $L^*(y_2)\setminus f^*(N_Y) \subseteq L^*(x_1)\setminus
\{f^*(u)\}$, and this means that the four vertices $x_1,x_2,y_1,y_2$ (which induce a clique) are colored by $f^*$ using colors from $L^*(x_1)\setminus \{f^*(u)\}$, which has size $3$; but this is impossible. So the claim holds. By the claim, we can use $f^*$ instead of $f$ above (as an $L$-coloring of $G\setminus (X\cup Y)$) and we can extend it to an $L$-coloring of $G$. This completes the proof of the theorem.
Claw-free perfect graphs
========================
Now we can prove Theorem \[theorem:claw-free-perfect\], which we restate here.
Let $G$ be a claw-free perfect graph with $\omega(G) \leq 4$. Then $ch(G) = \chi(G)$.
We may assume that $G$ is connected. Let $L$ be a list assignment on $G$ such that $|L(v)|\ge 4$ for all $v\in V(G)$. Let us prove that $G$ is $L$-colorable by induction on the number of vertices of $G$. If $G$ is peculiar, then by Lemma \[lem:colpec4\] we know that the theorem holds. So assume that $G$ is not peculiar. By Theorem \[thm:chvsbi\] and Lemma \[lem:peculiar\], we know that $G$ can be decomposed by clique cutsets into elementary graphs. We may assume that: $$\label{nosimp}
\mbox{$G$ has no simplicial vertex.}$$ Suppose that $x$ is a simplicial vertex in $G$. By the induction hypothesis, $G\setminus \{x\}$ admits an $L$-coloring $f$. Since $x$ is simplicial, it has at most three neighbors. So $f$ can be extended to $x$ by choosing in $L(x)$ a color not assigned by $f$ to its neighbors. Thus (\[nosimp\]) holds.
By the discussion after the definition of a clique cutset (Section 1), $G$ admits an extremal cutset $C$, i.e., a minimal clique cutset such that for some component $A$ of $G\setminus C$ the induced subgraph $G[A\cup C]$ is an atom (i.e., has no clique cutset). Since $C$ is minimal, every vertex $x$ of $C$ has a neighbor in every component of $G\setminus C$ (for otherwise $C\setminus \{x\}$ would be a clique cutset), and it follows that $G\setminus C$ has only two components $A_1, A_2$ (for otherwise $x$ would be the center of a claw). For $i=1,2$ let $G_i=G[C\cup A_i]$. Hence we may assume that $G_2$ is elementary.
By the induction hypothesis, the graph $G[C\cup A_1]$ is $4$-choosable, so it admits an $L$-coloring $f$. We will show that we can extend this coloring to $G$.
By Theorem \[thm:mafree\], $G_2$ is obtained by augmenting the line-graph ${\cal L}(H)$ of a bipartite graph $H$. For each augment $(X,Y)$ of $G_2$, select a pair of adjacent vertices such that one is in $X$ and the other is in $Y$. Also select all vertices of $G_2$ that are not in any augment. It is easy to see that ${\cal L}(H)$ is isomorphic to the subgraph of $G_2$ induced by the selected vertices. Without loss it will be convenient to view ${\cal L}(H)$ as equal to that induced subgraph. We claim that: $$\label{cxy}
\longbox{If there is an augment $(X,Y)$ in $G_2$ such that both $C\cap
X$ and $C\cap Y$ are non-empty, then $V(G_2)=X\cup Y$.}$$ Suppose on the contrary, under the hypothesis of (\[cxy\]), that $V(G_2)\neq X\cup Y$. Let $Z=V(G_2)\setminus(X\cup Y)$. Let $Z_X=\{z\in Z \mid z$ has a neighbor in $X\}$ and $Z_Y=\{z\in Z \mid
z$ has a neighbor in $Y\}$. By the definition of an augment, $Z_X$ is complete to $X$ and anticomplete to $Y$, and $Z_Y$ is complete to $Y$ and anticomplete to $X$, and $Z_X\cap Z_Y=\emptyset$. Since $G_2$ is connected, we may assume up to symmetry that $Z_X\neq\emptyset$. Pick any $z\in Z_X$. Since $G_2$ is an atom, $X$ is not a cutset of $G_2$ (separating $z$ from $Y$), so $Z_Y\neq\emptyset$, which restores the symmetry between $X$ and $Y$. Since $C$ is a clique and has a vertex in $Y$, $C$ contains no vertex from $Z_X$; similarly, $C$ contains no vertex from $Z_Y$; hence $C\subset X\cup Y$. Pick any $x\in C\cap X$. Since $C$ is a minimal cutset, $x$ has a neighor $a_1$ in $A_1$. Then $a_1$ must be adjacent to every neighbor $y$ of $x$ in $Y$, for otherwise $\{x,a_1,z,y\}$ induces a claw; and it follows that $y\in
C$. We can repeat this argument for every vertex in $C$; by the last item in Theorem \[thm:mafree\] it follows that every vertex in $X\cup Y$ is adjacent to $a_1$ and, consequently, is in $C$. But this is a contradiction because $C$ is a clique and $X\cup Y$ is not a clique. Thus (\[cxy\]) holds.
Now we distinguish two cases.
\(I) First suppose that $G_2$ is not a cobipartite graph.
For every edge $uv$ in the bipartite multigraph $H$, let $C_{uv}$ be the subset of $V(G_2)$ defined as follows. If $v$ has degree $2$ in $H$, say $N_H(v)=\{u,u'\}$, and $\{vu,vu'\}$ is a flat edge in ${\cal
L}(H)$ on which an augment $(X,X')$ of $G_2$ is based (where $X$ corresponds to $vu$ and $X'$ corresponds to $vu'$), then let $C_{uv}=X$. If $uv$ is not such an edge, then let $C_{uv}$ be the set of parallel edges in $H$ whose ends are $u$ and $v$. Now for every vertex $u$ in $H$, let $C_u=\bigcup_{uv\in E(H)}C_{uv}$. Note that $C_u$ is a clique in $G_2$. We claim that: $$\label{ccu}
\mbox{There is a vertex $u$ in $H$ such that $C=C_u$.}$$ For every augment $(X,Y)$ in $G_2$ we have $V(G_2)\neq X\cup Y$, because $G_2$ is not cobipartite, and so, by (\[cxy\]), either $C\cap X$ or $C\cap Y$ is empty. It follows that there is a vertex $u$ in $H$ such that $C\subseteq C_u$. Suppose that $C\neq C_u$. Then we can pick vertices $x\in C$ and $x'\in C_u\setminus C$ such that $H$ has vertices $v,v'$ with $x\in C_{uv}$ and $x'\in C_{uv'}$. Since $C$ is a minimal cutset, $x$ has a neighbor $a_1$ in $A_1$. Since $G_2$ is an atom, the set $C_u\setminus C_{uv}$ is not a cutset, so $x$ has a neighbor $z$ in $V(G_2)\setminus C_u$. Then $\{x,a_1,x',z\}$ induces a claw, a contradiction. So $C= C_u$ and (\[ccu\]) holds.
By (\[ccu\]), let $u$ be a vertex in $H$ such that $C=C_u$. Let $D=\{d\in A_1\mid d$ has a neighbor in $C\}$. We claim that: $$\label{dc}
\mbox{$D\cup C$ is a clique.}$$ Pick any $d$ in $D$. First suppose that $d$ is not complete to $C$. Then we can find vertices $x\in C\cap N(d)$ and $x'\in C\setminus
N(d)$ such that $H$ has vertices $v,v'$ with $x\in C_{uv}$ and $x'\in
C_{uv'}$. Since $G_2$ is an atom, the set $C_u\setminus C_{uv}$ is not a cutset, so $x$ has a neighbor $z$ in $V(G_2)\setminus C_u$. Then $\{x,d,x',z\}$ induces a claw, a contradiction. It follows that $D$ is complete to $C$. Now suppose that $D$ contains non-adjacent vertices $d,d'$. Pick any $x\in C$. Then $x$ has a neighbor $z$ in $V(G_2)\setminus C_u$. Then $\{x,d,d',z\}$ induces a claw, a contradiction. So $D$ is a clique. Thus (\[dc\]) holds.
$$\label{dca2}
\mbox{$G[D\cup C\cup A_2]$ is an elementary graph.}$$
Let $H^*$ be the bipartite graph obtained from $H$ by adding $|D|$ vertices of degree $1$ adjacent to vertex $u$. Then it is easy to see (by (\[ccu\]) and (\[dc\])) that $G[D\cup C\cup A_2]$ can be obtained from ${\cal L}(H^*)$ by augmenting the same flat edges as for $G_2$ and with the same augments. Thus (\[dca2\]) holds.
Let $D=\{d_1, \ldots, d_p\}$. (Actually we have $|C|\ge 2$ by (\[ccu\]) and consequently $|D|\le 2$ by (\[dc\]), but we will not use this fact.) Recall that $f$ is an $L$-coloring of $G_1$; so for $i=1,\ldots,p$ let $c_i=f(d_i)$.
The maximum degree in $H^*$ is $\Delta(H^*)=\omega({\cal L}(H^*))\le
\omega(G_2)\le \omega(G)\le 4$. So we can color the edges of $H^*$ with $4$ colors in such a way that vertices $d_1, \ldots, d_p$ receive colors $c_1, \ldots, c_p$ respectively. Let $L^*$ be a list assignment on ${\cal L}(H^*)$ defined as follows. If $v\in V({\cal
L}(H))$, let $L^*(v)=L(v)$. For $i=1,\ldots,p$, let $L^*(d_i)=\{c_1,
\ldots, c_i\}$. By Theorem \[thm:galvin\], ${\cal L}(H^*)$ admits an $L^*$-coloring $f^*$. Now we can use the same technique as in the proof of Theorem \[thm-elementary-omega4\] to extend $f^*$ to an $L$-coloring of $G_2$. Moreover, we have $f^*(d_1)=c_1$ and consequently $f^*(d_i)=c_i=f(d_i)$ for all $i=1,\ldots, p$. Let $f'$ be defined as follows. For all $v\in V(G_1)\setminus C$, let $f'(v)=f(v)$, and for all $v\in V(G_2)$, let $f'(v)=f^*(v)$. Then $f'$ is an $L$-coloring of $G$. This completes the proof in case (I).
\(II) We may now assume that $G_2$ is a cobipartite graph. Let $W$ be the set of vertices of $A_1$ that have a neighbor in $C$. For all $x\in C$, let $N_1(x)=N(x)\cap A_1$, $N_2(x)=N(x)\cap A_2$ and $M_2(x)=A_2\setminus N(x)$. We observe that: $$\label{n12m2}
\longbox{$N_1(x)$ and $N_2(x)$ are non-empty cliques, and $M_2(x)$ is
a clique.}$$ We know that $N_1(x)$ and $N_2(x)$ are non-empty because $C$ is a minimal cutset. For $i=1,2$ pick any $n_i\in N_i(x)$; then $N_i(x)$ is a clique, for otherwise $x$ is the center of a claw with $n_{3-i}$ and two non-adjacent vertices from $N_i(x)$. Also $M_2(x)$ is a clique, for otherwise $G_2$ contains a stable set of size $3$. Thus (\[n12m2\]) holds.
Suppose that $|C|=1$. Let $C=\{x\}$. Then $M_2(x)$ is empty, for otherwise $N_2(x)$ is a clique cutset in $G_2$ (separating $x$ from $M_2(x)$). So $G_2$ is a clique. Then every vertex in $A_2$ is simplicial, a contradiction to (\[nosimp\]). So $|C|\ge 2$.
Suppose that two vertices $x$ and $y$ of $C$ have inclusionwise incomparable neighborhoods in $A_1$. So there is a vertex $a$ in $A_1$ adjacent to $x$ and not to $y$, and there is a vertex $b$ in $A_1$ adjacent to $y$ and not to $x$. If a vertex $u$ in $A_2$ is adjacent to $x$, then it is adjacent to $y$, for otherwise $\{x,a,y,u\}$ induces a claw, and vice-versa. So $N_2(x)=N_2(y)$, and $|N_2(x)|\le 2$ (because $N_2(x)\cup\{x,y\}$ is a clique), and $M_2(x)=M_2(y)$. Suppose that $M_2(x)\neq\emptyset$. Let $C'=\{u\in
C\setminus\{x,y\}\mid u$ is complete to $N_2(x)\}$. Since $C'\cup
N_2(x)$ is a clique, it cannot be a cutset of $G_2$, so some vertex $z$ in $C\setminus(C'\cup\{x,y\})$ has a neighbor $v$ in $M_2(x)$. Since $z\notin C'$, $z$ has a non-neighbor $u$ in $N_2(x)$. Then $za$ is an edge, for otherwise $\{x,a,z,u\}$ induces a claw. But then $\{z,a,y,v\}$ induces a claw, a contradiction. So $M_2(x)=\emptyset$. Thus $A_2=N_2(x)=N_2(y)$. If the vertices in $A_2$ have pairwise comparable neighborhoods in $C$, then it follows easily that the vertex in $A_2$ with the smallest degree is simplicial in $G$, a contradiction to (\[nosimp\]). So there are two vertices $u,v$ in $A_2$ and two vertices $z,t$ in $C$ such that $tu,zv$ are edges and $tv,zu$ are not edges. Clearly $z,t\notin\{x,y\}$, so $|C|=4$. Then $za$ is an edge, for otherwise $\{x,a,z,u\}$ induces a claw; and similarly, $zb,ta,tb$ are edges. Then $ab$ is an edge, for otherwise $\{z,a,b,v\}$ induces a claw. Recall that since $G$ is perfect and claw-free, the neighborhood of every vertex can be partitioned into two cliques, and consequently (since $\omega(G)\le 4$) every vertex has degree at most $6$. Hence $N(x)=\{y,z,t,a,u,v\}$ (because we already know that $x$ is adjacent to these six vertices), and similarly $N(y)=\{x,z,t,b,u,v\}$, $N(z)=\{x,y,t,a,b,v\}$, and $N(t)=\{x,y,z,a,b,u\}$. It follows that $A_2=\{u,v\}$ and $W=\{a,b\}$. Here we view $f$ as an $L$-coloring of $G_1\setminus
(C\cup\{a,b\})$ rather than of $G_1$, and we try to extend it to $\{a,b\}\cup C\cup A_2$. Let $S=\{s\in
V(G_1)\setminus(C\cup\{a,b\})\mid s$ has a neighbor in $\{a,b\}\}$. If a vertex $s\in S$ is adjacent to $a$ and not to $b$, then $\{a,s,b,x\}$ induces a claw, a contradiction. By symmetry this implies that $S$ is complete to $\{a,b\}$. Then $S$ is a clique, for otherwise $\{a,s,s',x\}$ induces a claw from some non-adjacent $s,s'\in S$. So $S\cup\{a,b\}$ is a clique, and so $|S|\le 2$. We remove the colors of $f(S)$ from the lists of $a$ and $b$. By Lemma \[lem:c4\] we can color the vertices of $W \cup C\cup \{u,v\}$ with colors from the lists thus reduced. So $G$ is $L$-colorable.
Therefore we may assume that any two vertices of $C$ have inclusionwise comparable neighborhoods in $A_1$. This implies that some vertex $a_1$ in $A_1$ is complete to $C$, and that some vertex $x$ in $C$ is complete to $W$. Since $\{a_1\}\cup C$ is a clique, we have $|C|\le 3$. We have $W=N_1(x)$ and, by (\[n12m2\]), $W$ is a clique, so $|W|\le 3$. Here we view $f$ as an $L$-coloring of $G_1\setminus C$ rather than of $G_1$, and we try to extend it to $C\cup A_2$. If $|W|=1$ (i.e., $W=\{a_1\}$), we remove the color $f(a_1)$ from the list of the vertices in $C$. Then $G_2$ is a cobipartite graph which, with the reduced lists, satisfies the hypothesis of Lemma \[lem:c2\] or \[lem:c3\], so $f$ can be extended to $G_2$. Hence assume that $|W|\ge 2$.
Suppose that $W$ is complete to $C$. Then $W\cup C$ is a clique, so $|W|= 2$ and $|C|=2$. Let $C=\{x,y\}$. Let $X=N_2(x)$, $Y=N_2(y)$, and $Z= A_2\setminus (X\cup Y)$. Suppose that $Z\neq\emptyset$. By (\[n12m2\]) $Z\cup (X\setminus Y)$ is a clique, since it is a subset of $M_2(y)$. Likewise, $Z\cup (Y\setminus X)$ is a clique. Moreover $X\setminus Y$ is complete to $Y\setminus X$, for otherwise $\{x,y,v,z,u\}$ induces a $C_5$ for some non-adjacent $u\in X\setminus
Y$ and $v\in Y\setminus X$ and for any $z\in Z$. It follows that $X\cup Y$ is a clique cutset in $G_2$ (separating $\{x,y\}$ from $Z$), a contradiction. So $Z=\emptyset$, and $A_2=X\cup Y$. Here we view $f$ as an $L$-coloring of $G_1\setminus C$ rather than of $G_1$, and we try to extend it to $C\cup A_2$. We remove the colors of $f(W)$ from the list of $x$ and $y$. Since $|W|= 2$, each of these lists loses at most two colors. By Lemma \[lem:c2\] we can color the vertices of $C\cup A_2$ with colors from the lists thus reduced. So $G$ is $L$-colorable.
Now assume that $W$ is not complete to $C$. So some vertex $a_2$ in $W$ has a non-neighbor $y$ in $C$. Then $N_2(x)\cup\{y\}$ is a clique, for otherwise $\{x,a_2,u,v\}$ induces a clique for any two non-adjacent vertices $u,v\in X\cup\{y\}$. Suppose that $M_2(x)$ is empty. So $A_2=N_2(x)$. Then the vertices in $A_2$ have comparable neighborhoods in $C$ (because they are complete to $\{x,y\}$ and $|C|\le 3$), so the vertex in $A_2$ with the smallest degree is simplicial, a contradiction to (\[nosimp\]). Therefore $M_2(x)$ is not empty. Since the clique $\{y\}\cup N_2(x)$ is not a cutset in $G_2$, some vertex $z$ in $C\setminus\{x,y\}$ has a neighbor $v$ in $M_2(x)$. Hence $|C|=3$. Then $z$ has a non-neighbor $u$ in $N_2(x)$, for otherwise $\{y,z\}\cup N_2(x)$ is a clique cutset in $G_2$ (separating $x$ from $v$). Then $za_2$ is an edge, for otherwise $\{x,a_2,z,u\}$ induces a claw; and $yv$ is an edge, for otherwise $\{z,a_2,y,v\}$ induces a claw; and $uv$ is an edge since $N_2(y)$ is a clique. Moreover, if $N_2(x)$ contains a vertex $u'$ adjacent to $z$, then $vu'$ is an edge since $N_2(z)$ is a clique. Since this holds for every vertex in $M_2(x)\cap N(z)$, we deduce that $(M_2(x)\cap N(z))\cup\{y\}\cup N_2(x)$ is a clique $Q$. If $v'$ is any non-neighbor of $z$ in $M_2(x)$, then $Q$ is a clique cutset in $G_2$ (separating $\{x,z\}$ from $v'$), a contradiction. So $M_2(x)\subset N(z)$. Suppose that $|W|=3$. Pick $a_3\in
W\setminus\{a_1,a_2\}$. Then $a_3z$ is not an edge, for otherwise $W\cup\{x,z\}$ is a clique of size $5$. So, by the same argument as for $a_2$, we deduce that $a_3y$ is an edge. But this means that $y$ and $z$ have inclusionwise incomparable neighborhoods in $A_1$ (because of $a_2,a_3$), a contradiction. So $|W|=2$. We remove the color $f(a_1)$ from the lists of $x,y,z$ and remove the color $f(a_2)$ from the list of $x$ and $z$. By Lemma \[lem:c3b\] we can color the vertices of $C\cup A_2$ with colors from the lists thus reduced. So $G$ is $L$-colorable. This completes the proof of the theorem.
[1]{}
N. Alon and M. Tarsi. Colorings and orientations of graphs. [*Combinatorica*]{}, 12(2):125–134, 1992.
V. Chvàtal and N. Sbihi. Recognizing claw-free perfect graphs. [*Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B*]{}, 44(2):154–176, 1988.
M. Chudnovsky, N. Robertson, P. Seymour, R. Thomas, The strong perfect graph theorem. [*Annals of Mathematics*]{}, 164:51–229, 2006.
P. Erdős, A. L. Rubin, and H. Taylor. Choosability in graphs. [*Congressus Numerantium*]{}, 26:125–157, 1979.
F. Galvin. The list chromatic index of a bipartite multigraph. [*Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B*]{}, 63(1):153–158, 1995.
S. Gravier and F. Maffray. Choice number of 3-colorable elementary graphs. [*Discrete Math.*]{}, 165-166(15):353–358, March 1997.
S. Gravier and F. Maffray. Graphs whose choice number is equal to their chromatic number. [*J. Graph Theory*]{}, 27(2):87–97, February 1998.
S. Gravier and F. Maffray. On the choice number of claw-free perfect graphs. [*Discrete Mathematics*]{}, 276(1‰¥ã3):211–218, 2004. 6th International Conference on Graph Theory.
R. Häggkvist and A. Chetwynd. Some upper bounds on the total and list chromatic numbers of multigraphs. [*Journal of Graph Theory*]{}, 16(5):503–516, 1992.
P. Hall. On Representatives of Subsets. [*Classic Papers in Combinatorics*]{}, 55–62, 1987.
F. Maffray and B.A. Reed. A description of claw-free perfect graphs. [*Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B*]{}, 75(1):134–156, 1999.
K.R. Parthasarathy and G. Ravindra. The strong perfect-graph conjecture is true for $K_{1,3}$-free graphs. [*Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B*]{}, 21(3):212–223, 1976.
A. Schrijver. [*Combinatorial Optimization : Polyhedra and Efficiency.*]{} Springer, 2003.
R.E. Tarjan. Decomposition by clique separators. [*Discrete Mathematics*]{}, 55:221-232, 1985.
S.H. Whitesides. An algorithm for finding clique cut-sets. [*Information Processing Letters*]{}, 12:31–32, 1981.
[^1]: CNRS, Institut Fourier, University of Grenoble, France.
[^2]: CNRS, Laboratoire G-SCOP, University of Grenoble, France.
[^3]: Laboratoire G-SCOP, University of Grenoble, France.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'In this review, we discuss whether the present solar dynamo models can be extrapolated to explain various aspects of stellar activity. We begin with a summary of the following kinds of data for solar-like stars: (i) data pertaining to stellar cycles from Ca H/K emission over many years; (ii) X-ray data indicating hot coronal activity; (iii) starspot data (especially about giant polar spots); and (iv) data pertaining to stellar superflares. Then we describe the current status of solar dynamo modelling—giving an introduction to the flux transport dynamo model, the currently favoured model for the solar cycle. While an extrapolation of this model to solar-like stars can explain some aspects of observational data, some other aspects of the data still remain to be theoretically explained. It is not clear right now whether we need a different kind of dynamo mechanism for stars having giant starspots or producing very strong superflares.'
author:
- |
Arnab Rai Choudhuri\
*Department of Physics\
*Indian Institute of Science\
*Bangalore – 560012. India***
title: 'Starspots, Stellar Cycles and Stellar Flares: Lessons from Solar Dynamo Models'
---
Introduction
============
In elementary textbooks on astrophysics \[1, 2\], a star is usually modelled as a non-rotating, non-magnetic spherically symmetric object. It is the presence of rotation (especially differential rotation) and magnetic field that makes a real star a much more intriguing object, leading to many related phenomena which we collectively call ‘stellar activity’. Although the study of stellar activity has become a thriving research field only within the last few decades, there is a long history of astronomers studying such activity of the Sun. It was Galileo \[3\] who first discovered the solar rotation in 1613 from the changing positions of sunspots on the solar disk. When Hale discovered in 1908 \[4\] that sunspots are regions of strong magnetic fields, it was the first discovery of magnetic fields in an astronomical system and ushered in a new era in astronomy with the realization that magnetic fields are ubiquitous in the astronomical universe. We now know that there is an intimate relation between the rotation and the magnetic field of a star. Rotation plays a key role in the dynamo process which presumably generates the magnetic field.
Since we can resolve the solar surface and observe the magnetic activities taking place there in considerable detail, solar astronomers have collected data for solar activity for more than a century. Large sunspots can have sizes of the order of 10,000 km with magnetic field typically of strength 3000 G. Well before Hale’s discovery of magnetic fields in sunspots, Schwabe had noted in 1844 \[5\] that the number of sunspots seen on the solar surface waxes and wanes periodically. The sunspot cycle is approximately 11 years and was recognized as the magnetic activity cycle of the Sun after Hale’s discovery of magnetic fields in sunspots. A major development in solar astronomy was the realization in the 1940s that the solar corona is much hotter than the solar surface \[6\]. The hottest regions of the corona, where temperatures can be more than $2 \times
10^6$ K, usually are found to overlie sunspot complexes, indicating that magnetic fields play a crucial role in the heating of the corona \[7\]. Another dramatic manifestation of solar activity is the solar flare. First discovered by Carrington in 1859 \[8\], a large flare can release energy of the order of $10^{32}$ erg. The fact that flares occur in regions of complex magnetic fields around sunspots or decayed active regions clearly shows that a flare is also caused by the magnetic field and is another manifestation of the solar magnetic activity.
One intriguing question is whether other stars also have spots, activity cycles, coronae and flares. Since a normal star appears as an unresolved point of light even through the largest telescope, this question cannot be answered by direct observations. However, using ingenious techniques, astronomers have succeeded in gathering a large amount of information about stellar activity within the last few decades. It is found that some stars are much more magnetically active than the Sun. We have evidence for starspots much larger than the largest sunspots and stellar flares much more energetic than the most energetic solar flares.
Along with the observational study of solar activity, considerable amount of theoretical research has been carried out to understand the different manifestations of solar activity. Within the last few years, solar dynamo models have become sufficiently sophisticated and are used now to explain different aspects of solar activity. The main question we would like to discuss in the present review is whether the solar dynamo models can be extrapolated to other stars and explain their activities. As we shall see, some aspects of stellar activity can be explained readily by extrapolating solar dynamo models. However, it is not easy to explain very large starspots or very energetic flares by a straightforward extrapolation of the physics of the Sun. This raises the question whether dynamo action in some of these stars is of a qualitatively different nature from the solar dynamo. We still do not have a good answer to this question.
Let us begin with a disclaimer. The author of this review is not an expert on stellar activity and has only a limited knowledge of this subject. Still he has undertaken to write this review because he is not aware of any comprehensive review covering this increasingly important field of extrapolating solar dynamo models to explain different aspects of stellar activity. Some early monographs \[9, 10\] had limited discussions on this subject and a review by Brun et al. \[11\] covered some aspects. Presumably even an incomplete and unsatisfactory survey of this important subject will be of help to many astronomers, until somebody more competent writes a better review. Within the last few years, there have been some conferences with the aim of bringing together the two communities working on solar activity and stellar activity. On the basis of his experience of attending a few such conferences (notably, IAU Symposium 273 — [*Physics of Sun and Star Spots*]{} \[12\]; IAU Symposium 286 — [*Comparative Magnetic Minima: Characterizing Quiet Times in the Sun and Stars*]{} \[13\]), it became clear to the author that often there is a large communication gap between these communities. Hopefully a solar physicist not knowing much about stellar activity will get an idea from this review of solar-like activity phenomena in other stars. On the other hand, stellar astronomers not knowing much about the recent advances in solar dynamo theory will form an idea where the theoretical efforts stand now.
The next Section summarizes the salient features of observational data related to stellar activity. Then § 3 gives an introduction to the flux transport dynamo model, the currently favoured theoretical model of the solar cycle. Afterwards we shall discuss in § 4 whether the flux transport dynamo model can be extrapolated to solar-like stars to model their activity. Our conclusions are summarized in § 5.
Observational data of stellar activity
======================================
The first indication that some stars are magnetically active came from observations in Calcium H/K lines. These lines form in the chromosphere somewhat above the stellar photosphere where the optical depth for these lines becomes $\approx 1$. If this region has a temperature less than the photosphere, then we expect absorption lines in Ca H/K. However, if this region gets heated up due to the presence of the magnetic activity, then there can be an emission core. Research in the field of stellar activity began with the discovery by Eberhard and Schwarzschild in 1913 \[14\] that the spectra of some stars show emission in Ca H/K. It was later found by Wilson and Bappu \[15\] that the width of the Ca H/K lines is correlated with the absolute magnitude of the star—this correlation being now known as the [*Wilson–Bappu effect*]{}. Stellar chromospheric activity has been reviewed by Hall \[16\].
Before we start discussing the observational data in more detail, we would like to point out one important physical effect. The dynamo process which generates the magnetic activity in stars is powered by convection taking place inside the stars. So we expect the magnetic activity to be visible at the surface in those stars which have an outer shell of convection below their surfaces. This is the case for the late-type stars occupying the right side of the Hertzsprung–Russell (HR) diagram. On the other hand, the early-type stars occupying the left side of the HR diagram have convective cores. Even if the dynamo process takes place in the core, the magnetic field is unlikely to come out through the stable surrounding layers having high electrical conductivity. That is why we expect to find evidence for stellar activity primarily in the late-type stars. We shall see that this expectation is borne out by observational data.
What we present below is a very incomplete survey of a few selective aspects of stellar activity to which dynamo modellers should pay attention. The subject of asteroseismology, which may play an important role in stellar dynamo modelling in future, is outside the scope of this review (see \[11\] for the current status of asteroseismology). We do not make any attempt of providing a comprehensive bibliography. Rather, the discussion is centred around a few key papers of historical importance.
Stellar activity cycles
-----------------------
If other solar-like stars also have activity cycles like the 11-year solar cycle, then we would expect the Ca H/K emission to vary with the stellar cycle. We need to monitor the Ca H/K emission from a star for several years in order to find out if the star has a cycle. In the 1960s Olin Wilson (of Wilson–Bappu effect fame) started an ambitious programme at Mount Wilson Observatory of monitoring Ca H/K emission from a large number of stars. After collecting data for several years, Wilson reported the discovery of stellar cycles \[17\]. The most comprehensive presentation of data from this project can be found in the paper by Baliunas et al. \[18\] published shortly after Wilson’s death. Figure 1 is a panel from this paper showing the variation in Ca H/K emission with time for several stars. Many stars were found to have regular periods. Some stars showed more irregular variations in Ca H/K indicating the existence of grand minima as in the Sun (such as the Maunder minimum in the seventeenth century).
The Ca H/K emission averaged over a few years is a good index of a star’s magnetic activity. Figure 2 taken from a paper by Vaughan and Preston \[19\] shows the averaged Ca H/K emission from many stars plotted against their spectral type. As we already pointed out, we expect visible manifestations of magnetic activity mainly from the late-type stars and this is what is seen in Figure 2. Very curiously, one sees a gap in Figure 2 between two bands of data points. This is known as the [*Vaughan–Preston gap*]{} and the theoretical reason behind it is still not fully understood.
If the dynamo process producing the magnetic activity depends on rotation, then we would expect more rapidly rotating stars to have stronger magnetic activity. This was established by Noyes et al. in 1984 \[20\]. When they plotted the averaged Ca H/K data against rotation period, they found that there was statistically more Ca H/K emission from stars with shorter rotation period, but there was considerable scatter in the plot. Very intriguingly, when they plotted the averaged Ca H/K emission against the Rossby number (i.e. the ratio of the rotation period and the convective turnover time), the scatter was significantly reduced. Figure 3 reproduces a famous plot from their paper. There is evidence that stellar rotations slow down with age \[21\]—presumably as a result of stars losing angular momentum through stellar wind, like what is believed to happen in the Sun. Though there is likely to be a spread in rotation periods when new stars are born, a longer rotation period (the right side of Figure 3) statistically implies an older star. So Figure 3 can be viewed as a plot showing that stellar activity decreases with stellar age.
If the Ca H/K emission from a star is roughly periodic, one can measure the stellar activity period and study its relation with the stellar rotation period \[22, 23\]. Figure 4 taken from Noyes, Weiss and Vaughan \[22\] is a plot of inverse cycle period against the inverse of Rossby number. It is found that stars with shorter rotation periods tend to have shorter activity cycle periods. As we shall see later, this observational result has proved particularly challenging to explain with the flux transport dynamo model, although it could be explained very easily with the older $\alpha \Omega$ dynamo model \[22\].
Stellar coronae and X-ray emission
----------------------------------
A hot gas having temperature of the order of a million degrees is expected to emit X-rays. The first X-ray images of the hot solar corona were obtained by Skylab in the early 1970s. More recent space missions like Yohkoh, SoHO, TRACE and Hinode have provided spectacular images of the solar corona obtained in X-rays or extreme ultraviolet. For other stars, we cannot expect to image their coronae. But, if they have hot coronae, then we can expect to detect X-ray emission from the stars.
The Einstein X-ray Observatory was able to detect X-ray emission from many stars: both early-type and late-type \[24\]. For the early-type stars, the strength of X-ray emission was found to be proportional to luminosity, suggesting that the X-ray emission from these stars was related to their overall structure and not to their magnetic activity. In the case of late-type stars, however, their X-ray brightness was found to be correlated with the Ca H/K emission \[25\], as seen in Figure 5. This clearly indicates that the X-ray emission in these stars is related to magnetic activity like the Ca H/K emission and presumably must be coming from the hot coronae.
Just as stars with low Rossby number (i.e. more rapidly rotating) have higher Ca H/K emission, they are expected to have more extensive coronae and stronger X-ray emission as well. This was actually found \[26, 27\] as shown in Figure 6, where X-ray brightnesses of different late-type stars are plotted against their Rossby number. We find the data points distributed around a curve with only a modest scatter, as in the case of Figure 3, which was a similar plot with Ca H/K emission rather than X-ray emission.
Starspot imaging
----------------
Can we map spots on the surface of a star which we are unable to resolve? The very ingenious technique of Doppler imaging, pioneered by Vogt and Penrod in the early 1980s \[28\], has now made this possible. Figure 7 explains this technique. If a star is rotating around its axis, the part moving towards us will have spectral lines blue-shifted, whereas the part moving away will have them red-shifted. Since the star is not resolved by the telescope, the net result is the broadening of the spectral line. Now suppose there is a large starspot. When it is in the part moving towards us, there is less contribution to the blue-shifted part of the spectral line. As a result, there will be a bump in the blue-shifted part of the spectral line. As the starspot moves across the surface of the star and goes to the part moving away, the bump will move towards the red-shifted part of the spectral line. By analyzing the movement of the bump across the spectral line, it is possible to figure out the size and the location (i.e. the latitude) of the starspot.
Through this Doppler imaging technique, many stars have been found to have very large starspots. What is more remarkable, these giant starspots are often found in the polar regions of stars—especially in the case of rapidly rotating stars. Figure 8 shows a giant polar starspot mapped by Strassmeier \[29\]. We shall later discuss the possible reasons behind these starspots appearing near the poles, in contrast to sunspots which usually appear within 40$^{\circ}$ of the solar equator. The field of observational study of starspots has really blossomed in the last few years. The evolution and decay of giant starspots have been studied \[30\]. It has also become possible to do magnetic field measurements of starspots through the Zeeman–Doppler technique \[31\]. The readers are referred to the comprehensive reviews by Berdyugina \[32\] and Strassmeier \[33\] for an account of the field of starspots, whereas the subject of magnetic field measurement of late-type stars is reviewed by Reiners \[34\].
Differential rotation plays a crucial role in the dynamo process. It has been possible to estimate the surface differential rotation of some stars from the study of starspots \[35\]. Another intriguing aspect of starspots which should be a challenge for dynamo modellers is the so-called ‘flip-flop’: the observational indication that some stars have starspots separated by 180$^{\circ}$ in longitude which alternate in strength \[36, 37\].
Stellar flares
--------------
The most powerful solar flares release energy of the order of at most $10^{32}$ erg. Curiously, the first solar flare recorded by any human being, the Carrington flare of 1859 \[8\], has so far remained the most powerful flare recorded and presumably had an energy of such magnitude. Even at its peak, such a flare would not increase the overall brightness of the Sun by more than 1%. It will be extremely hard to detect such a flare in a distant star. Only when the stellar flare is a much more energetic superflare ($\approx$ 10$^{33}$ – 10$^{34}$ erg) and leads to an appreciable temporary increase in the luminosity of a star, we have a good chance of detecting it. Since there is no way of knowing in advance when a stellar flare is going to take place, the first detections of stellar flares were serendipitous detections when a superflare occurred while a star was being observed \[38\].
A systematic study of stellar flares became possible only after the launch of the Kepler mission aimed at discovering exoplanets. This mission continuously monitors the brightness of about 145,000 stars in a fixed field of view. Analyzing the data of this mission, Maehara et al. \[39\] reported the discovery of 365 superflares. Figure 9 shows the brightness variations of two stars in which superflares were seen. Initially it was thought that the occurrence of a superflare required a close binary companion, like a ‘hot Jupiter’ (i.e. a nearby massive planet). However, it was found that 14 of these superflares took place in slowly rotating stars, which do not have any close companions.
Although the number 365 of stellar superflares is not very large to do a completely reliable statistical analysis, one can still study the occurrence statistics. Figure 10 taken from Shibata et al. \[40\] shows the occurrence statistics of these superflares in the same plot with the occurrence statistics of solar flares as well as microflares and nanoflares occuring on the Sun. All these different kinds of flares seem to obey the same power law to a good approximation.
The most powerful solar flare in recent times was the 1989 flare which caused a 8-hour power blackout in Quebec (the regions around the geomagnetic pole being affected the maximum). The 1859 Carrington flare has been estimated to be about three times more powerful than the 1989 flare \[41\]. These flares involved energy of order 10$^{32}$ erg. If one believes the occurrence statistics based on 14 superflares that occurred in slowly rotating solar-like stars, then a flare of energy 10$^{34}$ erg is expected in 800 years and a flare of energy 10$^{35}$ erg in 5000 years \[39\]. If flares of such strength do occur and affect the Earth, it will have a disastrous effect on our current technology-dominated human civilization. Hence it is a very important question whether such superflares can occur on our Sun. We shall come back to this question later.
The flux transport dynamo model of the solar cycle
==================================================
After summarizing the salient features of stellar magnetic activity, we now introduce the flux transport dynamo model of the solar cycle, before coming to the question of providing theoretical explanations for different aspects of stellar activity in the next Section. It is the nonlinear interaction between the magnetic field and the velocity field within the solar convection zone which sustains the solar magnetic field and produces the solar cycle. One of the remarkable developments in solar physics within the last few decades has been helioseismology, which has provided a huge amount of information about large-scale flows in the solar convection zone such as the differential rotation and the meridional circulation. It is the lack of such detailed information about the flow fields inside stars which hampers the development of stellar dynamo models.
The toroidal and the poloidal magnetic fields of the Sun
--------------------------------------------------------
Sunspots often appear in pairs at approximately the same solar latitude. When Hale et al. \[42\] discovered in 1919 that the two sunspots of a typical pair have opposite magnetic polarity (the polarity sense being opposite in the two hemispheres), it became clear that there must be some toroidal magnetic flux system underneath the solar surface from which magnetic strands rise to the solar surface to produce the bipolar sunspots. We, therefore, assume the sunspots to be a proxy for the toroidal field. With the discovery of the much weaker magnetic field near the Sun’s polar region by Babcock and Babcock \[43\], it was established that the Sun has a poloidal magnetic field as well. Now we know that the polar field appears weak (about 10 G) only in low-resolution magnetograms, but is actually concentrated inside magnetic flux bundles to strength of order 1000 G \[44\]. The theoretical understanding of why the magnetic field at the solar surface appears intermittent comes the study of magnetoconvection, first pioneered by Chandrasekhar \[45\]. Further work by Weiss \[46\] and others established that the interaction with convection makes magnetic field confined within flux concentrations. It is believed that the magnetic field exists in the form of magnetic flux tubes throughout the solar convection zone.
In a pathbreaking work in 1955, Parker \[47\] developed the scenario that the toroidal and the poloidal magnetic fields of the Sun sustain each other. Although we now believe that some important modifications of Parker’s ideas are needed, the overall scenario of the toroidal and poloidal fields sustaining each other gets support from the observational data of the solar polar magnetic fields. Figure 11 shows the time variation of the magnetic fields at the two poles of the Sun, along with the sunspot number plotted below. It is seen that the sunspot number, which is an indication of the strength of the toroidal component, becomes maximum around the time when the polar field (the manifestation of the poloidal component) is close to zero. On the other hand, the polar fields are strongest when the sunspot number is close to zero.
The generation and the dynamics of the toroidal field
-----------------------------------------------------
In order to have the kind of oscillation between the toroidal and poloidal fields seen in Figure 11, we need processes to generate the toroidal field from the poloidal field and to generate the poloidal field from the toroidal field. Since we are dealing with a high magnetic Reynolds number situation and the magnetic field is approximately frozen in the plasma (see, for example, Choudhuri \[49\]), differential rotation is expected to stretch out the poloidal field to produce the toroidal field. Since helioseismology has discovered that the region of strong differential rotation (known as the tachocline) is concentrated near the bottom of the convection zone \[50\], we expect the strong toroidal field to be generated there. Interaction with convection presumably keeps this toroidal field concentrated within toroidal magnetic flux tubes. Parker \[51\] proposed the idea of magnetic buoyancy that the magnetic pressure inside the flux tube may make it expand and cause a decrease in density, making the flux tube buoyant. It is found that the magnetic buoyancy is particularly destabilizing within the convection zone, but is suppressed to a large extent below its bottom \[52, 53\]. Since the toroidal flux tube is created by the differential rotation of the tachocline exactly at the bottom of the convection zone, a part of it may come within the convection zone, become buoyant and rise through the convection zone to produce the bipolar sunspots, whereas other parts may remain anchored slightly below the bottom of the convection zone. In order to understand how the bipolar sunspots form, one then has to study the dynamics of the part of the flux tube that has come within the convection zone, which can be done with the help of the thin flux tube equation \[54, 55\].
Although the two sunspots in a bipolar pair appear approximately at the same latitude, a more careful study shows that the leading sunspot is statistically found slightly closer to the solar equator. The tilts of the bipolar sunspot pairs are found to increase with latitude—a result known as Joy’s law, after Hale’s collaborator Joy who established this law in their pioneering study of sunspot pairs \[42\]. Presumably this tilt is produced by the action of the Coriolis force on the rising flux tube. Choudhuri and Gilman \[56\] and Choudhuri \[57\] were the first to study the effect of the Coriolis force on magnetic buoyancy and found that the Coriolis force plays a much more important role in this problem than recognized hitherto. If we assume the magnetic energy to be in equipartition with the kinetic energy of convection, then the magnetic field inside the flux tube at the bottom of the convection zone cannot be larger than $10^4$ G. Flux tubes with such magnetic field strengths are diverted to rise parallel to the rotation axis and emerge at high latitudes. As we shall discuss later, this result is likely to have important implications for polar starspots. Only if the magnetic field inside flux tubes is as strong as $10^5$ G, the flux tubes can come out radially, making the appearance of sunspots at low latitudes possible. D’Silva and Choudhuri \[58\] also found that they could fit Joy’s law with their simulation only if the magnetic field inside the flux tubes at the bottom of the convection zone was of order $10^5$ G. Soon confirmed by other authors \[59, 60\], this result puts an important constraint on the magnetic field inside the Sun and imposes a constraint on possible dynamo mechanisms, as we shall see. Although some effects have been postulated that can suppress the Coriolis force \[61, 62\], it is not clear if these effects would be important in the interior of the Sun and the initial magnetic field inside rising flux tubes presumably has be of order $10^5$ G in order to match observations.
The generation of the poloidal field
------------------------------------
If we start from a poloidal field, we have discussed how the differential rotation can stretch it out to create the toroidal field in the tachocline and then how parts of this toroidal field can rise in the form of flux tubes to produce the bipolar sunspots. In order to have the magnetic cycle encapsulated in Figure 11, we now need a mechanism for producing the poloidal field from the toroidal field. The early idea due to Parker \[47\] and then elaborated by Steenbeck, Krause and Rädler \[63\] was that the turbulence within the Sun’s convection zone would involve helical fluid motions due to the presence of the Coriolis force arising out of the solar rotation and that this helical turbulence would twist the toroidal field to produce the poloidal field. This mechanism, christened as the $\alpha$-effect, can work only if the toroidal field is not too strong so that it can be twisted by turbulence. When the flux tube simulations of sunspot formation described in § 3.2 suggested that the toroidal field at the bottom of the convection zone is much stronger than the equipartition value, it became clear that the $\alpha$-effect could not twist such a strong field.
Another alternative mechanism for the generation of the poloidal field was proposed by Babcock \[64\] and Leighton \[65\]. Since the two opposite-polarity sunspots in a bipolar pair form at slightly different latitudes, they pointed out that the decay of these sunspots would cause magnetic flux of opposite polarities to be spread out at slightly different latitudes, giving rise to a poloidal field. So we can view a bipolar sunspot pair as a conduit for converting the toroidal field to the poloidal field. It forms due to the buoyant rise of the toroidal field and we get the poloidal field after its decay. Now, one requirement of solar dynamo models is that we should have something like a dynamo wave propagating equatorward, in order to explain the the appearance of sunspots at increasingly lower latitudes with the progress of the cycle (as encapsulated by the well-known butterfly diagram). If the toroidal field is produced by the differential rotation as mapped by helioseismology and the poloidal field is produced by the Babcock–Leighton mechanism, then it is found that the dynamo wave would propagate poleward, creating sunspots at higher latitudes with the progress of the solar cycle. So we need something else to make the theory fit with the observations.
We believe that this additional something is provided by the meridional circulation of the Sun. It has been known for some time that there is a poleward flow of plasma at the solar surface having an amplitude of order 20 m s$^{-1}$. Since we do not expect the plasma to pile up at the poles, there has to be a return flow underneath the Sun’s surface to bring back the plasma to the equatorial region. This meridional circulation presumably arises from turbulent stresses within the Sun’s convection zone. So we expect this circulation to be confined within the convection zone and the most plausible assumption is that the return flow towards the equator is located at the bottom of the convection zone. Choudhuri, Schüssler and Dikpati \[66\] showed that a dynamo model with this type of meridional circulation can explain the appearance of sunspots at lower latitudes with the progress of the solar cycle. The type of dynamo model in which the poloidal field is generated by the Babcock–Leighton mechanism and the meridional circulation plays a crucial role is called the [*flux transport dynamo model*]{}. It may be mentioned that the diffuse magnetic field outside active regions migrates poleward with the solar cycle. This is believed to be caused by advection due to the poleward meridional circulation near the surface \[67, 68, 69, 70\]. This behaviour of the poloidal field at the solar surface automatically comes out in flux transport dynamo models. We now summarize the basic features of this model through a cartoon.
The whole picture
-----------------
Figure 12 is a cartoon encapsulating how the solar dynamo operates. If you understand this cartoon, then you would have got the central idea of the flux transport dynamo! The toroidal field is produced in the tachocline by the differential rotation stretching out the poloidal field. Then this toroidal field rises due to magnetic buoyancy to produce bipolar sunspots at the solar surface, where the poloidal field is generated by the Babcock–Leighton mechanism from these bipolar sunspots. The poloidal field so generated is carried by the meridional circulation first to the polar region and then underneath the surface to the tachocline to be stretched by the differential rotation—thus completing the cycle. Since the meridional circulation, as indicated by the streamlines sketched in Figure 12, is equatorward at the bottom of the convection zone, the toroidal field generated there is advected equatorward, such that sunspots appear at increasingly lower latitudes with the progress of the solar cycle. Although the basic idea of the flux transport dynamo can be found in an early paper by Wang, Sheeley and Nash \[71\], the first 2D models of the flux transport dynamo were constructed in the mid-1990s by Choudhuri, Schüssler and Dikpati \[66\] and Durney \[72\].
So far we have avoided getting into equations. For those readers who wish to see the equations, the central equations of the flux transport dynamo theory are now shown. In spherical coordinates, we write the magnetic field as $${\bf B} = B (r, \theta) {\bf e}_{\phi} + \nabla \times [ A
(r, \theta) {\bf e}_{\phi}],
\eqno(1)$$ where $B (r, \theta)$ is the toroidal component and $A (r, \theta)$ gives the poloidal component. We can write the velocity field as $\vb + r \sin \theta \, \Omega (r, \theta) {\bf e}_{
\phi}$, where $\Omega (r, \theta)$ is the angular velocity in the interior of the Sun and $\vb$ is the velocity of meridional circulation having components in $r$ and $\theta$ directions. Then the main equations telling us how the poloidal and the toroidal fields evolve with time are $$\frac{\pa A}{\pa t} + \frac{1}{s}(\vf.\nabla)(s A)
= \lambda_T \left( \nabla^2 - \frac{1}{s^2} \right) A + S (r, \theta; B),
\eqno(2)$$ $$\frac{\pa B}{\pa t}
+ \frac{1}{r} \left[ \frac{\pa}{\pa r}
(r v_r B) + \frac{\pa}{\pa \theta}(v_{\theta} B) \right]
= \lambda_T \left( \nabla^2 - \frac{1}{s^2} \right) B
+ s(\Bf_p.\nabla)\Omega + \frac{1}{r}\frac{d\lambda_T}{dr}
\frac{\partial}{\partial{r}}(r B), \eqno(3)$$ where $s = r \sin \theta$ and $\lambda_T$ is the turbulent diffusivity inside the convection zone. The source term $S(r,\theta; B)$ in (2) is responsible for the generation of the poloidal field and is often taken as $S(r, \theta; B) = \alpha B$ in many dynamo models. We should point out that Equations (2) and (3) are mean field equations obtained by averaging over the turbulence in the convection zone and describe the mean behaviour of the average magnetic field. Since Equations (2) and (3) are coupled partial differential equations, nothing much can be done analytically. Our research group in IISc Bangalore has developed a numerical code [*Surya*]{} for studying the flux transport dynamo problem by solving these equations \[73, 74\]. I can send the code [*Surya*]{} and a detailed guide for using it to anybody who sends a request to my e-mail address arnab@physics.iisc.ernet.in.
Although the flux transport dynamo has succeeded in explaining many aspects of the observational data pertaining to solar cycles, many big uncertainties remain. The model outlined above is of kinematic nature and the various flow fields have to be specified in order to construct a model. While the differential rotation has been pinned down by helioseismology \[50\], the nature of the meridional circulation deep down in the convection zone remains uncertain \[75, 76\]. However, it is now realized that flux transport dynamos may work even with more complicated meridional circulations than what is indicated in Figure 12 \[77\]. Several comprehensive reviews \[78, 79, 80\] may be recommended to readers desirous of learning more about the current status of the flux transport dynamo model.
Modelling irregularities of activity cycles
-------------------------------------------
The solar cycle is only approximately periodic. Not only the Sun, the other stars also show irregularities in their cycle, which is evident from Figure 1. The most notable feature of the irregularities is the grand minima, like the Maunder minimum of the Sun during 1640–1715 when sunspots were seldom seen and several cycles went missing. In the time series of Ca H/K emission from many solar-like stars, one finds evidence for grand minima.
We make a few remarks about the recent works on modelling the irregularities of the solar cycle, since these works presumably have important implications for stellar cycles. Although certain aspects of the irregularities are explained best as arising out of nonlinearities in the dynamo equations \[81\], the sustained irregularities of the solar cycle are more likely caused by stochastic processes \[82\]. The Babcock–Leighton mechanism for generating the poloidal field depends on the tilts of bipolar sunspot pairs. Although the average tilt is given by Joy’s law, one finds quiet a lot of scatter around it—presumably caused by the effect of turbulence on rising flux tubes \[83\]. Assuming that the randomness in the Babcock–Leighton mechanism arising out of this scatter in tilt angles is the main source of irregularities of the solar cycle, Choudhuri, Chatterjee and Jiang \[84\] made a prediction for the strength of the present solar cycle 24 before its onset. This turned out to be the first successful prediction of a solar cycle from a theoretical model, justifying the physics used in the model \[85\]. One important aspect of the irregularities is the so-called Waldmeier effect: the observation that the strengths of solar cycles are anti-correlated with their rise times. It has been possible to explain this effect by invoking fluctuations in the meridional circulation \[86\]. The Ca H/K data presented by Baliunas et al. \[18\] show evidence for the Waldmeier effect in several stars, indicating that these stars also must be having flux transport dynamos inside them \[86\]. Choudhuri and Karak \[87\] developed a model of grand minima, assuming that they are produced by combined fluctuations in the Babcock–Leighton mechanism and the meridional circulation \[88\]. The theoretical efforts for modelling irregularities have been reviewed by Choudhuri \[89\].
The extrapolation of the flux transport dynamo to stars
=======================================================
After summarizing the main features of the flux transport dynamo model, which has been so successful in explaining different aspects of the solar cycle, we come to the question whether this model can be extrapolated to other stars to explain various features of their magnetic activity. As should be clear from the discussions of the previous section, we need to specify the differential rotation and the meridional circulation in order to construct a model of the flux transport dynamo. In the case of the Sun, we have got quite a lot of information about these large-scale flows from helioseismology. One of the main reasons behind the success of the recent solar dynamo models is that we can use these results of helioseismology as inputs to our solar dynamo models. We do not have such data about the differential rotation and the meridional circulation inside other stars—except some data about differential rotation at the surface for a few stars \[35\]. So the first big hurdle for constructing models of stellar dynamos is that we have to figure out the nature of these large-scale flows inside different stars from purely theoretical considerations.
Large-scale flows inside stars
------------------------------
In a pioneering study in 1963, Kippenhahn \[90\] showed that an anisotropic viscosity can give rise to large-scale flows inside a rotating star. If the radial viscosity is larger, then that causes slower rotation at the equatorial region. In order to have faster rotation near the equator, which is the case for the Sun, we need to have larger horizontal viscosity. Within the Sun’s convection zone, viscosity is mainly provided by turbulence, compared to which the molecular viscosity is negligible. The turbulent viscosity within the convection zone is certainly expected to be anisotropic due to two factors: (i) gravity makes the radial direction special; and (ii) rotation makes the polar direction special. To get a physical picture of how the large-scale flows are induced by turbulent transport mechanisms inside the convection zone of a rotating stars, see the very clear reviews by Kitchatinov \[91, 92\] on this complex subject.
In order to compute large-scale flows inside stars, we can follow one of the two possible approaches. The first approach is to do a direct numerical simulation of convection in a rotating star from first principles. Such simulations have shown the occurrence of differential rotation and meridional circulation. The second approach is to first calculate the various components of turbulent viscosity from a mixing length theory of convective turbulence and then to use these in a mean field model of stellar hydrodynamics to compute the large-scale flows inside the stars. This second approach was pioneered by Kitchatinov and Rüdiger \[93\].
Once we have the large-scale flows inside a star, we can substitute these in the equations of the flux transport dynamo and obtain a model of the stellar dynamo. Jouve, Brown and Brun \[94\] constructed stellar dynamo models by following the first approach of computing the large-scale flows through direct numerical simulations. Constructing such models is computationally demanding and it is difficult to explore the parameter space extensively by following this approach. On the other hand, Karak, Kitchatinov and Choudhuri (\[95\], hereafter KKC) followed the second approach of computing the large-scale flows from the mean field model of Kitchatinov and Olemskoy \[96\] and then constructing stellar dynamo models. In this approach, it is possible to explore the parameter space more extensively.
Comparing stellar dynamo models with observations
-------------------------------------------------
Figure 13 shows the differential rotations computed by KKC \[95\] for stars of mass $1 M_{\odot}$ rotating with different rotation periods. For the slowly rotating case with a period of 30 days (close to the solar rotation period of 27 days), the angular velocity is constant over cones in the convection zone, similar to what is found for the Sun from helioseismology. On the other hand, for the rapidly rotating case with a period of 1 day, the angular velocity tends to be constant over cylinders. The meridional circulation is also computed and is found to be weaker for faster rotators. It may be noted that, when the rotation is very slow and its effect on convection negligible, the radial part of viscosity becomes dominant due to the primarily up-down nature of the convective motions and the differential rotation changes over to an anti-solar pattern with slower rotation near the equator, as confirmed by recent simulations \[97\]. This case is not covered in Figure 13.
KKC \[95\] constructed dynamo models of $1 M_{\odot}$ mass stars rotating with different angular speeds by inserting the differential rotation and the meridional circulation computed from the mean field model into the dynamo equations (2) and (3). In order to make sure that the dynamo solutions do not grow indefinitely, it is necessary to include a quenching. They took the source function appearing in Equation (2) to have the form $$S (r,\theta; B) = \frac{\alpha(r, \theta)}{1 + (B(r_t, \theta)/B_0)^2} B(r_t. \theta),
\eqno(4)$$ where $B(r_t, \theta)$ is the toroidal field at the bottom of the convection zone ($r = r_t$) and the coefficient $\alpha( r, \theta)$ is assumed to be concentrated near the surface, to account for the Babcock–Leighton mechanism in which the toroidal field from the bottom of the convection zone rises to the surface to produce a poloidal field at the surface. This coefficient, although denoted by the symbol $\alpha$, has a physical origin completely different from the traditional $\alpha$-effect. The quenching factor appearing in the denominator ensures that the source term becomes very small when the toroidal field $B(r_t,\theta)$ is much larger than $B_0$. Hence the dynamo is found to saturate with $B(r_t,\theta)$ hovering around a value not much larger than $B_0$. The total toroidal flux through the convection zone can be written as $f B_0 R_{\odot}^2$. KKC calculated $f$ from their dynamo model and the mean $f_m$ of its unsigned value averaged over the cycle was taken as a measure of the toroidal flux generated in a particular situation. Since Ca H/K or X-ray emission presumably arises from energy generated due to magnetic reconnection between two flux systems, we may naively expect these emissions to be proportional to $f_m^2$. Figure 14 taken from KKC shows how $f_m^2$ varies with the Rossby number in the theoretical model. If we assume that there is some mechanism which saturates the Babcock–Leighton mechanism for fast rotations, then we get a theoretical curve which agrees with Figure 3 (Ca H/K emission plot) or Figure 6 (X-ray emission plot) remarkably well.
While we were happy that we (KKC) could model the increase of emission with lower Rossby number, we failed to explain the observed increase of cycle period with rotation period, as indicated in Figure 4. We reproduce the theoretical plot from KKC in Figure 15, showing the increase of the cycle period with decreasing rotation period, contradicting the observational data. This results from the fact that the meridional circulation becomes weaker in faster rotating stars according to the mean field hydrodynamic model which we had used in order to calculate the meridional circulation. Since the period of the flux transport dynamo depends on the time scale of meridional circulation, a faster rotating star (with shorter rotation period) gives rise to weaker meridional circulation and therefore longer cycle period. Jouve, Brown and Brun \[94\], who computed the meridional circulation from direct numerical simulations, also found the same difficulty. An intriguing question is whether there is a flaw in our understanding of the meridional circulation and whether it could be stronger for more highly rotating stars, which would solve this problem. Interestingly, in the traditional $\alpha \Omega$ dynamo model, the cycle frequency goes as the square root of ($\alpha \times$ gradient of angular velocity) (see \[49\], p. 360). While the flux transport dynamo model fails to explain the observed relation between the rotation period and the cycle period, this relation can be explained easily in the traditional $\alpha \Omega$ dynamo model on assuming that $\alpha$ and/or the gradient of angular velocity increase with increasing rotation frequency, as pointed out by Noyes, Weiss and Vaughan \[22\]. This raises the question whether the nature of the stellar dynamo changes in stars rotating very fast for which the meridional circulation will be weak and we may have an $\alpha \Omega$ dynamo instead of a flux transport dynamo. These questions remain to be addressed by future research.
It should be clear from our brief discussion of the physics of the flux transport dynamo in § 3 that the bottom of the convection zone plays an important role in the dynamo process. It is there that the toroidal field is produced by the strong differential rotation and then a part of it remains stored below the bottom where the magnetic buoyancy is suppressed. Now, stars having mass less than about $0.4 M_{\odot}$ (of spectral type later than M3–3.5) are supposed to be fully convective, without a bottom below which the toroidal field can be stored. Whether the usual flux transport dynamo can operate in such a star is an important question. Recently, Wright and Drake \[98\] pointed out that X-ray emission from some fully convective stars satisfy the relation between X-ray luminosity and Rossby number that we see in Figure 6, suggesting that these stars also have dynamos similar to other late-type stars. Although there have been some works on dynamo action in fully convective stars \[99, 100, 101\], our understanding of this subject is still very incomplete.
Large sunspots and strong flares
--------------------------------
As mentioned in § 2.3 and 2.4, we have evidence for starspots much larger than the largest sunspots and stellar superflares much stronger than the strongest solar flares. One important question is whether such large starspots and strong stellar flares require physical mechanisms different from what are operative in the Sun, indicating that the nature of the dynamo also may be somewhat different. It is difficult to answer this question at the present time because we have very little understanding of what determines the sizes of sunspots or fluxes in active regions. Since we believe that some amount of magnetic flux broken from the toroidal flux system stored at the bottom of the solar convection zone rises to the surface to produce sunspots and active regions, presumably their sizes depend on the nature of the instabilities that break up the toroidal flux at the bottom of the convection zone (see the review by Fan \[102\]). Our understanding of the storage and breakup process of the toroidal flux is very poor at present. The best we can do is to try to estimate maximum possible sizes of sunspots based on some ‘reasonable’ assumptions.
As we pointed out in § 2.3, large starspots in rapidly rotating stars are often found near the polar region. Schüssler and Solanki \[103\] provided an explanation for this by extrapolating the results of Choudhuri and Gilman \[56\], who studied the effect of the Coriolis force on magnetic buoyancy (see also\[104\]). As discussed in § 3.2, Choudhuri and Gilman \[56\] found that, when the Coriolis force wins over magnetic buoyancy, the magnetic flux rising due to magnetic buoyancy is diverted by the Coriolis force to rise parallel to the rotation axis and emerge at high latitudes. Presumably this is what happens in rapidly rotating stars, causing the rising flux to emerge at polar latitudes to create polar starspots. Isik, Schmitt and Schüssler \[105\] combined a dynamo model with magnetic buoyancy calculations to study the distribution of starspots over the stellar surface.
Since we know of stellar flares much stronger than the strongest solar flares recorded so far, we now come to the question whether these require different physics or whether it is possible for such strong flares to occur on the Sun also. Since the largest known solar flares (of energy of order $10^{32}$ erg) have been known to cause serious disruptions in human activities (especially on electrical and electronic appliances), significantly stronger solar flares will certainly cause havoc and disrupt our lives in major ways. Figure 16 taken from Shibata et al. \[40\] plots the energy of flares against the spot group area (or, equivalently, magnetic flux) with which these flares have been associated. Both solar flares (lower left region of the figure) and stellar flares (upper right region) are shown. Note that only stellar flares much more energetic than solar flares can be observed by us. However, it appears from the figure that there might be a continuity between the solar flares and stellar superflares. Figure 16 seems to suggest that superflares of energy $10^{35}$ erg would be associated with spot groups having magnetic flux of about $10^{24}$ Mx, whereas the largest sunspots carry flux not more than $10^{23}$ Mx. Whether such superflares can occur on the Sun then basically hinges on the question whether we can have active regions with such flux. Pushing the various parameters connected with the dynamo generation of the toroidal field to their extreme values, Shibata et al. \[40\] concluded that this is not entirely impossible, although we are not sure whether the extreme values assumed in the estimate are completely justified. If these are justified, then we have to conclude that the occurrence of such superflares may not require dynamo action qualitatively different from the solar dynamo and, at the same time, we cannot rule out such superflares on our Sun occurring with extremely low frequency—such as a superflare of energy $10^{35}$ erg in 5000 years as estimated by Maehara et al. \[39\]. It is also possible that large fluctuations in dynamo parameters may push a star to an extreme temporary phase when superflares are more likely \[106\].
Conclusion
==========
In the last few years a huge amount of data about magnetic activity of solar-like stars have come. We have also witnessed remarkable developments in solar dynamo modelling. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to review the question whether the current solar dynamo models can be extrapolated to model magnetic activities of other solar-like stars.
Stellar magnetism is a vast field—magnetic fields playing important roles in the star formation process as well as in the final phase of stellar collapse (see \[107, 108\]). It may be mentioned that a modified version of our solar dynamo code has been used to study the role of magnetic fields in accreting neutron stars \[109, 110\]. In this review, however, we restrict ourselves only to late-type solar-like stars in their main sequence, having convection zones just below their surfaces. Such stars are found to have activity cycles, coronae, spots and flares just like the Sun. Very intriguingly, some of them have spots much larger than sunspots and flares much stronger than solar flares.
A particularly successful model of the solar cycle is the flux transport dynamo model, in which the poloidal field is generated by the Babcock–Leighton mechanism and the meridional circulation plays an important role. A very pertinent question is whether other solar-like stars also have such flux transport dynamos operating inside them. We have seen that such dynamo models can explain the relation between the activity-related emission (in Ca H/K or in X-ray) and the Rossby number, giving us confidence that we are probably on the right track. We have pointed out that Ca H/K emission of several stars indicate the Waldmeier effect, which has been explained as arising out of the fluctuations of the meridional circulation \[86\]. This presumably indicates that these stars also have meridional circulation with fluctuations. However, we should keep in mind that the flux transport dynamo model failed to explain the observed relation between the rotation period and the cycle period, which could be explained easily by the earlier $\alpha \Omega$ dynamo model \[22\]. This raises the question whether the meridional circulation becomes very weak in rapidly rotating stars and the dynamo changes over to an $\alpha \Omega$ dynamo from a flux transport dynamo. In this connection, note also that the cycle of chromospheric Ca H/K emission may not always indicate the magnetic cycle \[111\]. We know that for rapidly rotating stars polar regions will dominate the activity, as the Coriolis force will deflect the magnetic flux rising due to magnetic buoyancy to polar regions \[56, 103\]. However, we are not sure whether very large starspots and very strong stellar superflares can be explained by extrapolating solar models or some different kinds of dynamo models are needed. The accompanying question is whether we should expect to see much larger sunspots or much stronger solar flares than the ones we have so far seen. There is no doubt that many solar-like stars have flux transport dynamos like the Sun. But is this some kind of universal dynamo model that can account for magnetic activity of all stars—including those which have very large spots and very strong flares? Further research is definitely needed to answer this question.
While summarizing the flux transport dynamo model in § 3, we have restricted ourselves to 2D kinematic models. While these models have been very successful in explaining different aspects of solar activity, these models have obvious limitations and there are efforts under way to go beyond these simple models. For example, magnetic buoyancy leading to the Babcock–Leighton mechanism is an inherently 3D process and cannot be captured realistically in 2D models \[112\]. There are now attempts of constructing 3D kinematic models \[113, 114, 115\]. However, we ultimately need to go beyond kinematic models and develop fully dynamical 3D models. Some exploratory studies have produced striking initial results \[116, 117\]. There is no doubt that such developments will have a big impact on stellar dynamo research in future and this will remain a very active research field for years to come.
[*Acknowledgements.*]{} I thank Peng-Fei Chen for inviting me to write this review. Suggestions from Leonid Kitchatinov, Karel Schrijver, Klaus Strassmeier and Sharanya Sur helped in improving an earlier version of the review. I am grateful to Gopal Hazra for discussions and help in preparing the manuscript. Partial support for this work was provided by the J C Bose Fellowship awarded by the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India.
å[[Astron. Astrophys.]{}]{}
\[reflist\]
D. Maoz, [*Astrophysics in a Nutshell*]{}, Princeton University Press (2007).
A. R. Choudhuri, [*Astrophysics for Physicists*]{}, Cambridge University Press (2010).
G. Galileo, [*History and Demonstration Concerning Sunspots*]{} (1613).
G. E. Hale, [**28**]{}, 315 (1908).
S. H. Schwabe, [Astron. Nachr.]{} [**21**]{}, 233 (1844).
B. Edlén, Zeits. f. Astroph. [**22**]{}, 30 (1943).
B. C. Low, [ Sciene China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy]{} [**58**]{}, 5626 (2015).
R. C. Carrington, [**20**]{}, 13 (1859).
C. J. Schrijver, and C. Zwaan, [*Solar and Stellar Magnetic Activity*]{}, Cambridge University Press (2000).
J. H. Thomas, and N. O. Weiss, [*Sunspots and Starspots*]{}, Cambridge University Press (2008).
A. S. Brun, R. A. García, G. Houdek, D. Nandy, and M. Pinsonneault, [Space Sci. Rev.]{} [**196**]{}, 303 (2015).
D. P. Choudhary, and K. G. Strassmeier (editors), [*Physics of Sun and Star Spots — IAU Symposium 273*]{}, Cambridge University Press (2011).
C. H. Mandrini, and D. F. Webb (editors), [*Comparative Magnetc Minima: Characterizing Quiet Times in the Sun and Stars — IAU Symposium 286*]{}, Cambridge University Press (2012).
G. Eberhard, and K. Schwarzschild, [**38**]{}, 292 (1913).
O. C. Wilson, and M. K. V. Bappu, [**125**]{}, 661 (1957).
J. C. Hall, Living Rev. Solar Phys. [**5**]{}, 2 (2008).
O. C. Wilson, [**226**]{}, 379 (1976).
S. L. Baliunas, et al., [**438**]{}, 269 (1995).
A. H. Vaughan, and G. W. Preston, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacific [**92**]{}, 385 (1980).
R. W. Noyes, L. W. Hartmann, S. L. Baliunas, D. K. Duncan, and A. H. Vaughan, [**279**]{}, 763 (1984).
A. Skumanich, [**171**]{}, 565 (1972).
R. W. Noyes, N. O. Weiss, and A. H. Vaughan, [**287**]{}, 769 (1984).
S. H. Saar, and A. Brandenburg, [**524**]{}, 295 (1999).
R. Pallavicini, L. Golub, R. Rosner, G. S. Vaiana, T. Ayres, and J. L. Linsky, [**248**]{}, 279 (1981).
C. J. Schrijver, A. K. Dobson, and R. R. Radick, [**258**]{}, 432 (1992).
N. Pizzolato, A. Maggio, G. Micela, S. Sciortino, and P. Ventura, å [**397**]{}, 147 (2003).
N. J. Wright, J. J. Drake, E. E. Mamajek, and G. W. Henry, [**743**]{}, 48 (2011).
S. S. Vogt, and G. D. Penrod, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacific [**95**]{}, 565 (1983).
K. G. Strassmeier, å [**347**]{}, 225 (1999).
A. Künstler, T. A. Carroll, and K. G. Strassmeier, å [bf 578]{}, 101 (2015).
J.-F. Donati, M. Semel, B. D. Carter, D. E. Rees, and A. Collier Cameron, [**291**]{}, 658 (1997).
S. V. Berdyugina, Living Rev. Solar Phys. [**2**]{}, 8 (2005).
K. G. Strassmeier, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. [**17**]{}, 251 (2009).
A. Reiners, Living Rev. Solar Phys. [**8**]{}, 1 (2012).
J. R. Barnes, A. Collier Cameron, J.-F. Donati, D. J. James, S. C. Marsden, and P. Petit, [**357**]{}, L1 (2005).
S. V. Berdyugina, and I. Tuominen, å [**336**]{}, L25 (1998).
D. Elstner, and H. Korhonen, Astron. Nachr. [**326**]{}, 278 (2005).
B. E. Schaefer, J. R. King, and C. P. Deliyannis, [**529**]{}, 1026 (2000).
H. Maehara, et al., Nature [**485**]{}, 478 (2012).
K. Shibata, et al., Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan [**65**]{}, 49 (2013).
B. T. Tsurutani, W. D. Gonzalez, G. S. Lakhina, and S. Alex, J. Geophys. Res. A [**108**]{}, 1268 (2003).
G. E. Hale, F. Ellerman, S. B. Nicholson and A. H. Joy, [**49**]{}, 153 (1919).
H. W. Babcock and H. D. Babcock, [**121**]{}, 349 (1955).
S. Tsuneta, et al, [**688**]{}, 1374 (2008).
S. Chandrasekhar, [Phil. Mag. (7)]{} [**43**]{}, 501 (1952).
N. O. Weiss, [J. Fluid Mech.]{} [**108**]{}, 247 (1981).
E. N. Parker, [**122**]{}, 293 (1955).
D. H. Hathaway, Living Rev. Solar Phys. [**7**]{}, 1 (2010).
A. R. Choudhuri, [*The Physics of Fluids and Plasmas: An Introduction for Astrophysicists*]{}, Cambridge University Press (1998).
J. Schou, et al., [**505**]{}, 390 (1998).
E. N. Parker, [**121**]{}, 491 (1955).
E. N. Parker, [**198**]{}, 205 (1975).
F. Moreno-Insertis, å [**122**]{}, 241 (1983).
H. C. Spruit, å [**98**]{}, 155 (1981).
A. R. Choudhuri, å [**239**]{}, 335 (1990).
A. R. Choudhuri, and P. A. Gilman, [**316**]{}, 788 (1987).
A. R. Choudhuri, [**123**]{}, 217 (1989).
S. D’Silva, and A. R. Choudhuri, å [**272**]{}, 621 (1993).
Y. Fan, G. H. Fisher, and E. E. DeLuca, [**405**]{}, 390 (1993).
P. Caligari, F. Moreno-Insertis, and M. Schüssler, , 886 (1995).
A. R. Choudhuri, and S. D’Silva, å [**239**]{}, 326 (1990).
S. Z. D’Silva and A. R. Choudhuri, [**136**]{}, 201 (1991).
M. Steenbeck, F. Krause, and K.-H. Rädler, [Z. Naturforsch.]{} [**21a**]{}, 1285 (1966).
H. W. Babcock, [**133**]{}, 572 (1961).
R. B. Leighton, [**156**]{}, 1 (1969).
A. R. Choudhuri, M Schüssler, and M Dikpati, å, L29 (1995).
Y.-M. Wang, A. G. Nash and N. R. Sheeley, , 529 (1989).
M. Dikpati, and A. R. Choudhuri, å [**291**]{}, 975 (1994).
M. Dikpati, and A. R. Choudhuri, [**161**]{}, 9 (1995).
A. R. Choudhuri, and M. Dikpati, [**184**]{}, 61 (1999).
Y.-M. Wang, N. R. Sheeley, and A. G. Nash, [**383**]{}, 431 (1991).
B. R. Durney, [**160**]{}, 213 (1995).
D. Nandy, and A. R. Choudhuri, [Science]{} [**296**]{}, 1671 (2002).
P. Chatterjee, D. Nandy, and A. R. Choudhuri, å [**427**]{}, 1019 (2004).
J. Zhao, R. S. Bogart, A. G. Kosovichev, T. L. Duvall, and T. Hartlep, [**774**]{}, L29 (2013).
S. P. Rajaguru, and H. M. Antia, [**813**]{}, 114 (2015).
G. Hazra, B. B. Karak, and A. R. Choudhuri, [**782**]{}, 93 (2014).
A. R. Choudhuri, Pramana [**77**]{}, 77 (2011).
P. Charbonneau, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. [**52**]{}, 251 (2014).
B. B. Karak, J. Jiang, M. S. Miesch, P. Charbonneau, and A. R. Choudhuri, Space Sci. Rev. [**186**]{}, 561 (2014).
P. Charbonneau, G. Beaubien, and C. St-Jean, [**658**]{}, 657 (2007).
A. R. Choudhuri, å [**253**]{}, 277 (1992).
D. Longcope, and A. R. Choudhuri, [**205**]{}, 63 (2002).
A. R. Choudhuri, P. Chatterjee, and J. Jiang, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**98**]{}, 131103 (2007).
J. Jiang, P. Chatterjee, and A. R. Choudhuri, [**381**]{}, 1527 (2007).
B. B. Karak, and A. R. Choudhuri, [**410**]{}, 1503 (2011).
A. R. Choudhuri, and B. B. Karak, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 171103 (2012).
B. B. Karak, and A. R. Choudhuri, Res. Astron. Astrophys. [**13**]{}, 1339 (2013).
A. R. Choudhuri, Indian J. Phys. [**88**]{}, 877 (2014).
R. Kippenhahn, [**137**]{}, 664 (1963).
L. L.Kitchatinov, in [*Proceedings of the First Asia-Pacific Solar Physics Meeting*]{} (eds.: A. R. Choudhuri and D. Banerjee), p. 71 (2011).
L. L.Kitchatinov, in [*Solar and Astrophysical Dynamos and Magnetic Activity — IAU Symposium 294*]{} (eds.: A. G. Kosovichev, E. de Gouveia Dal Pino and Y. Yan), p. 399 (2013).
L. L. Kitchatinov, and G. Rüdiger, å [**299**]{}, 446 (1995).
L. Jouve, B. P. Brown, and A. S. Brun, å [**509**]{}, 32 (2010).
B. B. Karak, L. L. Kitchatinov, and A. R. Choudhuri, [**791**]{}, 59 (2014).
L. L. Kitchatinov, and S. V. Olemskoy, [**411**]{}, 1059 (2011).
B. B. Karak, P. J. Käpylä, M. J. Käpylä, A. Brandenburg, N. Olspert, and J. Pelt, å [**576**]{}, 26 (2015).
N. J. Wright, and J. J. Drake, Nature [**535**]{}, 526 (2016).
B. R. Durney, D. S. De Young, and I. W. Roxburgh, [**145**]{}, 207 (1993).
W. Dobler, M. Stix, and A. Brandenburg, [**638**]{}, 336 (2006).
M.K. Browning, [**676**]{}, 1262 (2008).
Y. Fan, Living Rev. Solar Phys. [**1**]{}, 1 (2004).
M. Schüssler, and S. K. Solanki, å [**264**]{}, L13 (1992).
M. Schüssler, P. Caligari, A. Ferriz-Mas, S. K. Solanki, and M. Stix, å [**314**]{}, 503 (1996).
E. Isik, D. Schmitt, and M. Schüssler, å [**528**]{}, 135 (2011).
L. L. Kitchatinov, and S. V. Olemskoy, [**459**]{}, 4353 (2016).
L. Mestel, [*Stellar Magnetism*]{}, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1999).
J.-F. Donati, and J. D. Landstreet, J. D., Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. [**47**]{}, 333 (2009).
A. R. Choudhuri and S. Konar, [**332**]{}, 933 (2002).
S. Konar and A. R. Choudhuri, [**348**]{}, 661 (2004).
V. See, et al., [**462**]{}, 4442 (2016).
A. R. Choudhuri, and G. Hazra, Adv. Space Res. [**58**]{}, 1560 (2016).
A. R. Yeates, and A. Muñoz-Jaramillo, [**436**]{}, 3366 (2013).
M. S. Miesch, and M. Dikpati, [**785**]{}, L8 (2014).
G. Hazra, A. R. Choudhuri, and M. S. Miesch, (submitted, arXiv:1610.02726) (2017).
B. P. Brown, M. K. Browning, A. S. Brun, M. S. Miesch, and J. Toomre, [**711**]{}, 424 (2010).
M. Ghizaru, P. Charbonneau, and P. K. Smolarkiewicz, [**715**]{}, L133 (2010).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We consider the excitation of the inertial modes of a uniformly rotating fully convective body due to a close encounter with another object. This could lead to a tidal capture or orbital circularisation depending on whether the initial orbit is unbound or highly eccentric. We develop a general self-adjoint formalism for the response problem and thus solve it taking into account the inertial modes with $m=2$ for a full polytrope with $n=1.5.$ We are accordingly able to show in this case that the excitation of inertial modes dominates the response for large impact parameters and thus cannot be neglected in calculations of tidal energy and angular momentum exchange or orbital circularisation from large eccentricity.'
author:
- |
J.C.B.Papaloizou$^{1}$[^1] and P. B. Ivanov $^{1,2}$\
$^{1}$Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge,\
Centre for Mathematical Sciences, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge, CB3 0WA, UK\
$^{2}$Astro Space Centre, P. N. Lebedev Physical Institute, 4/32 Profsoyuznaya Street, Moscow, 117810, Russia
date: 'Accepted Received ; in original form '
title: 'Oscillations of rotating bodies: A self-adjoint formalism applied to dynamic tides and tidal capture'
---
\[firstpage\]
hydrodynamics; stars: oscillations, binaries, rotation; planetary systems
Introduction
============
The process of tidal capture of a body into a bound orbit through the excitation of oscillatory internal modes is thought to be of general importance in astrophysics. It is likely to play a role in binary formation in globular clusters (eg. Press & Teukolsky, 1977, hereafter PT and references therein) as well as in tidal interactions of stars within galactic centres. When there are repeated close encounters as for a highly eccentric orbit, circularisation may result, a process of potential importance for extrasolar planets (eg. Ivanov & Papaloizou 2004, hereafter IP).
Until now, only the oscillation modes associated with spherical non rotating stars have been considered with possibly rotation being treated as a perturbation (eg. PT,IP). But angular momentum is transfered in tidal encounters and when, as is often the case, the internal inertia is much less than that of the orbit, the tidally excited object would be expected to rotate at a balanced rate or undergo pseudo synchronisation. Then the rotation frequency is matched to the most important ones in a Fourier decomposition of the tidal forcing. It is then natural to expect that inertial modes controlled by the rotation (see eg. Papaloizou & Pringle 1981, hereafter PP) become important for the tidal response. This is especially the case for a barotropic configuration [^2] , with no stratification and hence no low frequency $g$ modes. We would expect inertial modes, which have periods that scale with the rotation frequency, to be particularly important for large periastron distances as the fundamental spherical modes suffer increasing frequency mismatch as this distance increases.
It is the purpose of this paper to calculate the response of a rotating body taking the inertial modes into account. In particular we focus on modes with $m=2$ which dominate the angular momentum exchange and a full polytrope with index $ n= 1.5.$ We show that the inertial modes indeed dominate the response at larger periastron distances of interest in many cases.
In section 2 we give the basic equations governing the linear response of a uniformly rotating barotropic star to the tidal forcing due to a close encounter. In section 3 we give a self-adjoint representation of the linear problem and discuss how it can be used to provide a formal solution in terms of a spectral decomposition as can be done for a non rotating star. In section 4 we develop expressions for the energy and angular momentum exchange. In section 5 we give results for a polytrope with index $n=1.5$, showing that the $m=2$ inertial wave response is contained within just a few global modes and that inertial modes dominate the tidal response for large periastron passages. Accordingly these must be considered when discussing tidal circularisation from large eccentricity for objects such as extrasolar planets.
Basic equations
===============
We assume that the star is rotating with uniform angular velocity ${\mbox{\boldmath${\Omega }$}}$ directed perpendicular to the orbital plane. In this case the hydrodynamic equations for the perturbed quantities take the simplest form in the rotating frame. For a convective star, approximated as barotropic, we have $${D^{2} {{\mbox{\boldmath${ \xi}$}}} \over Dt^{2}}+2{{\mbox{\boldmath${\Omega}$}}}\times {D {\mbox{\boldmath${\xi}$}}\over Dt}=-\nabla W. \label{eq 1}$$ Here ${{\mbox{\boldmath${\xi}$}}}$ is the Lagrangian displacement vector, and $$W=c_{s}^{2}\rho^{'}/\rho+\Psi^{int}+\Psi^{ext}, \label{eq 2}$$ where $\rho $ is the density, $\rho^{'} $ is the density perturbation, $c_{s}$ is the adiabatic sound speed, $\Psi^{int}$ is the stellar gravitational potential arising from the perturbations and $\Psi^{ext}$ is the external forcing tidal potential. Note that the centrifugal term is absent in equation $(\ref{eq 1})$ being formally incorporated into the potential governing the static equilibrium of the unperturbed star. The convective derivative ${D\over Dt} \equiv {\partial \over \partial t}$ as there is no unperturbed motion in the rotating frame.
The linearised continuity and Poisson equations are $$\rho^{'}=-\nabla (\rho {{\mbox{\boldmath${\xi}$}}}) \quad {\rm and} \quad \Delta \Psi^{int}=4\pi
G\rho^{'}. \label{eq 3}$$
We use a cylindrical coordinate system $(\varpi, \phi, z)$ with origin at the centre of the star and assume that the tidal potential and the resulting perturbation to some quantity, say $Q$, is represented in terms of a Fourier transform over the angle $\phi$ and time $t$. Thus $Q = \sum_{m}\left( \exp({im\phi})\int^{+\infty}_{-\infty}d\sigma \tilde
Q_{m}\exp({-i\sigma t}) + cc \right )$, where the sum is over $m=0$ and $2$ and $cc$ denotes the complex conjugate. The reality of $Q$ implies that the Fourier transform, indicated by tilde satisfies $\tilde Q_{m}(\sigma) = \tilde
Q_{-m}^*(-\sigma).$
To solve the forcing problem we obtain equations for the Fourier transforms of the perturbations using $(\ref{eq 1}) - (\ref{eq 3}).$ We can then express $\tilde {{\mbox{\boldmath${\xi}$}}}_{m}$ in terms of $\tilde W_{m}$ with help of $(\ref{eq 1})$, the density perturbation in terms of $\tilde \Psi^{ext}_{m}$, $\tilde \Psi^{int}_{m}$ and $\tilde W_{m}$ with help of (\[eq 2\]), and substitute the results into the continuity equation (\[eq 3\]) to get $$\sigma^{2} {{\mbox{\boldmath${A}$}}} \tilde W_{m} -\sigma {{\mbox{\boldmath${B}$}}}
\tilde W_{m} -{{\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}}\tilde W_{m} =
\sigma^{2}d{\rho \over c_{s}^{2}}
(\tilde \Psi^{ext}_{m}+\tilde \Psi^{int}_{m}-\tilde W_{m}), \label{eq 4}$$ where $d=4\Omega^{2}-\sigma^{2}$, and $${{\mbox{\boldmath${A}$}}}=-{1\over \varpi}{\partial \over \partial \varpi}\left (\varpi \rho
{\partial\over \partial \varpi}\right )-{\partial \over \partial z}\left (\rho
{\partial \over \partial z}\right )+
{m^{2} \rho \over \varpi^{2}}, \label{eq 5}$$ $${{\mbox{\boldmath${B}$}}} =-{2m\Omega \over \varpi}{\partial \rho \over \partial \varpi},
\quad {{\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}}=-4\Omega^{2}{\partial \over \partial z}\left(\rho {\partial
\over \partial z}\right). \label{eq 6}$$ It is very important to note that the operators ${{\mbox{\boldmath${A }$}}}$, ${{\mbox{\boldmath${B}$}}}$ and ${{\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}}$ are self-adjoint when the inner product $$(W_{1}|W_{2})=\int_{V} dz \varpi d\varpi W^{*}_{1}W_{2}, \label{eq 7}$$ with $V$ denoting the volume of the star. Also when $W$ is not a constant ${{\mbox{\boldmath${A}$}}}$ and ${{\mbox{\boldmath${B}$}}}$ are positive definite and ${{\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}}$ is non negative definite. Equations (\[eq 2\]), (\[eq 4\]) and the Poisson equation (\[eq 3\]) form a complete set.
When $\tilde \Psi^{ext}_{m} = 0,$ equation (\[eq 4\]) describes the free oscillations of a rotating star. These may be classified as relatively high frequency $f$ and $p$ modes and inertial modes with eigen frequencies $\sigma \sim \Omega$. The $f$ and $p$ modes exist in non rotating stars and can be treated in a framework of perturbation theory (eg. IP). Here we focus on the response of inertial waves to tidal forcing, for slow rotation. We seek a solution as a series expansion in the small parameters $\sigma /\Omega_{*}$ and $\Omega/\Omega_{*}$, where $\Omega_{*}=\sqrt
{(GM_{*}/R^{3}_{*})}$, with $M_{*}$ and $R_{*}$ being the mass and the radius of the star, respectively. The small parameters will be assumed to be of the same order.
To zeroth order (when $\sigma \rightarrow 0$) the tidal potential induces a quasi-static bulge in which tidal forces are balanced by pressure and self gravity and $\tilde \rho^{'}_{m} \rightarrow \tilde \rho_{m,st}$ with ${\tilde \Psi^{int}_{m}} \rightarrow {\tilde \Psi^{int}_{m,st}}$. From equation (\[eq 4\]) we conclude that $W$ is smaller than the potential perturbations by a factor of order $\sigma^2/\Omega^{2}_{*}$ (see PP for details). Accordingly, setting $W=0$ in equation (\[eq 2\]) and using equation (\[eq 3\]) we obtain $$\tilde \rho_{m,st}=-{\rho\over c^{2}_{s}}(\tilde
\Psi^{int}_{m,st}+\tilde \Psi^{ext}),
\quad \Delta \Psi^{int}_{m,st}=4\pi G\tilde \rho_{m,st}. \label{eq 8}$$ In the lowest order approximation we find $\tilde W_{m}$ using equation (\[eq 4\]) neglecting the higher order term proportional to $\rho \tilde W_{m}/c_{s}^{2}$ on the right hand side. We thus have $$\sigma^{2} {{\mbox{\boldmath${A}$}}} \tilde W_{m} -\sigma {{\mbox{\boldmath${B}$}}}
\tilde W_{m}
-{{\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}} \tilde W_{m}=S, \label{eq 9}$$ where the source term $$S=-\sigma^{2}d\tilde \rho_{m, st}=\sigma^{2}d{\rho \over c_{s}^{2}}
(\tilde \Psi^{ext}_{m}+\tilde \Psi^{int}_{m,st}) \label{eq 10}$$ is completely determined by the external forcing via equation (\[eq 8\]). Finally, the perturbation of the internal gravitational potential associated with $\tilde W_{m}$, $\delta \tilde \Psi_{m}=\tilde \Psi^{int}_{m}-\tilde \Psi^{int}_{m,st}$ follows from (\[eq 2\]), (\[eq 3\]) and (\[eq 8\]) $$\Delta \delta \tilde \Psi_{m}=
{4\pi G \rho \over c_{s}^{2}}(\tilde W_{m}-\delta \tilde \Psi_{m}).
\label{eq 11}$$
Reduction of the problem to standard self-adjoint form and formal solution
==========================================================================
Equation (\[eq 9\]) is of a general type that governs the linear response of rotating bodies in a context that is much wider than the specific one considered here ( see Lynden Bell & Ostriker 1967). One recurring difficulty has been that the way in which the frequency $\sigma$ occurs does not readily allow application of the general spectral theory of self-adjoint operators to the response calculation even though ${{\mbox{\boldmath${A}$}}}$, ${{\mbox{\boldmath${B}$}}}$ and ${{\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}}$ are themselves self-adjoint (eg. Dyson & Schutz 1979). We here provide a formulation in which the problem can be dealt with in the same way as a standard self-adjoint one such as occurs for a non rotating star.
We begin by remarking that the self-adjoint and non negative character of ${{\mbox{\boldmath${A}$}}}$, ${{\mbox{\boldmath${B}$}}}$ and ${{\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}}$ allows the spectral theorem to be used to specify their square roots, eg. ${{\mbox{\boldmath${A}$}}}^{1/2}$, defined by condition ${{\mbox{\boldmath${A}$}}}={{\mbox{\boldmath${A}$}}}^{1/2}
{{\mbox{\boldmath${A}$}}}^{1/2}$. The positiveness of ${{\mbox{\boldmath${A}$}}}$ allows definition of the inverse of ${{\mbox{\boldmath${A}$}}}^{1/2}$, ${{\mbox{\boldmath${A}$}}}^{-1/2}$. Technically, this is done through using the spectral decomposition $${{\mbox{\boldmath${A}$}}}W= \sum_{j} \lambda_j \phi_j \left< W|\phi_j\right>
\quad
F({{\mbox{\boldmath${A}$}}})W= \sum_{j} F(\lambda_j) \phi_j \left< W|\phi_j\right>,
\label{spectra}$$ ..etc., where $\phi_{j}$ and $\lambda_{j}$ are the eigenfunctions and the eigenvalues of the corresponding operators and the last equation defines a general function of the operator ${{\mbox{\boldmath${A}$}}}$. The sum may formally include integration with an appropriate measure in the case of a continuous spectrum of the corresponding operators.
Now let us consider a generalised two dimensional vector $\vec Z$ with components such that $ \vec Z =
(Z_1 ,{{\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}}^{1/2}
\tilde W_{m})$ and the straightforward generalisation of the inner product given by equation (\[eq 7\]). It is easy to see that equation (\[eq 9\]) can be derived from the matrix form $$\sigma \vec Z ={{\mbox{\boldmath${H}$}}} \vec Z +\vec S, \label{eq 12}$$ where $${{\mbox{\boldmath${H}$}}}=
\left( \begin{array}{cc} {{\mbox{\boldmath${A}$}}}^{-1/2}{{\mbox{\boldmath${B}$}}}
{{\mbox{\boldmath${A}$}}}^{-1/2} &
{{\mbox{\boldmath${A}$}}}^{-1/2} {{\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}}^{1/2} \\
{{\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}}^{1/2} {{\mbox{\boldmath${A}$}}}^{-1/2} & 0 \end{array}\right), \label{eq 13}$$ and the source vector $\vec S$ has the components $({{\mbox{\boldmath${A}$}}}^{-1/2}S, 0).$ It then follows from (\[eq 12\]) that we may choose $Z_1 = \sigma {{\mbox{\boldmath${A}$}}}^{1/2} \tilde W_{m}.$ Since the off diagonal elements in the matrix (\[eq 13\]) are adjoint of each other and the diagonal elements are self adjoint, that the operator ${{\mbox{\boldmath${ H}$}}}$ is self-adjoint is manifest. Now we can use the spectral theory of self-adjoint operators to look for a solution to (\[eq 9\]) in the form $\vec Z=\sum_{k} \alpha_{k} \vec Z_{k}$, where $\vec Z_{k}$ are the real eigenfunctions of ${{\mbox{\boldmath${ H}$}}}$ which satisfy $$\sigma_{k} \vec Z_{k} ={{\mbox{\boldmath${ H}$}}} \vec Z_{k}, \label{eq 14}$$ the associated necessarily real eigen frequencies being $\sigma_k.$
Substituting (\[eq 14\]) into (\[eq 12\]) we obtain $$\alpha_{k} ={<\vec Z_{k}| \vec S>\over <\vec Z_{k}|\vec
Z_{k}>(\sigma+i\nu-\sigma_{k})}, \label{eq 15}$$ where, following the Landau prescription, we have added an infinitesimal imaginary part $\nu > 0$ to the frequency $\sigma.$ The inner product induced by ${{\mbox{\boldmath${ H}$}}}$ turns out to be $<\vec Z_{k}| \vec Z_{l}>=\sigma_{k}\sigma_{l}(W_{k}| {{\mbox{\boldmath${A}$}}}
W_{l})+(W_{k}|{{\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}} W_{l})$, where $W_{k}={{\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}}^{-1/2}Z_{2}^{k}=\sigma_{k}^{-1}{{\mbox{\boldmath${A}$}}}^{-1/2}Z_{1}^{k}$. Using (\[eq 10\]) and (\[eq 15\]) we explicitly obtain $$\tilde W_{m}=
\sigma d\sum_{k} {\sigma_{k}^{2} (W_{k}| \tilde \rho_{m,st})
\over N_{k}(\sigma_{k}-i\nu-\sigma)}W_{k}, \label{eq 16}$$ where $N_{k}=\sigma^{2}_{k}(W_{k}| {{\mbox{\boldmath${A}$}}}
W_{k})+(W_{k}|{{\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}} W_{k})$ is the norm.
Transfer of energy and angular momentum from orbit to inertial waves
====================================================================
The time derivative $\dot E$ of the wave energy $E$ associated with the rotating frame and the time derivative $\dot L$ of the wave angular momentum $L$ are given by usual expressions $$\dot E=-\int d\phi \left (\dot \rho^{'}| \Psi_{ext}\right ),
\quad \dot L=-\int d\phi \left (\rho^{'}| {\partial \Psi_{ext} \over
\partial \phi}\right ). \label{eq 17}$$ The wave energy associated with the inertial frame, $E_{I}$ is given in terms of $E$ and $L$ (eg. Friedman $\&$ Schutz 1978, hereafter FS) through $$E_{I}=E+\Omega L. \label{eq 18}$$
Expressing $\rho^{'}$ with help of (\[eq 2\]) in terms of $W$ and discarding the total derivatives which cannot contribute to the total energy transfer $\Delta E=\int^{+\infty}_{-\infty}dt \dot E$, we obtain $$\Delta E=- \int^{+\infty}_{-\infty}dt
\int^{2\pi}_{0}d\phi\left({\rho \over c^{2}_{s}}(\dot W - \delta \dot \Psi)|
\Psi^{ext}\right). \label{eq 19}$$ Contributions $\Delta E_{m}$ to $\Delta E$ arising from different values of $m$ may be calculated separately. Substituting the corresponding Fourier transforms into (\[eq 19\]), and integrating over time, we obtain $$\Delta E_{m}=4\pi^{2}i\int d\sigma \sigma \lbrace
(\tilde \Psi^{ext}_{m}|\delta \tilde \rho_{m})-
(\delta \tilde \rho_{m}|\tilde \Psi^{ext}_{m})\rbrace, \label{eq 20}$$ where $\delta \tilde \rho_{m}={\rho \over c^{2}_{s}}(\tilde W_{m}-\delta
\tilde \Psi_{m})$. Note that for the problem on hand $\Psi^{ext}_{m}$ and $\Psi^{int}_{m,st}$ are real (see below). Now we substitute the spectral decomposition $\delta \tilde \Psi_{m}=\sum_{k}\alpha_{k}\delta \Psi_{k}$, where $\Delta \delta \Psi_{k}={4\pi G\rho \over c^{2}_{s}}(W_{k}-\delta
\Psi_{k})$, together with (\[eq 16\]) into (\[eq 20\]). The singularities in the integral over $\sigma$ corresponding to $\sigma=\sigma_{k}$ and determining all non-zero contributions to the integral are dealt with using the Landau prescription. Then the energy transfer is a sum of contributions associated with each mode, being given by $$\Delta E_{m}=-8\pi^{3}\sum_{k} {\sigma_{k}^{4}(4\Omega^{2}-\sigma^{2}_{k})\over
N_{k}}(W_{k}| \tilde \rho_{m,st})(\delta \rho_{m,k}| \tilde
\Psi^{ext}_{m}), \label{eq 22}$$ where $\delta \rho_{m,k}={\rho \over c_{s}^{2}}(W_{k}-\delta
\Psi_{k})$, and both integrals are evaluated for $\sigma=\sigma_{k}$.
Using the symmetry properties of the operator $\Delta +{4\pi G\rho\over c_{s}^{2}}$ one can readily see that the integrals are, in fact, the negatives of each other, thus we finally obtain $$\Delta E_{m}=8\pi^{3}\sum_{k} {\sigma_{k}^{4}(4\Omega^{2}-\sigma^{2}_{k})\over
N_{k}}A^{2}_{k}, \label{eq 23}$$ where $A_{k}=|(\tilde \rho_{m,st}| W_{k})|$.
The expression for the angular momentum transfer follows immediately from (\[eq 23\]) and the general relation between wave energy and angular momentum corresponding to a mode with particular value of $m$: $E_{m}/L_{m}=\sigma/m$ (eg. FS). We have $\Delta L_{0}=0$ and $$\Delta L_{2}=16\pi^{3}\sum_{k} {\sigma_{k}^{3}(4\Omega^{2}-\sigma^{2}_{k})\over
N_{k}}A^{2}_{k}. \label{eq 24}$$
The expressions (\[eq 23\]), (\[eq 24\]) can be evaluated when the star is in a parabolic orbit, being the limit of a highly eccentric orbit, using the expression for $\tilde \Psi^{ext}$ given in the quadrupole approximation by PT. From this we obtain $$\tilde \Psi^{ext}_{m}=\sqrt{{5\over 2\pi^{3}}{(2-|m|)!\over (2+|m|)!}}
{B_{|m|}\over
(1+q)}I_{2,-m}(y) \Omega_{p}r^{2}P^{|m|}_{2}(\cos \theta ), \label{eq 25}$$ where $B_{2}=\sqrt{{3\pi\over 10}}$, $B_{0}=-{1\over 2}\sqrt{{\pi\over 5}}$. $q$ is the ratio of $M_{*}$ to the mass of the star exerting the tides, $M$: $q=M_{*}/M$. $\Omega_{p}=\sqrt{{GM(1+q)\over R^{3}_{p}}}$ is a typical frequency of periastron passage and $R_{p}$ is the periastron distance. The functions $I_{2,-m}(y)$ specify the dependence of $\tilde \Psi^{ext}_{m}$ on $\sigma$, they are described by PT. y=$\bar \Omega (\bar \sigma +m)$, where we use dimensionless frequencies $\bar \sigma =\sigma/ \Omega$ and $\bar\Omega =\Omega/\Omega_{p}$. $P_{l}^{m}(x)$ is the associated Legendre function, and $(r,\theta)$ are the spherical coordinates.
Now we express the density perturbation entering in (\[eq 23\]), (\[eq 24\]) as $\tilde \rho_{m,st}=-{\rho \over c_{s}^{2}}F\tilde \Psi^{ext}_{m}.$ Here we introduce a factor $F$ to account for self-gravity of the star that can be obtained from the solution of (\[eq 8\]) [^3] . We substitute this expression and (\[eq 25\]) in (\[eq 23\]), (\[eq 24\]) and express all quantities in natural units. These are such that the spatial coordinates, density and sound speed are expressed in units of $R_{*}$, the averaged density ${\bar \rho}={3M_{*}\over 4\pi R_{*}^{3}}$, and $\sqrt {GM_{*}\over
R_{*}}$, respectively. We then have $$\Delta E_{m}={C_{m}\over (1+q)^{2}}\bar {\Omega}^{4}\sum_{k} \lbrace
\bar \sigma_{k}^{4}(4-\bar \sigma_{k}^{2})Q_{k}^{2}
I^{2}_{2,-m}(y) \rbrace {E_{*}\over \eta^{6}}, \label{eq 26}$$ $$\Delta L_{2}={2C_{2}\over (1+q)^{2}}\bar {\Omega}^{3}\sum_{k} \lbrace
\bar \sigma_{k}^{3}(4-\bar \sigma_{k}^{2})Q_{k}^{2}
I^{2}_{2,-m}(y) \rbrace {L_{*}\over \eta^{5}}, \label{eq 27}$$ where $E_{*}={GM_{*}\over R_{*}}$, $L_{*}=M_{*}\sqrt{GM_{*}R_{*}}$, and $\eta ={\Omega_{*}/ \Omega_{p}}=
\sqrt{M_{*}R_{p}^{3}\over (1+q)MR_{*}^{3}}$, $C_{2}={3\over 16}$ and $C_{0}=3/4$. The overlap integrals $Q_{k}$ have the form: $$Q_{k}=({\rho\over c_{s}^{2}}Fr^{2}P^{m}_{2}|W_{k})/\sqrt{\bar N_{k}},
\label{eq 27a}$$ where $\bar N_{k}=N_{k}/\Omega^{2}$.
Numerical Calculations
======================
The eigen frequencies $\bar \sigma_{k}$ and the integrals $Q_{k}$ in equations (\[eq 26\]-\[eq 27\]) have to be calculated numerically, for a given model of the star. Therefore, equation (\[eq 14\]) describing free oscillations of the star must be solved. For our numerical work we model the star as $n=1.5$ polytrope and use the method of solution of (\[eq 14\]) proposed by PP [^4]. Namely, we reduce (\[eq 14\]) to an ordinary matrix equation using an appropriate set of trial functions, and solve the corresponding eigenvalue problem. The details of our approach will be given in a separate publication. Here we note that we use different numbers $N_{t}$ of the trial functions to study convergence of our numerical scheme with the largest number being equal to $N^{max}_{t}=225$. Also we adopt a spherical model of the star assuming that the distortion of the stellar structure due to rotation does not influence significantly our results. Since the modes corresponding to $m=2$ fully determine the transfer of angular momentum in the quadrupole approximation and apparently dominate the energy transfer, which can only be increased if $m=0$ modes are included, we consider only them.
\[theor3\]
The absolute values of the eigen frequencies $\sigma_{k}$ are always smaller than or equal to $2\Omega$. For complete polytropes it is expected that they ultimately yield an everywhere dense discrete spectrum (PP). In our numerical approach their number is equal to $2N_{t}$, and therefore the number of the terms in the series in (\[eq 26\]) and (\[eq 27\]) depends on $N_{t}$. However, only the eigenfunctions with some definite values of $\sigma_{k}$ give a significant contribution to the series. These terms correspond to global eigen modes with a large scale distribution of $\tilde W_{k}$ over the star. Therefore, the overlap integrals corresponding to the global modes are not averaged to small values after integration over the volume of the star. The number of the global modes does not depend on $N_{t}$. In figure 1 we show the overlap integrals as functions of the eigen frequencies. There is a sharp rise of $Q_{k}$ near $\sigma_{k}=0$ and very close to $\sigma_{k}=2$, and several peaks corresponding to different values of $\sigma_{k}$. The rise at $\sigma_{k} \approx 0$, $2$ is due to numerical inaccuracy of our method, but the corresponding modes practically do not influence our results and therefore the numerical inaccuracy is not significant for our purposes. Note that the feature at $\sigma_{k} \approx 0$ can be removed by an appropriate regularisation of ${{\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}}$.
Three peaks with $\sigma_{1}=-1.063$ and $Q_{1}=0.037$, $\sigma_{2}=0.697$ and $Q_{2}=0.175$, $\sigma_{3}=0.362$ and $Q_{3}=0.034$ correspond to the global modes. The spatial distribution of the corresponding eigenfunctions is shown in figure 2. For comparison we also show a non global mode with $\sigma_{4}=0.703$ and a very small value of $Q_{4}$. It is clear from this figure that the global modes have a large scale distribution of $\tilde W_{k}$.
It follows from (\[eq 26\]) and (\[eq 27\]) that for a given model of the star, the quantities $$\epsilon_{m} =(1+q)^{2}\eta^{6}(\Delta E_{m}/E_{*}),
\quad \lambda =(1+q)^{2}\eta^{5}(\Delta L_{2}/L_{*}),
\label{eq 28}$$ depend only on $\bar \Omega$. In figure 3 we show the dependence of $\epsilon_{2}$ (the solid black curve) and $\lambda$ (the solid red curve) on $\bar
\Omega $. The solid green curve shows the dependence of the energy transfer in the inertial frame, $\epsilon_{I}=\epsilon_{2}+\bar \Omega \lambda $. Note that the energy transfer in the inertial frame is negative when $\bar \Omega > 2$. The dotted curves show the dependencies of the corresponding quantities calculated with only two global modes, the retrograde mode with $\sigma_{1}=-1.063$ and the prograde mode with $\sigma_{2}=0.697$. Figure 3 shows that the dotted and the solid curves are very close to each other. Therefore, only two modes are essential for our problem. The angular momentum transfer is equal to zero when $\bar \Omega=\bar \Omega_{crit}=1.6$, where $\epsilon_{crit} \approx 0.0065$. The condition $\Delta L_{2}=0$ may be easily realised in an astrophysical situation where the inertial modes dominate the tidal response and the moment of inertia of the star is sufficiently small. In this case the system quickly relaxes to the so-called state of pseudo synchronisation where $\Delta L_{2}=0$. In figure 4 we show the dependence of $\Delta E/E_{*}$ on $\eta$ for this case. The black curve shows the contribution of the inertial waves, $$\Delta E_{2} \approx {0.0065\over (1+q)^{2} \eta^{6}}E_{*}.
\label{eq 29}$$ The red curve shows the contribution of the $f$ mode to the energy transfer calculated for a non-rotating star (PT) and the green curve shows the same quantity but calculated when $\bar \Omega =\bar \Omega_{crit}$ (IP) [^5]. It is clear from this figure that when $\eta > 8$ the inertial waves dominate the tidal response. For a planet with Jupiter mass and radius circularising from large eccentricity to attain a final period of $6$ days, $\eta \sim 18$ (IP), such that inertial modes dominate by a wide margin.
Conclusions
===========
In this Paper we formulate a new self-adjoint approach to the problem of oscillations of uniformly rotating fully convective star and apply this approach to the tidal excitation of the inertial waves and tidal capture. The approach can be used in any other problem where oscillations with typical frequencies of the order of the angular velocity are important. It can also be extended to the case of convectively stable stars. The oscillations with higher frequencies can also be treated in framework of an extension of our formalism.
We show that the tidal response due to inertial waves can be represented as a spectral decomposition over normal modes. This formalism is general enough to be applied even when the spectrum is not regular and discrete. For full polytropes, only a few global modes with a large scale distribution of the perturbed quantities over the star contribute significantly to the response. We find general expressions for the energy and angular momentum transfer between the orbit and inertial waves. It is shown that when the inertial waves dominate the tidal response and a state of pseudo synchronisation is reached the energy transfer is determined by simple equation (\[eq 29\]). As follows from that equation the energy transfer does not decrease exponentially with the orbital periastron and therefore at large periastra the energy transfer due to inertial waves dominates over the energy transfer due to excitation of the fundamental mode. This can be very important for the problem of tidal circularisation of the extra solar planets (see above, IP and references therein), and can be of interest for other problems, such as eg. the problem of tidal capture of convective stars in globular clusters. The application of our approach to extra solar planets will be discussed in a separate publication.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
PBI has been supported in part by RFBR grant 04-02-17444.
[99]{}
Dintrans, B., Ouyed, R., 2001, A$\&$A, 375, L47
Dyson, J., Schutz, B. F., 1979, RSPSA, 368, 389 Friedman, J. L., Schutz, B. F., 1978, ApJ, 221, 937 (FS)
Ivanov, P., Papaloizou, J., 2004, MNRAS, 347, 437 (IP)
Lockitch, K. H., Friedman, J. L., 1999, ApJ, 521, 764
Lynden Bell D., Ostriker, J. P., 1967, MNRAS, 136, 293
Papaloizou, J., Pringle, J. E., 1981, MNRAS, 195, 743 (PP)
Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., 1977, ApJ, 213, 183 (PT)
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: J.C.B.Papaloizou@damtp.cam.ac.uk (JCBP); P.Ivanov@damtp.cam.ac.uk (PBI)
[^2]: For a barotropic fluid the pressure $P$ has the same functional dependence on the density $\rho$: $P=P(\rho)$, for the unperturbed configuration and during perturbation.
[^3]: $F=1$ in the frequently used Cowling approximation.
[^4]: In order to check the method we also calculate the eigen spectrum of an $n=1$ polytrope. Our results are in a good agreement with results obtained by Lockitch $\&$ Friedman (1999) and Dintrans $\&$ Ouyed (2001) who used different methods.
[^5]: Note a misprint made in (IP). Their equations (60), (61) and (64) must by multiplied by factor $\pi^2$. This has no influence on the conclusions of the paper.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The controversy regarding the ferroelectric behavior of hexagonal InMnO$_3$ is resolved by using a combination of x-ray diffraction (XRD), piezoresponse force microscopy (PFM), second harmonic generation (SHG), and density functional theory (DFT). While XRD data show a symmetry-lowering unit-cell tripling, which is also found in the multiferroic hexagonal manganites of $P6_3cm$ symmetry, PFM and SHG do not detect ferroelectricity at ambient or low temperature, in striking contrast to the behavior in the multiferroic counterparts. We propose instead a centrosymmetric $P\overline{3}c$ phase as the ground state structure. Our DFT calculations reveal that the relative energy of the ferroelectric and nonferroelectric structures is determined by a competition between electrostatics and oxygen-$R$-site covalency, with an $absence$ of covalency favoring the ferroelectric phase.'
author:
- Yu Kumagai
- 'Alexei A. Belik'
- Martin Lilienblum
- 'Na$\ddot{\rm e}$mi Leo'
- Manfred Fiebig
- 'Nicola A. Spaldin'
title: Observation of persistent centrosymmetricity in the hexagonal manganite family
---
Introduction: structure of the hexagonal manganites
===================================================
Hexagonal h-$R$MnO$_3$ ($R$ = Sc, Y, Dy–Lu) represents an established class of multiferroics in which ferroelectricity and antiferromagnetism exist simultaneously. Although their fundamental properties have been investigated for half a century, recent reports of intriguing characteristics such as interlocked antiphase (AP) and ferroelectric (FE) (AP+FE) domain walls[@NatMat.9.253; @ApplPhysLett.97.012904; @NatMat.submitted] are fueling continued interest. At the root of these behaviors is their unusual improper geometric ferroelectricity,[@NatMat.430.541; @PhysRevB.72.100103] which is in turn related to their layered structure, in which $xy$ planes of $R^{3+}$ ions are interspaced by layers of corner-shared MnO$_5$ trigonal polyhedra (Fig. \[str\]).
![(a) Side and (b) top views of the two candidate InMnO$_3$ structures. $P6_3cm$ is the ferroelectric phase of the h-$R$MnO$_3$ compounds; $P\overline{3}c$ is the structure proposed for InMnO$_3$ in this study. Arrows indicate the displacements from the high symmetry $P6_3/mmc$ phase. The primitive unit cell is shaded grey. In contrast with the $P6_3cm$ phase, one In ion in the $P\overline{3}c$ unit cell remains at the high-symmetry $2b$ site, retaining the inversion symmetry. Note also the different tilt patterns of the MnO$_5$ polyhedra toward or around corner $R$ ions. (c) Top views of $\alpha^+$ and $\beta^-$ domains in the $P6_3cm$ phase using the notation from Ref. and one of six domains in the $P\overline{3}c$ phase. The phases ${\it \Phi}$, defined by the (counter)clockwise angle of tilting direction of upper (lower) oxygen layers relative to $\alpha^+$ domain, are also shown (Ref. ). Note that the $P\overline{3}c$ phase has a tilt phase of 30$^{\circ}$+$n\cdot60^{\circ}$, and is obtained by averaging the tilt patterns and $R$-ion displacements of two $P6_3cm$ trimerization domains with different origins and orientations such as the $\alpha^+$ and $\beta^-$ domains. []{data-label="str"}](str.pdf){width="1\linewidth"}
InMnO$_3$ crystallizes in the same hexagonal manganite structure as the h-$R$MnO$_3$ compounds, and might be expected to show analogous ferroelectric behavior. In fact, most previous x-ray and neutron powder diffraction refinements assigned InMnO$_3$ to the polar $P6_3cm$ structure adopted by the multiferroic hexagonal manganites.[@JSolidStateChem.116.118; @PhysRevB.79.054411; @PhysRevB.84.054455] In the $P6_3cm$ structure, the MnO$_5$ trigonal bipyramids tilt and trimerize with a trimerization phase of $n\cdot60^{\circ}$, where $n$ is an integer. The $R$ ions on the $2a$ sites displace up or down along the $z$ direction, depending on the tilting direction, and those on the $4b$ sites in the opposite direction (Fig. \[str\]). This tilt symmetry then enables an additional displacement of the $R$ sublattice relative to the Mn-O layers causing a net ferroelectric polarization. Rusakov and Belik $et~al.$ pointed out that the nonpolar $P\overline{3}c$ structure – in which the MnO$_5$ polyhedra trimerize at intermediate angles and the inversion symmetry is retained (Fig. \[str\]) – and polar $P6_3cm$ structure have similar powder x-ray-diffraction $R$ values.[@InorgChem.50.3559] They disregarded the $P\overline{3}c$ model in their subsequent analysis, however, believing that all h-$R$MnO$_3$ compounds should be polar. Indeed, ferroelectricity has been reported in InMnO$_3$ below 500 K based on the observation of polarization-electric field (P-E) hysteresis loops obtained by a ferroelectric test system. Such pyroelectric current measurements, especially if they are applied to amorphous samples or thin films, are notoriously sensitive to sample defects, however, and the P-E loops shown in Ref. could indicate leaky dielectric behavior rather than ferroelectricity.[@JPhysCondensMatter.20.021001] In agreement with this, Belik $et~al.$ did not observe spontaneous polarization when they repeated the experiment.[@PhysRevB.79.054411; @InorgChem.50.3559] Therefore there is no clear evidence to date that InMnO$_3$ has the $P6_3cm$ structure or shows ferroelectric polarization.
In this study, we revisit the structure and polarization behavior of InMnO$_3$ by using a combination of x-ray diffraction (XRD), piezoresponse force microscopy (PFM), optical second harmonic generation (SHG), and density functional theory (DFT) and show that InMnO$_3$ is indeed centrosymmetric, with $P\overline{3}c$ as the most likely space group (Fig. \[str\]). We explain the difference between InMnO$_3$ and the multiferroic h-$R$MnO$_3$ compounds using DFT analysis of the chemical bonding, and propose another candidate material TlMnO$_3$ that should also show the nonferroelectric InMnO$_3$ structure. Finally, we discuss the implications of this newly-identified structure for the multiferroicity in the h-$R$MnO$_3$ family in general.
Experiments
===========
![Synchrotron x-ray powder diffraction patterns of InMnO$_3$ at 293 K. Crosses represent data points and solid lines calculated intensities for $P\overline{3}c$. Differences for three structure models are also shown. Bragg reflections are indicated by tick marks (these are the same for $P6_3cm$, $P\overline{3}c$, and $P6_3/mcm$ models). The lower tick marks indicate reflections from In$_2$O$_3$ impurity. Arrows show reflections corresponding to unit-cell tripling. []{data-label="xrd"}](xrd.pdf){width="1\linewidth"}
[cccccc]{}\
\
Atom & Wyckoff position & $x$ & $y$ & $z$ & $B_{\rm iso}$ ($\AA^2$)\
In1 & $4d$ & 1/3 & 2/3 & 0.51674(8) & 0.46(3)\
In2 & $2b$ & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1.28(8)\
Mn & $6f$ & 0.6587(10) & 0 & 1/4 & 0.36(2)\
O1 & $2a$ & 0 & 0 & 1/4 & 0.9(4)\
O2 & $4d$ & 1/3 & 2/3 & 0.7312(7) & 0.26(15)\
O3 & $12g$ & 0.6829(25) & 0.0241(10) & 0.0858(2) & 0.77(8)\
[cccccc]{}\
\
Atom & Wyckoff position & $x$ & $y$ & $z$ & $B_{\rm iso}$ ($\AA^2$)\
In1 & $2a$ & 0 & 0 & 0.2674(6) & 0.33(6)\
In2 & $4b$ & 1/3 & 2/3 & 0.2383(6) & 0.92(4)\
Mn & $6c$ & 0.3250(10) & 0 & 0 & 0.37(3)\
O1 & $6c$ & 0.3117(22) & 0 & 0.1749(11) & 1.5(3)\
O2 & $6c$ & 0.6466(18) & 0 & 0.3445(10) & -0.4(2)\
O3 & $2a$ & 0 & 0 & 0.4746(20) & -0.2(4)\
O4 & $4b$ & 1/3 &2/3& 0.0077(20) & 0.7(3)\
XRD {#sec:XRD}
---
First we use powder XRD to directly and quantitatively compare the refinements for the candidate polar and nonpolar structures. For sample preparation, a stoichiometric mixture of In$_2$O$_3$ (99.9%) and Mn$_2$O$_3$ was placed in Au capsules and treated at 6 GPa in a belt-type high pressure apparatus at 1373 K for 30 min (heating rate 110 K/min). After heat treatment, the samples were quenched to room temperature, and the pressure was slowly released. The resultant samples were black dense pellets. Single-phase Mn$_2$O$_3$ was prepared from commercial MnO$_2$ (99.99%) by heating in air at 923 K for 24 h. The synchrotron XRD data were obtained on powdered samples at the BL02B2 beamline of SPring-8.[@NNuclInstrumMethodsPhysResSectA.467.1045] They were collected in a $2\theta$ range from $2^{\circ}$ to $75^{\circ}$ with a step interval of 0.01 degrees and analyzed by the Rietveld method with RIETAN-2000.[@MaterSciForum.198.321]
An evaluation of the XRD data shown in Fig. \[xrd\] clearly reveals that the unit cell of InMnO$_3$ holds six formula units. This indicates a deviation of the $P6_3/mmc$ high-temperature phase due to unit-cell tripling with tilt-shear motions of the MnO$_5$ bipyramids as in the ferroelectric $R$MnO$_3$ compounds. The centrosymmetric and the noncentrosymmetric subgroups *with the highest possible symmetry* that are compatible with a trimerization of the $P6_3/mmc$ high-temperature phase are $P6_3/mcm$ and $P6_3cm$, respectively. Here refinements clearly favor the latter structure which may contribute to former claims of the $P6_3cm$ symmetry for InMnO$_3$.[@InorgChem.50.3559] However, in contrast to the case of the ferroelectric manganites, the structure refinements of the XRD data reveals equally good fits for the centrosymmetric space group $P\overline{3}c$ and the noncentrosymmetric space group $P6_3cm$ [@note-Rvalues] consistent with a previous observation.[@InorgChem.50.3559] In Table \[XRDTable\] we report our refined atomic coordinates and lattice parameters within the $P\overline{3}c$ and $P6_3cm$ space groups. In general, structures refined with the correct space group are lower in energy than those refined with incorrect space groups. Our DFT calculations for InMnO$_3$ at the atomic positions and cell parameters obtained in the two competing best-fit experimental refinements (calculation details given later) indicate that the nonpolar $P\overline{3}c$ structure is $\sim$200 meV per formula unit (f.u.) lower in energy than the $P6_3cm$ structure. We therefore suggest the nonferroelectric $P\overline{3}c$ phase as the ground state for InMnO$_3$.
![PFM images scaled relative to the response of periodically poled lithium niobate at room temperature, for (a) YMnO$_3$ showing the known characteristic ferroelectric domain pattern, and for (b) InMnO$_3$, where no ferroelectric domains are observed, and only topographical artifacts (c) are visible. []{data-label="pfm"}](pfm.pdf){width="1\linewidth"}
PFM {#sec:PFM}
---
To confirm this suggestion, we next used PFM to probe directly for the presence of FE domains; this technique avoids ambiguities caused by sample leakiness which might have occurred in previous macroscopic polarization measurements.[@JApplPhys.100.076104] In order to calibrate the response from InMnO$_3$, PFM and simultaneous scanning force microscopy (SFM) measurements with a commercial SFM (Solaris, NT-MDT) were carried out on YMnO$_3$ and InMnO$_3$. All compounds for PFM and SHG measurements were grown by the flux method as $z$-oriented platelets.[@ActaCryst.16.957] For PFM an ac-voltage of 14 V$_{\rm pp}$ at a frequency of 40 kHz was applied to a conductive Pt-Ir coated probe (NSC 35, Mikromasch). The out-of-plane component of the piezoelectric response was recorded by the in-phase output channel of an external lock-in amplifier (SR830, Stanford Research) with a typical sensitivity of 200 $\mu$V and time constant of 10 ms. The PFM signal of each sample was normalized to a response of the $z$ face of PPLN ($d_{33}$=7 pm/V) in order to maintain comparability of the PFM response, which was measured before and after each h-$R$MnO$_3$ measurement in order to exclude changes in the PFM sensitivity.[@note-symmetry]
Our results are summarized in the equally scaled Figs. \[pfm\](a) and \[pfm\](b). YMnO$_3$ reveals the familiar domain pattern of six intersecting AP+FE domains with alternating polarization $\pm P_z$.[@NatMat.9.253; @ApplPhysLett.97.012904] Strikingly, the InMnO$_3$ shows an almost homogeneous distribution of the PFM response with no sign of FE domains. The corresponding SFM data in Fig. \[pfm\](c) show that the slightly brighter speckles in the PFM image correspond to protrusions on the unpolished surface of the InMnO$_3$ sample. If one relates the contrast obtained for opposite domains in YMnO$_3$ to the spontaneous polarization of $5.6$ $\mu$C/cm$^2$, any polarization in InMnO$_3$ has to be at least two orders of magnitude smaller to avoid detection in our measurement. Our calculated polarization[@PhysRevB.47.1651] for the DFT-optimized $P6_3cm$ InMnO$_3$ structure is 4.8 $\mu$C/cm$^2$ which would certainly be detectable. The absence of ferroelectricity (or of sub-resolution domains) in InMnO$_3$ is further supported by poling experiments with the SFM tip which did not induce any lasting change of the PFM response.
![ SHG on (a) ErMnO$_3$ and (b) InMnO$_3$ at 5 K and 2.51 eV with light incident on the $z$-oriented surface of the single crystals along the \[011\] direction. The anisotropy measurement was obtained by rotating the linear polarization of the incident light at $\omega$ and of the detected intensity at 2$\omega$ simultaneously by 360$^{\circ}$. Lines are fits of the SHG data according to Ref. . Scales in (a) and (b) differ by a factor 150. The two-fold SHG signal of ErMnO$_3$ indicates the presence of a spontaneous polarization whereas no indication for ferroelectricity in InMnO$_3$ was found. Instead the six-fold pattern characteristic of the antiferromagnetic order in InMnO$_3$ is observed. []{data-label="shg"}](shg.pdf){width="1\linewidth"}
SHG
---
Since PFM measurements could only be done under ambient conditions, we next used SHG to search for ferroelectric order at low temperature. As discussed in detail in Ref. , the breaking of inversion symmetry by ferroelectric order leads to a characteristic SHG signal. The samples were mounted in a liquid-helium-operated cryostat and probed with 120 fs laser pulses in a standard transmission setup for SHG.[@JOptSocAmB.22.96] For comparison, ErMnO$_3$ was chosen for the SHG data because, unlike YMnO$_3$, it has the same magnetic SHG spectrum as InMnO$_3$. Figure \[shg\] shows the anisotropy of the SHG signal taken under identical conditions at 5 K on ferroelectric ErMnO$_3$ and on InMnO$_3$. The laser light was incident under 45$^{\circ}$ to the hexagonal crystal axes so that SHG components coupling to a spontaneous polarization along $z$ could be excited.[@JOptSocAmB.22.96] ErMnO$_3$ shows the double lobe characteristic of the ferroelectric order. In InMnO$_3$ the double lobe is absent. Instead a SHG signal with the sixfold anisotropy characteristic of the antiferromagnetic order and 150 times weaker intensity is found, indicating that the only order parameter is the antiferromagnetism of the Mn$^{3+}$ ions. We therefore conclude that InMnO$_3$ is not ferroelectric down to 5 K.
![Calculated energy differences between the fully relaxed $P\overline{3}c$ phase and $P6_3cm$ phases, $\Delta E_{\rm str}$. Four exchange-correlation functionals, LDA, GGA, LDA+$U$, and GGA$+U$, and two spin configurations, FAFM and NCAFM (see text), were used. LDA/LDA+$U$ results for LuMnO$_3$ are not shown because [vasp]{} does not provide an LDA Lu PAW potential. Positive $\Delta E_{\rm str}$ indicates that the ferroelectric $P6_3cm$ phase is stable over the $P\bar{3}c$ phase. The compounds are plotted in order of increasing $R$-site cation ionic radii, $R_R$ (Ref. ). []{data-label="energy_difference"}](energy_difference.pdf){width="1\linewidth"}
Theory
======
To resolve the origin of the difference between InMnO$_3$ and the other hexagonal manganite h-$R$MnO$_3$ compounds, we used DFT calculations to evaluate the energy difference, $\Delta E_{\rm str}=E_{P\bar{3}c}-E_{P6_3cm}$, between the candidate $P6_3cm$ and $P\overline{3}c$ phases. Our spin-polarized first principles calculations were performed using the projector augmented-wave (PAW) method[@PhysRevB.50.17953] as implemented in [vasp]{}.[@PhysRevB.54.11169] In this study, Sc 3$s$, 3$p$, 3$d$, and 4$s$, Y 4$s$, 4$p$, 4$d$, and 5$s$, In 5$s$ and 5$p$, Lu 5$p$, 5$d$, and 6$s$, Tl 6$s$ and 6$p$, Mn 3$d$ and 4$s$, and O 2$s$ and 2$p$ were described as valence electrons. The PAW data set with radial cutoffs of 1.3, 1.4, 1.6, 1.6, 1.7, 1.2, and 0.8 $\AA$, respectively, for Sc, Y, In, Lu, Tl, Mn and O was employed. The local density of states was also evaluated within the same spheres. Wave functions were expanded with plane waves up to an energy cutoff of 500 eV. All calculations were performed with 30-atom cells, which can describe unit cells of $P6_3cm$ and $P\overline{3}c$ phases. $k$-points were sampled with a $\Gamma$-centered 4$\times$4$\times$2 grid. In addition to InMnO$_3$, we also calculated $\Delta E_{\rm str}$ for ScMnO$_3$, LuMnO$_3$, and YMnO$_3$, as well as for as-yet-unsynthesized TlMnO$_3$. To validate the results, we adopted four different exchange-correlation (XC) functionals: local density approximation (LDA), generalized gradient approximation (GGA), LDA+$U$, and GGA+$U$,[@PhysRevB.23.5048; @PhysRevLett.78.1396; @PhysRevB.57.1505] with the value for $U_{\rm eff}=U-J$ on the Mn-3$d$ orbitals set to 4 eV. In addition we tested two different spin configurations, so-called frustrated antiferromagnetic (FAFM)[@JPhysCondensMatter.12.4947] and the noncollinear antiferromagnetic (NCAFM) adopted in Ref. . The lattice constants and internal positions were fully optimized in each case until the residual stresses and forces converged to less than 0.1 GPa and 0.01 eV/Å respectively.
Figure \[energy\_difference\] shows our calculated $\Delta E_{\rm str}$ values for the various functionals and magnetic configurations. A positive $\Delta E_{\rm str}$ indicates that the ferroelectric structure is stable. When the $R$ site is occupied with a ${\rm I\hspace{-.1em}I\hspace{-.1em}I}$b (Sc, Y, or Lu) ion, the $P6_3cm$ phase is more stable than the $P\overline{3}c$ phase consistent with the experimentally observed ferroelectricity. However, in the case of a ${\rm I\hspace{-.1em}I\hspace{-.1em}I}$a (In or Tl) ion, $\Delta E_{\rm str}$ is close to zero. Note that in these calculations the lattice parameters and ionic positions for both structures were fully relaxed, within the constraint of the appropriate symmetry. \[When we previously constrained our atomic positions and cell parameters to those obtained from the XRD analysis, the energy of the $P\overline{3}c$ phase is much lower ($\sim$200 meV/f.u.) than that of the $P6_3cm$ phase as we reported in Sec. \[sec:XRD\].\] We note that $\Delta E_{\rm str}$ is quite insensitive to the magnetic configuration, but does show a dependence on the choice of XC functional, and for InMnO$_3$, the [*sign*]{} of $\Delta E_{\rm str}$ depends on the functional, suggesting the possibility of competing low energy structures.[@note-hybrid] \[Previous calculations of the energy difference between $P6_3cm$ and $P\overline{3}c$ structures for InMnO$_3$ derived from XRD data (Sec. \[sec:XRD\]) and the polarization for InMnO$_3$ with the $P6_3cm$ symmetry (Sec. \[sec:PFM\]), and subsequent calculations use the GGA+$U$ and FAFM configuration.\]
![Calculated total and averaged local densities of states for InMnO$_3$ and YMnO$_3$ in the $P\overline{3}c$ phase. Zeroes of the horizontal axes are set to the top of the valence band. Valence bands are composed mainly of O-2$p$ and Mn-3$d$ orbitals. The difference of the electronic structures is mainly manifested at the formally unoccupied $R$ 5$s$ and 5$p$ local density of states. []{data-label="dos"}](dos.pdf){width="1.0\linewidth"}
It is clear from Fig. \[energy\_difference\] that $R_R$ is not the key factor in determining the phase stability. Instead we focus on the different chemistry of the group ${\rm I\hspace{-.1em}I\hspace{-.1em}I}$a ions, compared to the group ${\rm I\hspace{-.1em}I\hspace{-.1em}I}$b ions. It was previously suggested that the behavior of InMnO$_3$ is dominated by high-lying occupied semicore $4d$ (In) electrons;[@PhysRevLett.106.047601] in contrast the valence $d$ states are formally unoccupied in the ${\rm I\hspace{-.1em}I\hspace{-.1em}I}$b ions. In fact it is well known that the presence or absence of semicore $d$ electrons can affect the structural stability as illustrated by the different structures of MgO (rock salt) and ZnO (wurtzite, with semicore $d$s) in which the cations have very similar ionic radii ($r_{\rm MgO}=0.57~\AA$ and $r_{\rm ZnO}=0.60~\AA$ in four-coordination and $r_{\rm MgO}=0.72~\AA$ and $r_{\rm ZnO}=0.74~\AA$ in six-coordination).
In Fig. \[dos\](a) we show our calculated densities of states (DOS) for InMnO$_3$ and YMnO$_3$ (TlMnO$_3$, and ScMnO$_3$/LuMnO$_3$ behave analogously to InMnO$_3$ and YMnO$_3$, respectively), both calculated within the $P\overline{3}c$ phase to allow a direct comparison. In both cases, the valence bands consist mainly of Mn-$d$ (up-spin $e_{1g}$ and $e_{2g}$) and O-2$p$ states. The main differences occur in the DOSs on the $R$ ions. The In “semicore” $4d$ states, however, form a narrow band that is around $-13$ eV below the top of the valence band when the $d$ electrons are treated as valence (not shown). They do not directly contribute to covalent bonding with the oxygen anions, in contrast to the suggestion in Ref. . The relevant difference is the substantially lower energy of the formally unoccupied $R$ $5s$ and $5p$ states in In compared with Y, caused by the well-known increase in nuclear charge without corresponding increase in screening across the $4d$ series. As a result, in InMnO$_3$ the $5s$ (and to a lesser extent $5p$) states, which would be completely empty in the ionic limit, develop significant occupation through In-O$2p$ covalency, with occupied In $5s$ states in fact forming the bottom of the valence band. (Similar behavior has been previously reported in other In oxides.[@JElectrMat.40.1501; @PhysRevB.64.233111]) In YMnO$_3$, the Y $5s$ and $5p$ states are substantially higher in energy relative to the top of the valence band and so their hybridization with O $2p$ and subsequent occupation is negligible. Instead there is a small hybridization with the formally empty Y $4d$ states. The difference in covalency between InMnO$_3$ and YMnO$_3$ manifests particularly strikingly in the calculated valence charge densities at the $R$ sites. In Fig. \[charge-diff\] we show the valence charge density differences between LuMnO$_3$ and YMnO$_3$ and between InMnO$_3$ and YMnO$_3$ in the $P\overline{3}c$ structure. The charge density at the Mn sites is similar in all cases. Compared with YMnO$_3$ and LuMnO$_3$, however, InMnO$_3$, has a decrease in charge density at the O sites adjacent to the In ions and an increase at the outer region of the In site indicating charge transfer from oxygen to In and stronger In-O than Y-O or Lu-O covalent bond formation.
Next we investigate how the additional covalency of the In-O and Tl-O bonds compared with those of Y-O and related compounds manifest in the spring constants. Our calculated $z$-direction spring constants of the $R$ ions at the high-symmetry $2b$ sites in the $P\overline{3}c$ structure are 2.7, 3.2, and 3.1 eV/$\AA^2$ for ScMnO$_3$, LuMnO$_3$, and YMnO$_3$, and are 4.4 and 4.2 eV/$\AA^2$ for InMnO$_3$ and TlMnO$_3$. As expected, the strong In-O and Tl-O hybridization results in larger spring constants in the In and Tl compounds. The larger spring constants make the In and Tl ions reluctant to shift from their high-symmetry sites, favoring instead equal $R$-O$_{\rm ap}$ bond distances. This in turn favors the $P\overline{3}c$ structure, in which $\frac{1}{3}$ of the $R$ ions retain their fully 6-coordinated high-symmetry positions, over the ferroelectric $P6_3cm$ phase, in which all $R$ ions are displaced from the high-symmetry positions.
![Charge density differences for valence band electrons between (a) LuMnO$_3$ and YMnO$_3$ and (b) InMnO$_3$ and YMnO$_3$ in the $P\overline{3}c$ phase. For the comparison, the same atomic positions were chosen for the compounds that are compared. The structures are constructed by averaging the DFT-optimized structures for (a) LuMnO$_3$ and YMnO$_3$, and (b) InMnO$_3$ and YMnO$_3$. Red and blue regions correspond to excess and deficiency of charge in LuMnO$_3$/InMnO$_3$ compared with YMnO$_3$. The yellow and light blue isosurfaces correspond to $0.03$ and $-0.03$ Å$^{-3}$, respectively. Comparing with the charge density difference between LuMnO$_3$ and YMnO$_3$, InMnO$_3$ shows noticeable differences from YMnO$_3$ especially at the In site. []{data-label="charge-diff"}](charge-diff.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
We emphasize that the behavior here in which stronger covalency favors the nonferroelectric phase is completely different from that in conventional ferroelectrics such as BaTiO$_3$, in which stronger covalency favors the ferroelectric distortion through the second-order Jahn-Teller effect. In such conventional ferroelectrics, the Born effective charges $Z^* = \frac{\partial P}{\partial u}$ which participate actively in the re-hybridization are anomalously larger than the formal ionic charges, reflecting the charge transfer that takes place during the ionic displacements to the ferroelectric phase; such anomalous Born effective charges are signatures of instability toward a ferroelectric phase transition.[@PhysRevB.58.6224] In both InMnO$_3$ and YMnO$_3$ the mechanism for the primary symmetry-lowering tilt distortion is geometric rather than due to a rehybridization, and the Born effective charges on all atoms are nonanomalous.[@note-BEC] In InMnO$_3$, the additional strong In-O covalency in the paraelectric phase [*resists*]{} the distortion of the In ions away from their high-symmetry positions favoring the $P\overline{3}c$ space group, whereas the lower Y-O covalency provides less resistance, allowing the additional Y-O displacements required to reach the $P6_3cm$ symmetry. In Ref. , the hybridization between the Y-$3d$ and O-$2p$ orbitals was measured using polarization-dependent x-ray absorption spectroscopy (XAS) at the O $K$-edge. Then the static charge occupancy in the Y $3d$ orbitals was equated with an anomalous dynamical Born effective charge, which led to the claim that this hybridization is responsible for the ferroelectricity in YMnO$_3$. It is important to understand that the Born effective charge is the $derivative$ of the polarization with respect to ionic displacements, and is unrelated to the static orbital occupancy in a single structure: Partial hybridization of Y $3d$ with O $2p$, while clearly present both in the experiments and in earlier and subsequent first-principles calculations, is not indicative of an anomalous Born effective charge and therefore does not indicate tendency toward ferroelectricity.
![Calculated (a) in-plane and (b) out-of-plane lattice constants in the $P6_3cm$ ($\circ$) and $P\overline{3}c$ ($\Box$) phases. The experimental lattice constants are also shown ($\times$) (Ref. ). The dashed lines indicate the trend of ${\rm I\hspace{-.1em}I\hspace{-.1em}I}$b manganites for a guide to eyes.[]{data-label="structure_properties"}](structure_properties.pdf){width="1.0\linewidth"}
Experimentally, it is known that InMnO$_3$ has an anomalously large $c$ lattice constant compared to the multiferroic hexagonal manganites.[@JSolidStateChem.116.118] In Fig. \[structure\_properties\] we plot our calculated lattice constants (with experimental values where available for comparison) of the manganites series as a function of ionic radii $R_R$. We point out first that this is not a consequence of the different space group that we have established here; our density functional calculations yield similar lattice constants for InMnO$_3$ in the $P\overline{3}c$ and $P6_3cm$ phases. The calculated lattice constants are systematically overestimated compared with experiments as is typical of the GGA. We see that the in-plane lattice constants, $a$, increase monotonically with $R_R$, with InMnO$_3$ showing only a small calculated anomaly. In contrast, the $c$ lattice constant of InMnO$_3$ deviates strongly from the trend shown by the ${\rm I\hspace{-.1em}I\hspace{-.1em}I}$b manganites, both in our calculations and in experiment. Since this deviation is also identified in TlMnO$_3$, the anomalously large $c$ likely originates from covalency in ${\rm I\hspace{-.1em}I\hspace{-.1em}I}$a manganites as shown in Fig. \[charge-diff\].
Discussion
==========
Although the centrosymmetric $P\overline{3}c$ phase that we propose in this work for InMnO$_3$ may be seemingly less attractive compared with the ferroelectric $P6_3cm$ structure, our results have implications for the multiferroic hexagonal manganites as a whole. Since the tilt pattern of the YMnO$_3$ structure subsequently allows for the development of ferroelectricity, whereas that of the InMnO$_3$ structure does not, the subtle chemical bonding differences identified here that favor one tilt pattern over another in turn determine whether the resulting structure can be multiferroic. Specifically, we have discussed here that an [*absence*]{} of $R$-O hybridization is required to favor the YMnO$_3$ tilt pattern over the InMnO$_3$ tilt pattern; an absence of $R$-O hybridization is therefore a requirement for ferroelectricity in the hexagonal manganites. Earlier theoretical papers correctly noted the electrostatic origin of the “geometric ferroelectricity” mechanism in the hexagonal manganites;[@NatMat.430.541] we now understand that the relative stability of ferroelectric and nonferroelectric structures is determined by a competition between electrostatics (favoring the ferroelectric phase) and covalency (favoring the nonferroelectric phase).
![(a),(b) Calculated InMnO$_3$ $P\overline{3}c$ and $P6_3cm$ structure energies relative to the equilibrium $P\overline{3}c$ phase as a function of in-plane lattice constant $a$ by the GGA and GGA$+U$. (c),(d) Energy differences $\Delta E_{\rm str}$ between the $P\overline{3}c$ and $P6_3cm$ phases. Positive values indicate that the ferroelectric $P6_3cm$ phase is stable over the $P\overline{3}c$ phase. The fitted lines were obtained with fourth-order polynomials. The vertical dashed lines indicate the calculated equilibrium lattice constants of InMnO$_3$ $P\overline{3}c$ phase.[]{data-label="epitaxial_strain"}](epitaxial_strain.pdf){width="1.0\linewidth"}
In addition, since the polar $P6_3cm$ and nonpolar $P\overline{3}c$ phases are close in energy in InMnO$_3$ as shown in Fig. \[energy\_difference\], it might be expected that their relative stability could be changed using external perturbations such as epitaxial strain. Figure \[epitaxial\_strain\] shows the calculated energies of the $P6_3cm$ and $P\overline{3}c$ phases and their energy differences as a function of in-plane lattice constant $a$, with the out-of-plane lattice constant $c$ and internal positions fully relaxed for each $a$ value. Because the critical strain of the phase boundary depends on the $U$ value, we performed the calculations using both the GGA and GGA$+U$ methods. We see that the $\Delta E_{\rm str}$ increases with the increasing in-plane lattice constant, indicating a larger in-plane lattice constant could develop the polar $P6_3cm$. Interestingly, the ferroelectric polarization develops in the out-of-plane direction, in striking contrast to the behavior in perovskites.[@PhysRevB.72.144101] Therefore we anticipate that InMnO$_3$ could be tuned into the polar $P6_3cm$ structure using tensile strain.
Finally we mention that a recent transmission electron microscopy study of the domain walls in ferroelectric hexagonal TmMnO$_3$ and LuMnO$_3$[@PhysRevB.85.020102] revealed that a domain wall structure at the edges of the sample is similar to the nonpolar $P\overline{3}c$ InMnO$_3$ structure: The $R$ ion at the wall is at the centrosymmetric position, with one neighbor displaced in the up-direction and one in the down-direction. Detailed calculations of the domain-wall structure in $R$MnO$_3$ are ongoing.
Conclusion
==========
In summary, we have proposed a different nonferroelectric ground state structure in the hexagonal manganite InMnO$_3$, and we predict its occurrence in as-yet-unsynthesized hexagonal TlMnO$_3$. The proposed phase has $P\overline{3}c$ symmetry, and is closely related to the usual $P6_3cm$ ferroelectric ground state but with a different pattern of polyhedral tilts that retains the center of inversion. The energy balance between the two related phases is determined by a competition between electrostatics and $R$-O covalency, with $lower$ $R$-O covalency favoring the ferroelectric structure. Thus, the [*absence*]{} of ferroelectricity in InMnO$_3$ reveals to us the reason for the [*presence*]{} of ferroelectricity (and therefore multiferroicity) in the other h-$R$MnO$_3$ compounds.
We thank M. Bieringer, Department of Chemistry, University of Manitoba for providing the InMnO$_3$ single crystals. Y.K. acknowledges support by JSPS Postdoctoral Fellowships for Research Abroad. Y.K., M.L., N.L., M.F., and N.A.S. acknowledge support from ETH Zurich, and A.A.B. acknowledges support from MANA WPI Initiative (MEXT, Japan), FIRST Program (JSPS), and JSPS Grant No. 22246083. The SXRD was performed under Proposals No. 2009A1136 and No. 2010A1215. The visualization of crystal structures and charge density differences were performed with [vesta]{}.[@JApplCryst.41.653]
[44]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ** (, , ).
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
.
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
).
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- |
[^1]\
Indian Institute of Technology Madras\
E-mail:
- |
Jim Libby\
Indian Institute of Technology Madras\
E-mail:
- |
Sneha Malde\
University of Oxford\
E-mail:
- |
Guy Wilkinson\
University of Oxford\
E-mail:
title: 'Quantum-correlated measurements of $\boldsymbol{D^{0}\to K^{0}_{\rm S}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0}}$ and consequences for the determination of $\gamma$'
---
Introduction
============
Among the three CKM [@CKM] angles $\gamma$ is measured least precisely. This is due to the small branching fraction of decays sensitive to $\gamma$. An improved measurement of $\gamma$ is essential for testing the standard model description of $CP$ violation. The decays $B^{\pm}\to DK^{\pm}$, where $D$ indicates a neutral charm meson reconstructed in a final state common to both $D^{0}$ and $\bar{D^{0}}$, provide $CP$-violating observables and they can be used for measuring $\gamma$ using data collected at detectors such as BaBar, Belle, LHCb or the future Belle II experiment. The additional inclusion of multibody $D$ meson final states will reduce the statistical uncertainty on $\gamma$. However, multibody final states require knowledge of the strong-phase difference between the $D^0$ and $\bar{D}^{0}$ that varies over the phase space. The required strong-phase information can be obtained by studying quantum-correlated $D\bar{D}$ mesons produced in $e^{+}e^{-}$ collisions at an energy corresponding to $\psi(3770)$ at CLEO-c.
Here, we present preliminary results for the decay $D^{0}\to K_{\rm S}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0}$, which has a large branching fraction of 5.2$\%$ [@PDG]. This decay mode has not been used so far to determine $\gamma$. The mode is potentially useful in a quasi-GLW [@GLW] analysis along with other $CP$ eigenstates if its $CP$-even fraction $F_{+}$ is known [@MNayak]. Further, this multibody self-conjugate decay occurs via many intermediate resonances, such as $K_{\rm S}^{0}\omega$ and $K^{*\pm}\rho^{\mp}$, hence if the strong-phase difference variation over the phase space is known, a GGSZ-style [@GGSZ; @GGSZ2] analysis to determine $\gamma$ from this final state alone is possible.
Quantum-correlated $D$ mesons
=============================
The wave function for the decay of the vector meson $\psi$(3770) to a pair of $D$ mesons is antisymmetric as the two $D$ mesons are produced in a $P$-wave state. Integrating over the whole phase space, the double-tagged yield, where the decays of both the $D$ mesons are specified, for a signal (tag) decay $f$ ($g$) can be written in terms of the $CP$-even fraction $F_{+}^{f}$ $(F_{+}^{g})$ and the branching fractions $\mathcal{B}(f)$, $(\mathcal{B}(g))$ as $$M(f|g) = \mathcal{N}\mathcal{B}(f)\mathcal{B}(g)\epsilon(f|g)\left[ 1 - (2F_{+}^{f} - 1) (2F_{+}^{g} - 1) \right],$$ where $\mathcal{N}$ is the overall normalization factor and $\epsilon$ is the reconstruction efficiency. If $f$ or $g$ is a $CP$ eigenstate, then the value $(2F_{+} - 1)$ becomes the $CP$ eigenvalue $\lambda_{CP}$. So there is two-fold enhancement in the yield if $f$ and $g$ have opposite $CP$ eigenvalue and the yield becomes zero if $f$ and $g$ have the same $CP$ eigenvalue. Thus the rate of the decays of the two $D$ mesons are correlated to each other.
The single-tagged yield, where only one of the $D$ mesons is reconstructed without any constraints on the other, is given by $$S(g) = \mathcal{N}\mathcal{B}(g) \epsilon(g).$$ Assuming $\epsilon(f|g)=\epsilon(f)\epsilon(g)$, we write the ratios between the double-tagged and single-tagged yields, $N^{+}$ and $N^{-}$, when mode $g$ is a $CP$-odd ($\lambda_{CP}^{g}$ = $-1$) or $CP$-even ($\lambda_{CP}^{g}$ = 1), as $$N^{\pm} = \frac{M(f|g)}{S(g)} = \mathcal{B}(f) \epsilon(f) \left[1\mp(2F_{+}^{f}-1)\right],$$ which leads to the definition of $F_{+}^{f}$ in terms of $N^{+}$ and $N^{-}$: $$F_{+}^{f} \equiv \frac{N^{+}}{N^{+}+N^{-}}.$$
In addition, we can also use some tag modes whose $CP$-even fraction $F_{+}^{g}$ is already known to determine $F_{+}^{f}$. For this, we define a quantity $N^{g}$ as the ratio of double-tagged and single-tagged yields as $$N^{g} = \mathcal{B}(f)\epsilon(f) \left[ 1-(2F_{+}^{f} - 1)(2F_{+}^{g} - 1) \right].$$ This is used along with $N^{+}$ to extract $F_{+}^{f}$ as $$F_{+}^{f} = \frac{N^{+}F_{+}^{g}}{N^{g} - N^{+} + 2N^{+}F_{+}^{g}}.\label{Eqn:PiPiPi0}$$ The $g$ mode can also be self-conjugate modes like $K_{\rm S}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ or $K_{\rm L}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$. The phase space of these multibody states can be divided into different bins. The $K_{\rm S,L}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ Dalitz plot is studied and binned according to the Equal $\delta_{D}$ scheme [@KsPiPi] based on the amplitude model reported in Ref. [@BaBar]. The double-tagged yield in each of these bins is $$M_{i}(K_{\rm S}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0} | K_{\rm S,L}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}) = h_{K_{\rm S,L}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}}(K_{i}^{K_{\rm S,L}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}}+K_{-i}^{K_{\rm S,L}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}}-2c_{i}\sqrt{K_{i}^{K_{\rm S,L}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}}K_{-i}^{K_{\rm S,L}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}}}(2F_{+}^{f}-1)),\label{Eqn:F+KhPiPi}$$ where $K_{i}$ and $K_{-i}$ are the fraction of flavour-tagged $D^{0}$ and $\bar{D^{0}}$ decays in each bin, $c_{i}$ is the cosine of the strong phase difference for $K_{\rm S,L}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$, and $h_{K_{\rm S,L}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}}$ is the normalization factor. With these $F_{+}^{f}$ can be determined if the double-tagged yields in each of the $K_{\rm S,L}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ bins are measured.
To perform a GGSZ analysis with a self-conjugate multibody final state $f$, the amplitude-weighted averages of $\cos\Delta\delta_{D}$ and $\sin\Delta\delta_{D}$ over regions of phase space [@GGSZ; @GGSZ2], referred to as $c_{i}$ and $s_{i}$, respectively are required. Here $\Delta\delta_D$ is the strong-phase difference between $CP$ conjugate points in the phase space. The values of $c_i$ and $s_i$ are obtained by tagging with $CP$ and quasi-$CP$ eigenstates and other self-conjugate modes. For $CP$ eigenstate tag modes, the double-tagged yield is given by $$M_{i}^{\pm} = h_{CP}\left[ K_{i}+\bar{K_{i}} \mp 2 \sqrt{K_{i} \bar{K_{i}}} c_{i} \right],\label{Eqn:CP}$$ where $h_{CP}$ is the normalization constant. If the tag is a quasi-$CP$ eigenstate of known $F_{+}$, the $c_{i}$ sensitive term is scaled by ($2F_{+} - 1$) rather than 1. For the self-conjugate tag mode $K_{\rm S}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ [@KsPiPi:EPJC1; @KsPiPi:EPJC2], the double-tagged yield is
$$M_{i\pm j}^{K_{\rm S}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}} = h_{K_{\rm S}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}} \left[ K_{i} K_{\mp j}^{K_{\rm S}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}} + \bar{K_{i}} K_{\pm j}^{K_{\rm S}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}} - 2 \sqrt{K_{i} K_{\pm j}^{K_{\rm S}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}}\bar{K_{i}}K_{\mp j}^{K_{\rm S}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}}} ( c_{i}c_{j}^{K_{\rm S}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}} + s_{i}s_{j}^{K_{\rm S}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}})\right],$$
and for a $K_{\rm L}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ tag, the double-tagged yield is
$$M_{i\pm j}^{K_{\rm L}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}} = h_{K_{\rm L}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}} \left[ K_{i} K_{\mp j}^{K_{\rm L}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}} + \bar{K_{i}} K_{\pm j}^{K_{\rm L}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}} + 2 \sqrt{K_{i} K_{\pm j}^{K_{\rm L}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}}\bar{K_{i}}K_{\mp j}^{K_{\rm L}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}}} ( c_{i}c_{j}^{K_{\rm L}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}} + s_{i}s_{j}^{K_{\rm L}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}})\right],$$
where $h_{K_{\rm S,L}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}}$ are the normalization constants. If both tag and signal states are the same, then $$M_{ij} = h_{f} \left[ K_{i}\bar{K_{j}} + \bar{K_{i}} K_{j} - 2 \sqrt{K_{i} \bar{K_{j}} \bar{K_{i}} K_{j}} (c_{i}c_{j} + s_{i}s_{j}) \right ],\label{Eqn:DT}$$ where $h_{f}$ is the normalization constant.
Measurement of $F_{+}$ in $D^{0}\to K_{\rm S}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0}$ decays
===============================================================================
A data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 818 pb$^{-1}$, collected by the CLEO-c detector at the interaction point of CESR $e^{+}e^{-}$ collider, consisting of $D\bar{D}$ pairs coming from the $\psi(3770)$ resonance is used in this analysis. The $D\bar{D}$ final state is reconstructed for the signal state $K_{\rm S}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0}$ along with the tag modes given in Table \[Table:Tags\]. All tracks and showers associated with both the $D$ mesons are reconstructed; the selection criteria for the tag modes are identical to those presented in Ref. [@MNayak]. Modes involving $K_{\rm L}^{0}$ or $\nu$ are reconstructed partially using a missing-mass squared technique [@MissMass].
\[t\]
[c c ]{} Type & Modes\
$CP$-even & $K^{+}K^{-}$, $\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$, $K_{\rm S}^{0}\pi^{0}\pi^{0}$, $K_{\rm L}^{0}\omega$, $K_{\rm L}^{0}\pi^{0}$\
$CP$-odd & $K_{\rm S}^{0}\pi^{0}$, $K_{\rm S}^{0}\eta$, $K_{\rm S}^{0}\eta'$\
Mixed $CP$ & $\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0}$, $K_{\rm S}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$, $K_{\rm L}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$\
Flavour & $K^{\pm}e^{\mp}\nu_{\rm e}$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![ $N^{+}$ values for the $CP$-odd modes (left) and $N^{-}$ values for the $CP$-even modes (right). The yellow region shows the average value. Horizontal black lines show the statistical uncertainty and red lines the total uncertainty.[]{data-label="Fig:N"}](N+.png "fig:"){width="7cm"} ![ $N^{+}$ values for the $CP$-odd modes (left) and $N^{-}$ values for the $CP$-even modes (right). The yellow region shows the average value. Horizontal black lines show the statistical uncertainty and red lines the total uncertainty.[]{data-label="Fig:N"}](N-.png "fig:"){width="7cm"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the double-tagged yields measured and single-tagged yields taken from Ref. [@4pi], we calculate $N^{+}$ and $N^{-}$ from the $CP$-odd and $CP$-even modes respectively. They are shown in Fig. \[Fig:N\]. With the quasi-$CP$ mode $\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0}$, we calculate $F_{+}$ using Eqn. \[Eqn:PiPiPi0\] with input value $F_{+}^{\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0}}$ = 0.973 $\pm$ 0.017 [@4pi]. The value of $F_{+}$ obtained with $CP$ and quasi-$CP$ modes is 0.244 $\pm$ 0.021. This suggests that the mode $K_{\rm S}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0}$ is significantly $CP$-odd. Using $K_{\rm S,L}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ modes, $F_{+}$ is calculated with Eqn. \[Eqn:F+KhPiPi\]. The values of $K_{i}$, $K_{-i}$, $c_{i}$, and $s_{i}$ for $K_{\rm S,L}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ are taken from Ref. [@KsPiPi]. The values of predicted and measured double-tagged yields in each of the $K_{\rm S,L}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ bins are shown in Fig. \[Fig:KhPiPi\]; from these data $F_{+}$ is determined to be 0.265 $\pm$ 0.029 in this calculation. With all the three above mentioned methods, the average $F_{+}$ is 0.246 $\pm$ 0.018. The uncertainty includes statistical as well as systematic contributions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![The predicted and measured yields for $K_{\rm S}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ (left) and $K_{\rm L}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ (right) in each bin obtained from the combined fit of both the modes. The histogram shows the predicted values, points show the measured values, dashed line corresponds to $F_{+}$ = 0 and the dotted line shows $F_{+}$ = 1.[]{data-label="Fig:KhPiPi"}](KsPiPi_1.png "fig:"){width="7.5cm"} ![The predicted and measured yields for $K_{\rm S}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ (left) and $K_{\rm L}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ (right) in each bin obtained from the combined fit of both the modes. The histogram shows the predicted values, points show the measured values, dashed line corresponds to $F_{+}$ = 0 and the dotted line shows $F_{+}$ = 1.[]{data-label="Fig:KhPiPi"}](KlPiPi_1.png "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determination of $c_{i}$ and $s_{i}$
====================================
The five-dimensional phase space of $D^{0}\to K_{\rm S}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0}$ is studied to extract $c_{i}$ and $s_{i}$ values. There is no trivial symmetry in the phase space to define the bins and hence the bins are constructed around the resonances present. The lack of an amplitude model for this channel makes a proper optimization difficult. An exclusive eight-bin scheme is followed around the resonances such as $\omega$, $K^{*}$ and $\rho$. The kinematic regions of the bins are given in Table \[Table:Bin\] along with the fraction of flavour-tagged $D^{0}$ and $\bar{D^{0}}$ decays in each of them. These values are determined from semileptonic flavour tag $K^{\pm}e^{\mp}\nu_{\rm e}$.
[c c c c]{}\
\[0.1ex\] Bin number & Specification & $K_{i}$ & $\bar{K_{i}}$\
1 & m($\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0}$) $\approx$ m($\omega$) & $0.222\pm0.019$ & $0.176\pm0.017$\
2 & m($K_{\rm S}^{0}\pi^{-}$) $\approx$ m($K^{*-}$) $\&$ m($\pi^{+}\pi^{0}$) $\approx$ m($\rho^{+}$) & $0.394\pm0.022$ & $0.190\pm0.017$\
3 & m($K_{\rm S}^{0}\pi^{+}$) $\approx$ m($K^{*+}$) $\&$ m($\pi^{-}\pi^{0}$) $\approx$ m($\rho^{-}$) & $0.087\pm0.013$ & $0.316\pm0.021$\
4 & m($K_{\rm S}^{0}\pi^{-}$) $\approx$ m($K^{*-}$) & $0.076\pm0.012$ & $0.046\pm0.009$\
5 & m($K_{\rm S}^{0}\pi^{+}$) $\approx$ m($K^{*+}$) & $0.057\pm0.010$ & $0.065\pm0.011$\
6 & m($K_{\rm S}^{0}\pi^{0}$) $\approx$ m($K^{*0}$) & $0.059\pm0.011$ & $0.092\pm0.013$\
7 & m($\pi^{+}\pi^{0}$) $\approx$ m($\rho^{+}$) & $0.045\pm0.009$ & $0.045\pm0.009$\
8 & Remainder & $0.061\pm0.011$ & $0.070\pm0.011$\
The yields for $CP$, quasi-$CP$ and self-conjugate modes in each of the bins are measured and the $c_{i}$ and $s_{i}$ values are found out using Eqn. \[Eqn:CP\]-\[Eqn:DT\]. The migration of events from one bin to another due to the narrowness of each bin is considered in the fit. The preliminary results are summarized in Table \[Table:cisi\] and Fig. \[Fig:cisi\]. The uncertainties mentioned are statistical only.
[c c c ]{} Bin & $c_{i}$ & $s_{i}$\
1& $-$1.12 $\pm$ 0.12& 0.12 $\pm$ 0.17\
2& $-$0.29 $\pm$ 0.07 & 0.11 $\pm$ 0.13\
3& $-$0.41 $\pm$ 0.09 & $-$0.08 $\pm$ 0.18\
4& $-$0.84 $\pm$ 0.12& $-$0.73 $\pm$ 0.34\
5& $-$0.54 $\pm$ 0.13 & 0.65 $\pm$ 0.13\
6& $-$0.22 $\pm$ 0.12& 1.37 $\pm$ 0.22\
7& $-$0.90 $\pm$ 0.16& $-$0.12 $\pm$ 0.40\
8& $-$0.70 $\pm$ 0.14 & $-$0.03 $\pm$ 0.44\
{width="6.3cm" height="6cm"} \[Fig:cisi\]
Estimation of $\gamma$ sensitivity with $B^{\pm}\to D(K^{0}_{\rm S}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0})K^{\pm}$
==================================================================================================
We estimate the sensitivity of $\gamma$ with the preliminary results of $c_{i}$ and $s_{i}$ values described in the previous section, in a GGSZ framework with $B^{\pm}\to D(K^{0}_{\rm S}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0})K^{\pm}$ decays from Belle ($\approx$ 1 $\mathrm{ab}^{-1}$). We run 1000 pseudo experiments with $c_i$, $s_i$, $K_i$, and $\bar{K_i}$ values as inputs with each experiment consisting of $\approx$ 1200 events. The sample sizes are determined from the Belle sample of $B^{\pm}\to D(K^{0}_{\rm S}\pi^{+}\pi^{-})K^{\pm}$ [@Belle-GGSZ]. Here we assume that increase in branching fraction for $K^{0}_{\rm S}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0}$ compared to $K^{0}_{\rm S}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ is compensated by loss of efficiency due to a $\pi^{0}$ in final state. The estimated uncertainty on $\gamma$ is $\sigma_{\gamma}=25^{\circ}$. The projection of this to a 50 $\mathrm{ab}^{-1}$ sample of Belle II gives $\sigma_{\gamma}=3.5^{\circ}$ (see Fig. \[Fig:sensitivity\]).
![$\gamma$ sensitivity with 50 $\mathrm{ab}^{-1}$ Belle II sample. []{data-label="Fig:sensitivity"}](sensitivity.pdf){width="6cm" height="5cm"}
Conclusions
===========
The studies of $D$ meson final states opens up additional ways of measuring $\gamma$. The decay $D^{0} \rightarrow K_{\rm S}^{0}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0}$ can serve as an additional mode in quasi-GLW methods with the $CP$-even fraction $F_{+}$ measured to be 0.246 $\pm$ 0.018, reducing the statistical uncertainty on $\gamma$. In addition, the measurement of strong phase differences of this mode in eight different phase space regions, allows a model-independent GGSZ estimation of $\gamma$ from this mode alone. It is estimated that a single-mode uncertainty on $\gamma$ of $\sigma_{\gamma}=3.5^{\circ}$ is achievable with a 50 $\mathrm{ab}^{-1}$ sample of data at Belle II. This could be improved with optimized $c_{i}$ and $s_{i}$ values provided a proper amplitude model is available and a finer binning using a larger sample of quantum correlated data from the BESIII experiment.
We acknowledge the erstwhile CLEO collaboration members for the privilege of using the data for the analysis presented. We would like to thank UK-India Education and Research Initiative, IIT Madras, and TIFR Mumbai for being able to successfully attend this conference.
[99]{} N. Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**10**]{}, 531 (1963), M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Progress in Theoretical Physics [**49**]{}, 2 (1973). C. Patrignani [*et al.*]{} (Particle Data Group), Chin. Phys. C [**40**]{}, 100001 (2016). M. Gronau and D. London, Phys. Lett. B [**253**]{}, 483 (1991); M. Gronau and D. Wyler, Phys. Lett. B [**265**]{}, 172 (1991). M. Nayak [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**740**]{}, 1 (2015). A. Giri, Yu. Grossman, A. Soffer and J. Zupan, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 054018 (2003). A. Bondar, Proceedings of BINP Special Analysis Meeting on Dalitz Analysis, 2002 (unpublished). J. Libby [*et al.*]{} (CLEO collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 112006 (2010). B. Aubert [*et al.*]{} (BaBar collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 034023 (2008). A. Bondar and A. Poluektov, Eur. Phys. J. C [**47**]{}, 347 (2006). A. Bondar and A. Poluektov, Eur. Phys. J. C [**55**]{}, 51 (2008). N. Lowrey [*et al.*]{} (CLEO collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 031105 (2009). S. Malde [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**747**]{}, 9 (2015). H. Aihara [*et al.*]{} (Belle collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{}, 112014 (2012).
[^1]: The CLEO collaboration is acknowledged for permitting the use of the data analysed in this study. This work is supported by UK-India Education and Research Initiative.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We present a [*Chandra*]{} ACIS observation of SNR G54.1+0.3. This supernova remnant is resolved into several distinct X-ray emitting components: a central bright point-like source (CXOU J193030.13+185214.1), a surrounding ring, bipolar elongations, plus low surface brightness diffuse emission. The spectra of these components are all well described by power-law models; the spectral index steepens with increasing distance from the point-like source. We find no evidence for any thermal plasma emission that would correspond to shocked interstellar medium or ejecta. The observed morphological and spectral characteristics suggest that G54.1+0.3 is the closest “cousin” of the Crab Nebula — a pulsar wind nebula driven by a combination of equatorial and polar outflows from the putative pulsar represented by the point-like X-ray source.'
author:
- 'F.J. Lu, Q.D. Wang, B. Aschenbach, Ph. Durouchoux, and L.M. Song'
title: '[*Chandra*]{} Observation of SNR G54.1+0.3 — a Close Cousin of the Crab Nebula'
---
Introduction
============
The Crab Nebula has played an essential role in our understanding of pulsar wind nebulae (PWNe). The basic observational X-ray characteristics of the Crab Nebula are a central pulsar, an ellipse-shaped torus, two jets and the absence of an outer thermal shell. The X-ray torus is explained as shocked equatorial wind material from the central pulsar (e.g., Aschenbach & Brinkmann 1975; Pelling et al. 1987; Weisskopf et al. 2000), while the jets correspond to the outflows from the two rotation poles of the pulsar (e.g., Aschenbach 1992). The observations and modeling of these characteristics have advanced our understanding of the energetics and geometry of pulsar wind, as well as the physics of ultra-relativistic shocks and particle acceleration (e.g., Rees & Gunn 1974; Aschenbach & Brinkmann 1975; Kennel & Coroniti 1984a, 1984b).
However, morphologically the Crab Nebula is unique. No other source has to date been found to mimic all the basic X-ray characteristics of the Crab Nebula (Gaensler 2001). The PWNe surrounding the Vela Pulsar and PSR B1509-58 have X-ray arcs, yet these X-ray arcs are not complete X-ray rings as observed in the Crab Nebula, and furthermore, these two PWNe are embedded inside bright thermal diffuse emission (Helfand, Gotthelf, & Halpern 2001; Gaensler et al. 2001).
In order to deepen our understanding of the properties of the pulsar wind and its interaction with the environments, it is important to find a PWN which closely resembles the Crab Nebula. Supernova remnant (SNR) G54.1+0.3 is such a candidate. Radio emission from G54.1+0.3 is centrally-filled, shows strong polarization, and has a flat spectrum, typical for a Crab-like SNR (Reich et al. 1985; Velusamy & Becker 1988). A nonthermal X-ray spectrum from [*ASCA*]{} observations confirmed its Crab-like nature (Lu, Aschenbach, & Song 2001). As we will present in this letter, our recent [*Chandra X-ray Observatory*]{} observation of this remnant shows that it is the closest “cousin” of the Crab Nebula.
Observation and Data Reduction
==============================
SNR G54.1+0.3 was observed with [*Chandra*]{} on 6-7 June 2001. The remnant was positioned at the aimpoint on the back-illuminated CCD chip S3 of the Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer (ACIS) in “faint” mode and at a working temperature of -120$\degr$ C. The spatial resolution is $\sim$0$\farcs$5, and the spectral resolution is $\sim$120 eV at 2.0 keV. The CCD frame read-out time for this observation is 3.2 seconds.
We calibrated the data using [*CIAO*]{} (2.1.3). After excluding two time intervals of high background we obtained a net exposure of 30.9 ks. Based on a comparison of the positions of the X-ray point source CXOU J193034.62+185110.8 (southeast of the remnant, see Fig. 1) and its optical counterpart, we find that the absolute positional accuracy of the X-ray observations is about 0$\farcs$6, consistent with the position accuracy claimed in the [*Chandra Proposer’s Observatory Guide*]{}.
Analysis and Results
====================
While Fig. 1 presents an overview of the [*Chandra*]{} data, Fig. 2 is a close-up of G54.1+0.3, with the image data adaptively smoothed using a Gaussian to achieve a signal-to-noise ratio of $\gtrsim$5. The structure of the remnant is a complex, but we decompose it into several components (Fig. 1): a central bright point-like source (CXOU J193030.13+185214.1), a surrounding ring, elongations to the east and west, and extended low surface brightness emission in between and beyond the central structures. We find no evidence for a shell-like structure that would correspond to the thermal emission usually expected for an SNR. Therefore the remnant resembles the Crab Nebula in morphology quite closely.
Fig. 3 displays spectral model fits of the individual components of G54.1+0.3 and Table 1 lists the corresponding model parameters. The background used in the spectral analysis is extracted from an annulus centered on CXOU J193030.13+185214.1 and with the inner and outer radii equal to 70$\arcsec$ and 130$\arcsec$ (with CXOU J193034.62+185110.8 removed). The spectrum of each of these components can be well fitted with a power-law model. There is no evidence for any emission line, and fitting the spectra with thermal models yields temperatures around 10 keV, which is much higher than the plasma temperature ($\lesssim$3 keV) typically observed for young SNRs. Therefore we detect no significant thermal emission. We assume that the X-ray absorption column density is the same across the field as the absorption column densities of all these components derived from individual spectral fitting are similar. The jointly fitted value (1.6$\pm0.1\times10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$) is about half of the total Galactic X-ray absorption ($\sim$3.6$\times$10$^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$) derived from the [*IRAS*]{} 100 $\mu$m emission in this direction (Boulanger & Perault 1988; Wheelock et al. 1994). Assuming that the absorbing gas is relatively uniformly distributed along the line of sight, the distance to G54.1+0.3 should be approximately 5 kpc, about half way to the edge of the Galaxy from the Sun.
The source CXOU J193030.13+185214.1 most likely represents the pulsar that powers G54.1+0.3. The radial surface brightness profile of this source is consistent with the point spread function of the instrument. The slow CCD frame read-out time (3.2 s) of the observation, however, prevents a search for any periodicity typical of a young pulsar. We find no significant signal with a period $>$6 s. The count-rate of the source, 0.064$\pm$0.002 cts s$^{-1}$, indicates a pile-up fraction of only $\sim$6$\%$ with a negligible effect on the spectrum. The relation between the photon spectral indices of the source and the nebula is well consistent with the one derived by Gotthelf & Olbert (2001) for pulsars and their respective nebulae. We find no emission peaks at the source position at radio (with 4.8 GHz [*VLA*]{} data, Velusamy & Becker 1988) and infrared (with the online [*2MASS*]{} data) wavelengths. From our 0.1-2.4 keV X-ray luminosity (1.8$\times$10$^{33}$ $d_{5}^{2}$ erg s$^{-1}$,where $d_{5}$ is the distance in units of 5 kpc) of this point source, we infer the pulsar spin-down luminosity $\dot{E}$ as $\sim$2$\times$10$^{36}$ $d_{5}^{2}$ erg s$^{-1}$ (Becker & Trümper 1997).
An eyeball fit to the ring with an ellipse centered on CXOU J193030.13+185214.1 gives the north-south semi-major axis as 5$\farcs$7 and the east-west semi-minor axis as 3$\farcs$7. The eastern part of the ellipse is much brighter than the western part. The spectrum of the ring is the hardest among the diffuse components.
The two elongations are not as well defined as the ring (Figs. 1-2). The western elongation is oriented perpendicular to the ring and extends $\sim$32$\arcsec$ horizontally from near the central point source to (RA, Dec; J2000) $19^{\rm h}30^{\rm m}28^{\rm s}$, $18\degr52^{\prime}14\arcsec$. The eastern elongation extends $\sim$14$\arcsec$ ending at about 19$^{\rm h}30^{\rm m}31^{\rm s}$, $18\degr52^{\prime}10^{\prime\prime}$. The orientation has an average inclination of $~$$\sim$18$\degr$ to the south.
The outer low surface brightness diffuse emission marks the accumulated pulsar wind material. The size of this low surface brightness emission (1$\farcm5\times1\farcm2$) is much larger than that of the central bright region (0$\farcm7\times0\farcm3$) composed of the point-like source, the ring and the elongations. The low surface brightness component shows some extensions to the west, north and northeast and compares well with the radio map both in size and overall shape (Velusamy & Becker 1988). The spectrum is significantly softer than those of the ring and western elongation, suggesting that, if we assume synchrotron radiation, the particles in this region are more evolved. A detailed comparison and explanation of the X-ray and radio maps and a more extensive study of the low surface brightness diffuse emission will be presented in a separate paper.
Comparison with the Crab Nebula
===============================
The X-ray morphology of G54.1+0.3 is strikingly similar to that of the Crab Nebula although some differences exist. Both remnants show a complete X-ray ring (torus) around the corresponding pulsar, plus two opposite elongations (jets), as well as the lack of a thermal outer shell. But the elongations of G54.1+0.3 are more diffuse than the Crab jets, that we will discuss more specifically in $\S$5.2. G54.1+0.3 shows large scale low surface brightness X-ray emission beyond the ring and the elongations. This emission coincides well with the radio morphology of the remnant (Velusamy & Becker 1988). In contrast, little X-ray emission is presented beyond the Crab torus (Weisskopf et al. 2000). The radio size of the Crab Nebula is $\sim$3 times bigger than the X-ray size (Bietenholz & Kronberg 1990; Weisskopf et al. 2000). The morphological difference of the outer low surface brightness emission suggests that the synchrotron cooling efficiency in the G54.1+0.3 ring is much lower than in the Crab torus.
G54.1+0.3 and the Crab Nebula have quite similar spectral characteristics. The spectra of both remnants are characterized by power-laws which steepen progressively from pulsar, through torus (ring) and jets (elongations), to the outer diffuse emission (Table 1; Willingale et al. 2001). The similar spectral steepening trend indicates that particles follow similar tracks in the two remnants. However, the spectra of G54.1+0.3 are flatter than those of the corresponding components in the Crab Nebula, consistent with lower efficiency of the synchrotron cooling in G54.1+0.3.
Both the total X-ray luminosity and the luminosities of the corresponding components in G54.1+0.3 differ substantially from those of the Crab Nebula (see Table 1 and Weisskopf et al. 2000). The putative pulsar and the X-ray nebula of G54.1+0.3 are about two orders of magnitude less luminous than those of the Crab. The ring of G54.1+0.3 accounts for only about 10$\%$ of the total extended emission, but the torus of the Crab Nebula dominates the X-ray emission of the whole nebula. In G54.1+0.3, the luminosities of the elongations are comparable with that of the ring, whereas in the Crab Nebula, the jets are obviously much weaker than the torus. These differences are likely due to the particular pulsar wind geometry and energy input to the various components in the two remnants.
Pulsar Wind Properties
======================
We suggest that the X-ray ring and elongations are due to the equatorial wind and the two polar outflows from the pulsar, respectively, as illustrated schematically in Fig. 4.
The X-ray Ring
--------------
The elliptical ring in G54.1+0.3 is apparently the projection of an inclined circular ring. Similar to the X-ray torus in the Crab Nebula, this ring might be due to the shocked pulsar equatorial wind (Aschenbach & Brinkmann 1987). The ratio of observed semi-major and semi-minor axes suggests an inclination angle $\theta$=41$\degr$.
Following Pelling et al. (1987), we calculate whether the Doppler boosting of the downstream motion can explain the X-ray brightness variation across the ring (Fig. 5). The intensity ($I$) of the ring at position angle $\phi$ measured counter-clockwise from the north can be expressed as $$I=I_{0}*[\frac{\sqrt{1-v^2}}{1-{\rm cos}(\theta)*v*{\rm sin}(\phi)}]^{\alpha+1}+I_{b},$$ where $I_0$ is the unshifted intensity, $v$ is the bulk motion velocity in units of $c$ — the speed of light, $\alpha$ is the photon spectral index, and $I_{b}$ is the intensity of the diffuse background emission. Fig. 5 shows that the Doppler boosting model fits the measured intensity variation well. The fitted parameters and their 1$\sigma$ uncertainties are: $I_{0}$=7.6$\pm$2.4 cts arcsec$^{-2}$, $v$=0.40$\pm$0.12 c, and $I_b$=5.7$\pm$2.5 cts arcsec$^{-2}$. Using the $v$ value and following Kennel & Coroniti (1984b) we infer a ratio of the electromagnetic energy flux to the particle energy flux in the wind of $\sigma$$\simeq$0.06. Therefore, the surface brightness variation across the ring is consistent with the assumption that the enhanced X-ray emission arises from the freshly shocked pulsar wind material.
The Elongations
---------------
We propose that the elongations are associated with the pulsar polar outflows. This association is suggested by the morphology of the western elongation (Figs. 1-2). The spectrum of the elongation is flatter than that of the surrounding low surface brightness emission, suggesting that the particles in the western elongation have undergone fewer synchrotron losses. The eastern elongation is not well resolved, but appears bent and shorter than the western elongation. These two elongations, however, are broader and more irregular than the relatively well confined jets observed in Crab (Weisskopf et al. 2000), Vela (Helfand et al. 2001), and PSR B1509-58 (Gaensler et al. 2001), indicating that the pulsar polar flows in G54.1+0.3 are less collimated.
Geometry
--------
The X-ray morphology of the ring and the two elongations in G54.1+0.3 suggest that the pulsar wind is concentrated in the equatorial plane and the polar outflow directions. The width of the ring is about 2$\farcs$5 in the minor axis direction. As the radius of the deprojected ring is 5$\farcs$7, the width indicates that the equatorial wind particles fan out in a half opening angle of $\lesssim$16$\degr$, corresponding to $\lesssim$1.1$\pi$ steradian. The width of the head of the western elongation is measured to 6$^{\prime\prime}$, implying that the half opening angle of the western polar outflow is $\sim$4$\degr$, assuming that the outflow is perpendicular to the equatorial plane as implied by Fig. 2. The corresponding solid angle is 5$\times10^{-3}$$\pi$ steradian. The open angle of the eastern outflow remains unclear because of the insufficient knowledge about its direction and thus length.
The observed pulsar wind geometry reflects the fractional wind power injected to the ring and elongations. Because the reverse shock occurs when the wind ram pressure balances the diffuse nebula pressure, $p_n$, we have $$r_{s}=(\frac{\delta \dot{E}}{\Omega c p_n})^{1/2},$$ where $r_s$ is the distance from the pulsar, $\delta$ is the fraction of the wind power $\dot{E}$ in one particular wind component, and $\Omega$ is the solid open angle of that component. We assume that $\dot{E}$ is split between $\dot{E}_e$ (injected to the equatorial ring) and $\dot{E}_p$ (released in the polar outflows) that is equally divided between the two polar outflows. We also assume that $p_n$ does not change substantially with position in the diffuse nebula, because the sound speed in a relativistic plasma is $c/\sqrt{3}$ and so no pressure gradient in the bubble can be maintained on time scales that are dynamically important (e.g., Rees & Gunn 1974). From Equation (2), with the geometric parameters and assumptions, we infer that $\gtrsim1/3$ of $\dot{E}$ is released to the polar outflows.
Summary and Conclusions
=======================
Based on a [*Chandra*]{} ACIS-S observation, we have resolved the spatial and spectral structures of SNR G54.1+0.3. We find that both its morphology and the spectra closely resemble those of the Crab Nebula, though the synchrotron cooling efficiency in G54.1+0.3 may be substantially lower than in the Crab Nebula. In particular, we have discovered a point-like source, CXOU J193030.13+185214.1, at a location close to the morphological center of G54.1+0.3. The source is most likely the pulsar powering the SNR, although a spin period of the pulsar is yet to be determined. We estimate the pulsar spin-down luminosity to be $\sim$2$\times$10$^{36}$ $d_{5}^{2}$ erg s$^{-1}$ from the X-ray luminosity of the point source. We suggest that the diffuse X-ray emission around the pulsar originates from the shocked pulsar wind. The presence of the X-ray ring indicates a strong equatorial wind with an inclination angle of 41$\degr$. From the surface brightness variation across the ring we infer the downstream flow speed of the shocked pulsar wind material to be 0.40$\pm$0.12 [*c*]{}, which indicates that the wind is particle dominated. The two elongations are oriented nearly perpendicular to the ring and are likely to be associated with the polar outflows from the pulsar. The geometry of the X-ray ring and the elongations suggest at least one-third of the spin-down energy is injected into the two polar outflows. These characteristics of SNR G54.1+0.3 provide new constraints for modeling of the elusive pulsar wind and its interaction with the environment.
We thank the referee D. J. Helfand for his comments. This work is supported partially by the NASA-grant SAO GO-12068X and NASA LTSA grant NAG5-7935. FJL and LMS also appreciate support of the Special Funds for Major State Basic Research Projects and the National Natural Science Foundation of China.
Aschenbach, B. 1992, Zeiss Info. Jenaer Rundschau, 1, 6 Aschenbach, B., & Brinkmann, W. 1975, , 41, 147 Becker, W., & Trümper, J. 1997, , 326, 682 Bietenholz, M.F., & Kronberg, P.P. 1990, , 357, L13 Boulanger, F., & Perault, M. 1988, , 330, 964 Gaensler, B.M. 2001, in AIP Conf. Proc. 565, Young Supernova Remnants, ed. S.S. Holt & U. Hwang (New York:AIP), 295 Gaensler, B.M., Arons, J., Kaspi, V.M., Pivovaroff, M.J., Kawai, N., & Tamura, K. 2001, , accepted (astro-ph/0110454) Gotthelf, E.V., & Olbert, C.M. 2001, astro-ph/0112017 Helfand, D.J., Gotthelf, E.V., & Halpern, J.P. 2001, , 556, 380Lu, F.J., Aschenbach, B., & Song, L.M. 2001, , 370, 570 Kennel, C.F., & Coroniti, F.V. 1984a, , 283, 694 Kennel, C.F., & Coroniti, F.V. 1984b, , 283, 710 Pelling, R.M., Paciesas, W.S., Peterson, L.E., Makishima, K., Oda, M., Ogawara, W., & Miyamoto, S. 1987, , 319, 416 Rees, M.J., & Gunn, J.E. 1974, , 167, 1 Reich, W., Fürst, E., Altenhoff, W.J., Reich, P., & Junkes, N. 1985, , 151, L10 Velusamy, T., & Becker, R.H. 1988, , 95, 1162 Weisskopf, M.C., et al. 2000, , 536, L81 Wheelock, S.L., et al. 1994, IRAS Sky Survey Atlas Explanatory Supplement (JPL, Pasadena), JPL Publication 94-11 Willingale, R., Aschenbach, B., Griffiths, R.G., Sembay, S., Warwick, R.S., Becker, W., Abbey, A.F., & Bonnet-Bidaud, J.-M. 2001, , 365, L212
[lccc]{} Pulsar & 1.09$^{+0.08}_{-0.09}$ & 1.72 &2.31\
Ring&1.64$^{+0.18}_{-0.16}$&0.52&0.97\
Western Elongation&1.66$^{+0.16}_{-0.14}$&0.68&1.30\
Eastern Elongation&1.95$^{+0.28}_{-0.26}$&0.20&0.49\
Outer Region&1.97$^{+0.11}_{-0.12}$&2.31&6.36\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We present some results of long term studies of pulsating stars conducted in the course of the OGLE and Araucaria projects. In particular very scarce eclipsing binaries containing pulsating stars are discussed. Such systems provide a unique opportunity to improve calibration of the cosmic distance scale and to better calibrate stellar evolutionary models.'
---
OGLE and ARAUCARIA projects
===========================
(OGLE) is one of the biggest astronomical surveys. This project has been in operation over the last 21 years. With the current instrumental setup, the OGLE team is capable to observe about one billion stars every night. The observations are mainly conducted in the Milky Way (bulge and disc) and Magellanic Clouds. Based on the collected data, an enormous amount of precise light curves for basically all kinds of pulsating stars were already published: Cepheids ([@Sosz08; @Sosz10a Soszyński et al. 2008, 2010a]), RR Lyrae ([@Szosz10b; @Sosz11a Soszyński et al. 2010b, 2011a]), long period variables ([@Sosz11b; @Sosz13 Soszyński et al. 2011b, 2013]), etc., and several new catalogs are in preparation. Thanks to an exquisite statistics and high quality of the data, many extremely scarce and very interesting objects have been also discovered, including very good candidates for pulsating stars in eclipsing binary systems ([@Sosz08; @Sosz11a Soszyński et al. 2008, 2011a]) and a unique sample of eclipsing binary systems composed of clump giants ([@Grac11 Graczyk et al. 2011]).
The main goal of this project is to significantly improve the calibration of the cosmic distance scale based on observations of several distance indicators in nearby galaxies. As a first step, we performed an optical survey of nine nearby galaxies discovering about 700 Cepheids ([@Piet02; @Piet04; @Piet06; @Piet07; @Piet10a Pietrzyński et al. 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2010a]). We also performed infrared observations of discovered Cepheids ([@Gier05b; @Gier06; @Gier09; @Gier13 Gieren et al. 2005b, 2006, 2009, 2013]; [@Piet06 Pietrzyński et al. 2006]), and RR Lyrae stars selected from the OGLE catalogs in the LMC, SMC and Sculptor galaxies ([@Piet08; @Szew08; @Szew09 Pietrzyński et al. 2008, Szewczyk et al. 2008, 2009]). Recently, a very important part of the Araucaria project is related to detailed studies of eclipsing binary systems discovered by the OGLE project, which have very large potential for precise and accurate distance determination and also for improving our knowledge of basic physics of pulsating stars. During my talk I will focus on some results obtained for some of these systems.
Setting the zero point for P-L relation of pulsating stars
==========================================================
The distance to the LMC is widely adopted as the zero point in the calibration of the cosmic distance scale. Therefore, a precise and accurate distance determination to this galaxy is paramount for astrophysics in general.
Detached eclipsing double-lined spectroscopic binaries offer a unique opportunity to measure distances directly (e.g. [@KrSe99 Kruszewski and Semeniuk 1999]). Recently, we measured distance to the LMC with 2% precision, based on the analysis of eclipsing binary systems composed of red clump giants ([@Piet13 Pietrzyński et al. 2013]). For eight such systems linear sizes of both components were measured with 1% accuracy based on modeling of high-quality photometric light curves obtained by the OGLE project and radial velocity curves constructed by the Araucaria team. Having first ever discovered late-type eclipsing binaries (G type), we used a well calibrated relationship between angular diameter and $V-K$ color ([@DiBe05; @Kerv04 Di Benedetto 2005, Kervella et al. 2004]) and measured corresponding angular sizes of the components of our systems with an accuracy of 2%. As the result we obtained the most accurate and reliable LMC distance, which provides a strong basis for the determination of the Hubble constant with an accuracy of about 3%. At present, we are working on improving the surface brightness-color calibration and measuring the LMC distance with an accuracy of 1%.
Since the OGLE group constructed outstanding period-luminosity (P-L) relations for several different pulsating stars in the Large Magellanic Cloud (e.g. [@Sosz10a; @Sosz11b; @Sosz13 Soszyński et al. 2010a, 2011b, 2013]), our distance determination provides also an opportunity to calibrate uniform fiducial P-L relations for basically all P-L relations of pulsating stars used for distance determination.
Cepheids in eclipsing binaries
==============================
The OGLE project provided also very good candidates for classical Cepheids in eclipsing systems (e.g. [@Sosz08 Soszyński et al. 2008]). Such systems provide a unique opportunity to measure precisely and accurately stellar parameters of Cepheids. In consequence, they provide very strong constraints on stellar evolutionary and pulsation models. One can also measure distances to such targets using three independent techniques: P-L relation, Baade-Wesselink method, and eclipsing binaries described above. Comparing the independent distances, the potential systematic errors associated with each of these methods can be precisely traced out. Because of the huge potential of these systems for improving our capability of measuring distances with classical Cepheids and to better understand basic physics of these stars, as a part of the Araucaria project we started a long-term program to characterize them. In 2010 we confirmed that one of the OGLE candidates — OGLE-LMC-CEP-227 — is indeed a physical system containing a Cepheid. Based on high-quality data, we measured the dynamical mass of the Cepheid with an accuracy of 1% ([@Piet10b Pietrzyński et al. 2010b]). Recently, we significantly improved the accuracy of determination of the physical parameters of this system and measured directly the p factor for the Cepheid ([@Pile13 Pilecki et al. 2013]). This analysis complements our previous study on the calibration of the p factor ([@Gier05a; @Nard11; @Stor11 Gieren et al. 2005a, Nardetto et al. 2011, Storm et al. 2011]). [@Piet11] measured the dynamical mass of another Cepheid in an eclipsing system with similar accuracy. These results already triggered several theoretical investigations ([@CaSa11; @Neil11; @Prad12; @Mark13 Cassisi & Salaris 2011, Neilson et al. 2011, Prada Moroni et al. 2012, Marconi et al. 2013]).
Unfortunately, there are no Cepheids in eclipsing binary systems known so far in the Milky Way. However, some of the Cepheids in binary systems are sufficiently close to observe them interferometrically ([@Gale13 Gallenne et al. 2013]). Combining spectroscopic and interferometric data one should be also able to precisely measure distances, masses and other physical parameters for several Cepheids in the Milky Way ([@Gale13 Gallenne et al. 2013]; see also Gallenne et al., these proceedings).
Binary Evolution Pulsating stars
================================
After many years of intense searching for an RR Lyrae star in an eclipsing binary system a very good candidate, OGLE-BLG-RRLYR-02792, was discovered by the OGLE team ([@Sosz10b Soszyński et al. 2010b]). Together with high resolution spectra obtained by the Araucaria team, we modeled this system and determined its physical parameters. Surprisingly, the mass of the primary component, pulsating star classified as an RR Lyrae star based on properties of its light curve, turned out to be 0.261 $\pm$ 0.015 $M_{\odot}$ ([@Piet12 Pietrzyński et al. 2012]). This is of course incompatible with the theoretical predictions for a classical horizontal branch star evolving through the instability strip. However, the relatively short orbital period of this system (15.24 days) suggests that mass exchange between the components should have occurred during its evolution.
Inspired by this possibility, we calculated a series of models for Algol systems and found that a system which initially contained two stars with masses $M_1 = 1.4\,M_{\odot}$ and $M_2 = 0.8\,M_{\odot}$ orbiting each other with an initial period of 2.9 days would, after 5.4 Gyr of evolution, have exchanged mass between the components as classical Algols do, and today would form a system very similar to RRLYR-02792 (e.g. with $M_1 = 0.268\,M_{\odot}$, $M_2 = 1.665\,M_{\odot}$, and $P_{\rm orb}=15.9$ days). We therefore conclude that the primary component of our observed system is not a classical RR Lyrae star with its well-known internal structure, but rather a star which possesses a partially degenerated helium core and a small hydrogen-rich envelope (shell burning). The primary component has lost most of its envelope to the secondary during the red giant branch phase due to the mass exchange in a binary system, and is now crossing the main instability strip during its evolution towards the hot subdwarf region of the H-R diagram ([@Piet12 Pietrzyński et al. 2012]). Pulsational properties of this star were investigated by [@Smol13]. As a result, we discovered a new evolutionary channel of producing binary evolution pulsating (BEP) stars — new inhabitants of the classical instability strip. They mimic classical RR Lyrae variables, but have a completely different origin. Since the primary components can have very different masses during the mass exchange, they can be expected in different regions of the instability strip. Very recently, [@Maxt13] discovered another BEP star crossing the instability strip of $\delta$ Scuti stars. Since close binary systems composed of two intermediate-mass stars orbiting each other with periods of a few days are relatively frequent, the newly discovered evolutionary channel should produce a significant fraction of the white dwarfs in the Universe.
Acknowledgements
================
We gratefully acknowledge financial support for this work from the Polish National Science Center grant MAESTRO DEC-2012/06/A/ST9/00269.
2011, *ApJ*, 728, L43 2005, *MNRAS*, 357, 174 2013, *A&A*, 552, A21 2005a, *ApJ*, 627, 224 2005b, *ApJ*, 628, 695 2006, *ApJ*, 647, 1056 2009, *ApJ*, 700, 1141 2013, *ApJ*, 773, 69 2011, *AcA*, 61, 103 2004, *A&A*, 426, 297 1999, *AcA*, 49, 561 2013, *ApJ*, 768, L6 2013, *Nature*, 498, 463 2011, *A&A*, 525, 67 2011, *A&A*, 529, L9 2002, *AJ*, 123, 789 2004, *AJ*, 128, 2815 2006, *AJ*, 132, 2556 2007, *AJ*, 134, 594 2008, *AJ*, 135, 1993 2010a, *AJ*, 140, 1475 2010b, *Nature*, 468, 542 2011, *ApJ*, 742, L20 2012, *Nature*, 484, 75 2013, *Nature*, 495, 76 2013, *MNRAS*, in press (arXiv: 1308.5023) 2012, *ApJ*, 749, 108 2013, *MNRAS*, 428, 3034 2008, *AcA*, 58, 163 2010a, *AcA*, 60, 17 2010b, *AcA*, 60, 165 2011a, *AcA*, 61, 1 2011b, *AcA*, 61, 217 2013, *AcA*, 63, 37 2011, *A&A*, 534, A94 2008, *AJ*, 136, 272 2009, *AJ*, 138, 1661
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- |
Philip Bechtle,$^a$ Torsten Bringmann,$^b$ Klaus Desch,$^a$ Herbi Dreiner,$^{ac}$ Matthias Hamer,$^d$ Carsten Hensel,$^d$ Michael Krämer,$^e$ Nelly Nguyen,$^f$ Werner Porod,$^g$ ,$^h$ Björn Sarrazin,$^i$ Mathias Uhlenbrock $^a$ and Peter Wienemann $^a$. Physikalisches Institut, University of Bonn,\
Bonn, Germany\
II. Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Hamburg,\
Hamburg, Germany\
Bethe Center for Theoretical Physics, University of Bonn,\
Bonn, Germany\
II. Physikalisches Institut, University of Göttingen,\
Göttingen, Germany\
Institute for Theoretical Particle Physics and Cosmology, RWTH Aachen University,\
Aachen, Germany\
Institute for Experimental Physics, University of Hamburg,\
Hamburg, Germany\
Institut für Theoretische Physik und Astrophysik, University of Würzburg,\
Würzburg, Germany\
Institut für Kern- und Teilchenphysik, TU Dresden,\
Dresden, Germany\
Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY,\
Hamburg, Germany\
E-mail: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
title: 'Constrained Supersymmetry after two years of LHC data: a global view with Fittino'
---
Introduction
============
Current data being insufficient to constraint a general supersymmetric model, the most widely considered constrained model is the constrained MSSM (CMSSM) with only 5 new free parameters beyond the SM: $M_0, M_{1/2}, A_0, \tan\beta, sgn(\mu)$, denoting respectively the universal soft supersymmetry breaking scalar and gaugino masses at the unification scale, the universal soft supersymmetry breaking trilinear scalar coupling, the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the two CP-even neutral Higgs fields and the Higgs mixing parameter in the superpotential. In a minimal non-universal Higgs mass model (NUHM1) [@NUHM] a universal scalar Higgs mass parameter $M_H$ at the unification scale, $M_{Hu} = M_{Hd} = M_H$, is added. In this paper, we investigate the global interpretation of all existing data using our framework Fittino [@Fittino].
The Fittino framework
=====================
The Fittino [@Fittino; @Fittino2] framework is used to perform a global Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) scan of the supersymmetric parameter space in all parameter dimensions. In the frequentist interpretation of the MCMC fit, assuming a Gaussian likelihood the two-dimensional $1\sigma$ ($2\sigma$) boundaries are defined by $\Delta\chi^2 < 2.33 (5.99)$, where $\Delta\chi^2$ is calculated for each point by regard to the best fit point with the smallest $\chi^2$. Using a self-optimizing chain, at least 3 million points are obtained within $\Delta\chi^2 < 5.99$ from the minimum for each individual fit. The SUSY particle spectrum is calculated with SPheno 3.1.4 [@SPheno], and then used in micrOMEGAs 2.2 [@Micromegas] for the prediction of the dark matter relic density, in FeynHiggs 2.8.2 [@FeynHiggs] for the prediction of the electroweak observables, for the Higgs masses and for the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon $a_{\mu}$, in SuperISO 3.1 [@SuperIso] for the flavor physics observables, and in AstroFit [@AF] for the evaluation of the direct and indirect detection of dark matter observables.
Experimental constraints
========================
A detailled description of the experimental constraints can be found in [@mainPaper]. The present and potential experimental measurements used in this study are indirect constraints through supersymmetric loop corrections and constraints from astrophysical observations. The available limits on SM and non-SM Higgs bosons, including the ones presented by the LHC and Tevatron collaborations at the Spring Conferences 2011, are evaluated using HiggsBounds 3.2 [@HB]. An extensive database of relevant astrophysical data are added by Astrofit to the Fittino fit process. The most conservative chargino mass limit of $m_{\chi^{\pm}_1}>102.5$ GeV, from the direct search at LEP was included, leading indirectly to the exclusion of light neutralinos $m_{\chi_1^0}<50$ GeV in the constrained models considered here [@ChargNeut]. The most stringent LHC limits from the direct searches in channels with jets and missing transverse energy are included by emulating the search analysis. The ATLAS analysis [@ATLASAn] is reproduced by simulating the production of gluino and squarks with SPheno 3.1.0 and Herwig 2.4.2 [@HERWIG], together with the fast detector simulation DELPHES 1.9 [@DELPHES]. It is indeed not sufficient to only consider the $95\%$CL bounds published by the experimental collaborations for specific models and particular choices of parameters. The published ATLAS limits at $L_{int} = 165 /pb$ and $L_{int} = 1 /fb$ could be precisely reproduced (see Fig. \[fig:LHCgrid\]), the signal grid was adapted to the ATLAS analysis for $L_{int} = 4.7 /fb$ by reducing the systematic uncertainties. The impact of fixing $A_0$ and $\tan\beta$ on the grid was checked by simulating the signal for various values of $A_0$ and $\tan\beta$ in different regions of the $(M_0,M_{1/2})$ parameter space, and was found to be negligible (see Fig. \[fig:LHCgrid\]).
![Left: $\chi^2$ contribution from the LHC SUSY search implementation compared to the published ATLAS and CMS limits [@ATLASAn] [@CMSAn]. Right: Simulated signal yields for a different point in the $(M_0,M_{1/2})$ parameter space, with the SM background (gray), the CMSSM signal expectation for our grid (yellow) and the systematic uncertainty of 30$\%$ (orange).[]{data-label="fig:LHCgrid"}](fittino-analysis-5fb.eps "fig:"){width=".45\textwidth"} ![Left: $\chi^2$ contribution from the LHC SUSY search implementation compared to the published ATLAS and CMS limits [@ATLASAn] [@CMSAn]. Right: Simulated signal yields for a different point in the $(M_0,M_{1/2})$ parameter space, with the SM background (gray), the CMSSM signal expectation for our grid (yellow) and the systematic uncertainty of 30$\%$ (orange).[]{data-label="fig:LHCgrid"}](Comparaison_M0_200_M12_400.eps "fig:"){width=".45\textwidth"}
Results
=======
The results of our CMSSM and NUHM1 fits for various sets of input observables are given in the Table \[tab:fitsummary\], for all fits we require the lightest neutralino to be the LSP, consistent radiative electroweak symmetry breaking and the absence of tachyons. In the plots of fitted parameters, the best-fit point is marked by a star, all hidden dimensions having been profiled. Excluding the direct searches of super-symmetry at the LHC, the fitted parameter space points to a light sparticle spectrum, below 1 TeV (see Fig. \[fig:LEO\])). The focus point, [*i.e.*]{} $M_0\sim 2~$TeV and $M_{12}\sim 150$ GeV, is allowed in the $2\sigma$ region, due to the high Higgs mass $m_{h}$ prefered by current data. Including the direct search at the LHC decreases the goodness of the fit, which arises from the coupling of colored and non colored sectors in the constrained models. The low energy observables are indeed mainly driven by non colored sparticles, whilst the channels used for the direct search at the LHC rely mostly on the colored one. This results in a shift upwards of $\tan\beta$ and of the masses of squarks and gluinos (see Fig. \[fig:LHC\]), the shift in $\tan\beta$ being cause by the correlation with the masses through the muon anomaly: an increase in the mass being compensated by a larger coupling in order to match the experimental high value of $a_{\mu}$. Contrary to the CMSSM, the NUHM1 can accomodate a Higgs boson as heavy as 126 GeV, depending on the value of $BF(B_s\rightarrow\mu^+\mu^-)$ (see Fig. \[fig:H126\]). The fit of the NUHM1 model, including all experimental constraints, results in a large $2\sigma$ contour with a prefered region at lower mass and the focus point to be excluded (see Fig. \[fig:NUHM\]). Despite a lower fit tension than for the MSSM, a tension remains due to the strong correlation between $BF(B_s\rightarrow\mu^+\mu^-)$, $a_{\mu}$ and $m_{h}$ in the NUHM1.
Fit $M_0\, {\rm [GeV]}$ $M_{1/2}\, {\rm [GeV]}$ $M_H^2\,{\rm [10^6GeV^2]}$ $\tan\beta$ $A_0$ $\chi^2$/$ndf$
------------------ ----------------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------------- ----------------
CMSSM: LEO $84.4^{+144.6}_ {-28.1}$ $375.4^{+174.5}_{ -87.5}$ $\times$ $14.9^{+16.5}_{-7.2}$ $186.3^{+831.4}_{-843.7} $ 10.3/8
CMSSM: LHC $304.4^{+373.7}_{-185.2}$ $664.6^{+138.3}_{-70.9}$ $\times$ $34.4^{+10.9}_{-21.3}$ $884.8^{+1178.0}_{-974.9}$ 13.1/9
CMSSM: LHC+$m_h$ $1163.2^{+1185.3}_{-985.7}$ $1167.4^{+594.0}_{-513.0}$ $\times$ $39.3^{+16.7}_{-32.7}$ $-2969.1^{+6297.8}_{-1234.9}$ 18.4/9
NUHM1: LHC+$m_h$ $124.3^{+95.2}_{-16.8}$ $655.5^{+218.0}_{-65.0}$ $-1.7^{+0.5}_{-2.7}$ $29.4^{+3.3}_{-7.8}$ $-511.2^{+574.7}_{-988.6}$ 15.3/8
: Summary of the results for the CMSSM and NUHM1 fits with different sets of input observables: “LEO” refers to all low energy observables, “LHC” includes also the direct search for sparticles at the LHC, and “LHC+$m_h$” adds the constraint of a Higgs boson of 126 GeV. []{data-label="tab:fitsummary"}
![Left: Parameter distributions for the LEO fit of the CMSSM with the 1-dimensional $1\sigma$ in red and the 2-dimensional $2\sigma$ in blue, and the best fit point marked by a star. Right: predicted distribution of sparticle and Higgs boson masses from the LEO fit of the CMSSM. The full uncertainty band gives the 1-dimensional $2\sigma$ uncertainty of each mass $\Delta\chi^2 < 4$.[]{data-label="fig:LEO"}](markovChain2D2sContours_P_M05_P_M1_.eps "fig:"){width=".45\textwidth"} ![Left: Parameter distributions for the LEO fit of the CMSSM with the 1-dimensional $1\sigma$ in red and the 2-dimensional $2\sigma$ in blue, and the best fit point marked by a star. Right: predicted distribution of sparticle and Higgs boson masses from the LEO fit of the CMSSM. The full uncertainty band gives the 1-dimensional $2\sigma$ uncertainty of each mass $\Delta\chi^2 < 4$.[]{data-label="fig:LEO"}](LEO_scale3k.eps "fig:"){width=".45\textwidth"}
![Left: Parameter distributions for the LHC fit of the CMSSM with the 1-dimensional $1\sigma$ in red and the 2-dimensional $2\sigma$ in blue, and the best fit point marked by a star. Right: predicted distribution of sparticle and Higgs boson masses from the LHC fit of the CMSSM. The full uncertainty band gives the 1-dimensional $2\sigma$ uncertainty of each mass $\Delta\chi^2 < 4$.[]{data-label="fig:LHC"}](LHClumi_LHCexclu_markovChain2D2sContours_P_M0_P_M12_.eps "fig:"){width=".45\textwidth"} ![Left: Parameter distributions for the LHC fit of the CMSSM with the 1-dimensional $1\sigma$ in red and the 2-dimensional $2\sigma$ in blue, and the best fit point marked by a star. Right: predicted distribution of sparticle and Higgs boson masses from the LHC fit of the CMSSM. The full uncertainty band gives the 1-dimensional $2\sigma$ uncertainty of each mass $\Delta\chi^2 < 4$.[]{data-label="fig:LHC"}](LHC_scale3k.eps "fig:"){width=".45\textwidth"}
When the constraint of a Higgs mass of $m_{h}=126$ GeV is included, the prefered values of masses and $\tan\beta$ increases (see Fig. \[fig:H126\]), while the quality of the fit decreases further, leading to a tension in the fit of constrained models. This tension can hardly be relieved by leaving the top mass free in the fit.
![Left: Parameter distributions for the LHC$+m_h$ fit of the CMSSM with the 1-dimensional $1\sigma$ in red and the 2-dimensional $2\sigma$ in blue, and the best fit point marked by a star. Right: The dependence of the minimal $\chi^2$ of the fit on $m_h$ for different input observable sets and for the CMSSM and NUHM1.[]{data-label="fig:H126"}](Higgs_126_markovChain2D2sContours_P_M0_P_M12_.eps "fig:"){width=".45\textwidth"} ![Left: Parameter distributions for the LHC$+m_h$ fit of the CMSSM with the 1-dimensional $1\sigma$ in red and the 2-dimensional $2\sigma$ in blue, and the best fit point marked by a star. Right: The dependence of the minimal $\chi^2$ of the fit on $m_h$ for different input observable sets and for the CMSSM and NUHM1.[]{data-label="fig:H126"}](chi2_mh0_diffModels_AFXn_fh_nonscatter.eps "fig:"){width=".45\textwidth"}
Various ratios between the CMSSM and the SM of branching fractions of the main Higgs decay channels have been calculated with HDECAY 4.41 [@HDECAY] for the regions prefered by the fit in the parameter space (see Fig. \[fig:BR\]). One notices an enhancement of the $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ channel and a decrease of $h\rightarrow \tau^+\tau^-$ by regards to the SM. Such a sensitivity makes potential measurements of the branching fractions attractive to discover a deviation from the SM and to determine the model parameters, even for SUSY mass scales beyond the LHC reach at $\sqrt s=7$ TeV or 8 TeV.
![Predicted $2\sigma$ ranges of Higgs branching fractions and ratios for the LHC fit of the CMSSM with $m_h=(126\pm 2\pm 3)$ GeV, including the theoretical uncertainty of the Higgs mass of 3 GeV.[]{data-label="fig:BR"}](BRRangesLHC2H126.eps "fig:"){width=".45\textwidth"} ![Predicted $2\sigma$ ranges of Higgs branching fractions and ratios for the LHC fit of the CMSSM with $m_h=(126\pm 2\pm 3)$ GeV, including the theoretical uncertainty of the Higgs mass of 3 GeV.[]{data-label="fig:BR"}](BRRatioRangesLHC2H126.eps "fig:"){width=".45\textwidth"}
![Left: Parameter distributions for the LHC$+m_h$ fit of the NUHM1 with the 1-dimensional $1\sigma$ in red and the 2-dimensional $2\sigma$ in blue, and the best fit point marked by a star. Right: predicted distribution of sparticle and Higgs boson masses from the LH$C+m_h$ fit of the NUHM1.[]{data-label="fig:NUHM"}](markovChain2D2sContours_P_M05_P_M1_.eps "fig:"){width=".45\textwidth"} ![Left: Parameter distributions for the LHC$+m_h$ fit of the NUHM1 with the 1-dimensional $1\sigma$ in red and the 2-dimensional $2\sigma$ in blue, and the best fit point marked by a star. Right: predicted distribution of sparticle and Higgs boson masses from the LH$C+m_h$ fit of the NUHM1.[]{data-label="fig:NUHM"}](NUHM1_scale5k.eps "fig:"){width=".45\textwidth"}
Conclusion
==========
We presented a global frequentist fit of the CMSSM and NUHM1 parameter spaces, including up-to-date measurements in the flavor and electroweak sectors, the muon anomaly, astrophysical observations, the direct searches of supersymmetry at LHC and a Higgs mass of $m_{h}=126$ GeV. The current LHC exclusion leads to a low goodness-of-fit within the CMSSM, which worsens when requiring a Higgs mass above 125 GeV. The fit quality is increased in the non-minimal models NUHM1, despite a remaining tension due to the high correlations between observables in such model. The measurements of the Higgs branching fractions of the channels $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $h\rightarrow \tau^+\tau^-$ has the potential to indicate the deviation from the SM, even for SUSY mass scales beyond the LHC reach.
[99]{} H. Baer, A. Mustafayev, S. Profumo, A. Belyaev and X. Tata, *PRD* [**71**]{} (2005) 095008. P. Bechtle, K. Desch and P. Wienemann, *Comput. Phys. Commun.* [**174**]{} (2006) 47. P. Bechtle, K. Desch, M. Uhlenbrock and P. Wienemann, *Eur. Phys. J. C* [**66**]{} (2010) 215. W. Porod, *Comput. Phys. Commun.* [**153**]{} (2003) 275. G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov, *Comput. Phys. Commun.* [**180**]{} (2009) 747. T. Hahn, S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, H. Rzehak and G. Weiglein, *Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.* [**205-206**]{} (2010) 152. F. Mahmoudi, SuperIso program and flavor data constraints, \[[hep-ph/0812.2902]{}\]. N. Nguyen, D. Horns and T. Bringmann, \[[astro-ph/arXiv:1202.1385]{}\]. P. Bechtle, T. Bringmann, K. Desch, H. Dreiner, M. Hamer, C. Hensel, M. Kraemer, N. Nguyen, W. Porod, X. Prudent, B. Sarrazin, M. Uhlenbrock, P. Wienemann., *JHEP*, [**6**]{} 98 (2012). P. Bechtle, O. Brein, S. Heinemeyer, G. Weiglein and K.E. Williams, *Comput. Phys. Commun.* [**182**]{} (2011) 2605. Particle Data Group collaboration, *J. Phys. G* [**37**]{} (2010) 075021. H.K. Dreiner et al., *Eur. Phys. J. C* [**62**]{} (2009) 547. J. Conley, H. Dreiner and P. Wienemann, *Phys. Rev. D* [**83**]{} (2011) 055018. ATLAS collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2011-086, CERN (2011). M. Bahr et al., *Eur. Phys. J. C* [**58**]{} (2008) 639. S. Ovyn, X. Rouby and V. Lemaitre, \[[hep-ph/0903.2225]{}\]. CMS collaboration, CMS-PAS-SUS-12-005, CERN (2012). A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski and M. Spira, *Comput. Phys. Commun.* [**108**]{} (1998) 56.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'J. Jasche'
- 'G. Lavaux'
bibliography:
- 'paper.bib'
date: 'submitted to A&A 25.06.2018'
title: 'Physical Bayesian modelling of the non-linear matter distribution: new insights into the Nearby Universe'
---
=1
\[firstpage\]
Introduction
============
The goal of modern cosmology is the investigation of the dynamics of the Universe and the formation of structures to determine the underlying gravitational world model. Especially observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), as provided by ESA’s Planck satellite mission, have contributed to firmly establishing the $\Lambda$CDM framework as the standard model of cosmology . This model reconciles the homogeneous expansion dynamics of the Universe with the generation and evolution of cosmic structures. In particular, the present dynamical evolution of our Universe is believed to be governed by dark energy and dark matter, constituting about $95\%$ of its total energy budget. Although they are required to explain the formation of all observable structures within the standard picture of Einstein’s gravity, dark matter and dark energy so far elude direct observations and they have not yet been identified as particles or fields within more fundamental theories [see e.g. @2017arXiv170101840F].
Making progress in understanding the cosmological phenomenology requires both taking ever more data and developing increasingly accurate and precise data analyses methods. This is particularly important when attempting to identify those subtle signals that could hint us towards the true nature of the physics driving the dynamical evolution of our Universe.
{width="\hsize"}
In recent times the field of cosmology has evolved from focusing on studies of the homogeneous expansion dynamics, with supernovæ of type Ia [@Perlmutter1999; @Riess2016] and the observation of small density perturbations in the linear regime with CMB experiments , to observations of linearly evolving structures in galaxy redshift surveys [see e.g. @TEGMARK_2004; @2007MNRAS.381.1053P; @2016MNRAS.460.4210G]. The natural next step consists of analysing non-linear cosmic structures in observations. In particular, about 80% of the total cosmological signal provided by next-generation cosmological instruments, such as the Euclid satellite or the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST), will be generated by the cosmic matter distribution at non-linear scales [@2009arXiv0912.0201L; @2011arXiv1110.3193L; @2017arXiv170104469S].
Accessing non-linear scales in observations also promises to extract additional cosmological information. As regularly mentioned in the literature [e.g. @2012ApJ...754..109L; @2016PhRvD..93h3510M], the number of observable modes at smaller non-linear scales is much larger than that at larger scales, which is intrinsically limited by the size of the observable Hubble volume. In addition inference of large scale fluctuations is affected most by survey geometries and selection effects which can be quite complex [see e.g. @Davis1991; @Peacock2001].
However, cosmological information at non-linear scales is locked in very complex higher order statistics and cannot be accessed entirely by only measuring simple two-point statistics [@2016PhRvD..93h3510M; @2017arXiv170104469S]. As a consequence novel data analysis methods need to study non-linearly evolving structures to make the most of coming cosmological data sets [@2017arXiv170104469S]. This requires developing novel and complex data models capable of accounting for intrinsic stochastic and systematic uncertainties of the data but also for the properties of non-linear gravitational structure formation responsible for the non-Gaussian features in observations of the non-linear cosmic Large Scale Structure (LSS).
In many aspects, this requires to go beyond state-of-the-art in data analysis, currently relying mostly on linear data models including a linear perturbative description of observed cosmic structures . There has also been a considerable effort in going beyond linear data models to better capture the non-Gaussian nature of the observed galaxy distribution via Bayesian log-normal Poisson modelling [@KITAURA2010MNRAS; @JASCHE2010HADESMETHOD; @JASCHE2010HADESDATA].
In addition, to account for non-linear structure formation processes, we have proposed to perform Bayesian analyses of galaxy observations with full three-dimensional and physical models of gravitational structure formation [@JASCHEBORG2012; @JLW15; @2016MNRAS.455.3169L]. By exploiting physical models of the in-homogeneous evolution of cosmic matter, our approach allows for inferring spatially distributed density and velocity fields and quantifying corresponding uncertainties, via an efficient Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) approach.
Incorporating a physical model of gravitational structure formation into the Bayesian inference approach turns the task of analysing observed non-linear cosmic structures into a statistical initial conditions problem. More specifically, we aim at inferring plausible three-dimensional initial density fields from which presently observed non-linear structures formed. In this fashion, our approach establishes an immediate link between observed present cosmic structures and their primordial initial conditions from which they formed via non-linear gravitational evolution.
It must be mentioned that naive inversion of the flow of time in corresponding physical structure formation models, to obtain initial conditions from non-linear density fields, is generally not possible due to the ill-posedness of the inverse problem [@NUSSER1992; @Crocce2006].
In this context ill-posedness is a statement on the existence of a range of feasible inference solutions that are consistent with noisy and incomplete observations, generally defying a unique model reconstruction. More specifically, in the context of the cosmic large scale structures, ill-posedness results from several instances. In particular, we usually deal with incomplete and noisy data but also dissipative processes, coarse-graining effects or incomplete access to the dark matter phase-space distribution. The combination of these effects eliminates information on the dark matter phase space distribution and prevents unique recovery of information on cosmic initial conditions via Liouville’s theorem for Hamiltonian dynamics [@liouville1838; @nla.cat-vn881490].
However, detailed information on the reason for ill-posedness is not required to address the problem via statistical inference. As already discussed in our previous works, we address the issue of ill-posedness by performing thorough Bayesian inference via physical forward modelling within sophisticated Hamiltonian Monte Carlo sampling approach [@JASCHEBORG2012; @JLW15; @2016MNRAS.455.3169L]. This MCMC approach correctly explores the space of feasible solutions for the large-scale structure inference problem, which are compatible with noisy and incomplete observations. More specifically our approach infers a set of plausible three-dimensional primordial density fields from which structures in present observations formed. Since our algorithm tries out feasible solutions purely via forward simulations, it is not affected by the problems of traditional inverse modelling, as summarized above.
Our approach also shares many beneficial properties with proposed ad-hoc BAO reconstruction methods, which have been demonstrated to increase the detectability of the BAO peaks from three to four sigma [see e.g. @2009PhRvD..80l3501N; @2012MNRAS.427.2146X; @2015PhRvD..92l3522S; @2018PhRvD..97b3505S]. By now several groups have proposed approaches to incorporate physical models into data analysis frameworks [@Nusser2000; @BRENIER2003; @Lavaux10; @JASCHEBORG2012; @Doumler2013; @Wang2013; @Kitaura13; @Schmittfull2017; @Seljak2017]
While previous approaches relied on perturbative descriptions of cosmic large-scale structure in this work we go beyond such limitations by incorporating fully non-linear and non-perturbative computer models of structure formation into our previously proposed algorithm for Bayesian Origin Reconstruction from Galaxies ([[BORG]{}]{}). More specifically we seek to fit a gravitational particle mesh (PM) model in its entirety to galaxy observations of the Nearby Universe. In contrast to contemporary analyses, limited to studying the lowest order moments of the density field (e.g. power- and bi-spectra), physical modelling of the entire three-dimensional matter distribution in observations permits us to implicitly access the entire hierarchy of higher order poly-spectra by directly fitting the filamentary three-dimensional distribution of matter in the Universe.
A particularly important advantage of our approach is that it does not only provide single point estimates, such as mean or mode, but it characterizes the corresponding posterior distribution in terms of MCMC samples and thus allows for a thorough uncertainty quantification (UQ) [such as @JASCHEBORG2012; @JLW15]. Previously such approaches have been considered computationally too prohibitive for numerical $N$-body models of structure formation. This work introduces our implementation of a non-linear large-scale structure inference framework, on the basis of the latest advances in Bayesian methodology and sampling algorithms. This permits us to apply sophisticated MCMC techniques to the title problem at scales previously inaccessible to cosmological data analysis.
Analysing cosmological surveys subject to noise and systematics is generally challenging and requiring the data model to handle a variety of nuisances. In order to address this issue we turned our [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm into a modular statistical programming engine that exploits hierarchical Bayes and block sampling techniques to flexibly build data models for different data sets. Different building blocks of the data model can be added to the Markov Chain and their respective parameters will be jointly inferred within the multiple block sampling approach as visualized in figure \[fig:flowchart\].
The present work also aims at applying our techniques to infer a coherent and consistent physical model of the three-dimensional large-scale dark matter distribution, its dynamics and formation histories in the Nearby Universe. This will be achieved by applying the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm to the [[2M++]{}]{} galaxy sample [@LH11].
These results will provide us with detailed and accurate maps of the expected dark matter distribution in the Nearby Universe and will permit us to measure the masses of prominent cosmic structures. Specifically for the case of the Coma cluster, we will demonstrate that we can obtain mass estimates that are compatible with gold-standard weak lensing measurements. We further seek to determine dynamical properties of cosmic structures and test their potential to impact cosmological measurements in the Nearby Universe via effects of peculiar velocities.
The manuscript is structured as follows. In Section \[sec:methodology\] we describe the methodology and the modifications to the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm. Section \[sec:data\_model\] provides a detailed overview of the data model required to compare predictions of the structure formation model with observed galaxy surveys. The main part of this work focuses on the application of our algorithm to data of the [[2M++]{}]{} compilation. The corresponding description of setting up these analysis run and the employed data is given in Section \[sec:data\_application\]. Section \[sec:inference\_results\] highlights some of our inference results. In particular we showcase results on galaxy biases (Section \[sec:galaxy\_biases\]), the inferred three-dimensional density field at the initial conditions and in the present epoch (Section \[sec:result\_3d\_density\]), the formation history of the Supergalactic plane (\[sec:form\_hist\]), the estimated mass and corresponding mass profile of the Coma cluster (Section \[sec:mass\_reconstruction\]), the velocity field of the Local Universe (Section \[sec:inf\_vel\_field\]) and its possible impact on Hubble constant measurements in the Nearby Universe (Section \[sec:impact\_hubble\]). Finally, in Section \[sec:Summary\_an\_Conclusion\], we conclude the paper and discuss future developments.
Bayesian inference with the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm {#sec:methodology}
===================================================
This section provides an overview of our previously developed Bayesian inference framework including the modifications as introduced in this work.
The [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm {#sec:borg_model}
---------------------------
The presented project builds upon our previously developed algorithm for Bayesian Origin Reconstruction from Galaxies ([[BORG]{}]{}), aiming at the analysis of three-dimensional cosmic matter distribution at linear and non-linear scales of structure formation in galaxy surveys [see e.g. @JASCHEBORG2012; @JLW15; @2016MNRAS.455.3169L]. More explicitly the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm fits three-dimensional models of gravitational structure formation to data.
Interestingly, introducing a physical model of gravitational structure growth immediately into the inference process turns the task of analysing the present non-linear galaxy distribution into a statistical initial conditions problem. More specifically the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm seeks to infer the cosmic initial conditions from which present three-dimensional structures in the distribution of galaxies have formed via non-linear gravitational mass aggregation.
The [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm explores a cosmic LSS posterior distribution consisting of a Gaussian prior for the initial density field at a initial cosmic scale factor of $a=10^{-3}$ and a Poissonian model of galaxy formation at a scale factor $a=1$, while initial density fields are related to the present galaxy distribution via a second order Lagrangian perturbation theory (2LPT) or a full particle mesh, as described in this work, model of gravitational structure formation [for details see @JASCHEBORG2012]. By exploiting non-linear structure growth models the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm naturally accounts for the filamentary structure of the cosmic web typically associated with higher-order statistics induced by non-linear gravitational processes. As described in our previous works the posterior distribution also accounts for systematic and stochastic uncertainties, such as survey geometries, selection effects, unknown noise and galaxy biases as well as foreground contaminations .
The resultant procedure is numerically highly non-trivial since it requires to explore the very high-dimensional and non-linear space of possible solutions to the initial conditions problem within a fully probabilistic approach. Typically, these spaces comprise $10^6$ to $10^7$ parameters, corresponding to amplitudes of the primordial density at different volume elements of a regular mesh in Lagrangian space for grids between $128^3$ and $256^3$ elements. Numerically efficient exploration of this highly non-Gaussian and non-linear posterior distribution is achieved via an efficient implementation of a Hamiltonian Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampling algorithm [see @DUANE1987; @2012arXiv1206.1901N; @JASCHEBORG2012 for details].
It is important to remark that our inference process requires at no point the inversion of the flow of time in the dynamical physics model. The analysis solely depends on forward model evaluations, alleviating many of the problems encountered in previous approaches to the inference of initial conditions, such as spurious decaying mode amplification [see e.g. @NUSSER1992; @Crocce2006]. Specifically [@Crocce2006] nicely demonstrate that inference of initial conditions is a fundamentally ill-posed problem. Recovering information on the initial conditions becomes harder and increasingly uncertain towards smaller scales, generally preventing unique backward in time integration of the final density field. Rather than inferring the initial conditions by backward in time integration, our approach builds a fully probabilistic non-linear filter using the dynamical forward model as a prior. This prior singles out physically reasonable LSS states from the space of all possible solutions to the statistical initial conditions problem. However, they do not strictly limit the space of initial conditions that must be searched to match observations. If for some reason unlikely events are required to explain observational data, the algorithm explores prior regions that are [*a priori*]{} unlikely. This allows for the potential characterization of primordial non-Gaussian signals in the recovered initial conditions for example.
{width="\hsize"}
Since the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm provides an approximation to non-linear large-scale dynamics, it automatically provides information on the dynamical evolution of the large-scale matter distribution. In particular, it explores the space of plausible dynamical structure formation *histories* compatible with both data and model. Also note, that the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm naturally infers initial density fields at their Lagrangian coordinates, while final density fields are recovered at corresponding final Eulerian coordinates. Therefore the algorithm accounts for the displacement of matter in the course of structure formation.
As results the algorithm provides measurements of the three dimensional density field but also performs full four-dimensional state inference and recovers the dynamic formation history and velocity fields of the cosmic LSS.
Some examples of secondary projects derived from these results aimed at studying dark matter voids in the galaxy distribution [@Leclercq2014A], the phase-space distribution of matter in the SDSS survey [@2017JCAP...06..049L], properties of the population of Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) as well as gravitational screening mechanisms [@2018MNRAS.474.3152D; @2018arXiv180207206D] and cosmic magnetic fields [@Hutschenreuter2018].
Hamiltonian Monte Carlo sampling {#sec:hamiltonian_sampling}
--------------------------------
Large-scale Bayesian inverse problems, as described in this work, belong to the most challenging tasks in the field of modern cosmological data analysis. This is mostly due to the numerical complexity of the physical model to test with data but even more so due to the high dimensional nature of the inference task itself. The combination of numerically expensive model evaluations and the curse of dimension typically renders large-scale Bayesian inverse problems numerically impractical [@bellman1961adaptive].
A particular interesting algorithm to circumvent some of the problems associated to the curse of dimensionality is the Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (HMC) algorithm. Its numerical and statistical efficiency originates from the fact that it exploits techniques developed to follow classical dynamical particle motion in potentials. This approach provides deterministic proposals to the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm that can be accepted with very high probability [@DUANE1987; @NEAL1993; @NEAL1996].
The HMC can be used to generate random realizations of a set of parameters $\{x_i\}$ of size $N$ from any target distribution ${\Pi}(\{x_i\})$ by interpreting its negative logarithm as a potential for classical particle motion given as: $$\label{eq:Potential}
\Psi(\{x_i\})=-\ln {\Pi}(\{x_i\}) \, .$$ Introducing additional sets of auxiliary quantities, referred to as ’momenta’ $\{p_i\}$ and a ’mass matrix’ ${{M}}$, it is possible to define a Hamiltonian function analogous to classical mechanics: $$\label{eq:Hamiltonian}
H(\{x_i\},\{p_i\}) = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i,j} p_i\,M_{i,j}^{-1}\,p_j +\Psi(\{x_i\}) \, .$$ It is important to remark that the joint distribution for parameters $\{x_i\}$ and $\{p_i\}$ can then be obtained via exponentiating the Hamiltonian given in equation (\[eq:Hamiltonian\]): $$\label{eq:joint_TARGET_DISTRIBUTION}
\Pi(\{x_i\},\{p_i\}) \propto \mathrm{e}^{-H} ={\Pi}(\{x_i\})\,\exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}\,\sum_{i,j}\,p_i\,M_{i,j}^{-1}\,p_j\right)\, .$$ As can be seen the joint distribution in equation (\[eq:joint\_TARGET\_DISTRIBUTION\]) factorizes in a product of our target distribution ${\Pi}(\{x_i\})$ and a Gaussian distribution in the momenta $\{p_i\}$. This demonstrates that the two sets of variables $\{p_i\}$ and $\{x_i\}$ are statistically independent and marginalization over auxiliary momenta yields the desired target distribution ${\Pi}(\{x_i\})$.
It is now possible to explore the joint parameter space of variables $\{p_m\}$ and $\{x_m\}$ by following persistent trajectories for some fixed amount of pseudo time $\tau$ according to Hamilton’s equations of motion: $$\label{eq:HAMILTON1}
\frac{\mathrm{d}x_m}{\mathrm{d}t} = \frac{\partial H}{\partial p_m}\, ,$$ and $$\label{eq:HAMILTON2}
\frac{\mathrm{d}p_m}{\mathrm{d}t} = \frac{\partial H}{\partial x_m} = - \frac{\partial \Psi(\{x_i\})}{\partial x_m}\, .$$ In the above equation, the Hamiltonian forces are given by the gradient of the logarithmic target distribution with respect to inference parameters. Therefore, ’particles’ do not move freely in this high dimensional parameter space and they tend to be attracted towards regions with higher probability. New random realizations for the parameters $\{p'_i\}$ and $\{x'_i\}$ are then obtained by starting at the current position in phase space characterized by the values $\{p_i\}$ and $\{x_i\}$ and following Hamiltonian dynamics for a certain amount of pseudo time $\tau$. The endpoint of this trajectory will then be accepted according to the standard Metropolis-Hastings acceptance rule: $$\label{eq:acceptance_rule}
{\Pi}_A = \min\Big\{1,\exp\big[-\left(H(\{x'_i\},\{p'_i\})-H(\{x_i\},\{p_i\}\right)\big]\Big\}\, .$$ The particular feature that renders HMC an excellent algorithm for high dimensional parameter space exploration is precisely the conservation of the Hamiltonian by the above equation of motions. Consequently the expected acceptance rate given by Equation for the exact Hamiltonian dynamics has a value of unity.
In practice the acceptance rate may be lower due to numerical inaccuracies of the numerical integration scheme. To generate a valid Markov chain, auxiliary momenta are randomly re-drawn from a Gaussian distribution after each acceptance step and the procedure starts again. Individual momenta $\{p_i\}$ are not stored. Discarding auxiliary momenta simply amounts to marginalization and yields the target distribution ${\Pi}(\{x_i\})$.
In summary, two particular features of the HMC algorithm render it ideal for the exploration of high dimensional parameter spaces with complex physical models. First of all, it exploits conserved quantities such as the Hamiltonian to provide a high Metropolis-Hastings acceptance probability, hence reducing the amount of rejected model evaluations. More importantly, the HMC exploits gradient information of the target posterior distribution, preventing it from performing a blind random walk in high dimensions. This leads the algorithm follows targeted persistent trajectories to efficiently explore parameter spaces. For details on the numerical implementation of the HMC for cosmic large-scale structure analyses, the interested reader is also encouraged to have a look at our previous work [@JASCHE2010HADESMETHOD; @JASCHEBORG2012; @JaschePspec2013].
Modular statistical programming via Block sampling
--------------------------------------------------
A particular feature of the full Bayesian inference approach, as presented here, is the possibility to perform modular statistical programming. In particular, the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm can solve any hierarchical Bayesian problem by simply adding additional components to a block sampling framework, as outlined in figure \[fig:flowchart\]. This block sampling approach allows for straightforwardly accounting for additional observational systematics by building more complex data models and adding corresponding parameter samplers to the block sampling framework.
In this work, we use this block sampling framework to jointly account for unknown parameters of a galaxy biasing model, as described further below, and unknown noise levels for respective galaxy samples (see figure \[fig:flowchart\]). Iterating this block sampling framework by conditionally drawing random realizations of parameters in sequence will then result in a correct Markov Chain that asymptotes towards the desired joint target posterior distribution [e.g. @GEMA1984].
A data model for non-linear LSS inference {#sec:data_model}
=========================================
This section describes the development and implementation of a non-perturbative data model to analyse the three-dimensional cosmic LSS at non-linear scales in data.
The general data model
----------------------
The aim of the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm is to provide a full characterization of the three-dimensional cosmic large-scale structure in observations by providing a numerical representation of the associated posterior distribution via sophisticated MCMC methods. More specifically the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm provides data constrained realizations of a set of plausible three-dimensional matter density contrast amplitudes $\{\delta_i\}$ underlying a set of observed galaxy number counts $\{N^g_i\}$ for various volume elements in the observed domain indexed by $i$. Using Bayes rule, the most general form of this posterior distribution can be expressed as: $$\Pi\left(\{\delta_i\}|\{N^g_i\}\right)=\frac{\Pi\left(\{\delta_i\}\right)\, \Pi\left(\{N^g_i\}|\{\delta_i\}\right)}{\Pi\left(\{N^g_i\}\right)} \, ,$$ where the prior distribution $\Pi\left(\{\delta_i\}\right)$ describes our a priori knowledge on the three-dimensional matter distribution in the Universe, $\Pi\left(\{N^g_i\}|\{\delta_i\}\right)$ is the likelihood describing the statistical process of obtaining a set of observations $\{N^g_i\}$ given a specific realization of the matter field $\{\delta_i\}$ and $\Pi\left(\{N^g_i\}\right)$ is the so-called evidence which normalizes the probability distribution. We note that $\Pi\left(\{\delta_i\}\right)$ may depend on cosmological parameters and other auxiliary parameters, sometimes hyper-parameters, that we skip to represent for the moment in the notation.
As already described in our previous work, a major complication arises from the fact that the prior distribution $\Pi\left(\{\delta_i\}\right)$ for non-linear gravitationally formed density fields is not known in closed form, such as in terms of a multivariate probability density distribution [@JASCHEBORG2012]. State-of-the-art approaches, therefore, assume Gaussian or log-normal distributions as approximations to the prior for the matter density contrast. However, since these distributions model only the one- and two-point statistics, they fail to capture the filamentary features of the observed cosmic web that are associated with higher order statistics [see e.g. @1980lssu.book.....P].
Additional complexity for the analysis of next-generation deep surveys arises from the fact that observed galaxy number counts are not solely determined by underlying density amplitudes but are additionally affected by dynamic effects such as redshift space distortions or light cone effects. Naive treatment of such additional dynamic structure formation processes in data would require to also self-consistently infer the three-dimensional velocity field from data. We would need to use a joint posterior distribution for density amplitudes $ \{\delta_i\}$ and peculiar velocities $ \{\vec{v}_i\}$ given as: $$\Pi\left(\{\delta_i\},\{\vec{v}_i\}|\{N^g_i\}\right)=\frac{\Pi\left(\{\delta_i\},\{\vec{v}_i\}\right)\, \Pi\left(\{N^g_i\}|\{\delta_i\},\{\vec{v}_i\}\right)}{\Pi\left(\{N^g_i\}\right)} \, .$$ Not only does this approach aggravate the search for a suitable prior distribution $\Pi\left(\{\delta_i\},\{\vec{v}_i\}\right)$ but it also dramatically increases the amounts of parameters to be inferred with the three components of the spatial velocity field $ \{\vec{v}_i\}$. We note that, generally, parameter space exploration becomes exponentially harder with the number of inference parameters. This fact is known as the curse of dimensions. Naive addition of a few million velocity amplitudes would therefore not be a wise decision when seeking to perform parameter space exploration.
While velocity fields at the present epoch are not uniquely related to the dark matter density field, the theory of gravitational structure formation and the cosmic microwave background yields indication that primordial matter fluctuations were almost at rest with respect to the Hubble flow in the early Universe [@1980lssu.book.....P]. In this picture, tiny fluctuations in the primordial peculiar velocity field derive uniquely from the field of initial density fluctuations by being proportional to the gradient of their gravitational potential [see e.g. @1980lssu.book.....P; @2002PhR...367....1B].
Also, the primordial fluctuations field exhibits almost trivial statistical properties. In accordance with present theory and observations by the Planck satellite mission, the initial density field is an almost ideal Gaussian random field with zero mean and a covariance matrix corresponding to the post-recombination initial cosmological power-spectrum .
If we could, therefore, cast the problem of analysing the non-linear structures in the present Universe into a problem of inferring their initial conditions, we would be able to simultaneously address the problem of finding a suitable prior distribution without the need to increase the parameter space when having to deal with the present velocity field.
The required large scale structure posterior distribution would then turn into a joint distribution of the present density field $\{\delta_i\}$ and the set of primordial density fluctuation amplitudes $\{\delta^{\mathrm{IC}}_i\}$ conditional on observations of galaxy number counts $\{N^g_i\}$, given as: $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi\left(\{\delta_i\},\{\delta^{\mathrm{IC}}_i\}|\{N^g_i\}\right)& =
\frac{\Pi\left(\{\delta_i\},\{\delta^{\mathrm{IC}}_i\}\right)\, \Pi\left(\{N^g_i\}|\{\delta_i\},\{\delta^{\mathrm{IC}}_i\}\right)}{\Pi\left(\{N^g_i\}\right)} \nonumber \\
& =
\frac{\Pi\left(\{\delta^{\mathrm{IC}}_i\}\right) \, \Pi\left(\{\delta_i\}|\{\delta^{\mathrm{IC}}_i\}\right)\, \Pi\left(\{N^g_i\}|\{\delta_i\}\right)}{\Pi\left(\{N^g_i\}\right)} \, , \label{eq:posterior0}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Pi\left(\{\delta^{\mathrm{IC}}_i\}\right)$ is the prior distribution of cosmic initial fluctuations and $\Pi\left(\{\delta_i\}|\{\delta^{\mathrm{IC}}_i\}\right)$ describes the process by which the present matter distribution has been obtained from their initial conditions. We further assume conditional independence $\Pi\left(\{N^g_i\}|\{\delta_i\},\{\delta^{\mathrm{IC}}_i\}\right) = \Pi\left(\{N^g_i\}|\{\delta_i\}\right)$, that is, galaxy observations are conditionally independent of the primordial fluctuations once the final density field is given. This last assumption is not a fundamental limitation of the probabilistic model but it simplifies greatly the comparison to observations at the level considered in this work. The fundamental assumption is that galaxy formation is expected to depend only on the scalar fluctuations of the final conditions. Further extensions of the model, for which the galaxy formation would depend on the entire history of the dynamics, would be possible at additional computational costs.
The distribution $\Pi\left(\{\delta_i\}|\{\delta^{\mathrm{IC}}_i\}\right)$ describes gravitational structure formation. It encodes the processes by which the present matter fluctuations $\{\delta_i\}$ derive from the initial conditions $\{\delta^{\mathrm{IC}}_i\}$. Here we will assume that the final matter distribution derives uniquely from the initial conditions. This is, of course, the standard of cosmological modelling since cosmological simulations provide deterministic results when integrating the structure formation model. Thus we can model the final density field as a function of the initial density field: $$\delta_i = G_i(\{\delta^{\mathrm{IC}}_i\}) \,,$$ where $G_i(\{\delta^{\mathrm{IC}}_i\}))$ is our structure formation model that transforms initial conditions into final density fields. Since we assume this process to be deterministic we immediately obtain: $$\Pi\left(\{\delta_i\}|\{\delta^{\mathrm{IC}}_i\}\right) = \prod_i \delta^D\left(\delta_i - G_i(\{\delta^{\mathrm{IC}}_i\})\right) \, ,$$ where $\delta^D(x)$ denotes the Dirac delta distribution. This yields the following large scale structure posterior distribution: $$\begin{gathered}
\Pi\left(\{\delta_i\},\{\delta^{\mathrm{IC}}_i\}|\{N^g_i\}\right)
= \\
\frac{\Pi\left(\{\delta^{\mathrm{IC}}_i\}\right)}{\Pi\left(\{N^g_i\}\right)} \left(\prod_j \delta^D\left(\delta_j - G_j(\{\delta^{\mathrm{IC}}_i\})\right)\right) \Pi\left(\{N^g_i\}|\{\delta_i\}\right) \, , \label{eq:posterior}\end{gathered}$$ Marginalization over the final density fields $\{\delta_i\}$ then yields our posterior distribution: $$\Pi\left(\{\delta^{\mathrm{IC}}_i\}|\{N^g_i\}\right)
=\frac{\Pi\left(\{\delta^{\mathrm{IC}}_i\}\right) \, \Pi\left(\{N^g_i\}|\{G_i(\{\delta^{\mathrm{IC}}_i\})\}\right)}{\Pi\left(\{N^g_i\}\right)} \, . \label{eq:final_posterior}$$ This distribution links the present observations of the galaxy distributions $\{N^g_i\}$ to the corresponding initial conditions $\{\delta^{\mathrm{IC}}_i\}$ from which they originate via a gravitational structure formation model $\left\{G_j(\{\delta^{\mathrm{IC}}_i\})\right\}$.
Embedding a physical structure formation model into the posterior distribution to analyse three-dimensional cosmic structures in observations thus solves many outstanding questions. Most importantly we can now address issues related to structure formation dynamics, such as redshift space distortions, light cone effects and higher order statistics associated with the filamentary structure of the cosmic web. In the following, we will discuss how to perform inferences with non-linear structure formation models.
![This plot shows the computational scaling properties of the code over MPI-tasks. The x-axis is the number of MPI tasks, each task being given 8 cores with OpenMP parallelization. The y-axis is the wall time seconds taken by the software to execute the indicated part of the algorithm. The red lines correspond to the evaluation of one time-step of the BORG-PM forward model, i.e. the N-body simulation including gravity solver. The green lines correspond to the time taken to compute the adjoint gradient of that same model. We note that the cost of the adjoint gradient takes only twice as much time as the forward model itself over the entire range. Also, the scaling is strong up to $\sim$100 cores, the break visible at the end being because of the core saturation and the use of hyper-threading on the supercomputer. \[fig:bench\] ](figures/bench){width="\hsize"}
The non-linear structure formation model {#sec:pm_model}
----------------------------------------
Our previous work relied on second order Lagrangian perturbation theory (LPT) to model cosmic structure formation [@JASCHEBORG2012; @JLW15; @2016MNRAS.455.3169L]. Even though LPT provides good approximations to the cosmic large-scale structure at the largest scales there are clear limits to its validity. Most notably the LPT approach relies on a convergence of series expansion. This expansion fails to accurately describe multi-streaming regions in high-density objects and cannot accurately capture the dynamic of gravitational evolution of dark matter at scales $l \lesssim 10 \mathrm{h^{-1}\,Mpc}$ [see e.g. @Melott1995; @Tassev2012].
{width="\hsize"}
We intend to go beyond such limitations and to account for the non-linear gravitational dynamics. In this work we update the physics model of our [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm with a numerical particle mesh model [see e.g. @1983MNRAS.204..891K; @1985ApJS...57..241E; @HOCKNEYEASTWOOD1988; @1997astro.ph.12217K].
A particle mesh code solves the gravitational N-body problem by following the dynamical trajectories of a set of simulated dark matter particles including their mutual gravitational interactions. Our implementation of this particle mesh simulator follows closely the description of [@1997astro.ph.12217K]. To simulate non-linear gravitational structure formation from some predefined initial conditions to the present state of the cosmic LSS a particle mesh code solves the following equations of motion for positions $\vec{x}$ and momenta $\vec{p}$ of dark matter particles: $$\frac{\mathrm{d}\vec{x}}{\mathrm{d}a}=\frac{\vec{p}}{\dot{a}a^2} \, ,$$ where $a$ is the cosmic scale factor and $\dot{a}$ is its first time derivative. Corresponding momentum updates are given by: $$\frac{\mathrm{d}\vec{p}}{\mathrm{d}a}= -\frac{\vec{\nabla}_{\vec x} \Phi}{a H(a)} \,,$$ where $\vec{p}=a^2\dot{\vec{x}}$ and the gravitational potential $\Phi$ is given implicitly by the Poisson equation: $$\nabla^2_{\vec{x}} \Phi = \frac{3}{2} H_0^2 \Omega_{m,0} \frac{\delta_\text{m}(\vec{x})}{a} =
\frac{H_0}{a} \nabla^2_{\vec{x}} \tilde{\Phi}.$$ In the above, we have introduced the reduced gravitational potential $\tilde{\Phi}$. The Poisson relation relating the density of particles to the potential $\tilde{\Phi}$ becomes: $$\nabla^2_{\vec{x}} \tilde{\Phi} = \frac{3}{2} H_0 \Omega_\text{m} \delta_\text{m}(\vec{x})\, .
\label{eq:Poisson_eq}$$ To estimate densities from simulated particle positions we use the cloud in cell method [see e.g. @HOCKNEYEASTWOOD1988]. Then the Poisson equation (\[eq:Poisson\_eq\]) can be solved in Fourier-space by exploiting numerically efficient Fast Fourier Transforms (FFTs). Since our approach requires many model evaluations the numerical implementation of this LSS model has been parallelized via the Message Passing Interface (MPI) [see e.g. @BRUCK199719]. The detailed description of solving the model equations is provided in Appendix \[appendix:pm\_model\].
To use the non-linear particle mesh model, within the HMC framework, we also need to derive the corresponding gradient of model predictions with respect to changes in the initial conditions. More specifically, the gradient of the particle mesh simulator provides us with the response of the simulation with respect to small changes in the initial conditions. This gradient needs to be evaluated several times within the HMC sampling steps. As discussed above, we typically deal with on the order of ten million parameters, corresponding to the density amplitudes of the primordial fluctuations field. Evaluating such a gradient via finite differencing would be numerically prohibitive. In appendix \[appendix:tangent\_adjoint\_model\] we, therefore, derive the tangent-adjoint model of the particle mesh simulator, which encodes the analytic derivative of the numerical forward simulation.
As demonstrated by figure \[fig:bench\], both the forward and the tangent adjoint model are fully parallel and exhibit near optimal scaling behaviour as a function of the number of tasks. Also note, that the adjoint model is only a factor two times more expensive than the forward model. Adjoint coding, therefore, provides us with an efficient means to calculate gradients of high dimensional functions.
Modelling redshift space distortions {#sec:rsd}
------------------------------------
Optical distance estimation via spectroscopic redshift measurements is subject to systematic uncertainties due to the peculiar motions of observed galaxies. Corresponding Doppler effects increase observed redshifts if peculiar velocities are pointing away from the observer and decrease the redshift if velocities are pointing towards the observer. As a consequence exact galaxy positions in three-dimensional space are subject to some uncertainty.
Since the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm exploits a physical model for LSS formation, predicting also the motion of matter, such redshift space distortions can be taken into account naturally. In this fashion, the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm will not only exploit positional galaxy information but well also use the dynamic information encoded in the redshift space distortion effect. In principle, there are several different possibilities of implementing a redshift space distortions treatment into the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm. For the sake of this work we calculate the redshift distorted particle positions as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathbf {s} }} & = {{\mathbf {r} }} + \gamma \frac{{{\mathbf {v} }}\cdot {{\mathbf {r} }}}{|{{\mathbf {r} }}|^2} {{\mathbf {r} }}\nonumber \\
&= {{\mathbf {r} }} \left (1 + \gamma \frac{{{\mathbf {v} }} \cdot {{\mathbf {r} }}}{|{{\mathbf {r} }}|^2}\right)\,,\end{aligned}$$ with $\gamma=a/H(a)$, ${{\mathbf {r} }}={{\mathbf {x} }}+{{\mathbf {x} }}_{\mathrm{min}}$ being the vector from the observer to a simulation particle and ${{\mathbf {v} }}={{\mathbf {p} }}/a^2$, where ${{\mathbf {p} }}$ is the momentum vector as discussed in the previous section. To generate density fields in redshift space we then use the redshift space coordinates ${{\mathbf {s} }}$ rather than the real space coordinates ${{\mathbf {x} }}$ of particles within the cloud in cell approach.
{width="\hsize"}
Modelling observed galaxies {#sec:model_observed_galaxies}
---------------------------
One of the most challenging, and yet unsolved, aspects of analysing the galaxy distribution at non-linear regimes is to account for the biased relation between observed galaxies and the underlying distribution of dark matter. For the sake of this work we follow a common approach and approximate the galaxy biasing relation by a local but non-linear bias functions [@1988ApJ...333...21S; @1995ApJS..101....1M; @2000ASPC..201..360S; @2011PhRvD..83h3518M; @2012JCAP...11..016F; @2014MNRAS.441..646N; @2015MNRAS.446.4250A; @2016arXiv161109787D]. More specifically we model the expected number of galaxies $ n^g$ via the following four parameter function as proposed in [@2014MNRAS.441..646N]: $$\label{eq:bias_model}
n^g(\delta,\bar{N},\beta,\rho_g,\epsilon_g)=\bar{N}\,(1+\delta)^{\beta}\,\mathrm{e}^{-\rho_g\,(1+\delta)^{-\epsilon_g}}$$ This parametrized bias function is a modification of a power-law bias model to account for suppressed clustering of galaxies in under dense regions by an additional exponential function.
Given this bias model, realizations of galaxy number counts are then assumed to follow a Poisson distribution with the Poisson intensity given as: $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_i(\delta,\bar{N},\beta,\rho_g,\epsilon_g))
&= R_i\,n^g_i(\delta,\bar{N},\beta,\rho_g,\epsilon_g)\nonumber \\
&= R_i\bar{N}\,(1+\delta)^{\beta}\,\mathrm{e}^{-\rho_g\,(1+\delta)^{-\epsilon_g}} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $R_i$ is the survey response operator consisting of the product of angular and radial selection function [also see @JaschePspec2013; @JLW15 for a discussion on the survey response operator]. The logarithm of the likelihood part of the posterior distribution of Equation is then: $$\begin{gathered}
\mathrm{ln}\left(\Pi(\{N^g_i\}|\delta,\bar{N},\beta,\rho_g,\epsilon_g)\right) =
- \sum_i\Big(\lambda_i(\delta,\bar{N},\beta,\rho_g,\epsilon_g))\\
-N^g_i\mathrm{ln}\left(\lambda_i(\delta,\bar{N},\beta,\rho_g,\epsilon_g))\right)+\mathrm{ln}(N^g_i!)\Big) \, ,
\label{eq:poisson_likelihood}\end{gathered}$$ with the Poisson intensity field $\lambda_i(\delta,\bar{N},\beta,\rho_g,\epsilon_g)$ given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_i(\delta,\bar{N},\beta,\rho_g,\epsilon_g)&= R_i\,n^g_i(\delta,\bar{N},\beta,\rho_g,\epsilon_g)\nonumber \\
&= R_i\bar{N}\,(1+\delta)^{\beta}\,\mathrm{e}^{-\rho_g\,(1+\delta)^{-\epsilon_g}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ As can be seen, this is a highly non-linear data model not only due to the bias model but also due to the fact that for a Poisson distribution the noise is signal dependent and is not an additive nuisance. The four bias parameters $\bar{N}$, $\beta$, $\rho_g$ and $\epsilon_g$ are a priori unknown and have to be inferred jointly together with initial and final density fields.
sample id Magnitude range cut $-\log(\mathcal{L}_s/\mathcal{L}_0) $
----------- --------------------------- ---------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
1 $-21.5 \leq K \leq -21.0$ ${K_\text{2M++}}\le 11.5$ -159.44
2 $11.5 < {K_\text{2M++}}\le 12.5$ -322.79
3 $-22.0 \leq K \leq -21.5$ ${K_\text{2M++}}\le 11.5$ -358.89
4 $11.5 < {K_\text{2M++}}\le 12.5$ -644.02
5 $-22.5 \leq K \leq -22.0$ ${K_\text{2M++}}\le 11.5$ -894.60
6 $11.5 < {K_\text{2M++}}\le 12.5$ -1280.55
7 $-23.0 \leq K \leq -22.5$ ${K_\text{2M++}}\le 11.5$ -1304.67
8 $11.5 < {K_\text{2M++}}\le 12.5$ -2361.86
9 $-23.5 \leq K \leq -23.0$ ${K_\text{2M++}}\le 11.5$ -2478.00
10 $11.5 < {K_\text{2M++}}\le 12.5$ -3777.91
11 $-24.0 \leq K \leq -23.5$ ${K_\text{2M++}}\le 11.5$ -2853.92
12 $11.5 < {K_\text{2M++}}\le 12.5$ -3653.12
13 $-24.5 \leq K \leq -24.0$ ${K_\text{2M++}}\le 11.5$ -2472.22
14 $11.5 < {K_\text{2M++}}\le 12.5$ -1799.82
15 $-25.0 \leq K \leq -24.5$ ${K_\text{2M++}}\le 11.5$ -1467.34
16 $11.5 < {K_\text{2M++}}\le 12.5$ -207.63
As discussed above, the advantage of our Bayesian approach is the possibility to add arbitrarily many parameter sampling procedures to the modular statistical programming approach via sequential block or Gibbs sampling methods. This is relevant since the biasing function as provided in equation will not be universally valid, but will require different bias parameters for different populations of galaxies.
In particular, in this work, we will split our galaxy sample into 16 different sub-samples selected by their absolute $K$-band magnitude. The conditional posterior distribution for bias parameters given a sample of the three-dimensional final density field and corresponding galaxy number counts of the respective sub-samples is given by: $$\Pi(\bar{N},\beta,\rho_g,\epsilon_g|\{N^g_i\},\delta) \propto \Pi(\bar{N},\beta,\rho_g,\epsilon_g) \, \Pi(\{N^g_i\}|\delta,\bar{N},\beta,\rho_g,\epsilon_g) \, , \nonumber$$ where the first factor on the right-hand side is the prior distribution of bias parameters and the second factor is the Poisson likelihood described in equation (\[eq:poisson\_likelihood\]). We typically follow a maximum agnostic strategy by setting uniform prior distributions for the bias parameters. Since the parameters of the bias model are all required to be positive we choose the following prior distribution: $$\Pi(\bar{N},\beta,\rho_g,\epsilon_g) = \Theta(\bar{N}) \, \Theta(\beta) \, \Theta(\rho_g) \, \Theta(\epsilon_g) \, ,$$ where $\Theta(x)$ is the Heaviside function. To explore the space of bias parameters we use a block sampling strategy by iteratively sampling individual parameters conditional on all other parameters. More specifically the algorithm executes the following block sampling scheme: $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{N}^{n+1} & \sim \Pi(\bar{N}|\beta^n,\rho_g^n,\epsilon_g^n,\{N^g_i\},\delta) \nonumber \\
\beta^{n+1} &\sim \Pi(\beta|\bar{N}^{n+1},\rho_g^n,\epsilon_g^n,\{N^g_i\},\delta) \nonumber \\
\rho_g^{n+1} &\sim \Pi(\rho_g |\bar{N}^{n+1},\beta^{n+1},\epsilon_g^{n},\{N^g_i\},\delta) \nonumber \\
\epsilon_g^{n+1}& \sim \Pi(\epsilon_g|\bar{N}^{n+1},\beta^{n+1},\rho_g^{n+1},\{N^g_i\},\delta) \, \nonumber
$$ where the superscript $n$ indicates the sampling step.
Iterating this procedure together with sequential density field updates will yield samples from the joint target distribution. Note, that this approach can easily be extended to account for additional survey systematics, such as foreground contaminations .
A particular challenge arises from the fact, that the specific non-linear shape of the bias function in equation does not allow to derive a simple direct sampling approach and we have to resort to standard MCMC techniques to generate bias parameter realizations. In order to have unit acceptance rates for the MCMC bias parameter sampling, we perform a sequence of slice sampling steps [@Neal00slicesampling].
{width="\hsize"}
Robust inference with model errors {#sec:robust_inference}
----------------------------------
Most often Bayesian inference assumes that the distribution of the data agrees with the chosen class of likelihood models. More specifically it is assumed that the chosen data model is the true and correct explanation for the process that generated the actual observations. Already small deviations from these assumptions may greatly impact the Bayesian procedure.
Currently, several approaches to perform robust Bayesian inference with possible model misspecification have been proposed [see e.g. @2014arXiv1412.3730G; @2015arXiv150606101M; @2016arXiv161101125B; @2017arXiv170108515H; @2017arXiv170801974F]. Robustness of inferences can be improved by conditioning on a neighbourhood of the empirical likelihood distribution rather than to the data directly [@2015arXiv150606101M]. When defining neighbourhoods based on relative entropy estimates it can be shown, that the resulting coarser posterior distribution can be approximated by raising the likelihood to a fractional power [@2015arXiv150606101M; @2016arXiv161101125B; @2017arXiv170108515H]. More specifically this amounts to tempering the likelihood distribution. For a Poisson distribution tempering is equivalent to using only a homogeneous subset of the data. This can be seen by raising the Poisson likelihood to some power $0\leq \beta \leq 1$: $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\Pi}(\{N^g_i\}|\{\lambda^g_i\}) & = \left( \Pi(\{N^g_i\}|\{\lambda^g_i\}) \right)^{\beta} \nonumber \\
&= \prod_i \mathrm{e}^{-\beta \lambda_i} \frac{\lambda_i^{\beta \, N_i}}{\left(N_i!\right)^{\beta}} \nonumber \\
& \propto \prod_i \mathrm{e}^{-\beta \lambda_i} \left(\beta \,\lambda_i\right)^{\beta \, N_i} \nonumber \\
& \propto \prod_i \mathrm{e}^{- \tilde{\lambda_i}} \left( \tilde{\lambda}_i\right)^{\tilde{N}_i}\, . \label{eq:robust_likelihood}\end{aligned}$$
As can be seen from equation , coarsening the posterior distribution amounts to extracting information only from a homogeneous sub-sample of galaxies $\tilde{N}_i= \beta N_i $ while decreasing the expected Poisson intensity $\tilde{\lambda_i}=\beta \lambda_i$. This procedure thus is equivalent to increasing observational uncertainties resulting in conservative interpretations of the data.
The procedure of coarsening the posterior distribution, therefore, does not add spurious information to the inference, quite the contrary it uses only a fraction of the available information provided by the data set. Accessing the full potential of the data would require to develop more accurate data models to compare observations of galaxies to the underlying dark matter distribution at non-linear scales. This is a currently ongoing endeavour in the scientific community. For the sake of this work we choose $\beta=0.3$.
Application to observed galaxy data {#sec:data_application}
===================================
This section describes the application of the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm to galaxy observations provided by the [[2M++]{}]{}galaxy compilation [@LH11]. Specifically here we will follow a similar approach as previously discussed in [@2016MNRAS.455.3169L]
The 2M++ Survey {#sec:data_description}
---------------
The 2M++ [@LH11] is a combination of the 2MASS Redshift Survey [2MRS, @Huchra12], with a greater depth and a higher sampling rate than the IRAS Point Source Catalogue Redshift Survey [PSCZ, @Saunders00]. The photometry is based on the Two-Micron-All-Sky-Survey (2MASS) Extended Source Catalogue [2MASS-XSC, @Skrutskie06], an all-sky survey in the $J$, $H$ and $K_S$ bands. Redshifts in the $K_S$ band of the 2MASS Redshift Survey (2MRS) are supplemented by those from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release Seven [SDSS-DR7, @SDSS7], and the Six-Degree-Field Galaxy Redshift Survey Data Release Three [6dFGRS, @Jones09]. Data from SDSS was matched to that of 2MASS-XSC using the NYU-VAGC catalogue [@BLANTON2005]. As the 2M++ combines multiple surveys, galaxy magnitudes from all sources were first recomputed by measuring the apparent magnitude in the $K_S$ band within a circular isophote at 20 mags arcsec$^{-2}$ . Following a prescription described in [@LH11], magnitudes were corrected for Galactic extinction, cosmological surface brightness dimming and stellar evolution. Then the sample was limited to ${K_\text{2M++}}\le 11.5$ in regions not covered by the 6dFGRS or the SDSS, and limited to ${K_\text{2M++}}\le 12.5$ elsewhere. Incompleteness due to fibre-collisions in 6dF and SDSS was accounted for by cloning redshifts of nearby galaxies within each survey region as described in [@LH11].
The galaxy distribution on the sky and the corresponding selection at ${K_\text{2M++}}\le 11.5$ and $11.5 < {K_\text{2M++}}\le 12.5$ are given in figure \[fig:data\_description\]. The top row shows redshift incompleteness, i.e. the number of acquired redshifts versus the number of targets, for the two apparent magnitude bins. The lower row depicts the galaxy distribution as used in this work. We note that the galactic plane clearly stands out and that the incompleteness is evidently inhomogeneous and strongly structured.
sample id Magnitude range cut $\bar{N}$ $\beta$ $\rho_g$ $\epsilon_g$
----------- --------------------------- ---------------------------------- ----------- --------- ---------- --------------
1 $-21.5 \leq K \leq -21.0$ ${K_\text{2M++}}\le 11.5$ 0.35 0.65 0.98 0.28
2 $11.5 < {K_\text{2M++}}\le 12.5$ 0.31 0.74 1.06 0.26
3 $-22.0 \leq K \leq -21.5$ ${K_\text{2M++}}\le 11.5$ 0.37 0.77 1.11 0.19
4 $11.5 < {K_\text{2M++}}\le 12.5$ 0.24 0.74 0.85 0.26
5 $-22.5 \leq K \leq -22.0$ ${K_\text{2M++}}\le 11.5$ 0.25 0.75 0.91 0.27
6 $11.5 < {K_\text{2M++}}\le 12.5$ 0.40 0.79 1.30 0.12
7 $-23.0 \leq K \leq -22.5$ ${K_\text{2M++}}\le 11.5$ 0.19 0.80 0.81 0.25
8 $11.5 < {K_\text{2M++}}\le 12.5$ 0.24 0.76 1.08 0.12
9 $-23.5 \leq K \leq -23.0$ ${K_\text{2M++}}\le 11.5$ 0.16 0.79 0.97 0.20
10 $11.5 < {K_\text{2M++}}\le 12.5$ 0.28 0.73 1.33 0.07
11 $-24.0 \leq K \leq -23.5$ ${K_\text{2M++}}\le 11.5$ 0.19 0.77 1.61 0.09
12 $11.5 < {K_\text{2M++}}\le 12.5$ 0.14 0.67 1.31 0.05
13 $-24.5 \leq K \leq -24.0$ ${K_\text{2M++}}\le 11.5$ 0.05 0.83 1.23 0.11
14 $11.5 < {K_\text{2M++}}\le 12.5$ 0.04 0.51 0.97 0.085
15 $-25.0 \leq K \leq -24.5$ ${K_\text{2M++}}\le 11.5$ 0.01 0.88 0.98 0.12
16 $11.5 < {K_\text{2M++}}\le 12.5$ 0.01 0.24 1.19 0.1
In addition to the target magnitude incompleteness, and the redshift angular incompleteness, one may also worry about the dependence of the completeness with redshift. This is not a problem for the lower ${K_\text{2M++}}\le 11.5$ which is essentially 100% complete. We do not expect much effect in the fainter magnitude bins as the spectroscopic data come from SDSS and 6dFGRS which have both a homogeneous sampling and have fainter magnitude limits as the 2M++.
We account for radial selection functions using a standard luminosity function $\Phi(L)$ proposed by [@SCHECHTER1976]. Using this function we can deduce the expected number of galaxies in the absolute magnitude range, observed within the apparent magnitude range of the sample at a given redshift. The $\alpha$ and $M^*$ parameters are given for the K$_S$-band in the line labelled “$|b|>10, K < 11.5$” of the table 2 of [@LH11], i.e. $\alpha=-0.94$, $M^*=-23.28$. The target selection completeness of a voxel, indexed by $p$, is then $$c^t_p = \frac{\int_{\mathcal{V}_p} \text{d}^3 {{\mathbf {x} }} \int_{L_\text{app}(|{{\mathbf {x} }}|)}^{L_\text{max}} \Phi(L)\text{d}L}{V_p \int_{L_\text{min}}^{L_\text{max}} \Phi(L)\text{d}L}\,,$$ where $\mathcal{V}_p$ the co-moving coordinate set spanned by the voxel, and $V_p = \int_{\mathcal{V}_p} \text{d}^3 {{\mathbf {x} }}$. The full completeness of the catalogue is derived from the product of $c^t$ and the map corresponding to the considered apparent magnitude cut given in the upper panels of the figure \[fig:data\_description\] after its extrusion in three dimensions.
Our sampling approach accounts for luminosity dependent galaxy biases. In order to do so the galaxy sample is subdivided into eight bins of same width and without spacing in absolute $K$-band magnitude in the range $-25\le{K_\text{2M++}}\le-21$. The galaxy sample is further split into two subsets depending on the apparent magnitude: if ${K_\text{2M++}}\le 11.5$ it belongs to the first set, otherwise, $11.5 < {K_\text{2M++}}\le 12.5$ it belongs to second set. This yields a total of 16 galaxy subsets. The bias parameters of each of these subsets are inferred jointly within the multiple block sampling framework as described above. This permits to properly marginalize over these unknown bias parameters within the [[BORG]{}]{} framework. Splitting the galaxy sample permits us to treat each of these sub-samples as an individual data set, with its respective selection effects, biases and noise levels.
Non-linear analysis with the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm {#sec:non_lin_analysis_borg}
---------------------------------------------------
The analysis of the 2M++ galaxy sample is conducted on a cubic Cartesian domain of side length of $677.77$[$h^{-1}$ Mpc ]{} consisting of $256^3$ equidistant grid nodes. This results in a total of $\sim 1.6\times 10^7$ inference parameters, corresponding to primordial density fluctuation amplitudes at respective grid nodes. The inference procedure thus yields data constrained realizations of initial conditions with a Lagrangian grid resolution of about $\sim 2.65$[$h^{-1}$ Mpc ]{}.
To integrate the effect of the growth of large scale structure, we assume a fixed standard $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with the following set of cosmological parameters ($\Omega_m=0.307$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.693$, $\Omega_{b}=0.04825$, $h=0.705$, $\sigma_8=0.8288$, $n_s=0.9611$). The cosmological power-spectrum of initial conditions, required by our [[BORG]{}]{} run, was evaluated via the prescription provided by [@EH98] and [@EH99]. To guarantee a sufficient resolution of inferred final Eulerian density fields, we oversample the initial density field by a factor of eight, requiring to evaluate the particle mesh model with $512^3$ particles in every sampling step.
Running the Markov chain with a particle mesh model is numerically expensive. To save some computation time we first ran the Markov Chain for $6783$ transition steps using the numerically less expensive LPT model. This procedure yielded a good starting point for a Markov chain running the full particle mesh model.
Testing burn-in behaviour {#sec:sampler_convergence}
-------------------------
To test the burn-in behaviour of the initial LPT sampling procedure we followed a similar approach as described in our previous works [see e.g. @JASCHEBORG2012; @JaschePspec2013; @JLW15; @2016MNRAS.455.3169L]. In particular, we initialize the Markov chain with an over-disperse random Gaussian initial density field with amplitudes a factor ten times smaller than expected in a standard $\Lambda$CDM scenario. Starting from such an over-dispersed state the Markov Chain will then follow a persistent drift towards more reasonable regimes in parameter space.
{width="\hsize"}
To illustrate this initial automatic adjustment of the algorithm in figure \[fig:Pk\_burnin\], we illustrate the sequence of posterior power-spectra measured from subsequently inferred three-dimensional initial density fields during the initial burn-in phase. It can be seen that the posterior power-spectra drift towards the expected target power-spectrum. After about 4000 transition steps power-spectra oscillate around the expected values. In addition, we also trace the evolution of the one point (1-pt) distribution of inferred primordial density fluctuation during the burn-in period. As can be seen in the right panels of \[fig:Pk\_burnin\] the 1-pt distribution of successive density samples approaches the expected normal distribution within about 4000 transitions of the Markov chain. These results show no sign of any particular systematic artefact and clearly indicate a healthy burn-in behaviour of the chain.
This initial LPT Markov run was stopped after $6783$ transitions and the final result was used as the initial point to start a run with the full particle mesh model. In order to monitor the improvements that the PM model imparts on the previous LPT results, we plot the trace the negative logarithmic likelihood distribution as a function of sample number $n$ in Fig \[fig:trace\_plot\_neg\_logLH\].
As can be seen initially the Markov chain starts at high values of the negative logarithmic likelihood. These initial values correspond to the LPT results. During subsequent sampling steps the negative logarithmic likelihood values then drop by more than four orders of magnitude as the particle mesh model method successively improves the inferred non-linear density fields. Finally, it can be seen that the Markov Chain settles at a constant value. At this point we start recording samples of the Markov chain.
It is very interesting to note that the initial starting point of the chain corresponds to a density field inferred with the LPT model, while subsequent samples correspond to density fields inferred with the non-linear particle mesh model. Since figure \[fig:trace\_plot\_neg\_logLH\] basically shows that the logarithms of the likelihood ratios of the first LPT density fields to all subsequent PM density fields, the plot qualifies as a Bayesian model test in terms of Bayes odds ratios. Realizing this fact demonstrates that the data clearly favours density fields inferred with the PM method. On a Jeffreys scale, the statement is far more than decisive. While this statement is true for the combined logarithmic likelihood of all galaxy sub-samples, we may also look at the improvements for the individual catalogues. To show that point, we also plot in figure \[fig:trace\_plot\_neg\_logLH\] the traces of the negative logarithmic likelihoods for the individual sub-catalogues. As can be seen, especially the fainter galaxies seem to live in regimes of the cosmic LSS that can be acceptably approximated by the LPT method even though PM also provides significant improvements there To quantify this effect, we present in table \[tbl:model\_comparison\] the actual logarithmic likelihood ratios between the initial LPT density model and the last density sample generated with the PM model. It may be interesting to investigate the details of this effect in future analyses, as it may provide a guideline to optimally select galaxies for cosmological analyses.
To conclude this first diagnostic, the Markov Chain stabilizes after $\sim 1200$ samples the moment from which on we start recording $1500$ samples. As such the presented [[BORG]{}]{} run does not qualify for a thorough Markov analysis but it provides us with sufficient information on the non-linear dynamics in the Nearby Universe and uncertainty quantification to warrant robust scientific analyses. The exact state of the Markov Chain is stored in a restart file permitting to resume the chain at any later time if the generation of more samples will be required at any point in the future.
Results on cosmological inference {#sec:inference_results}
=================================
This section provides an overview of the inference results obtained by applying the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm to the 2M++ galaxy compilation. In particular, the present work focusses at reconstructing the non-linear LSS and its dynamics in the Nearby Universe.
{width="\hsize"}
Inferred galaxy biases {#sec:galaxy_biases}
----------------------
To properly account for the unknown relationship between observed galaxies and the underlying dark matter field, the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm jointly infers the parameters of a phenomenological, non-linear truncated power-law bias model as discussed in section \[sec:model\_observed\_galaxies\]. In particular, the algorithm exploits an iterative block sampling framework to perform a joint Markov Chain over the actual target parameters, the amplitudes of the 3D density field, and the nuisance parameters associated to the employed data model. As a consequence, the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm also naturally provides measurements of the non-linear galaxy bias.
As described in section \[sec:data\_description\], for the sake of this work, we have subdivided the galaxy sample of the 2M++ galaxy compilation into eight bins of same width in absolute $K$-band magnitude in the range $-25<{K_\text{2M++}}<-21$ respectively for the two selections at ${K_\text{2M++}}\le 11.5$ and $11.5 < {K_\text{2M++}}\le 12.5$. This results in a total of 16 sub-samples, for which the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm infers the respective set of bias parameters. In this fashion, our algorithm can account for the respective systematics in the individual galaxy samples while exploiting their joint information.
Figure \[fig:mean\_bias\] represents our measurements of the ensemble mean bias functions and corresponding one-sigma uncertainties for the 16 galaxy sub-samples. By comparing inferred bias functions between the two selections at ${K_\text{2M++}}\le 11.5$ and $11.5 < {K_\text{2M++}}\le 12.5$, it can be seen that within the absolute $K$-band magnitude in the range $-23<{K_\text{2M++}}<-21$ the respective bias functions are in agreement. This demonstrates that the galaxies in both selections show the same clustering behaviour for the given absolute mass range. However for $K$-band magnitudes in the range $-25<{K_\text{2M++}}<-23$, we observe an increasing difference between the galaxy bias functions of the two selections at ${K_\text{2M++}}\le 11.5$ and $11.5 < {K_\text{2M++}}\le 12.5$. In particular, the brighter galaxies in the ${K_\text{2M++}}\le 11.5$ seem to have a steeper biasing relation as a function of the underlying density field than those in the $11.5 < {K_\text{2M++}}\le 12.5$ selection. The true origin of this behaviour is not clear, but it could indicate a contamination or systematic effect of the galaxies selected at $11.5 < {K_\text{2M++}}\le 12.5$. These phenomenological bias function shapes agree well with previous findings in numerical simulations [@2008ApJ...678..569S].
In table \[tbl:bias\_params\] we also report the ensemble mean values for the respective bias parameters. Note, that generally for non-linear functions, the bias function evaluated with the mean parameter values will not correspond to the ensemble mean bias function. This is a simple statement of non-Gaussian and non-linear statistics. To illustrate this fact in \[fig:mean\_bias\] we also plotted the bias functions evaluated at the ensemble mean parameter values.
In section \[sec:mass\_reconstruction\] we also demonstrate that the masses estimated from our inferred dark matter density fields agree with complementary measurements via X-ray or weak lensing measurements. This is a strong indication of the fact that our inferred bias functions are a plausible description of the relationship between observed galaxies and the underlying dark matter distribution.
The 3D density field in the Nearby Universe {#sec:result_3d_density}
-------------------------------------------
The [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm aims at inferring detailed three-dimensional maps of the matter distribution in the Nearby universe constrained by data of the 2M++ galaxy compilation. In fact, our method simultaneously constrains the present non-linear matter density field and the primordial density fluctuations from which they originate.
We infer the primordial field of matter fluctuations on a Cartesian equidistant grid of resolution $\sim 2.65$ [$h^{-1}$ Mpc ]{}. All primordial matter fluctuations are inferred in the initial Lagrangian space while present structures are determined at their Eulerian coordinates. Since structures collapse under their own gravity, the resolution of the initial Lagrangian grid is sufficiently high to resolve major features in the present Universe, such as the Coma cluster. Corresponding non-linear density fields, as well as positions and velocities of simulation particles, are then estimated by evaluating inferred primordial initial conditions via the PM structure formation model.
{width="\hsize"}
The [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm not only provides simple point estimates, such as mean or maximum a posteriori value but rather provides a numerical approximation to the target posterior distribution in terms of an ensemble of Markov samples. This ensemble of data constrained realizations contains all the information on the three-dimensional density field that can be extracted from the noisy and incomplete data set and at the same time quantifies corresponding observational uncertainties that are necessary in order to not misinterpret the observations. Unlike point estimates, these posterior realizations constitute physical meaningful quantities which do not suffer from any attenuation or bias due to systematic effects in the data [also see discussions in @JASCHEBORG2012; @JLW15; @2016MNRAS.455.3169L].
As an illustration of the property, we show in figure \[fig:pm\_sky\_realization\] spherical slices through data constrained realizations of the three-dimensional initial and final density fields, projected onto a HEALPix map [@HEALPIX]. The right panel depicts the non-linear density field at a distance of $R= 100$[$h^{-1}$ Mpc ]{}from the observer overlaid by the actually observed galaxies in the 2M++ galaxy compilation. As can be seen, our algorithm recovered a highly detailed map of the filamentary cosmic web. Observed galaxies in the 2M++ survey trace the recovered spatial distribution of the underlying dark matter. Note that regions that have been traced poorly by galaxies are visually not distinct from those constrained by observations.
This is a crucial feature of the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm, which augments the information obtained from observations with statistically correct information on the cosmic LSS in unconstrained regions of the galaxy survey. As such, each posterior sample represents a physically meaningful and plausible realization of the actual dark matter distribution in the Universe. The left panel of figure \[fig:pm\_sky\_realization\] shows the corresponding slice through a realization of the initial fluctuations field. This field represents the proto-structures from which the presently observed structures (shown in the right panel) have formed via gravitational collapse. We will further discuss the possibility to follow the structure formation history of objects below in section \[sec:form\_hist\].
To further support the qualitative statement that individual posterior realizations represent physically plausible quantities, we test the one- and two-point statistics of inferred primordial density fluctuations realizations. These results are presented in figure \[fig:borg\_pm\_posterior\_density\_stats\]. As can be seen, the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm recovers the cosmic LSS over a huge dynamic range covering more than three orders of magnitude in amplitudes of the power-spectrum. In comparison to a fiducial cosmological power-spectrum, corresponding to the set of cosmological parameters as described in section \[sec:non\_lin\_analysis\_borg\], measured power-spectra do not show particular signs of bias or attenuation throughout the entire domain of Fourier modes considered in this work.
We have also tested the one-point probability distribution of inferred primordial density fluctuations. As demonstrated by the right panel of figure \[fig:borg\_pm\_posterior\_density\_stats\], inferred primordial density amplitudes are normally distributed. In particular, the inferred one-point distribution is consistent with the expected fiducial Gaussian distribution determined by the cosmological parameters provided in section \[sec:non\_lin\_analysis\_borg\]. Residual uncertainties remain only in the tail of the distribution which is dominated by sample variance. To further test the normality of the inferred one-point distribution, we also test the kurtosis $\mu_4 / \sigma^4-3$ and skewness $\mu_3 / \sigma^4$ as indicated in the right panel of \[fig:borg\_pm\_posterior\_density\_stats\]. Since both values agree numerically with zero, these results demonstrate that the inferred one-point distribution of matter fluctuations is compatible with Gaussian statistics.
{width="\hsize"}
The unbiased reconstruction of the primordial power-spectrum is also a good indicator that the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm correctly accounted for various systematic effects. In particular improper treatment of survey geometries, foreground contamination, selection effects, and luminosity-dependent galaxy biases would typically result in excessive erroneous large-scale power .
As a remark, we have found that the forward modelling approach is particularly sensitive to these effects. Wrong assumptions on galaxy biasing or selection effects would not only introduce erroneous large-scale power to the density field but also affect large-scale matter flows, that are required to translate the initial matter distribution to the present non-linear density field. In particular, the non-linear and non-local nature of the employed particle mesh structure formation model enhances such effects leading to obviously erroneous results. In turn, the high sensitivity of the physical forward approach towards non-linear and luminosity-dependent galaxy biases promises to provide accurate constraints on the relation between observed galaxies and the underlying dark matter distribution, as discussed in the previous and the following sections.
The entire ensemble of physically plausible density field realizations forms a numerical approximation to the target posterior distribution. This permits us to derive any desired statistical summary and quantify corresponding uncertainties. As an example in the figure \[fig:pm\_sky\_realization\_mean\], we show the ensemble mean density fields and corresponding pixel-wise standard deviations. As can be seen, the initial and final ensemble mean density fields both approach cosmic mean density in regions which are poorly constrained by observations. This result is expected. When data does not provide any constraining information, the algorithm will return cosmic mean density on average in unobserved regions. This agrees with the prior assumption of the zero-mean Gaussian distribution of cosmic initial conditions, as described in section \[sec:borg\_model\]. These results are also in agreement with our previous findings [see e.g. @JASCHEBORG2012; @JLW15 and discussions therein].
{width="\hsize"}
Figure \[fig:pm\_sky\_realization\_mean\] also presents voxel-wise standard deviations of inferred density amplitudes at respective positions inside the analysis domain. It is interesting to note, that estimated standard deviations of the final density amplitudes reflect an imprint of the cosmic large-scale structure. In particular one can recognize the imprinted pattern of filaments and clusters. This is an immediate consequence of the non-linear noise properties of the galaxy point distribution. In particular, there will be a correlation between signal and noise for any inhomogeneous point process, such as the one generating the galaxy distribution. More explicitly due to the galaxy formation processes, we expect to find more galaxies in high-density regions than in low-density regions. Any such galaxy formation process will, therefore, induce correlations between the underlying dark matter distribution and the noise of the galaxy sample. As demonstrated by figure \[fig:pm\_sky\_realization\_mean\] the algorithm correctly accounts for this non-linear relation between noisy observations and the underlying density field.
In contrast, standard deviations of primordial density amplitudes are distributed more homogeneously and show no sign of correlation with the field of primordial fluctuations. This result is anticipated, due to the propagation of information from final to initial density fields as mediated by the physical forward model.
In the course of structure formation, over-densities covering a larger Lagrangian volume in the initial conditions will collapse gravitationally to form higher density objects in the final conditions, covering much smaller volumes. These clusters of matter are then traced by observed galaxies of the 2M++ survey, which provide the data constraints on inferred density fields. While this data constraining information is contained in a smaller Eulerian volume, defined by the cluster at the final conditions, it is distributed over the larger initial Lagrangian volume of the proto-cluster when propagated backward in time.
A similar argument applies to information propagation in void regions. Since voids expand over cosmic times, data constraining information, tracing the outskirts of voids at the final conditions, will be propagated back to a smaller Lagrangian volume in the initial conditions. The process of information propagation through the forward model, therefore, homogenizes the information across inferred initial conditions. This behaviour is correctly reflected by figure \[fig:pm\_sky\_realization\_mean\].
In summary, the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm provides us with highly detailed and physically plausible representation of three-dimensional non-linear cosmic structures and their corresponding initial conditions. The [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm also provides quantification of uncertainties for all inferred quantities via a sophisticated Markov Chain Monte Carlo approach.
No evidence for a local hole {#sec:local hole}
----------------------------
The distribution of matter in our local environment has recently attracted greater interest due to the observed tension between local and CMB measurements of $H_0$ . This has triggered some activity to investigate whether the local cosmic expansion rate is faster than in the remaining Universe due to the existence of a local large scale under density. Indeed several works have claimed growing evidence for the existence of such a local hole. This large-scale void is believed to extend to depth of $r \sim 150$[$h^{-1}$ Mpc ]{} and beyond with mass deficits of about $\sim 4\% - 40\%$ .
To test the existence of such a large scale under-density we inferred the averaged density contrast in radial shells around the observer. In particular we determine the ensemble mean profile and corresponding standard deviations from our Markov Chain. The results are presented in figure \[fig:radial\_profile\]. Averaging over the entire sky, our approach does not provide any indication for a large scale under-density. In fact, at distances of $r \sim 150$[$h^{-1}$ Mpc ]{} and beyond the averaged density contrast approaches cosmic mean density.
To further compare our results to @2014MNRAS.437.2146W we also estimate the density contrast profile in the two regions of the northern and southern galactic cap covered by the 6dFGS survey [see e.g. @Jones09]. As expected the density field in the 6dFGS-SGC field shows larger voids than the corresponding more massive 6dFGS-NGC field. However, on average we do not find any significant indication for a large-scale under-density on scales of $\sim 150$[$h^{-1}$ Mpc ]{} or larger sufficiently under-dense to explain the $H_0$ tension.
This result is in agreement with the discussion of @2017MNRAS.471.4946W, who argue that it would be very unlikely to obtain a sufficiently under-dense large-scale void in a $\Lambda$CDM universe. Since we fitted a particle mesh model to the data, our results thus indicate that the existence and shapes of nearby cosmic large scale structures can be explained within a standard concordance model of structure formation without invoking a particular violation of the cosmological principle or the scale of homogeneity. On the contrary, in section \[sec:impact\_hubble\], we show that inhomogeneities of the nearby cosmic velocity field can bias local measurements of $H_0$, when not accounted for.
{width="\hsize"}
The formation history of the Supergalactic plane {#sec:form_hist}
------------------------------------------------
As mentioned above, a particularly interesting feature of the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm is the fact that it links primordial matter fluctuations to actual non-linear structures in the Nearby Universe as traced by observed galaxies. Besides providing information on the state of the cosmic LSS at the initial and final conditions, the physical forward modelling approach of the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm also traces all intermediate dynamical states. Consequently, our algorithm infers physically plausible structure formation histories of observed objects in the Nearby Universe, permitting to study the formation history of the cosmic web [@JLW15; @2015JCAP...06..015L].
As an illustration, here we present the non-linear gravitational formation of cosmic structures in the Supergalactic plane. The Supergalactic plane contains local super-clusters, like the Coma and Pisces-Cetus clusters, the Shapley concentration as well as the southern and northern local super-voids. The Supergalactic plane is of particular interest to study the dynamics in our immediate cosmic neighbourhood. It has been analysed previously with various reconstruction algorithms and data sets [@1990ApJ...364..370B; @2000MNRAS.312..166L; @2007arXiv0707.2607R; @2010ApJ...709..483L; @2016MNRAS.455.3169L]. In particular the local flows in the Supergalactic plane has been studied with distance and velocity data [@1988ApJ...329..519D; @1999ApJ...520..413Z; @1999ApJ...522....1D; @2012ApJ...744...43C; @2013AJ....146...69C].
In figure \[fig:chrono\_sg\] we show a sequence of slices showing the plausible dynamical formation history of structures in the Supergalactic plane. To demonstrate that this formation history leads to the structures as observed in the super-galactic plane, we overlaid the inferred dark matter density field in the lower right panel of figure \[fig:chrono\_sg\] with the observed galaxies in the 2M++ survey. Tracing the non-linear formation of cosmic structures provides novel avenues to understand assembly histories and galaxy formation. Details of these effects will be investigated in an upcoming publication.
Inferring the mass of the Coma cluster {#sec:mass_reconstruction}
--------------------------------------
In preceding sections, we demonstrated that the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm infers detailed three-dimensional matter density fields that are in agreement with the spatial distribution of observed galaxies. We also tested posterior power-spectra to demonstrate that these density fields obey the correct statistical properties and are plausible representations for the dark matter distribution in the Universe. These obtained density fields also provide a means to estimate the masses of individual large-scale structures in the Nearby Universe. Mass estimation is feasible, since the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm uses a physical model to fit redshift space distortions of observed galaxies. As such the algorithm implicitly performs various dynamical mass estimation approaches that have been proposed in the literature previously [see e.g. @1997ApJ...475..421E; @2001ApJ...561L..41R; @2009arXiv0901.0868D; @2010AJ....139..580R; @2011MNRAS.412..800S; @2014MNRAS.442.1887F; @2016ApJ...831..135N].
For the sake of this work, we will illustrate the feasibility if inferring masses of cosmic structures for the particular case of the Coma cluster.
Besides Virgo and Perseus, Coma is one of the best-studied galaxy clusters in the Nearby Universe and is frequently used as the archetype to compare with clusters at higher redshifts [@1998ucb..proc....1B; @2014MNRAS.438.3049P]. The Coma cluster is particularly appealing to observers as it is located close to the galactic pole and has almost spherical shape [@1998ucb..proc....1B].
As an illustration in figure \[fig:coma\_proj\], we show the inferred ensemble mean of the projected mass density around the Coma cluster in the sky. The plot interestingly shows the two main cosmic filaments along which mass accretes onto the coma cluster. In addition one can also observe three more fainter filaments. For completeness we also present a plot of the corresponding ensemble variance field, reflecting again the expected correlation between signal and uncertainties as discussed above.
First estimates of the mass of Coma date back to @1933AcHPh...6..110Z [@1937ApJ....86..217Z]. Since then the mass of the Coma cluster has been estimated via various methods, such as the virial theorem, weak gravitational lensing or X-ray observations . Consequently the Coma cluster is an excellent reference to evaluate the mass estimates obtained in this work.
In particular we estimate the cumulative radial mass profile $M_{\mathrm{Coma}}(R)$ around the Coma cluster given as: $$\label{eq:coma_mass}
M_{\mathrm{Coma}}(R) = \int_0^{\frac{\pi}{2}} \int_0^{2\,\pi} \int_0^R \mathrm{sin}(\phi) \rho(\vec{x}(r,\phi,\theta)) \mathrm{d}r\,\mathrm{d}\phi\,\mathrm{d}\theta \, ,$$ where $R$ defines the comoving distance from the Coma cluster centre to be found at the coordinates: $z=0.021$, $\mathrm{RA}=195.76{\ensuremath{{}^\circ}}$, $\mathrm{DEC}=28.15{\ensuremath{{}^\circ}}$.
We also determine uncertainties in our mass estimates by applying the estimator of equation to the ensemble of inferred density fields. This permits us to estimate the ensemble mean and corresponding variance of the radial cumulative mass profile around the Coma cluster centre. In figure \[fig:coma\] we present our estimate of the mass profile around the Coma cluster. It can be seen that the algorithm provides a coherent reconstruction over large distances around the Coma cluster.
Literature provides several mass estimates of the Coma cluster at different radii $R$ from its centre . In Fig \[fig:coma\] we also compare these literature values, as indicated in the figure, to our inferred cumulative mass profile. As demonstrated, our results are in great agreement with mass measurements provided by previous authors. Most interestingly at radii below a few $h^{-1}$ Mpc we agree well with complementary mass measurements via X-ray and gold-standard gravitational weak lensing observations .
These results demonstrate that our inferred density fields provide the correct mass estimates at the correct location in three-dimensional space. Inferred density fields are therefore in agreement with the spatial distribution of observed galaxies, they show the correct physical and statistical features and they reproduce mass estimates at the right locations that agree with complementary gold standard weak lensing or X-ray measurements.
As will be demonstrated in a forthcoming publication, similar results are obtained for all major clusters in the Nearby Universe. In summary, our results indicate that inferred density fields represent coherent and plausible explanations for the expected dark matter distribution in our actual Universe.
![\[fig:coma\] Coma cumulative mass profile. We show here the relation between the distance $r$ and the mass $M(<r)$ enclosed within that radius. The thick solid red line is the mean relation obtained through density field derived using BORG-PM, while the light grey (dark grey respectively) gives the 68% (95% respectively) limit according to that mean. The thin blue solid line indicates the profile assuming solely the mean density of the universe. We also compare our results with the findings in the literature as indicated in the plot. It can be seen that our mass estimate for Coma agrees particularly well with complementary measurements of weak gravitational lensing or X-ray observations at scales of a few [$h^{-1}$ Mpc ]{}. ](figures/coma_mass){width="\hsize"}
{width="\hsize"}
The velocity field in the Nearby Universe {#sec:inf_vel_field}
-----------------------------------------
The [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm provides information on the three-dimensional velocity field, by simultaneously fitting the clustering signal of galaxies and their corresponding redshift space distortions. In particular, in order to explain the three-dimensional distribution of galaxies, the dynamical structure formation model has to account correctly for the displacement of matter from its initial Lagrangian to the final Eulerian position. To fit observations, the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm, therefore, has to reconstruct the non-linear velocity field. Also note, as discussed in section \[sec:methodology\], the velocity field derives uniquely from the initial density field. Therefore constraints on the three-dimensional primordial fluctuations will also immediately provide constraints on final non-linear velocity fields. Additional dynamical information is inferred by explicitly fitting redshift space distortions of observed galaxies by the physical forward model. This feature of the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm permits us to access phase-space information in observations and provide detailed flow models for the Nearby Universe.
More specifically, we estimate that the velocity field in the Nearby Universe from simulated dark matter particle realizations generated by the forward PM model of the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm. Each particle carries position and velocity information. Estimating the velocity field from simulation particles is a challenging task. Several optimal estimators have been proposed to solve this problem satisfactorily [@Colombi2007; @Hahn2015]. In this work, we have opted the adaptive smoothing filter described in @Colombi2007. This algorithm allows projecting the properties carried by particles on any desired grid. The filter is built to preserve summations over particles, notably the mass and momentum. It also guarantees that there are no empty cells by changing the smoothing radius depending on the number of the nearest neighbours, which is kept fixed except when the number of particles per cell overflow that number. This last element ensures that the entirety of the information is always used and the momentum in a cell is truly the averaged momentum of the particles in the target cell.
The procedure to generate velocity fields is the following. First, we produce both a mass and a momentum field with the adaptive smoothing filter on a regular grid of the same size as the analysis domain but on a Cartesian grid with $1024^3$ grid nodes, corresponding to a grid resolution of $0.67$[$h^{-1}$ Mpc ]{}. These two fields have the same integrals as the original particle distribution over the same enclosed sub-volumes. Then for each element of the target grids, we divide the momentum components by the mass to obtain the velocity components.
Of course the first application of the obtained 3D velocity field allows for the estimation of bulk flows in the Nearby Universe [@2018arXiv180203391H]. But we can generate at least two other interesting scientific products.
The first product is illustrated in figure \[fig:vfield\_los\]. There we show a spherical slice through the three-dimensional velocity at a distance $R=60$[$h^{-1}$ Mpc ]{} from the observer. The plot shows the line of sight velocity component of moving cosmic structures. As can be seen, regions coloured in red correspond to structures receding from us while regions coloured in blue indicate matter approaching the observer. At the interfaces between these two regions, we can observe a zero-crossing in the line of sight component of the velocity field. Particles close to these zero-crossing regions have almost no radial peculiar velocity component and are therefore almost ideal tracers of the Hubble flow. Our results permit to identify critical points of vanishing velocity in the Nearby Universe, as has been proposed to provide unbiased measurements of the Hubble parameter [@2016JCAP...06..009L].
Previous measurements relied on linear perturbation theory and accounted only for the irrotational potential flow of the dark matter [e.g. @1995MNRAS.272..885F; @1999ApJ...520..413Z; @ERDOGDU2004; @2008MNRAS.383.1292L; @2015MNRAS.450..317C; @2017MNRAS.467.3993A; @2017MNRAS.468.1812S]. By exploiting the fully non-linear particle mesh model, the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm goes beyond such limitations by also inferring the rotational component of the velocity field, which is the second product that is directly derived from our inference framework. This rotational component of the velocity field is particularly associated with non-linear structure formation. Here we use inferred velocity fields to estimate the vorticity field given via the curl of the velocity field: $$\vec{\omega}(\vec{x})= \vec{\nabla} \times\vec{v}(\vec{x}) \, .$$ We estimate the curl via finite differencing in real space.
{width="\hsize"}
In figure \[fig:vorticity\] we present the first physical inference of the vorticity field in the Nearby Universe. As can be seen, the absolute amplitude of the vorticity field traces the filamentary large-scale structure. These results are in agreement with the expectations that vorticity contributes to the peculiar motions of observed galaxies at scales of 3 - 4[$h^{-1}$ Mpc ]{} . Vorticity plays an important role in structure formation in the dark matter paradigm as it can explain the generation and alignment of halo angular momentum[@2013ApJ...766L..15L; @2014MNRAS.441.1974L]. In figure \[fig:vorticity\] we also show the line of sight component of the vorticity vector field. The plot shows the characteristic quadrupolar pattern of alternating directions of rotation in the plane of the sky, as expected from simulations [@2015MNRAS.446.2744L]. This specific pattern guarantees the Universe to be irrotational when averaged over sufficiently large scales, such that there is no large-scale net angular momentum build-up.
Inferred vorticity fields could also provide a new step forward in identifying rotating galaxy clusters. Due to their formation history or recent mergers clusters may have acquired angular momentum. Ignoring such rotations will result in erroneous dynamical mass estimates, affecting the cosmological constraints provided by cluster mass functions [@2017MNRAS.465.2584B; @2017MNRAS.465.2616M]. Additionally, information on the vorticity may shed new light on the alignment of galaxy angular momentum or shapes with the cosmic large-scale structure [see e.g. @2013arXiv1301.0348L; @2013ApJ...779..160Z; @2014MNRAS.437L..11T; @2015MNRAS.450.2727T; @2018arXiv180500159C].
In summary, our results provide new promising paths forward towards studying dynamic structure formation at non-linear scales in observations. Inferred non-linear velocity fields also provide detailed dark matter flow models for the Nearby Universe. These flow models are of particular relevance when attempting to measure the Hubble parameter $H_0$ from observation in the Nearby Universe or calibrating standard candles such as supernovæ [see e.g. @2014ApJ...795...45S].
To provide the community with an accurate flow model of the Nearby Universe, we will make our inferred velocity fields publicly available with a forthcoming publication as well through our web platform[^1].
Hubble variations {#sec:impact_hubble}
-----------------
As mentioned above, inferred velocity fields permit to build refined flow models for the matter distribution in the Nearby Universe. This may be of relevance when performing measurements of the Hubble parameter $H_0$ in the nearby Universe, where non-vanishing Doppler shifts due to peculiar motions of observed objects may bias results. To quantify this effect for our local environment we estimate fractional variations in the Hubble parameter due to peculiar velocities via: $$\delta_H(\vec{r}) = \frac{H(\vec{r})-H_0}{H_0} = \frac{\vec{v}(\vec{r}) \cdot \vec{r}}{H_0\, |\vec{r}|^2 } \, .$$
In figure \[fig:hubble\] we demonstrate the fractional Hubble uncertainty averaged over cumulative spherical shells around the observer. As indicated by the plot, local flows out to about 70[$h^{-1}$ Mpc ]{} can on average bias local measurements of the Hubble parameter by about three to ten percent. Interestingly that is about the same order of magnitude required to explain the current discrepancy between measurements of the Hubble constant in the Nearby Universe and by measurements of the CMB via the Planck satellite mission [see e.g. @2016JCAP...10..019B; @2016ApJ...818..132A; @2018arXiv180203404F].
In particular, we indicated the discrepancy between the measurements of the Planck collaboration and those obtained by @Riess2016 in the figure. Since we have reconstructions of the three-dimensional velocity field we can also estimate the fractional Hubble uncertainty as a function of direction in the sky. These results are presented in figure \[fig:cepheid\_sky\]. It can be seen, that there exists large coherent bulk flows in the direction towards Perseus-Pisces super-cluster, which may bias measurements of $H_0$.
It is also interesting to note, that we obtain on average a positive bias in the fractional Hubble uncertainty due to peculiar velocities. This seems to be a specific feature of the nearby matter distribution. In general, within a standard $\Lambda$CDM scenario, positive and negative bias should be equally likely on average.
Answering the question, whether or not the discrepancy in measurements of the Hubble parameters can contribute to resolving this issue needs to be investigated further in a future work. By providing new and refined flow models our work will contribute to either identifying the dynamics of the local structure as part of the systematics or ruling it out as a plausible explanation for the discrepancy of measurements of the Hubble parameter in the Nearby Universe.
Summary and Conclusions {#sec:Summary_an_Conclusion}
=======================
This work presents an extension of our previously developed [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm to perform analyses of observed galaxy clustering beyond the regime of linear perturbation. To achieve this goal we have implemented a numerical particle mesh algorithm into our previously developed Bayesian inference approach to account for the fully non-linear regime of gravitational structure formation.
As a result, our method fits full numerical structure formation simulations to data and infers the three-dimensional initial conditions from which present observations formed. The method is a fully Bayesian inference algorithm that jointly infers information of the three-dimensional density and velocity fields and unknown observational systematic effects, such as noise, galaxy biasing and selection effects while quantifying their respective and correlated uncertainties via a large scale Markov Chain Monte Carlo framework.
Typically the algorithm explores parameter spaces consisting of the order of ten million dimensions corresponding to the amplitudes of the primordial density field at different positions in the three-dimensional volume. To perform efficient MCMC sampling with a complex physics model in such high dimensional parameter spaces we rely on a sophisticated implementation of the HMC algorithm. The HMC employs concepts of classical mechanics to reduce the random walk behaviour of standard Metropolis-Hastings algorithms by following a persistent Hamiltonian trajectory in the parameter space. In particular, the HMC exploits pseudo energy conservation to guarantee a high acceptance rate of proposed density field realizations and uses gradients of the logarithmic posterior distribution to guide the exploration in high dimensional parameter spaces. This requires providing to the algorithm derivatives of the logarithm of the likelihood distribution.
This likelihood distribution describes the statistical process by which the galaxy observations were generated given a specific realization of the non-linear density field. As described in section \[sec:data\_model\], for the sake of this work, the likelihood distribution combines a non-linear galaxy biasing model and the non-linear structure formation model with a Poisson distribution to account for the noise of the observed galaxy distribution.
In order to use the HMC in this scenario, we need to provide derivatives of the logarithm of this likelihood distribution with respect to the three-dimensional field of primordial matter fluctuations, acting as the initial conditions to the employed forward physics model. Since the likelihood incorporates a non-linear numerical structure formation model there exists no analytic gradient with respect to the initial conditions. One, therefore, has to rely on numerical representations of this derivative.
We note that using finite differencing to obtain gradients will not be sufficient. First of all, gradients obtained by finite differencing are numerically too noisy to be useful. Second, evaluating gradients in this fashion would be numerically too expensive. For cases as discussed in this work, finite difference approaches would require more than 10 million model evaluations to calculate a single gradient, which is numerically prohibitive with current computing resources. To obtain gradients of the logarithmic likelihood we, therefore, need to follow a different numerical approach.
As described in section \[sec:pm\_model\], any numerical algorithm can be understood as the composition of elementary operations for which there exist analytic derivatives. As described in appendix \[appendix:tangent\_adjoint\_model\], this permits us to apply the chain rule of differentiation to the physical simulation algorithm to implement an algorithmic gradient of the physics model. As demonstrated in section \[sec:pm\_model\], this algorithmic derivative comes at the cost of only two forward physics model evaluations, rendering this approach highly efficient and suitable for high dimensional problems.
To further exploit modern massive parallel computing resources we have also parallelised our algorithm via the MPI message passing systems. As demonstrated in section \[sec:pm\_model\] and by figure \[fig:bench\] the implementation of our algorithm reaches near optimal scaling as a function of the number of used cores. The numerical implementation of our algorithm, therefore, provides an efficient approach to sample the three-dimensional density and velocity fields. This constitutes the core element of our sampling scheme as outlined in figure \[fig:flowchart\].
Employing a forward physics model for the analysis permits us to address observational effects due to non-linear structure formation processes. First of all, our approach accounts for the higher order statistics, associated with the filamentary pattern of the cosmic web. In addition, the dynamical information provided by the physics model permits to account for redshift space distortions effects associated with the peculiar motions of observed objects. As such our method not only extracts information from the clustering signal of the galaxy number counts distribution but also extracts partial dynamic information from redshift space distortions, carrying information on the line of sight projections of peculiar velocities.
Besides accounting for structure formation effects, accessing information at non-linear regimes galaxy data is a non-trivial task. We are confronted with a variety of stochastic and systematic uncertainties, such as unknown noise levels, galaxy biases or incomplete observations. To properly account for these effects we employ a hierarchical Bayes approach in combination with a block sampling approach permitting us to flexibly construct data models to account for individual systematic uncertainties of respective datasets used for the analysis.
![\[fig:hubble\] This figure illustrates possible biases arising from doing a Hubble measurement with tracers within some volume, neglecting complex cosmic flows effect. We show in red solid line the mean systematic bias for a Hubble measurement per tracer located [*within*]{} a sphere of radius $R$. The grey area corresponds to the expected $1\sigma$ fluctuation per tracer of that same measurement. We show, for reference, the measurement by @Riess2016 (in blue and shade of blue for the $1\sigma$ limit) of the Hubble constant relatively to the Planck one (centred on zero, and shade of green for the $1\sigma$ limit). ](figures/hubble){width="\hsize"}
Specifically, in order to describe the unknown non-linear biasing relation between observed galaxies and the underlying dark matter distribution in this work, we used a phenomenological truncated power-law model as previously proposed by @2014MNRAS.441..646N. This bias model has three free parameters which are inferred jointly with the three-dimensional density field via a multiple block sampling framework. Similarly, the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm jointly infers unknown noise levels of the survey, related to the expected number of galaxies. Galaxy biasing can differ as a function of galaxy properties such as luminosity. To account for such luminosity dependent galaxy clustering we typically split our galaxy sample into different subsets according to luminosity or other parameters. The [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm then accounts for the respective uncertainties of individual subsamples while jointly inferring information from the combination of those. Joint and correlated uncertainties between all inference parameters are quantified by performing a thorough Markov Chain Monte Carlo via the block sampling scheme described in section \[sec:model\_observed\_galaxies\] and visualized by figure \[fig:flowchart\].
A common issue of analysing the cosmic LSS in galaxy observations is the fact that there exists currently no accurate data model that captures all nuances of unknown galaxy formation processes at non-linear scales. Therefore a necessary requirement for the analyses of present and next-generation surveys is the construction of inference approaches that can cope with unknown systematics and misspecifications of the data model. As discussed in section \[sec:robust\_inference\] we explored the possibility to perform robust inference by not conditioning directly on the likelihood but on some neighbourhood of the specified likelihood distribution. This approach amounts to tempering the likelihood distribution by raising it to some positive power, which is equivalent to using only a homogeneous subset of the data. The approach, therefore, provides conservative estimates of the cosmic large-scale structure since it effectively reduces the amount of information that can be used to reliably infer the matter distribution. Exploiting the full potential of observed data requires developing better data models, which is an ongoing activity of the cosmological community.
{width="0.6\hsize"}
In section \[sec:data\_application\] we perform an analysis of the cosmic LSS in the Nearby Universe. This is achieved by applying our [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm to the 2M++ galaxy compilation, covering about 70% of the sky. We split the 2M++ galaxy sample into a total of 16 sub-sets as a function of luminosity and the two absolute K-band magnitude cuts at ${K_\text{2M++}}\le 11.5$ and $11.5 < {K_\text{2M++}}\le 12.5$. Splitting the galaxy sample into these subsets permits us to treat luminosity dependent galaxy biases as well as respective selection effects due to flux limitations and survey masks. The [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm infers information jointly from the combination of these galaxy subsets while accounting for their respective systematic and stochastic uncertainties.
As described in section \[sec:non\_lin\_analysis\_borg\], we inferred the field of primordial matter fluctuations on a cubic equidistant Cartesian grid of side length 677.77[$h^{-1}$ Mpc ]{} consisting of $256^3$ volume elements. This amounts to a grid resolution of $\sim 2.6$[$h^{-1}$ Mpc ]{} in initial Lagrangian space. To guarantee a sufficient resolution of the final Eulerian density field we oversample the initial density field by a factor eight, requiring to evaluate the particle mesh model with a total of $512^3$ simulation particles. Running the particle mesh model for every transition step in the Markov Chain is numerically expensive. To efficiently pass through the initial burn-in period of the Markov chain we initialized the run with a faster but approximate Lagrangian perturbation theory model for about $6700$ Markov transition steps. Then we switched to the full particle mesh model to infer the fully non-linear regime of cosmic structures in the 2M++ survey.
We tested the initial burn-in behaviour of our sampler by initializing the run with a Gaussian random guess for the initial density field and scaled the amplitudes by a factor $0.1$ to start from an over-dispersed state. The initial burn-in behaviour was then tested by following the systematic drift of subsequently measured posterior power-spectra towards the preferred region in parameter space. As discussed in section \[sec:sampler\_convergence\], this initial burn-in period is completed after about $4000$ sampling steps, when inferred power-spectra start oscillating homogeneously around a fiducial cosmological power-spectrum. Note, that during the initial burn-in period our approach not only adjust the three-dimensional density field but also simultaneously explores the optimal parameter settings for the non-linear galaxy bias model and corresponding unknown noise levels.
Once we switched to running the analysis with the full particle mesh model we follow the initial burn-in behaviour of the non-linear analysis by tracing the logarithmic likelihood across subsequent sampling steps. The observed gains are considerable. With respect to the initial logarithmic likelihood value obtained from the approximate LPT run, we gain five orders of magnitude of improvement in the differential logarithmic likelihood when running the analysis with the non-linear particle mesh model. The logarithm of the ratio of the likelihood value for the LPT run and the full PM run therefore qualify for a model comparison test for the best representation of the three-dimensional density field able to explain the observations. These results are a clear demonstration that our reconstructions are clearly outperforming any previous results based on Eulerian or Lagrangian perturbation theory.
To further investigate the improvements of the PM over the LPT model, we also studied the traces of the logarithmic likelihood functions for the 16 galaxy sub-samples used for our analysis. We observed that fainter galaxy samples experience fewer improvements than brighter ones. This is expected, since fainter galaxies are believed to live in regions that can be described better by LPT rather than brighter galaxies, living in highly non-linear regimes of the cosmic LSS. It may be interesting to investigate the details of this effect in future analyses, as it may provide a guideline to optimally select galaxies for cosmological analyses.
In section \[sec:inference\_results\] we presented the results of our cosmological analysis of the 2M++ galaxy compilation. We first presented the inference of the 16 non-linear galaxy bias functions for the respective galaxy subsets as split by luminosity. As discussed above the galaxy biasing relation is modelled via a four parameter truncated power-law model.
It is interesting to remark that the inferred shapes of biasing functions are in agreement with the previous findings of @2008ApJ...678..569S. In general we observe an agreement in the biasing functions for fainter galaxies between galaxies selected in the two K-band magnitude ranges at ${K_\text{2M++}}\le 11.5$ and $11.5 < {K_\text{2M++}}\le 12.5$ . For brighter galaxies we observe a difference in the biasing relations between the two apparent magnitude cuts. Whether this indicates a difference in clustering behaviour of galaxies in the respective samples or whether it is due to some contamination or systematic effect needs to be investigated in the future. In any case it can clearly be seen that the galaxy bias functions preferred by the data cannot be described by simple linear biasing relations.
The [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm infers the field of primordial density fluctuations with a Lagrangian resolution of $\sim 2.6$[$h^{-1}$ Mpc ]{}. This is sufficient to resolve the initial conditions of major features in the Nearby Universe. As demonstrated in section \[sec:result\_3d\_density\] the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm simultaneously infers the present non-linear matter distribution of the Universe together with the three-dimensional initial conditions from which present structures formed. Our algorithm not only provides simple point estimates, such as the mean or maximum a posteriori result but provides a numerical approximation to the actual posterior distribution of the three-dimensional cosmic LSS in terms of an ensemble of density field realizations generated by the Markov Chain. The ensemble of data constrained Markov samples permits us to quantify the uncertainties of inferred initial and final density fields. To illustrate this fact in figure \[fig:pm\_sky\_realization\_mean\] we show a plot of the ensemble mean density fields and corresponding standard deviations. The plot nicely demonstrates the feasibility to recover the detailed filamentary pattern of the matter distribution in our Universe.
Unlike simple point estimates, respective Markov samples of the density field represent statistically and physically plausible realizations of the actual matter distribution in our Universe. They are not affected by incomplete observations or selection effects and can be straightforwardly interpreted as physically reasonable quantities.
In particular, figure \[fig:pm\_sky\_realization\] demonstrates that regions which are only poorly sampled by observed galaxies are visually similar to regions with much higher signal to noise ratios. Our inferred density samples reveal a highly detailed filamentary cosmic web corresponding to the spatial distribution of actually observed galaxies in the 2M++ survey. To test whether these inferred density fields are also physically plausible representations of a dark matter density field we measured a posteriori power-spectra from inferred initial conditions. This test reveals that the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm is able to reliably recover the dark matter distribution over a huge dynamic range covering three orders of magnitudes of the cosmological power-spectrum. As demonstrated by figure \[fig:borg\_pm\_posterior\_density\_stats\] measured power-spectra agree well with a fiducial cosmological model, demonstrating that our inference results are unbiased throughout the entire ranges of Fourier modes considered in this work. We further tested the one-point distribution of primordial density fluctuations and showed the agreement with the assumption of Gaussian statistics.
The spatial correspondence between inferred density fields and observed galaxies together with the agreement of inferred power-spectra with the fiducial cosmological model indicates that our results are physically plausible representations of the dark matter distribution in our Universe.
To further investigate this fact, in section \[sec:mass\_reconstruction\] we estimated the radial mass profile around the Coma cluster. The Coma cluster is one of the best studied clusters in the Nearby Universe and literature provides a plenitude of measurement results for the Coma mass. In contrast to previous measurements we are able to provide the first continuous measurement of the mass profile around the Coma cluster. We also compared our estimates to previous results obtained via complementary measurements of weak lensing and X-ray observations. As demonstrated by figure \[fig:coma\] our results agree well with gold standard weak lensing mass estimates at the scales of $\sim 1$[$h^{-1}$ Mpc ]{}. These results demonstrate that our inferred dark matter density fields provide the correct amount of matter at the correct spatial locations in the Nearby Universe.
In summary we conclude that the obtained density fields are physically plausible representations for the matter distribution in the Nearby Universe. A more detailed analysis and mass estimates for various structures in our nearby neighbourhood will be presented in a coming publication.
The possibility to infer masses of respective cosmological structures is related to the fact that the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm exploits a dynamical physical model to fit redshift space distortions of observed objects. Thus our algorithm extracts velocity information from redshift distortions and implicitly applies various dynamical mass estimation techniques that have been presented in the literature [@1997ApJ...475..421E; @2001ApJ...561L..41R; @2009arXiv0901.0868D; @2010AJ....139..580R; @2011MNRAS.412..800S; @2014MNRAS.442.1887F; @2016ApJ...831..135N].
To further illustrate the feasibility to infer the dynamic state of cosmic structures from observations, in section \[sec:inf\_vel\_field\] we provide information on the inferred three-dimensional velocity field of our Nearby Universe.
As a complete novelty we are the first to reconstruct the rotational component of the velocity field from observations. As demonstrated by figure \[fig:vorticity\] this vorticity field traces the non-linear filamentary structures around the Perseus-Pisces and Virgo cluster. When studying the directional components of the vorticity vector field we find a similar quadrupolar structure has been observed in simulations previously. These results therefore provide new avenues to test the alignment of galaxy spin with the cosmic LSS and the generation of angular momentum in the course of structure formation.
Our inferred velocity fields provide a new flow model for the three-dimensional large scale motion of matter in the Nearby Universe. Accounting for the specific realization of the velocity field is of particular relevance to measurements of the Hubble parameter in the Nearby universe. To demonstrate this effect in section \[sec:impact\_hubble\] we estimated the fractional uncertainty in measurements of the Hubble parameter due to the peculiar motion of observed objects. In particular figure \[fig:hubble\] indicates that there is a risk to bias estimates of the Hubble parameter when not accounting for such peculiar motions. Interestingly for tracer particles at distances between 10 and 70[$h^{-1}$ Mpc ]{} our results show a fractional Hubble uncertainty due to peculiar motions that are compatible with the currently debated discrepancy in the measurements of the Hubble parameter from local and CMB observations. As demonstrated by figure \[fig:cepheid\_sky\], peculiar velocities introduce a highly inhomogeneous and asymmetric distribution of the fractional Hubble uncertainties at different positions in the sky. One needs to investigate further in the future whether these effects can contribute to the observed discrepancy in measurements of $H_0$.
To further investigate the possible impact of nearby cosmic structures on local measurements of the accelerated cosmic expansion, we also investigated the possible existence of a large-scale local under density out to a depth of 150[$h^{-1}$ Mpc ]{} and beyond, which could mimic the acceleration effects attributed to dark energy. Despite the claim of growing evidence for such a local hole in the literature [see e.g. @2016MNRAS.459..496W; @2018ApJ...854...46H], our inferred radial density profiles, shown in figure \[fig:radial\_profile\], provide no support for the existence of such a large local void. In fact, our results indicate that the existence of local cosmic structures can be explained by the concordance model of structure formation without any violation of the cosmological principle or scale of homogeneity. Our result, therefore, agrees with the discussion of [@2017MNRAS.471.4946W].
In summary, this work presents a modification of our [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm capable of exploring the non-linear regime of the observed galaxy distribution by using physical models of gravitational structure formation. The algorithm provides us with simultaneous reconstructions of present non-linear cosmic structures and the initial conditions from which they formed. We further obtain detailed measurements of the three-dimensional flow of matter and infer plausible structure formation histories for the Nearby Universe. Inferred density and velocity fields represent a detailed and accurate description of the actual matter distribution, resembling correctly the filamentary cosmic web and masses of individual structures in the Nearby Universe.
This work is a clear demonstration that complex analyses of non-linear structures in galaxy surveys subject to several systematic and stochastic uncertainties is feasible and produces significant scientific results. In consequence, the [[BORG]{}]{} algorithm provides the key technology to study the non-linear regime of three-dimensional cosmic structures in present and coming galaxy surveys.
This research was supported by the DFG cluster of excellence “Origin and Structure of the Universe” (www.universe-cluster.de). This work made in the ILP LABEX (under reference ANR-10-LABX-63) was supported by French state funds managed by the ANR within the Investissements d’Avenir programme under reference ANR-11-IDEX-0004-02. The Parkes telescope is part of the Australia Telescope which is funded by the Commonwealth of Australia for operation as a National Facility managed by CSIRO. We acknowledge financial support from “Programme National de Cosmologie and Galaxies” (PNCG) of CNRS/INSU, France. This work was supported by the ANR grant ANR-16-CE23-0002. This work was granted access to the HPC resources of CINES under the allocation A0020410153 made by GENCI. We acknowledge several constructive discussions with Benjamin Wandelt, Stéphane Colombi, Franz Elsner, Fabian Schmidt, Licia Verde, Simon White and Carlos Frenk. We also acknowledge reading of the early draft by Doogesh Kodi Ramanah. GL acknowledges the hospitality of the University of Helsinki, where part of the development of that project took place, notably Peter Johansson, Till Sawala. This work has made use of the Horizon Cluster hosted by Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris. This work has been done within the activities of the Domaine d’Intérêt Majeur (DIM) Astrophysique et Conditions d’Apparition de la Vie (ACAV), and received financial support from Région Ile-de-France.
Discrete Fourier transform conventions and properties {#appendix:dft}
=====================================================
In this appendix we summarize some conventions we use for the discrete Fourier transform and some useful properties we make use of.
Conventions
-----------
In this manuscript we use the following convention for the discrete Fourier transform $\mathcal{F}$. The matrix element, per dimension, of this transform is set to: $$\mathcal{F}_{k,i}= \mathrm{e}^{-\frac{2\pi}{N}\,\sqrt{-1}\, k i}\,,$$ which relates the Fourier space representation $\hat{A}_k$ and the real space representation $A_i$ of the same quantity sampled on a regularly spaced mono-dimensional grid of size $N$ through: $$\hat{A}_k = \sum_i \mathcal{F}_{k,i} A_i\,.$$
The discrete Fourier transform is exactly invertible, and the element of the inverse is: $$\mathcal{F}^{-1}_{i,k}= \frac{1}{N} \mathrm{e}^{\frac{2\pi}{N}\,\sqrt{-1}\, i\, k}=\frac{1}{N} \mathcal{F}_{i,k}^{\dagger}\,,$$ also per dimension.
Translation of the discrete Fourier transform {#appendix:translation_dft}
---------------------------------------------
Here we will show a lemma giving the identity between translating the matrix element of a discrete Fourier transform and the translation of the field itself. In this appendix we write $i=(i_0,\ldots,i_d)$ the relation between a matrix index $i$ and the regular grid indices $(i_0,\ldots,i_d)$ in a space of dimension $d$. The discrete Fourier transform is a matrix linear operator $\mathcal{F}$ given as: $$\mathcal{F}_{i,k} = \prod_{j=1}^d \omega^{i_j k_j} \,,$$ with $\omega=\exp(-2\pi i / N)$ with $i^2 = -1$. Now we express the shifted discrete Fourier transform of a real vector $V_i$ into $\tilde{V}_k$: $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{V}_{k,q} = & \sum_{i=0}^{N} \mathcal{F}^*_{\tilde{i}^{+1}_q,k} V_i \\
= & \sum_i \omega^{-\sum_{\tilde{j}_q} i_j k_j - (i_q+1) k_q} V_i \\
= & \sum_{\bar{i}_q} \sum_{i_q=1}^{N}
\omega^{-\sum_{j} i_j k_j} V_{\tilde{i}^{-1}_q} \\
= & \sum_{i} \omega^{-\sum_{j} i_j k_j} V_{\tilde{i}^{-1}_q} \\
= & \sum_i \mathcal{F}^*_{i,k} V_{\tilde{i}^{-1}_q}\,.\end{aligned}$$ with $\tilde{i}^\epsilon_q = (i_0,\ldots,i_{q-1},i_{q}+\epsilon,i_{q+1},\ldots)$ and $\bar{i}_q = (i_0,\ldots,i_{q-1},i_{q+1},\ldots)$. In the above, in the transition from the second to the third line, we have exploited the periodicity of the discrete Fourier transform $\omega^{N k} = \omega^0 = 1$. The above identity stands even if the discrete Fourier transforms have different dimensions along each axis. Additionally, we have similarly: $$\begin{aligned}
V'_{k,q} = & \sum_{i=0}^{N} \mathcal{F}^*_{\tilde{i}^{-1}_q,k} V_i \\
= & \sum_{i=0}^{N} \mathcal{F}^*_{i,k} V_{\tilde{i}^{+1}_q,k}\end{aligned}$$
The particle mesh model {#appendix:pm_model}
=======================
This work uses a particle mesh (PM) model to evaluate the gravitational formation of cosmic structures from their origins to the present epoch. The General relativity dynamics is approximated using linear perturbations of the background metric. In practice that means we solve for the dynamics of a set of particles interacting via a Newtonian gravitational force. In this appendix we give both a brief overview over the implementation of the particle mesh model and its corresponding derivative required for the HMC framework.
PM equation of motions
----------------------
As discussed in section \[sec:pm\_model\] our implementation of the particle mesh (PM) algorithm follows closely the description in @1997astro.ph.12217K. In particular the PM algorithm aims at solving the following set of equations of motion for comoving dark matter particle positions $\vec{r}$ and momenta $\vec{p}$ in the simulation domain: $$\frac{\mathrm{d}\vec{r}}{\mathrm{d}a}=\frac{\vec{p}}{\dot{a}a^2} = \frac{1}{H(a) a^3} \vec{p} = f_r(a) \vec{p} \, ,$$ where $a$ is the cosmic scale factor, $\dot{a}$ is its first time derivative and $$f_r(a) = \frac{1}{H(a) a^3}\,.$$ The corresponding momentum update is given by: $$\label{eq:pm_momentum}
\frac{\mathrm{d}\vec{p}}{\mathrm{d}a}
= -\frac{3}{2} H_0^2 \Omega_\text{m} \frac{\nabla_{\vec{r}} \tilde{\Phi}}{H(a) a^2}
= - f_v(a) \nabla_{\vec{r}} \tilde{\Phi}\,,$$ where the dimensionless gravitational potential is given through the Poisson equation $$\nabla^2_{\vec{r}} \tilde{\Phi} = \frac{3}{2} H_0 \Omega_\text{m} \delta_\text{m}(\vec{r})\, ,$$ and $$f_v(a) = \frac{H_0}{H(a) a^2}\,.$$ We will now provide details on the numerical implementation of the ordinary differential equation (ODE) solver.
Evaluation of gravitational forces
----------------------------------
We use the standard PM approach, by first estimating the density field from particles via a CIC kernel and then solve equation (\[eq:grav\_force\]) in Fourier space [see e.g. @HOCKNEYEASTWOOD1988; @1997astro.ph.12217K]. The Fourier kernel is computed from the 5-point stencil, approximating the Laplacian to second order. We thus obtain: $$\label{eq:greens_poisson}
\hat{\tilde{\Phi}}(\vec{k}_{\vec{q}})
= \left\{\sum_{l=1}^3 \left[\frac{4 N_l}{L_l} \sin\left(\frac{\pi q_l}{N_l}\right)\right]^2\right\}^{-1} \hat{\delta}(\vec{k}_{\vec{q}}) = \mathcal{G}_{{{\mathbf {q} }}} \hat{\delta}({{\mathbf {k} }}_{{\mathbf {q} }}) \,,$$ with $q_l \in \{0,\ldots,N_l-1\}^3$, $N_l$ the number of grid element along the axis $l$, and $L_l$ the comoving length of the simulation box along the axis $l$. We will also write $\mathcal{G}_q$ for the summation over the entire three-dimensional grid of ${{\mathbf {q} }}$ vectors. Following equation , the gravitational force acting on the $p$th particle is given as: $$\label{eq:grav_force}
\vec{F}_p= -f_v(a) \nabla_{\vec{r}} \tilde{\Phi} (\vec{r}_p) = f_v(a) \vec{\tilde{F}}_p \,,$$ with $\vec{r}_p$ the position of the $p$-th particle. Following @HOCKNEYEASTWOOD1988, to avoid self-interaction the actual value of the gradient must be derived as: $$\vec{\tilde{F}}_p = \mathcal{I}[D_{\vec{r}} \tilde{\Phi}](\vec{r}_p)\,$$ with $\vec{D}_{\vec{r}}$ the (symmetric) finite difference operator, $\mathcal{I}$ the CIC interpolation kernel.
Update of particle positions
----------------------------
To numerically integrate the equations of motion we use the leap-frog integrator [@HOCKNEYEASTWOOD1988 and also related to methods given in Sir Isaac Newton’s Dynamica]. Finite differencing then yields the well known update equations for particle momenta and positions [see e.g. @1997astro.ph.12217K]: $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathbf {p} }}^{n+1/2}_p &= {{\mathbf {p} }}^{n-1/2}_p + \left(\int_{a_{n-1/2}}^{a_{n+1/2}} f_v(a)\text{d}a\right) {{\mathbf {\tilde{F}} }}_p \,, \\
{{\mathbf {r} }}^{n+1}_p &= {{\mathbf {r} }}^{n}_p + \left(\int_{a_{n}}^{a_{n+1}} f_r(a)\text{d}a\right) {{\mathbf {p} }}^{n+1/2}_p\,. \label{eq:update_particles_forward}\end{aligned}$$ By offsetting the initial momentum by half a time step and introducing: $$\Delta^n_v = \int_{a_{n-1/2}}^{a_{n+1/2}} f_v(a)\text{d}a\,,$$ and $$\Delta^n_r = \int_{a_{n}}^{a_{n+1}} f_r(a)\text{d}a\, ,$$ we can write the updating scheme local in time: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:update_particles_forward_local}
{{\mathbf {p} }}^{n+1}_q & = {{\mathbf {p} }}^{n}_q + {{\mathbf {\tilde{F}} }}_q \, \Delta^n_p \nonumber \\
{{\mathbf {r} }}^{n+1}_q & = {{\mathbf {r} }}^{n}_q + {{\mathbf {p} }}^{n+1}_q\, \Delta^n_r \nonumber \\
& = {{\mathbf {r} }}^{n}_q + {{\mathbf {p} }}^{n}_q\, \Delta^n_r +
{{\mathbf {\tilde{F}} }}_q \, \Delta^n_p \, \Delta^n_r \, .\end{aligned}$$ Note that at the end of the updating loop one has to move the momenta further by half a time step. In the rest of this work, notably in appendix \[appendix:tangent\_adjoint\_model\], we also set $({{\mathbf {y} }}_q)_\alpha = y_{q,\alpha}$, where $y$ can be one of $p$, $r$ or $\tilde{F}$.
Tangent adjoint model of the particle mesh code {#appendix:tangent_adjoint_model}
===============================================
Efficient exploration of high dimensional parameter spaces is facilitated by the use of gradients. The HMC sampling framework relies on the availability of a gradient of the posterior distribution. In this appendix we derive in detail such a gradient for the PM model, which is valid for the PM algorithm as described in appendix \[appendix:pm\_model\]. Specifically we derive expressions for the following gradient of the negative logarithmic posterior distribution $\psi(\{\delta^\text{init}_l\})$ with respect to a initial density contrast amplitude $\vec{\delta}^\text{init}=\{\delta^{init}_l\}$. In the following we will describe in detail how to obtain analytic gradients for numerical computer simulations of gravitational structure formation.
General framework to derive tangent adjoint model
-------------------------------------------------
Conceptually, any computer model, no matter how complex or non-linear, can be expressed as a succession of elementary algorithmic operations, such as additions and multiplications. A computer algorithm $G(x)$ can therefore be expressed as the composition of several functions. It is simply the nested application of elementary function applications given as: $$G(x)=(B_N \circ B_{N-1} \circ \ldots \circ B_1 \circ B_0)(x)=B_N(B_{N-1}(\ldots(B_1(B_0(x)))))\, .$$ Any derivative of $G(x)$ can then be obtained by use of the chain rule of differentiation: $$\frac{\partial G}{\partial x}= \frac{\partial B_N}{\partial B_{N-1}} \, \ldots \, \frac{\partial B_{1}}{\partial B_{0}} \frac{\partial B_{0}}{\partial x} \, ,$$ As can be seen any derivative of a computer program results just in a long sequential application of linear operations. The same approach applies to any multivariate computer program. In the following we will use this approach to derive the adjoint gradient of our particle mesh computer model.
The tangent adjoint model for the LSS posterior distribution {#appendix:adjoint_model_lss}
------------------------------------------------------------
Having posited the framework, we now proceed with the first step of the derivation of $\psi(\vec{\delta}^\text{init})$. The log-likelihood part of the posterior can formally be expressed as follow: $$\psi(\vec{\delta}^\text{init}) =
L \circ {{\mathbf {U} }}^{(N)} \circ \ldots \circ {{\mathbf {U} }}^{(0)}(\vec{\delta}^\text{init})\,.$$ Above, $L$ is the log-likelihood function allowing the comparison between the output of the forward model and the data (i.e. a Poisson distribution in our case as given in section \[sec:model\_observed\_galaxies\]). ${{\mathbf {U} }}_i$ are the Kick-Drift element of the PM algorithm, given in equation . The gradient of the total log-likelihood $\psi$ with respect to the initial parameters ${{\mathbf {\delta} }}^{init}$ yields: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:psi_deriv}
\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial\delta^{init}_l}
&= \sum_{q^{(N)}}
\frac{\partial L}{\partial u_q}
\frac{\partial {{\mathbf {U} }}_q^{(N)}}{\partial\delta^{init}_l} \nonumber \\
&= \sum_{q^{N},q^{N-1}}
\left.\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial u_q}\right|_{{{\mathbf {u} }}={{\mathbf {U} }}^{(N)}(\delta^{init})}
\left.\frac{\partial {{\mathbf {U} }}^{(N)}_{q^N}}{\partial u_q}\right|_{{{\mathbf {u} }}={{\mathbf {U^{(N-1)}} }}(\delta^{init})}
\left.\frac{\partial {{\mathbf {U} }}^{(N-1)}_{q^{N-1}}}{\partial\delta^{init}_l}\right|_{{{\mathbf {\delta^{init}} }}} \nonumber
\\
&= \sum_{q^{N},q^{N-1},\ldots,q^{0}}
\left.\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial {{\mathbf {u} }}_q}\right|_{{{\mathbf {u} }}={{\mathbf {U} }}^{(N)}(\delta^{init})}
\left.\frac{\partial {{\mathbf {U} }}^{(N)}_{q^N}}{\partial {{\mathbf {u} }}_q}\right|_{{{\mathbf {u} }}={{\mathbf {U^{(N-1)}} }}(\delta^{init})}
\ldots
\left.\frac{\partial {{\mathbf {U} }}^{(1)}_{q^1}}{\partial {{\mathbf {u} }}_q}\right|_{{{\mathbf {u} }}={{\mathbf {U^{(0)}} }}(\delta^{init})}
\left.\frac{\partial {{\mathbf {U} }}^{(0)}_{q^0}}{\partial\delta^{init}_l}\right|_{\delta^{init}}\end{aligned}$$ where we made frequent use of the chain rule and ${{\mathbf {u} }}=[{{\mathbf {r} }}, {{\mathbf {p} }}]$ is a vector composed of particle positions and momenta. Also we have taken derivatives according to vector, which translates to a derivatives and implicit summations over all elements of the vectors. Equation constitutes essentially a sequence of matrix vector applications permitting to calculate the gradient given by equation via the following iterative procedure: $$\label{eq:gradient_iteration}
a_{p,\beta}^{(m+1)} =\sum_q {{\mathbf {a} }}_{q,\alpha}^{(m)} \mathcal{J}^{(m)}_{(q,\alpha),(p,\beta)} \, ,$$ with $\mathcal{J}^{(m)}_{q,p}$ being the Jacobian matrix between successive time steps. We note that this operation is exactly an adjoint multiplication by the operator $\mathcal{J}$, thus the name “tangent adjoint model” given to this whole procedure. This matrix $\mathcal{J}$ is given by identification in Equation : $$\mathcal{J}^{(m)}_{(q,\alpha),(p,\beta)} =
\left.\frac{\partial U^{(N-m)}_{q,\alpha}}{\partial u_{m,\beta}}\right|_{{{\mathbf {u} }}={{\mathbf {U} }}^{N-(m+1)}(\delta^{init})} \,,$$ for $l < N$. We have also introduced the following notation to indicate components of vectors $({{\mathbf {U} }}_q)_\alpha = U_{q,\alpha}$. For $l=N$, we have the special case: $$\mathcal{J}^{(N)}_{(q,\alpha),\beta} =
\left.\frac{\partial U^{(0)}_{q,\alpha}}{\partial\delta^{init}_\beta}\right|_{\delta^{init}} \, ,$$ and initial conditions with ${{\mathbf {a} }}_p^{0}$ given by: $${{\mathbf {a} }}_q^{(0)} = \left.\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial {{\mathbf {u} }}_q}\right|_{{{\mathbf {u} }}={{\mathbf {U} }}^{(N)}(\delta^{init})} \, .$$ It is important to remark that at no point in the calculation of the gradient it is required to explicitly store the high dimensional matrix $\mathcal{J}^{(m)}_{q,p}$. We only need to have a procedure to evaluate exactly the sequence of matrix vector applications. In the following we will therefore derive the Jacobian $\mathcal{J}^{(m)}_{q,p}$ of successive time steps in standard cosmological particle mesh codes.
The Jacobian of particle mesh time stepping
-------------------------------------------
In this work we use a different implementation of the gradient than described in @Wang2013. The Jacobian between different time steps can then be obtained as: $$\mathcal{J}^{(n)}_{(q,\alpha),(l,\beta)}
= \left.\frac{\partial U^{(N-n)}_{q,\alpha}}{\partial u_{l,\beta}}\right|_{{{\mathbf {u} }}={{\mathbf {U} }}^{(N-(n+1))}(\delta_\text{init})} = \left[
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\displaystyle\frac{\partial r_{q,\alpha}^{(N-n)} }{ \partial r_{l,\beta}^{(N-(n+1))} } &
\displaystyle\frac{\partial r_{q,\alpha}^{(N-n)}}{ \partial p_{l,\beta}^{(N-(n+1))} } \\[1.5em]
\displaystyle\frac{\partial p_{q,\alpha}^{(N-n)}}{ \partial r_{l,\beta}^{(N-(n+1))} } &
\displaystyle\frac{\partial p_{q,\alpha}^{(N-n)}}{ \partial p_{l,\beta}^{(N-(n+1))}}
\end{array}
\right]\,.$$ Each element of this Jacobian matrix can be derived from the particle mesh update scheme given in equation . We can thus directly compute the derivatives of a particle position and velocity of a particle with respect to position and velocity of any other particle in the simulation at the previous time step: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial r^{(m+1)}_{q,\alpha}}{\partial r^{(m)}_{l,\beta}} &
= \delta^K_{\alpha,\beta} \delta^K_{q,l} +
\frac{\partial \tilde{F}^{(m)}_{q,\alpha}}{\partial r^{(m)}_{l,\beta}}
\Delta^m_r\Delta^m_v \\
\frac{\partial r^{(m+1)}_{q,\alpha}}{\partial p^{(m)}_{l,\beta}} &
= \delta^K_{\alpha,\beta} \delta^K_{q,l} \Delta^m_r \\
\frac{\partial p^{(m+1)}_{q,\alpha}}{\partial r^{(m)}_{l,\beta}} &
= \frac{\partial \tilde{F}^{(m)}_{q,\alpha}}{\partial r^{(m)}_{l,\beta}} \Delta^m_v\\
\frac{\partial p^{(m+1)}_{q,\alpha}}{\partial p^{(m)}_{l,\beta}} &
= \delta^K_{\alpha,\beta} \delta^K_{q,l} \,,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used $m=N-n$ in the above to shorten the notation. Given these calculations $\mathcal{J}^{n}_{(q,\alpha),(l,\beta)}$ can be written as: $$\mathcal{J}^{(n)}_{(q,\alpha),(l,\beta)}
=
\left[
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\displaystyle \delta^K_{\alpha,\beta} \delta^K_{q,l} +
\frac{\partial F^{(m)}_{q,\alpha}}{\partial r^{(m)}_{l,\beta}} \Delta^m_r\Delta^m_v &
\displaystyle \delta^K_{\alpha,\beta} \delta^K_{q,l} \Delta^m_r \\[1.5em]
\displaystyle \frac{\partial \tilde{F}^{(m)}_{q,\alpha}}{\partial r^{(m)}_{l,\beta}} \Delta^m_v &
\displaystyle \delta^K_{p,q}
\end{array}
\right]
= \delta^K_{q,l} \delta^K_{\alpha,\beta}
\left[
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\displaystyle 1 & \displaystyle \Delta^m_r \\
0 & 1
\end{array}
\right] +
\left[
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\displaystyle \frac{\partial \tilde{F}^{m}_{q,\alpha}}{\partial r^{m}_{l,\beta}} \Delta^m_r \Delta^m_v &
0 \\[1.5em]
\displaystyle \frac{\partial \tilde{F}^{m}_{q,\alpha}}{\partial r^{m}_{l,\beta}} \Delta^m_v &
0
\end{array}
\right] \, ,$$ where the first term describes the Jacobian of the linear equations of motion if there were no forces and the second term accounts for the coupling of the gravitational force and again $m=N-n$.
A single iteration of the gradient calculation step given in can then be calculated as: $$\begin{aligned}
\left[
a^{(r),(m)}_{q,\beta} \, , \, a^{(v),(m)}_{q,\beta} \right] =&
\left[ a^{(r),(m-1)}_{q,\beta} +
\sum_{p,\alpha}
\left(a^{(r),(m-1)}_{p,\alpha} \Delta^m_r\,\Delta^m_v +
a^{(v),(m-1)}_{q,\alpha} \Delta^m_v \right)
\frac{\partial \tilde{F}^{(m)}_{p,\alpha}}{\partial r^{(m)}_{q,\beta}}
\right.
\,, \nonumber \\
& \left. \, a^{(v),(m-1)}_{q,\beta} + a^{(r),(m-1)}_{q,\beta} \,\Delta^m_r \right]\, ,
\label{eq:adjoint_update}\end{aligned}$$ where the vector ${{\mathbf {a} }}$ is made of six components decomposed into position and a velocity components as ${{\mathbf {a} }}=[{{\mathbf {a} }}^{(r)} , {{\mathbf {a} }}^{(v)}]$. Each sub-vector having three dimensions indexed by $q$. The only challenging terms to calculate in equation are the terms depending on derivatives of the gravitational force. In the next subsection we will discuss the evaluation of these terms.
Tangent adjoint gradient of the force solver {#sec:gradient_force}
--------------------------------------------
Within a standard particle mesh approach forces at particle positions are obtained via interpolation of a force field sampled at discrete positions ${{\mathbf {K} }}^{(m)}_i$ on a grid to continuous particle positions [@HOCKNEYEASTWOOD1988]: $${{\mathbf {\tilde{F}} }}^{(m)}_p =
\sum_i \mathcal{W}\left({{\mathbf {x} }}_i - {{\mathbf {r} }}^{n}_p \, \right) {{\mathbf {K} }}^{(m)}_i\left( \{{{\mathbf {r^{(m)}} }} \} \right)
= \sum_i W_{i,p} {{\mathbf {K} }}^{(m)}_i\, ,$$ where $W_{i,p}=W_i({{\mathbf {y} }}={{\mathbf {r} }}^{(m)}_p)=\mathcal{W}\left({{\mathbf {x} }}_i - {{\mathbf {r} }}^{(m)}_p \, \right)$ is the mass assignment kernel that interpolates between discrete grid ${{\mathbf {x} }}_i$ and continuous particle positions ${{\mathbf {r} }}^{(m)}_p$, and the discrete force ${{\mathbf {K} }}^{(m)}_i\left( \{{{\mathbf {r} }}^{(m)} \} \right)$. This force array is a function of all particle positions in the simulation and denotes the force field evaluated at the grid nodes. For a particle mesh code the force calculation on the grid can be written as: $${{\mathbf {K} }}^{(m)}_i\left( \{{{\mathbf {r} }}^{(m)}\}\right) =
\sum_l {{\mathbf {M} }}_{i,l} \left[ \left( \sum_q \frac{1}{\bar{N}} \mathcal{W}\left({{\mathbf {x} }}_l - {{\mathbf {r} }}^{(n)}_q\right)\right) -1\right] \, ,$$ where we apply the linear operator ${{\mathbf {M} }}_{i,l}$ to the density field as inferred from the particle distribution with the appropriate gridding kernel $\mathcal{W}\left({{\mathbf {y} }} \right)$. The operator $M_{i,l,\alpha}$ is given as: $$M_{i,l,\alpha} =
\frac{1}{2 d_a} \sum_k \left(\mathcal{F}^{-1}_{\tilde{i}^{+1}_\alpha,k} -\mathcal{F}^{-1}_{\tilde{i}^{-1}_\alpha,k} \right) \mathcal{G}_k \mathcal{F}_{k,l} \, ,$$ where $\mathcal{F}_{i,j}$ and $\mathcal{F}^{-1}_{i,j}$ denotes the forward and backward Fast Fourier transform operators respectively, and $\mathcal{G}_k$ is the Greens operator for the Poisson equation in Fourier space as given in equation . We have also introduced the notations of appendix \[appendix:translation\_dft\] to grid indices $i$ and $\tilde{i}$. The gradient of the force with respect to positions is: $$\label{eq:grad_force_pm}
\frac{\partial \tilde{F}^{(m)}_{q,\alpha}}{\partial r^{(m)}_{l,\beta}} =
\sum_i \left [ \delta^\text{K}_{q,l} W'^{(m)}_{i,q} K^{(m)}_{i,\alpha} + W_{i,q} \frac{\partial K^{(m)}_{i,\alpha}}{\partial r^{(m)}_{l,\beta}} \right] \,,$$ with the introduced kernel derivative $$W'^{(m)}_{i,q,\beta} = \left.\frac{\partial W_{i}}{\partial y_\beta}\right|_{\vec{y}={{\mathbf {r} }}^{(m)}_{q}}\,. \label{eq:define_Wprime}$$ We derive the second term in the force derivative given in equation : $$\frac{\partial K^n_{i,\alpha}\left( \{{{\mathbf {r} }}^{(m)}\}\right) }{\partial r^{(m)}_{l,\beta}}
= \sum_p M_{i,p,\alpha} \frac{1}{\bar{N}}
\left.\frac{\partial \mathcal{W}}{\partial y_\beta}\right|_{{{\mathbf {y} }} = {{\mathbf {x} }}_p - {{\mathbf {r} }}^n_l}
= \sum_p M_{i,p,\alpha} \frac{1}{\bar{N}} W'^{(m)}_{p,l,\beta}\,.$$ We now have to collapse some of these expressions to build an efficient algorithm. We first introduce the updated vector, which is a subcomponent of the vector in : $${{\mathbf {b} }}_p =
{{\mathbf {a} }}_{p}^{(r),(N-(n+1))} \Delta^n_r\,\Delta^n_v
+ {{\mathbf {a} }}_{p}^{(v),(N-(n+1))} \Delta^n_v \,.$$ We now evaluate the force term in the adjoint update given in equation : $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{p,\alpha} b_{p,\alpha} \frac{\partial \tilde{F}^{(m)}_{p,\alpha}}{\partial r^{(m)}_{q,\beta}}
& =
\sum_{i,p,\alpha} b_{p,\alpha} \delta^\text{K}_{p,q} W'^{(m)}_{i,p,\beta} K^{(m)}_{i,\alpha} +
\sum_{i,p,\alpha} b_{p,\alpha} W_{i,p} \sum_p M_{i,p,\alpha} \frac{1}{\bar{N}} W'^{(m)}_{p,q,\beta} \nonumber \\
& = \sum_{i,\alpha} b_{q,\alpha} W'^{(m)}_{i,q,\beta} K^{(m)}_{i,\alpha} + \sum_{p,i,\alpha} B_{i,\alpha} M_{i,p,\alpha} \frac{1}{\bar{N}} W'^{(m)}_{p,q,\beta} \\
& = \sum_{i,\alpha} b_{q,\alpha} W'^{(m)}_{i,q,\beta} K^{(m)}_{i,\alpha} + \sum_{p} D_{p} \frac{1}{\bar{N}} W'^{(m)}_{p,q,\beta}
\,,\end{aligned}$$ where we have introduced the vector: $${{\mathbf {B} }}_i=\sum_p {{\mathbf {b} }}_p W_{i,p}\, ,$$ which is just the vector ${{\mathbf {b} }}_p$ interpolated to the grid with the mass assignment scheme $W_{i,p}$. We now proceed to compute the value of $$D_{l} = \sum_{i,a} B_{i,a} M_{i,l,a}\,.$$ To achieve this we expand further ${{\mathbf {M} }}_{i,l}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Dl}
D_{l}
= & \sum_a \frac{1}{2 d_a} \sum_i B_{i,a}
\sum_{k}
\left(\mathcal{F}^{-1}_{\tilde{i}^{+1}_a,k} -\mathcal{F}^{-1}_{\tilde{i}^{-1}_a,k} \right) \mathcal{G}_k \mathcal{F}_{k,l} \nonumber \\
= & \sum_{a,k} \frac{1}{2 d_a} C^a_k G_k \mathcal{F}_{k,l} \nonumber \\
= & \sum_k \mathcal{F}^{*}_{l,k} G_k \left(\sum_a \frac{1}{2 d_a} C^a_k\right)^{*} \nonumber \\
= & \sum_k \mathcal{F}^{*}_{l,k} G_k \left(\sum_a \frac{1}{2 d_a} C^a_k\right) \,,\end{aligned}$$ with $$C^a_k = \sum_{i} B_{i,a} \left(\mathcal{F}^{-1}_{\tilde{i}^{+1}_a,k} -\mathcal{F}^{-1}_{\tilde{i}^{-1}_a,k} \right)\,,$$ and the notations of appendix \[appendix:translation\_dft\]. For the last line of equation , we have used the hermiticity of the $C^{a}_k$ fields . We now re-express $C^a_k$ exploiting the periodicity of the discrete Fourier Transform $\mathcal{F}_{i,k}$: $$\begin{aligned}
C^a_k = & \sum_{i} B_{i,a} \left(\mathcal{F}^{-1}_{\tilde{i}^{+1}_a,k} -\mathcal{F}^{-1}_{\tilde{i}^{-1}_a,k} \right) \\
= & \frac{1}{N^3} \sum_{i} \left(\mathcal{F}^{*}_{k,\tilde{i}^{+1}_a} -\mathcal{F}^{*}_{k,\tilde{i}^{-1}_a}\right) B_{i,a} \nonumber \\
= & \frac{1}{N^3} \sum_{i} \mathcal{F}^{*}_{k,i} \left( B_{\tilde{i}^{-1}_a,a}-B_{\tilde{i}^{+1}_a,a} \right) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $C^a_k$ is simply the discrete Fourier transform of the differences in the $B^a_i$ field along $a$-th axis, and we have exploited the identity shown in appendix \[appendix:translation\_dft\]. The discrete $D_l$ field is now obtained by applying the Greens operator $\mathcal{G}_k$ to the components of the ${{\mathbf {C} }}^a_k$ vector and performing a transposed discrete Fourier transform on the sum of the components (equation ).
If we assume the mass assignment kernel $W_{i,p}$ factorizes along each of the spatial coordinates, as is usually the case in particle mesh codes, then we can write [@HOCKNEYEASTWOOD1988]: $$W_{i,p}=\mathcal{W}({{\mathbf {x} }}_i - {{\mathbf {r} }}_p)= \prod_{j=0}^2 \omega(x_{i,j} - r_{p,j})$$ This yields the gradient of the mass assignment kernel given as: $$W'^{(m)}_{i,p,\beta} = -\omega'(x_{i,\beta}-r_{p,\beta}) \prod_{\alpha\neq \beta} \omega(x_{i,\alpha} - r_{p,\alpha})\,,$$ with $W'^{(m)}_{i,p,\beta}$ as defined in equation . Finally we can rewrite the equation , governing the update of the adjoint gradient vector from time step $(m+1)$ to time step $(m)$ as follow: $$\label{eq:adjoint_update_1}
\left[
{\begin{array}{cc}
{{\mathbf {a} }}_{r}^{m} \\
{{\mathbf {a} }}_{v}^{m}
\end{array} }\right] =
\left[
{\begin{array}{cc}{{\mathbf {a} }}_{r}^{(m+1)}+ {{\mathbf {\Theta} }}^{(m+1)} \\
{{\mathbf {a} }}_{v}^{(m+1)} +{{\mathbf {a} }}_{r}^{(m+1)} \,\Delta^n_r
\end{array} }\right]\, ,$$ with $$\left[{{\mathbf {\Theta} }}^{(m)}_q\right]_\beta = \Theta^{(m)}_{q,\beta} = \sum_{p,\alpha} b_{p,\alpha} \frac{\partial \tilde{F}^{m}_{p,\alpha}}{\partial r^{m}_{q,\beta}}\,.$$ The total steps involved to compute ${{\mathbf {a} }}^{(m+1)}$ are thus: $${{\mathbf {a} }}^{(m)} \rightarrow {{\mathbf {b} }}
\underset{\text{CIC}}{\rightarrow }
{{\mathbf {B} }}_i \underset{\mathcal{F}}{\rightarrow} C_{a,k} \underset{\mathcal{F}}{\rightarrow} D_l \underset{\text{CIC}^\dagger}{\rightarrow}{{\mathbf {\Theta} }}^{(m)}_q \rightarrow {{\mathbf {a} }}^{(m+1)}\,,$$ with $\mathcal{F}$ denoting the presence of a Fourier transform and $\text{CIC}$ a mass assignment kernel like Cloud-In-Cell.
This demonstrates that the numerical complexity of the tangent adjoint model is the same as for the full forward model evaluation. In fact, as demonstrated by figure \[fig:bench\], the numerical costs of one tangent adjoint model evaluation is equivalent to the costs of two forward model evaluations. A single gradient evaluation requires one full forward model evaluation and a subsequent application of the tangent adjoint model. The numerical complexity of a gradient evaluation and run-times are thus about two times a single forward model evaluation. It should be remarked that the evaluation of the tangent adjoint model requires to store all particle positions and velocities at all steps of the forward model evaluation.
Tangent adjoint model of redshift space distortions
===================================================
In Section \[sec:rsd\], we have introduced the model we have adopted to introduce redshift space distortions in the analysis. In this appendix we detail the computation of the tangent adjoint of this model.
We introduce redshift space distortions as an additional displacement of particles compared to their final comoving positions. At first order in $1/c$, we have for a single particle with position ${{\mathbf {x} }}$ and velocity ${{\mathbf {v} }}$ $${{\mathbf {s} }} = {{\mathbf {x} }} + \gamma {{\mathbf {v} }}^\text{los}\,,$$ where we have set $${{\mathbf {v} }}^\text{los} = \sum_a v_{a} y_{a} \frac{{{\mathbf {y} }}}{|{{\mathbf {y} }}|^2} \,,$$ and $$\gamma = \frac{a H_0}{H(a)}\,,$$ $a$ being the cosmological scale factor. Internally, the particle mesh stores another variant of the velocity, the momentum, which is ${{\mathbf {p} }} = a^2 {{\mathbf {v} }}$. Thus we form $\gamma^p = \frac{H_0}{a H(a)}$ to account for the different scaling $${{\mathbf {s} }} = {{\mathbf {x} }} + \gamma^p {{\mathbf {p} }}^\text{los}\,,$$ $${{\mathbf {p} }}^\text{los} = \sum_a p_{a} y_{a} \frac{{{\mathbf {y} }}}{|{{\mathbf {y} }}|^2} \,.$$
To follow the generic framework indicated in Appendix \[appendix:tangent\_adjoint\_model\], we introduce the derivative with respect to comoving coordinates $x_i$ $$\frac{\partial s_i}{\partial x_a}
=
\delta^K_{i,a} \left(1 + \gamma^p \frac{\sum_k p_k x_k}{|{{\mathbf {x} }}|^2} \right)
+ \gamma^p \frac{p_a x_i}{|{{\mathbf {x} }}|^2}
- 2 \gamma \frac{\sum_k p_k x_k}{|{{\mathbf {x} }}|^4}\, x_i x_a$$ Let $\alpha=\sum_k p_k x_k$ and $\beta=|{{\mathbf {y} }}|^2$ then: $$\frac{\partial s_i}{\partial x_a} =
\delta^K_{ir} \left ( 1 + \gamma^p \frac{\alpha}{\beta} \right)
+ \gamma^p \frac{p_a y_i}{\beta}
- 2 \gamma^p \frac{\alpha}{\beta^2} y_i y_a$$ Similarly we obtain the derivative of $s$ with respect to velocity $$\frac{\partial s_i}{\partial p_a} = \gamma^p \frac{ y_a y_i}{|{{\mathbf {y} }}|^2} = \gamma^p \frac{ y_a y_i}{\beta}\,.$$ Putting back together for we may derive the two adjoint gradient for the position and velocity: $$\begin{aligned}
x^\text{ag}_a = & \sum_i \frac{\partial s_i}{\partial x_a} s^\text{ag}_i
= s^\text{ag}_a \left(1 + \gamma^p \frac{\alpha}{\beta}\right) + \frac{\gamma^p \left(\sum_i s^\text{ag}_i x_i\right)}{\beta} \left( p_a - 2 \frac{\alpha}{\beta} x_a \right) \,, \\
p^\text{ag}_a = & \sum_i \frac{\partial s_i}{\partial p_a} = \gamma^p \left(\sum_i s^\text{ag}_i x_i\right) \frac{y_a}{\beta}\,.\end{aligned}$$ The case for which no redshift space distortions is requested reduces to setting $\gamma=0$. We indeed recover that ${{\mathbf {x} }}^\text{ag}={{\mathbf {s} }}^\text{ag}$ and ${{\mathbf {v} }}^\text{ag}=0$.
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: Available at <https://cosmicflows.iap.fr/>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We present a empirical study of orbital decay for the exoplanet WASP-19b, based on mid-time measurements of 74 complete transits (12 newly obtained by our team and 62 from the literature), covering a 10-year baseline. A linear ephemeris best represents the mid-transit times as a function of epoch. Thus, we detect no evidence of the shortening of WASP-19b’s orbital period and establish an upper limit of its steady changing rate, $\dot{P}=-2.294$ ms $yr^{-1}$, and a lower limit for the modified tidal quality factor $Q''_{\star} = (1.23 \pm 0.231) \times 10^{6}$. Both are in agreement with previous works. This is the first estimation of $Q''_{\star}$ directly derived from the mid-times of WASP-19b obtained through homogeneously analyzed transit measurements. Additionally, we do not detect periodic variations in the transit timings within the measured uncertainties in the mid-times of transit. We are therefore able to discard the existence of planetary companions in the system down to a few $M_\mathrm{\earth}$ in the first order mean-motion resonances 1:2 and 2:1 with WASP-19b, in the most conservative case of circular orbits. Finally, we measure the empirical $Q''_{\star}$ values of 15 exoplanet host stars which suggest that stars with $T_\mathrm{eff}$ $\lesssim$ 5600K dissipate tidal energy more efficiently than hotter stars. This tentative trend needs to be confirmed with a larger sample of empirically measured $Q''_{\star}$.'
author:
- |
R. Petrucci$^{1,2,6}$[^1], E. Jofré$^{1,2,6}$, Y. Gómez Maqueo Chew$^{1}$, T. C. Hinse$^{3}$, M. Mašek$^{4}$,\
$^{1}$Instituto de Astronomía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad Universitaria, 04510 Ciudad de México, México\
$^{2}$Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Observatorio Astronómico, Laprida 854, 5000 Córdoba, Argentina\
$^{3}$Chungnam National University, Department of Astronomy and Space Science, 34134 Daejeon, Republic of Korea\
$^{4}$Institute of Physics Czech Academy of Sciences, Na Slovance 1999/2, CZ-182 21 Praha, Czech Republic\
$^{5}$Perth Exoplanet Survey Telescope, Perth, Australia\
$^{6}$Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Argentina
bibliography:
- 'wasp19.bib'
date: 'Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ'
title: 'Discarding orbital decay in WASP-19b after one decade of transit observations[^2][^3]'
---
\[firstpage\]
stars: planetary systems – planets and satellites: individual: WASP-19b – stars: individual: WASP-19 – techniques: photometric
Introduction
============
WASP-19b is a short-period gas giant planet and one of the most well characterized so far. Since its discovery [@hebb], the stellar and planetary properties of the system have been re-determined by several authors [@hellier; @dragomir; @bean; @tregloan; @lendl; @mancini; @seda; @espinoza]. The results of these studies confirm that WASP-19b is a Jupiter-like planet ($M_\mathrm{P}=$ 1.11 $M_\mathrm{J}$, $R_\mathrm{P}=$ 1.39 $R_\mathrm{J}$) in a very short orbit (P $\sim$ 19 h) hosted by an active G8V solar-type star ($M_\mathrm{\star}=$ 0.9 $M_\mathrm{\sun}$, $R_\mathrm{\star}=$ 1.0 $R_\mathrm{\sun}$, Age $\sim$ 11 Gyr; @hebb [@knutson; @anderson; @huitson; @tregloan]). Given the brief time it takes to orbit once around its host, WASP-19b was one of the first ultra-short period planets discovered.
Planets so close to their host stars are subject to strong tidal interactions that may entirely dominate the planetary orbital evolution [@levrard; @matsumura]. Particularly, in systems such as WASP-19, where the stellar rotation period is larger than the orbital period, the tidal dissipation in the star might transfer angular momentum from the orbit to the stellar spin, leading to orbital decay. According to the calculations performed by @matsumura, because the total angular momentum of the system (considering conservatively that it is conserved) is smaller than the critical value (which depends on the masses and moments of inertia of both star and planet), the planetary orbit is unstable and the planet is expected to cross its Roche limit and to be tidally disrupted. By considering convective damping equilibrium tides as prescribed by @zahn77, @valsechi predicted that as a result of orbital decay after 10 years of observations the transit arrival time of WASP-19b would be shifted by a minimum of 34 seconds. @essick studied the orbital evolution of several hot Jupiters due to the excitation of g-modes in solar-type stars as a consequence of the tides raised by the planets. For the WASP-19 system, they found a decay time of 9.2 Myr and a mid-transit time shift of 191 seconds after 10 years. Moreover, recently, the results of some empirical studies [@mancini; @espinoza], based on transit observations, have provided hints of a possible variation in the mid-transit times of WASP-19b. In this sense, @mancini found that a linear ephemeris is not a good fit ($\chi^{2}_\mathrm{r}=$ 1.98) for the 54 transit times that they analyzed as a function of the epoch, although these authors attribute it to a subestimation of the transit time errors. On the other hand, @espinoza computed new ephemeris for the system by considering the 54 datasets of @mancini and their 6 new transit light curves. They detected a systematic difference of $\sim$ 40 seconds between the 2014-2015 data and those of 2017. Given that the errors in these transit timings are 10 seconds at most, the authors interpret this difference as significant. In order to elucidate if the orbit of WASP-19b is suffering measurable orbital decay, in 2016 we started a photometric monitoring of the primary transits of this system, that produced a total of 12 complete transit light curves. In this work, we present the results of the homogeneous analysis of these newly acquired transits and 62 transit light curves from the literature, that allowed us to study the long-term evolution of the system over one decade and test the predictions of its expected orbital decay.
This paper is organized as follows: in Section \[observations\], we present our observations and data reduction. In Section \[section:3\], we describe the data modeling and the determination of the photometric parameters. The analysis of how the mid-transit times are affected by the selection of the initial parameters is presented in Section \[section:4\], and the study of orbital decay and periodic transit timing variations, including the search for companions in the system and a dynamical analysis, in Section \[section:5\]. Finally, the summary and discussion are in Section \[section:6\].
OBSERVATIONS AND DATA REDUCTION {#observations}
===============================
We observed 12 new full transits of WASP-19b between May 2016 and April 2019 with the four different facilities described below.
CASLEO Observatory
------------------
Three complete transit light curves were obtained with the 2.15-m *Jorge Sahade* telescope at CASLEO (Complejo Astronómico El Leoncito) in Argentina. All the observations were performed with the 2048$\times$2048 13.5 $\mu$m-size pixel *Roper Scientific* camera, with a circular FoV of 9’ diameter provided by a focal reducer at a plate scale of 0.45 arcsec per pixel. Two transits were observed with a Johnson R filter and the other one with a Johnson V filter. As calibration images, we took 10 bias, 10 sky- and 10 dome-flat frames per night. Dark frames were not acquired due to a low intensity dark current level. In all the three cases, an averaged bias was subtracted from the science images acquired during the night and then, they were divided by a master flat obtained as the median combined bias-corrected individual sky-flats using standard IRAF[^4] routines. The lowest dispersions in relative flux were computed for the transit light curves obtained from images corrected by sky-flat field frames, so we used them (and not the ones coming from images corrected by dome-flat fields) for the analysis presented in the next sections.
EABA Observatory
----------------
Six complete transit light curves were acquired with the 1.54-m telescope, operated with the Newtonian focus, at the Estación Astrofísica de Bosque Alegre (EABA) in Argentina. The observations of the first five transits were carried out with an Apogee Alta F16M camera of 4096$\times$4096 9 $\mu$m-size pixel with a FoV=16.8’$\times$16.8’ and a scale of 0.25 arcsec per pixel. While the observations of the most recent transit were performed with a 3070$\times$2048, 9 $\mu$m-size pixel Apogee Alta U9 camera, which also provides a scale of 0.25 arcsec per pixel and a 8’$\times$12’ field of view. We used a Johnson R filter for the observation of five transits and a Johnson I filter for the other one. As calibration images, each night we took 10 bias, 8 dark frames and 15 dome flat-fields in the corresponding band. By using standard IRAF routines, we subtracted from science images an averaged bias and a median-combined bias-corrected dark frame and finally divided them by a master flat generated as the median combined bias- and dark-corrected flat-field frames.
PEST Observatory
----------------
Two transits (one complete and one partial) were observed in the R$_\mathrm{C}$ band at the Perth Exoplanet Survey Telescope (PEST) observatory located in Western Australia. PEST is a home observatory with a 12-inch Meade LX200 SCT f/10 telescope with an SBIG ST-8XME CCD camera, and is equipped with a BVR$_\mathrm{C}$I$_\mathrm{C}$ filter wheel, a focal reducer yielding f/5, and an Optec TCF-Si focuser. PEST has a 31’$\times$21’ field of view and a 1.2 arcsec per pixel scale. Image calibration was done with master darks and twilight flats, consisting of 40 and $\sim$ 100 individual frames respectively. The image reduction was done using C-Munipack[^5].
FRAM Telescope
--------------
Two complete transit light curves were observed with the FRAM (F/(Ph)otometric Robotic Atmospheric Monitor) telescope, which is a part of the Pierre Auger Observatory located near the town of Malargüe in the province of Mendoza, Argentina. The main task of the FRAM telescope is the continuous night-time monitoring of the atmospheric extinction and its wavelength dependence for the Pierre Auger Observatory. The additional activities of the FRAM telescope include photometry of selected variable stars and exoplanets, astrometry measurement and photometry of comets and asteroids, and observations of optical counterparts of gamma ray bursts. FRAM is a 12-inch, f/10 Meade Schmidt-Cassegrain equipped with a Optec 0.66$\times$ focal reducer and a micro-focuser. The light from the telescope is collected by a Moravian Instruments CCD camera G2-1600 with the KAF-1603ME sensor that has 1536$\times$1024 pixels and a field of view of 23’$\times$15’. The camera has a maximum quantum efficiency of more than 80$\%$ and an integrated filter wheel occupied by a set of photometric BVRI filters. This setup reaches 16-17 mag for a 60 second unfiltered exposure.\
Middle times of CASLEO, EABA, and PEST images were recorded in Heliocentric Julian Date based on Coordinated Universal Time ($\mathrm{HJD_\mathrm{UTC}}$), while those of the FRAM images are in units of Julian Date based on Coordinated Universal Time ($\mathrm{JD}_\mathrm{UTC}$).
On the reduced images acquired at the CASLEO, EABA, and FRAM facilities, we measured precise instrumental magnitudes with the FOTOMCAp code [@petrucci16]. This code applies the method of aperture correction [@howell; @stetson], which combines the magnitude measured with the growth-curve technique and the one determined at the aperture that provides the highest signal-to-noise ratio for every star at each individual image. The photometric error adopted for each instrumental magnitude is that computed by the IRAF *phot* task. After transforming the instrumental magnitudes of all the stars found by the IRAF *daofind* task in fluxes, we obtained the transit light curve of each night by dividing the flux of WASP-19, measured per image, by the summed fluxes of an ensemble of non-variable stars with the same brightness as the science target, when possible. For the reduced images taken at PEST Observatory, the photometry was done by using C-Munipack adopting the same criteria explained before to select the comparison stars. Specific details of the observations of our complete transits are presented in Table \[table:1\].
Date Telescope Camera Filter Bin-size X Exposure Time (s) N$_{\mathrm{obs}}$ $\sigma$(mag)
------------- --------------- --------- ---------------- ---------- ------------------------- -------------------- -------------------- ---------------
2016 May 09 0.30-m PEST SBIG $R_\mathrm{C}$ 1x1 1.0 $\rightarrow$ 2.4 120 117 0.0022
2016 Jun 06 1.54-m EABA F16M $R$ 2x2 1.23 $\rightarrow$ 2.36 40 310 0.0025
2016 Jun 10 1.54-m EABA F16M $R$ 2x2 1.09 $\rightarrow$ 2.0 40 302 0.0033
2016 Jul 06 0.30-m FRAM G2-1600 $R$ 1x1 1.28 $\rightarrow$ 2.79 120 91 0.0034
2016 Dec 16 1.54-m EABA F16M $R$ 2x2 1.17 $\rightarrow$ 1.03 25, 35 432 0.0026
2017 Jan 23 2.15-m CASLEO Roper $R$ 2x2 1.36 $\rightarrow$ 1.04 12, 15, 17, 30, 40 461 0.0026
2017 Jan 30 1.54-m EABA F16M $I$ 2x2 1.06 $\rightarrow$ 1.25 50 276 0.0018
2017 Feb 07 0.30-m FRAM G2-1600 $R$ 1x1 1.16 $\rightarrow$ 1.01 120 83 0.0036
2017 Nov 21 1.54-m EABA F16M $R$ 4x4 1.65 $\rightarrow$ 1.08 20, 30 376 0.0033
2017 Dec 21 2.15-m CASLEO Roper $V$ 2x2 1.38 $\rightarrow$ 1.04 30 281 0.0029
2019 Feb 12 2.15-m CASLEO Roper $R$ 2x2 1.16 $\rightarrow$ 1.73 27 196 0.0035
2019 Apr 10 1.54-m EABA U9 $R$ 2x2 1.05 $\rightarrow$ 1.67 40 449 0.0017
Note: Date is given for the beginning of the transit, X is the airmass change during the observation, N$_{\mathrm{obs}}$ is the number of useful exposures, and $\sigma$ is the standard deviation of the out-of-transit data-points.
Literature and public data
--------------------------
Given that the main purpose of this study is to analyze the mid-transit times evolution of WASP-19b over the longest possible time-coverage, we collected other 62 complete phase-coverage transit light curves from the previous works and public databases listed below:\
- [@hebb]: One transit observed in the z-band with the 2-m Faulkes Telescope South (FTS) in Australia on 2008 December 17. The images central times were recorded in $\mathrm{HJD_\mathrm{UTC}}$.\
- [@hellier]: One transit observed in a Gunn-r filter with the 3.58-m New Technology Telescope (NTT), operated at European Southern Observatory (ESO) La Silla in Chile on the night of 2010 February 28. The images central times were recorded in $\mathrm{HJD_\mathrm{UTC}}$.\
- [@dragomir]: One transit observed in a Cousins R-band filter with the 1-m telescope at Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory (CTIO) in Chile on the night of 2011 January 18. The central times of the images are in units of $\mathrm{JD_\mathrm{UTC}}$.\
- [@lendl]: A total of 11 transits observed between May 2010 and May 2012. Three of them obtained in the IC-, Gunn-z’-, and Gunn-r’-bands with the EulerCam at the 1.2-m Euler-Swiss Telescope at ESO La Silla Observatory (Chile), and the eight remaining transits observed in the I+z’ filter with the 0.6-m TRAPPIST telescope, also at ESO La Silla Observatory in Chile. All the middle times in the images are in $\mathrm{HJD_\mathrm{UTC}}$.\
- [@mancini]: A total of 10 transits observed between May 2010 and April 2012. Seven of them were obtained in a Gunn-i filter using the DFOSC imager mounted on the 1.54-m Danish Telescope at La Silla in Chile and the other three, observed simultaneously on the night of 2012 April 15 in the J-, K-, and H-band with the Gamma Ray Burst Optical and Near-Infrared Detector (GROND) instrument mounted on the MPG/ESO 2.2-m telescope also at ESO La Silla. The images central times were recorded in $\mathrm{HJD_\mathrm{UTC}}$.\
- [@bean]: 18 light curves corresponding to two transits obtained in white light through multi-object spectroscopy the nights of 2012 March 13 and 2012 April 4 with the MMIRS instrument on the Magellan II (Clay) telescope at Las Campanas Observatory in Chile. Each transit observed in white light was split in nine light curves obtained at different wavelength bins, ranging from 1.25 to 2.35 $\mu$m. In this case, central times were recorded in Heliocentric Julian Date in Barycentric Dynamical Time ($\mathrm{HJD_\mathrm{TDB}}$).\
- [@seda]: three transits observed between November 2014 and February 2016 through multi-object spectroscopy with the 8.2-m Unit Telescope 1 (UT1) of the ESO’s Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile. For each observation, they used the grisms: 600B (blue), 600RI (green) and 600z (red) of the FORS2 spectrograph, which cover the wavelength domain between 0.43 and 1.04 $\mu$m. In this case, the available data consist of three tables with times and normalized fluxes measured on a series of wavelength bins spanning the full wavelength range in which each transit was observed. We recovered the three light curves i.e., estimated the flux and error for each time of every night, by performing the average and standard deviation of the normalized fluxes estimated in each bin. The central times of the images are in units of $\mathrm{JD_\mathrm{UTC}}$.\
- [@espinoza]: three transits observed in white light through multi-object spectroscopy between March 2014 and April 2017 with the Inamori-Magellan Areal Camera and Spectrograph (IMACS), mounted at the Magellan Baade 6.5-m Telescope in Las Campanas Observatory (LCO) in Chile. Central times of the images are in units of Barycentric Julian Dates in Barycentric Dynamical Time ($\mathrm{BJD}_\mathrm{TDB}$). Given that the photometric errors were not provided, we adopted the standard deviation of the out-of-transit data points as the uncertainty of each measured magnitude in the light curve.\
- ETD (Exoplanet Transit Database[^6]; @poddany): A total of 14 transits observed between March 2010 and March 2019, one obtained in a I filter, one in a V filter, one in an R filter, three in an R$_\mathrm{C}$ filter and the remaining ones without using filter. These transits were observed with telescopes of different sizes ranging from 0.23- to 2.15-m. For those light curves with no photometric errors, we adopted the standard deviation of the out-of-transit data points as uncertainty. The middle times were recorded in $\mathrm{HJD_\mathrm{TDB}}$ and in Geocentric Julian Date based on Coordinated Universal Time ($\mathrm{GJD_\mathrm{UTC}}$).\
As further explained in Section \[section:5\], the mid-times of the transits collected from the literature, including all from the ETD, as well as those observed by our team were converted to the Barycentric Julian Date system [@eastman].
DETERMINATION OF PHOTOMETRIC PARAMETERS {#section:3}
=======================================
We used version 34 of the JKTEBOP[^7] code [@sou04] to fit the 74 full-transit light curves. This code assumes both, star and planet, are represented as biaxial spheroids (adopting the spherical approximation for the calculation of light lost during transit) and uses numerical integration of concentric circles over each component to calculate the resulting light curve. In order to determine the photometric parameters of the system, the fitted quantities were the inclination ($i$), the sum of the fractional radii ($\Sigma=r_{\star}+r_\mathrm{P}$)[^8], the ratio of the fractional radii ($k = r_{P}/r_{\star}$), the flux level of the out-of-transit data ($l_{0}$), the linear and non-linear quadratic limb-darkening coefficients ($q_{1}$ and $q_{2}$), the mid-transit time ($T_\mathrm{0}$), and the coefficients of a second order polynomial to normalize the light curves[^9]. The values of the orbital period ($P$), eccentricity ($e$), and mass ratio were kept as fixed quantities for our entire analysis.
As initial values for the parameters modeled by JKTEBOP, we considered the values of $i$, $\Sigma$, $k$, and $P$ estimated by @mancini, $e$ equal to zero, and mass ratio $= 0.00114$ calculated as the ratio of the planet and stellar masses computed by @hellier. Also, we assumed a quadratic limb darkening (LD) law, except for the transit light curves of @bean for which we adopted linear LD coefficients, indicated by the authors as the LD law that allows the best-fitting to the observations. For all the transits, the values of the linear and non-linear coefficients for WASP-19 were calculated with the JKTLD[^10] code by bilinearly interpolating $T_\mathrm{eff}$ and $\log g$ of the host star in published tables of coefficients calculated from stellar model atmospheres. In this case, we used the tabulations of @claret00 [@claret04] computed from ATLAS atmospheric models [@kurucz]. As input for JKTLD, we adopted for WASP-19, $T_\mathrm{eff}=5591 \pm 62$ K and $\log g=4.46 \pm 0.09$ cgs as measured by @mortier, \[Fe/H\]$=0.3$ dex and v$_\mathrm{turb}=2$ $\mathrm{kms^{-1}}$.
Given that many of the filters used to carry out the observations do not have theoretical LD coefficients computed in @claret00 [@claret04], we considered as initial LD values those corresponding to the filters with effective wavelengths closest to the real ones. Then, for the observations performed in the Cousins $I+$Sloan $z'$ and $z'$ bands, we adopted the values of the Sloan $z'$ filter. For transits acquired in the Johnson $R$ and $I$ bands, the values tabulated for the Cousins $R$ and $I$ filters were used. For the Gunn $r'$ band, the Sloan $r'$ filter was adopted. In the case of transits observed in the Gunn $i'$, the Sloan $i'$ filter was considered. For those light curves observed with no filter, we used the average of the values in the Johnson $V$ and the Cousins $R$ bands as in @nascimbeni. Finally, the initial LD coefficients assumed for the observations in the J-, H-, and K- bands of GROND and those obtained by @bean in the same wavelength range, were those of Johnson J, H, and K. Here, it is important to notice that, as previously demonstrated in @petrucci18, the initial values adopted for the LD coefficients, even if they correspond to a filter with a different effective wavelength than that of the band used to perform the observations, cause a negligible effect on the measured mid-transit times with changes in the ephemeris within its 1$\sigma$ error.
As in previous works, once the initial values of the parameters were set, we performed a two steps procedure to find the best-fitting model for each transit:
- First, we used a Levenberg-Marquardt optimization algorithm provided by JKTEBOP to carry out three different fits. Each fit regards as free parameters $i$, $\Sigma$, $k$, $l_{0}$, $T_\mathrm{0}$, the coefficients of a second order polynomial and also considers: a) the linear and non-linear LD coefficients as free quantities, or b) the linear coefficient slightly perturbed and the non-linear freely varying, or c) both LD coefficients fixed. After comparing the results given by these three possibilities, we adopted as the best model the one with the smallest value of $\chi^{2}_{r}$. The best model found indicates how the LD coefficients of each particular transit have to be treated (options a, b, or c) all along this section and also in Sections \[section:4\] and \[section:5\], which include the influence of systematics on the measurement of mid-times and the determination of their values and errors. Before continuing with the next step, we multiplied the photometric uncertainties by the square root of the reduced chi-squared of the fit to get $\chi^{2}_{r}=1$.\
- Second, we estimated realistic errors and mean values for the fitted parameters with two tasks provided by JKTEBOP: a residual permutation (RP) algorithm which accounts for the red noise in the photometric data and Monte Carlo simulations (10000 iterations). To be conservative, we kept the results obtained with the task that provided the largest error. Then, the median and the asymmetric uncertainties, $\sigma_{+}$ and $\sigma_{-}$, defined by the 15.87th and 84.13th percentiles values of the selected distribution (i.e., $-1 \sigma$ and $+1 \sigma$ respectively) were adopted as the best-fitting values and errors for the fitted parameters.
In this study, we decided to analyze all the transits individually, instead of performing a joint analysis, to obtain the best set of photometric parameters of each transit independently fitted. Given that all the transits were homogeneously adjusted through the same fitting procedure, we estimated a new set of reliable values for the photometric parameters of the system from the best/high quality transits in our sample. To assess the quality of each transit light curve, we used two metrics: the photometric noise rate (PNR) and the $\beta$ factor.
The first one is defined by @fulton as,
$$PNR = \frac{rms}{\sqrt{ \Gamma}},
\label{eq:pnr}$$
where $rms$ is the standard deviation of the transit residuals and $\Gamma$ represents the median number of exposures per minute. On the other hand, the $\beta$ factor or the red noise level is defined by @winn08 as,
$$\beta=\frac{\sigma_{\mathrm{r}}}{\sigma_{\mathrm{N}}},
\label{eq:beta}$$
where $\sigma_{\mathrm{N}}$ represents the expected standard deviation in the residuals, without binning, and $\sigma_{\mathrm{r}}$ is the standard deviation of the residual average values computed into M bins of N points each. In this work, the residuals were averaged in bins from 10 to 30 minutes and, through Eq. \[eq:beta\], a $\beta$ value was measured for each of them. The median of these individual measurements was considered as the red noise level for the light curve. In summary, PNR characterizes the scatter of the light curve (white noise) considering a specific time interval, while $\beta$ describes the degree of correlation among the data points (red noise).\
After carefully inspecting the transit observations and their best fits, we considered the 40 light curves with PNR $\le$ 3 mmag and $\beta$ $\le$ 1.1 as the highest quality transits of our sample. For these selected light curves, we kept the median and asymmetric errors of the photometric parameters given by the algorithm (Monte Carlo or Residual Permutation) which gave the largest error. Then, following the standard procedure, the system’s final values of $i$, $\Sigma$, and $k$ were calculated as the weighted average and the standard deviation of the measurements of each of the 40 chosen transits[^11]. These values are in agreement, within errors, with the estimations of previous works [@hebb; @lendl; @tregloan; @bean; @mancini; @espinoza] as can be seen in Table \[table:2\], where they are compared with the results of some of these past studies. Although our measurements are not as precise as the values reported in the literature, it is worthwhile to notice that they were computed from a large sample of transits all homogeneously analyzed, and we have conservatively estimated our uncertainties to avoid skewing our timing results.
Parameter This work @tregloan @mancini @espinoza
---------------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------------------
$i$ 79.3 $\pm$ 1.3 78.94 $\pm$ 0.23 78.76 $\pm$ 0.13 79.29 $\pm$ 0.10
$k$ 0.145 $\pm$ 0.006 0.1428 $\pm$ 0.0006 0.14259 $\pm$ 0.00023 0.14233 $\pm$ 0.00050
$r_{\star}$+$r_\mathrm{P}$ 0.3245 $\pm$ 0.0147 0.3301 $\pm$ 0.0019 0.33091 $\pm$ 0.00074 –
$r_{\star}$ 0.2838 $\pm$ 0.0120 – 0.28968 $\pm$ 0.00065 0.28169$^{a}$ $\pm$ 0.00111$^{a}$
$r_\mathrm{P}$ 0.039 $\pm$ 0.004 – 0.04124 $\pm$ 0.00012 –
$^{a}$: These numbers were calculated from the value of $a/R_{\star}$ and its error published in @espinoza.
We show the new full transits observed by our team and their best fit models in Figure \[transitos\], and in Table \[table:3\], we list the photometric parameters obtained for the 74 complete transit light curves.
{width="100.00000%"}
Date Epoch $i$ $\Sigma$ $k$ $r_{\star}$ $r_\mathrm{P}$ PNR $\beta$ Filter Reference
-------------- ------- ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- -------- --------- ------------------ -----------
Dec 17, 2008 53 80.66 $^{+ 1.26 }_{- 1.29 }$ 0.3046 $^{+ 0.0150 }_{- 0.0140 }$ 0.1391 $^{+ 0.0030 }_{- 0.0037 }$ 0.2674 $^{+ 0.0127 }_{- 0.0122 }$ 0.0483 $^{+ 0.0089 }_{- 0.0080 }$ 0.0013 1.2074 z 1
Feb 28, 2010 609 78.85 $^{+ 0.55 }_{- 0.66 }$ 0.3282 $^{+ 0.0070 }_{- 0.0063 }$ 0.1433 $^{+ 0.0018 }_{- 0.0030 }$ 0.2872 $^{+ 0.0059 }_{- 0.0053 }$ 0.0374 $^{+ 0.0018 }_{- 0.0019 }$ 0.0009 0.9904 Gunn-r 2
Mar 04, 2010 614 81.38 $^{+ 4.30 }_{- 2.99 }$ 0.2999 $^{+ 0.0336 }_{- 0.0313 }$ 0.1405 $^{+ 0.0048 }_{- 0.0139 }$ 0.2634 $^{+ 0.0285 }_{- 0.0266 }$ 0.0369 $^{+ 0.0049 }_{- 0.0059 }$ 0.0033 0.9773 clear 3
Mar 18, 2010 632 80.43 $^{+ 5.06 }_{- 4.52 }$ 0.3257 $^{+ 0.0502 }_{- 0.0493 }$ 0.1416 $^{+ 0.0081 }_{- 0.0077 }$ 0.2859 $^{+ 0.0407 }_{- 0.0419 }$ 0.0415 $^{+ 0.0062 }_{- 0.0067 }$ 0.0054 0.8379 clear 4
May 18, 2010 709 80.38 $^{+ 1.33 }_{- 1.20 }$ 0.3109 $^{+ 0.0119 }_{- 0.0123 }$ 0.1431 $^{+ 0.0028 }_{- 0.0045 }$ 0.2722 $^{+ 0.0101 }_{- 0.0106 }$ 0.0394 $^{+ 0.0066 }_{- 0.0053 }$ 0.0014 0.8135 Gunn-i 5
May 21, 2010 714 79.00 $^{+ 0.94 }_{- 0.93 }$ 0.3213 $^{+ 0.0107 }_{- 0.0110 }$ 0.1426 $^{+ 0.0016 }_{- 0.0019 }$ 0.2812 $^{+ 0.0092 }_{- 0.0094 }$ 0.0396 $^{+ 0.0014 }_{- 0.0017 }$ 0.0015 0.8101 I+z’ 6
Jun 05, 2010 733 80.49 $^{+ 1.05 }_{- 1.16 }$ 0.3110 $^{+ 0.0105 }_{- 0.0126 }$ 0.1456 $^{+ 0.0020 }_{- 0.0032 }$ 0.2712 $^{+ 0.0090 }_{- 0.0103 }$ 0.0460 $^{+ 0.0020 }_{- 0.0023 }$ 0.0016 0.6083 Gunn-i 5
Jun 20, 2010 752 80.25 $^{+ 2.05 }_{- 5.02 }$ 0.3261 $^{+ 0.0523 }_{- 0.0185 }$ 0.1447 $^{+ 0.0041 }_{- 0.0120 }$ 0.2854 $^{+ 0.0445 }_{- 0.0159 }$ 0.0329 $^{+ 0.0067 }_{- 0.0064 }$ 0.003 0.714 Gunn-i 5
Dec 09, 2010 969 81.14 $^{+ 2.41 }_{- 2.03 }$ 0.3051 $^{+ 0.0206 }_{- 0.0243 }$ 0.1300 $^{+ 0.0036 }_{- 0.0068 }$ 0.2699 $^{+ 0.0173 }_{- 0.0168 }$ 0.0414 $^{+ 0.0055 }_{- 0.0062 }$ 0.0022 0.5218 IC 6
Jan 08, 2011 1007 79.67 $^{+ 1.13 }_{- 1.00 }$ 0.3228 $^{+ 0.0122 }_{- 0.0112 }$ 0.1416 $^{+ 0.0037 }_{- 0.0038 }$ 0.2824 $^{+ 0.0102 }_{- 0.0099 }$ 0.0386 $^{+ 0.0037 }_{- 0.0031 }$ 0.0015 0.97 I+z’ 6
Jan 18, 2011 1021 80.66 $^{+ 2.08 }_{- 2.48 }$ 0.3020 $^{+ 0.0268 }_{- 0.0199 }$ 0.1387 $^{+ 0.0030 }_{- 0.0062 }$ 0.2653 $^{+ 0.0227 }_{- 0.0177 }$ 0.0370 $^{+ 0.0025 }_{- 0.0028 }$ 0.0024 0.9966 R 7
Jan 23, 2011 1026 79.87 $^{+ 1.19 }_{- 1.06 }$ 0.3117 $^{+ 0.0118 }_{- 0.0129 }$ 0.1358 $^{+ 0.0026 }_{- 0.0028 }$ 0.2744 $^{+ 0.0100 }_{- 0.0113 }$ 0.0372 $^{+ 0.0019 }_{- 0.0020 }$ 0.0015 0.9854 I+z’ 6
Jan 23, 2011 1026 78.17 $^{+ 0.77 }_{- 0.74 }$ 0.3343 $^{+ 0.0076 }_{- 0.0107 }$ 0.1441 $^{+ 0.0020 }_{- 0.0021 }$ 0.2917 $^{+ 0.0070 }_{- 0.0086 }$ 0.0366 $^{+ 0.0077 }_{- 0.0067 }$ 0.0013 0.7031 Gunn-r’ 6
Feb 01, 2011 1038 83.53 $^{+ 6.33 }_{- 3.62 }$ 0.2759 $^{+ 0.0576 }_{- 0.0268 }$ 0.1365 $^{+ 0.0081 }_{- 0.0074 }$ 0.2424 $^{+ 0.0509 }_{- 0.0226 }$ 0.0361 $^{+ 0.0053 }_{- 0.0085 }$ 0.0058 1.2582 R$_\mathrm{C}$ 8
Feb 08, 2011 1047 77.37 $^{+ 3.51 }_{- 2.90 }$ 0.3501 $^{+ 0.0361 }_{- 0.0399 }$ 0.1471 $^{+ 0.0054 }_{- 0.0167 }$ 0.3064 $^{+ 0.0329 }_{- 0.0324 }$ 0.0454 $^{+ 0.0039 }_{- 0.0054 }$ 0.0037 0.9181 R$_\mathrm{C}$ 8
Feb 10, 2011 1049 77.28 $^{+ 1.22 }_{- 1.95 }$ 0.3482 $^{+ 0.0165 }_{- 0.0112 }$ 0.1518 $^{+ 0.0080 }_{- 0.0089 }$ 0.3017 $^{+ 0.0165 }_{- 0.0103 }$ 0.0463 $^{+ 0.0025 }_{- 0.0026 }$ 0.0017 1.0489 I+z’ 6
Feb 14, 2011 1054 78.57 $^{+ 1.27 }_{- 1.43 }$ 0.3309 $^{+ 0.0153 }_{- 0.0146 }$ 0.1449 $^{+ 0.0019 }_{- 0.0035 }$ 0.2888 $^{+ 0.0135 }_{- 0.0127 }$ 0.0445 $^{+ 0.0014 }_{- 0.0029 }$ 0.0017 0.8804 Gunn-z’ 6
Feb 15, 2011 1055 82.03 $^{+ 2.98 }_{- 2.10 }$ 0.2958 $^{+ 0.0217 }_{- 0.0233 }$ 0.1372 $^{+ 0.0047 }_{- 0.0068 }$ 0.2601 $^{+ 0.0180 }_{- 0.0194 }$ 0.0358 $^{+ 0.0036 }_{- 0.0041 }$ 0.0023 0.3502 I+z’ 6
Mar 02, 2011 1074 79.86 $^{+ 2.03 }_{- 1.48 }$ 0.3190 $^{+ 0.0146 }_{- 0.0198 }$ 0.1407 $^{+ 0.0041 }_{- 0.0053 }$ 0.2797 $^{+ 0.0124 }_{- 0.0163 }$ 0.0370 $^{+ 0.0075 }_{- 0.0061 }$ 0.0019 0.426 I+z’ 6
Mar 03, 2011 1076 79.43 $^{+ 6.75 }_{- 5.21 }$ 0.3230 $^{+ 0.0698 }_{- 0.0415 }$ 0.1329 $^{+ 0.0082 }_{- 0.0167 }$ 0.2838 $^{+ 0.0634 }_{- 0.0354 }$ 0.0393 $^{+ 0.0057 }_{- 0.0086 }$ 0.0048 0.937 R$_\mathrm{C}$ 8
Apr 04, 2011 1116 81.47 $^{+ 1.47 }_{- 0.94 }$ 0.2911 $^{+ 0.0110 }_{- 0.0173 }$ 0.1354 $^{+ 0.0038 }_{- 0.0044 }$ 0.2562 $^{+ 0.0093 }_{- 0.0145 }$ 0.0399 $^{+ 0.0027 }_{- 0.0023 }$ 0.0017 1.6274 I+z’ 6
May 08, 2011 1159 80.01 $^{+ 1.68 }_{- 2.02 }$ 0.3161 $^{+ 0.0227 }_{- 0.0216 }$ 0.1395 $^{+ 0.0047 }_{- 0.0059 }$ 0.2773 $^{+ 0.0193 }_{- 0.0191 }$ 0.0380 $^{+ 0.0028 }_{- 0.0020 }$ 0.0028 1.1419 Gunn-i 5
May 11, 2011 1164 79.52 $^{+ 0.95 }_{- 1.38 }$ 0.3204 $^{+ 0.0355 }_{- 0.0118 }$ 0.1402 $^{+ 0.0076 }_{- 0.0138 }$ 0.2803 $^{+ 0.0342 }_{- 0.0101 }$ 0.0395 $^{+ 0.0016 }_{- 0.0019 }$ 0.0012 1.217 Gunn-i 5
May 22, 2011 1178 77.50 $^{+ 2.22 }_{- 1.67 }$ 0.3400 $^{+ 0.0174 }_{- 0.0281 }$ 0.1367 $^{+ 0.0027 }_{- 0.0060 }$ 0.2985 $^{+ 0.0149 }_{- 0.0239 }$ 0.0369 $^{+ 0.0042 }_{- 0.0061 }$ 0.0025 0.6181 Gunn-i 5
May 26, 2011 1183 81.50 $^{+ 1.63 }_{- 1.42 }$ 0.3031 $^{+ 0.0286 }_{- 0.0128 }$ 0.1370 $^{+ 0.0105 }_{- 0.0081 }$ 0.2663 $^{+ 0.0266 }_{- 0.0122 }$ 0.0354 $^{+ 0.0033 }_{- 0.0030 }$ 0.0015 0.7159 Gunn-i 5
Mar 13, 2012 1552 78.66 $^{+ 0.96 }_{- 1.18 }$ 0.3274 $^{+ 0.0142 }_{- 0.0114 }$ 0.1407 $^{+ 0.0014 }_{- 0.0024 }$ 0.2869 $^{+ 0.0132 }_{- 0.0096 }$ 0.0387 $^{+ 0.0063 }_{- 0.0091 }$ 0.0017 1.0022 1.25-1.33 $\mu$m 9
Mar 13, 2012 1552 79.11 $^{+ 1.26 }_{- 1.00 }$ 0.3282 $^{+ 0.0120 }_{- 0.0139 }$ 0.1450 $^{+ 0.0025 }_{- 0.0032 }$ 0.2856 $^{+ 0.0113 }_{- 0.0116 }$ 0.0384 $^{+ 0.0039 }_{- 0.0050 }$ 0.0018 1.2523 1.4-1.5 $\mu$m 9
Mar 13, 2012 1552 79.70 $^{+ 0.56 }_{- 0.52 }$ 0.3196 $^{+ 0.0038 }_{- 0.0064 }$ 0.1564 $^{+ 0.0012 }_{- 0.0022 }$ 0.2764 $^{+ 0.0035 }_{- 0.0057 }$ 0.0431 $^{+ 0.0012 }_{- 0.0014 }$ 0.0012 0.8852 1.5-1.6 $\mu$m 9
Mar 13, 2012 1552 78.82 $^{+ 0.83 }_{- 0.68 }$ 0.3271 $^{+ 0.0079 }_{- 0.0095 }$ 0.1434 $^{+ 0.0022 }_{- 0.0025 }$ 0.2860 $^{+ 0.0071 }_{- 0.0084 }$ 0.0322 $^{+ 0.0079 }_{- 0.0038 }$ 0.0012 0.9867 1.6-1.7 $\mu$m 9
Mar 13, 2012 1552 79.40 $^{+ 0.71 }_{- 0.74 }$ 0.3207 $^{+ 0.0103 }_{- 0.0101 }$ 0.1376 $^{+ 0.0029 }_{- 0.0031 }$ 0.2820 $^{+ 0.0086 }_{- 0.0089 }$ 0.0414 $^{+ 0.0040 }_{- 0.0076 }$ 0.0014 1.2102 1.7-1.8 $\mu$m 9
Mar 13, 2012 1552 78.90 $^{+ 0.91 }_{- 0.91 }$ 0.3246 $^{+ 0.0106 }_{- 0.0105 }$ 0.1436 $^{+ 0.0015 }_{- 0.0016 }$ 0.2838 $^{+ 0.0093 }_{- 0.0090 }$ 0.0391 $^{+ 0.0016 }_{- 0.0017 }$ 0.0018 0.571 1.95-2.05 $\mu$m 9
Mar 13, 2012 1552 77.93 $^{+ 0.69 }_{- 0.60 }$ 0.3377 $^{+ 0.0070 }_{- 0.0075 }$ 0.1441 $^{+ 0.0011 }_{- 0.0011 }$ 0.2948 $^{+ 0.0066 }_{- 0.0063 }$ 0.0345 $^{+ 0.0022 }_{- 0.0024 }$ 0.0012 0.7515 2.05-2.15 $\mu$m 9
Mar 13, 2012 1552 79.95 $^{+ 0.96 }_{- 0.80 }$ 0.3123 $^{+ 0.0088 }_{- 0.0105 }$ 0.1413 $^{+ 0.0012 }_{- 0.0024 }$ 0.2737 $^{+ 0.0074 }_{- 0.0094 }$ 0.0349 $^{+ 0.0157 }_{- 0.0056 }$ 0.0015 0.815 2.15-2.25 $\mu$m 9
Mar 13, 2012 1552 82.07 $^{+ 2.53 }_{- 2.24 }$ 0.2917 $^{+ 0.0242 }_{- 0.0203 }$ 0.1375 $^{+ 0.0030 }_{- 0.0041 }$ 0.2565 $^{+ 0.0208 }_{- 0.0170 }$ 0.0351 $^{+ 0.0030 }_{- 0.0048 }$ 0.0025 0.8573 2.25-2.35 $\mu$m 9
Apr 04, 2012 1580 76.70 $^{+ 0.79 }_{- 0.68 }$ 0.3532 $^{+ 0.0073 }_{- 0.0093 }$ 0.1484 $^{+ 0.0014 }_{- 0.0018 }$ 0.3076 $^{+ 0.0069 }_{- 0.0083 }$ 0.0371 $^{+ 0.0027 }_{- 0.0022 }$ 0.0014 0.8314 1.25-1.33 $\mu$m 9
Apr 04, 2012 1580 78.28 $^{+ 0.82 }_{- 0.79 }$ 0.3347 $^{+ 0.0093 }_{- 0.0093 }$ 0.1473 $^{+ 0.0013 }_{- 0.0014 }$ 0.2916 $^{+ 0.0081 }_{- 0.0079 }$ 0.0388 $^{+ 0.0037 }_{- 0.0058 }$ 0.0016 0.7089 1.4-1.5 $\mu$m 9
Apr 04, 2012 1580 78.59 $^{+ 0.70 }_{- 1.07 }$ 0.3320 $^{+ 0.0121 }_{- 0.0075 }$ 0.1461 $^{+ 0.0013 }_{- 0.0016 }$ 0.2897 $^{+ 0.0103 }_{- 0.0064 }$ 0.0418 $^{+ 0.0009 }_{- 0.0013 }$ 0.0011 0.7849 1.5-1.6 $\mu$m 9
Apr 04, 2012 1580 78.77 $^{+ 0.70 }_{- 0.60 }$ 0.3293 $^{+ 0.0067 }_{- 0.0069 }$ 0.1453 $^{+ 0.0013 }_{- 0.0025 }$ 0.2875 $^{+ 0.0062 }_{- 0.0063 }$ 0.0427 $^{+ 0.0100 }_{- 0.0077 }$ 0.0011 1.0223 1.6-1.7 $\mu$m 9
Apr 04, 2012 1580 78.04 $^{+ 0.54 }_{- 0.63 }$ 0.3379 $^{+ 0.0068 }_{- 0.0069 }$ 0.1437 $^{+ 0.0012 }_{- 0.0014 }$ 0.2954 $^{+ 0.0060 }_{- 0.0060 }$ 0.0395 $^{+ 0.0018 }_{- 0.0018 }$ 0.0012 0.8126 1.7-1.8 $\mu$m 9
Apr 04, 2012 1580 79.08 $^{+ 0.86 }_{- 0.68 }$ 0.3279 $^{+ 0.0080 }_{- 0.0102 }$ 0.1513 $^{+ 0.0012 }_{- 0.0019 }$ 0.2846 $^{+ 0.0073 }_{- 0.0087 }$ 0.0385 $^{+ 0.0038 }_{- 0.0027 }$ 0.0017 0.9655 1.95-2.05 $\mu$m 9
Apr 04, 2012 1580 77.93 $^{+ 0.70 }_{- 0.60 }$ 0.3353 $^{+ 0.0077 }_{- 0.0074 }$ 0.1441 $^{+ 0.0014 }_{- 0.0017 }$ 0.2930 $^{+ 0.0068 }_{- 0.0071 }$ 0.0403 $^{+ 0.0021 }_{- 0.0023 }$ 0.0011 0.9173 2.05-2.15 $\mu$m 9
Apr 04, 2012 1580 79.29 $^{+ 1.09 }_{- 0.80 }$ 0.3217 $^{+ 0.0089 }_{- 0.0122 }$ 0.1406 $^{+ 0.0011 }_{- 0.0017 }$ 0.2821 $^{+ 0.0077 }_{- 0.0106 }$ 0.0374 $^{+ 0.0044 }_{- 0.0045 }$ 0.0014 0.6433 2.15-2.25 $\mu$m 9
Apr 04, 2012 1580 79.51 $^{+ 1.34 }_{- 1.01 }$ 0.3196 $^{+ 0.0137 }_{- 0.0159 }$ 0.1434 $^{+ 0.0045 }_{- 0.0040 }$ 0.2799 $^{+ 0.0112 }_{- 0.0138 }$ 0.0399 $^{+ 0.0018 }_{- 0.0019 }$ 0.0023 1.262 2.25-2.35 $\mu$m 9
Apr 15, 2012 1595 78.23 $^{+ 1.23 }_{- 1.56 }$ 0.3365 $^{+ 0.0201 }_{- 0.0175 }$ 0.1455 $^{+ 0.0048 }_{- 0.0039 }$ 0.2936 $^{+ 0.0170 }_{- 0.0149 }$ 0.0406 $^{+ 0.0090 }_{- 0.0079 }$ 0.0019 0.9515 H 5
Apr 15, 2012 1595 80.98 $^{+ 1.58 }_{- 1.21 }$ 0.3018 $^{+ 0.0143 }_{- 0.0167 }$ 0.1320 $^{+ 0.0026 }_{- 0.0029 }$ 0.2669 $^{+ 0.0131 }_{- 0.0153 }$ 0.0390 $^{+ 0.0021 }_{- 0.0020 }$ 0.0014 1.1579 J 5
Apr 15, 2012 1595 82.51 $^{+ 3.05 }_{- 2.50 }$ 0.2837 $^{+ 0.0263 }_{- 0.0253 }$ 0.1332 $^{+ 0.0051 }_{- 0.0034 }$ 0.2506 $^{+ 0.0232 }_{- 0.0230 }$ 0.0398 $^{+ 0.0021 }_{- 0.0022 }$ 0.0022 1.4577 K 5
May 15, 2012 1633 76.32 $^{+ 1.60 }_{- 1.94 }$ 0.3558 $^{+ 0.0229 }_{- 0.0218 }$ 0.1432 $^{+ 0.0021 }_{- 0.0084 }$ 0.3108 $^{+ 0.0220 }_{- 0.0180 }$ 0.0455 $^{+ 0.0072 }_{- 0.0065 }$ 0.0019 0.746 I+z’ 6
Feb 01, 2013 1964 77.03 $^{+ 4.55 }_{- 3.03 }$ 0.3526 $^{+ 0.0350 }_{- 0.0438 }$ 0.1352 $^{+ 0.0066 }_{- 0.0173 }$ 0.3101 $^{+ 0.0325 }_{- 0.0368 }$ 0.0445 $^{+ 0.0051 }_{- 0.0081 }$ 0.0051 0.6298 clear 10
Feb 11, 2013 1977 79.08 $^{+ 2.98 }_{- 3.00 }$ 0.3203 $^{+ 0.0377 }_{- 0.0295 }$ 0.1408 $^{+ 0.0107 }_{- 0.0098 }$ 0.2804 $^{+ 0.0341 }_{- 0.0239 }$ 0.0416 $^{+ 0.0052 }_{- 0.0056 }$ 0.0045 0.771 clear 4
Apr 08, 2013 2048 80.26 $^{+ 2.05 }_{- 2.61 }$ 0.3110 $^{+ 0.0327 }_{- 0.0282 }$ 0.1365 $^{+ 0.0064 }_{- 0.0097 }$ 0.2731 $^{+ 0.0276 }_{- 0.0236 }$ 0.0386 $^{+ 0.0046 }_{- 0.0047 }$ 0.0033 0.113 clear 4
May 24, 2013 2106 81.65 $^{+ 7.14 }_{- 2.96 }$ 0.3002 $^{+ 0.0353 }_{- 0.0453 }$ 0.1419 $^{+ 0.0094 }_{- 0.0081 }$ 0.2627 $^{+ 0.0280 }_{- 0.0382 }$ 0.0370 $^{+ 0.0074 }_{- 0.0065 }$ 0.0072 0.7942 clear 10
Mar 03, 2014 2465 82.01 $^{+ 7.79 }_{- 4.98 }$ 0.2884 $^{+ 0.0698 }_{- 0.0325 }$ 0.1287 $^{+ 0.0071 }_{- 0.0179 }$ 0.2565 $^{+ 0.0599 }_{- 0.0288 }$ 0.0328 $^{+ 0.0068 }_{- 0.0064 }$ 0.0044 0.7579 clear 4
Mar 22, 2014 2490 79.24 $^{+ 0.94 }_{- 1.76 }$ 0.3207 $^{+ 0.0239 }_{- 0.0159 }$ 0.1361 $^{+ 0.0045 }_{- 0.0060 }$ 0.2823 $^{+ 0.0189 }_{- 0.0130 }$ 0.0387 $^{+ 0.0014 }_{- 0.0015 }$ 0.0009 0.8471 clear 11
Mar 23, 2014 2490 77.99 $^{+ 2.27 }_{- 1.17 }$ 0.3364 $^{+ 0.0127 }_{- 0.0253 }$ 0.1425 $^{+ 0.0026 }_{- 0.0104 }$ 0.2945 $^{+ 0.0105 }_{- 0.0219 }$ 0.0417 $^{+ 0.0030 }_{- 0.0041 }$ 0.0025 0.6102 clear 12
Nov 15, 2014 2792 80.06 $^{+ 0.19 }_{- 0.20 }$ 0.3176 $^{+ 0.0021 }_{- 0.0022 }$ 0.1390 $^{+ 0.0014 }_{- 0.0016 }$ 0.2787 $^{+ 0.0020 }_{- 0.0019 }$ 0.0417 $^{+ 0.0015 }_{- 0.0018 }$ 0.0002 1.3064 clear 13
Jan 30, 2016 3351 78.33 $^{+ 0.47 }_{- 0.36 }$ 0.3324 $^{+ 0.0048 }_{- 0.0052 }$ 0.1392 $^{+ 0.0018 }_{- 0.0022 }$ 0.2919 $^{+ 0.0042 }_{- 0.0046 }$ 0.0410 $^{+ 0.0011 }_{- 0.0014 }$ 0.0005 2.089 clear 13
Feb 29, 2016 3389 79.46 $^{+ 0.31 }_{- 0.38 }$ 0.3205 $^{+ 0.0038 }_{- 0.0030 }$ 0.1474 $^{+ 0.0017 }_{- 0.0018 }$ 0.2793 $^{+ 0.0035 }_{- 0.0028 }$ 0.0428 $^{+ 0.0035 }_{- 0.0030 }$ 0.0005 0.5848 clear 13
May 09, 2016 3477 80.03 $^{+ 3.83 }_{- 2.99 }$ 0.3167 $^{+ 0.0362 }_{- 0.0322 }$ 0.1391 $^{+ 0.0041 }_{- 0.0107 }$ 0.2782 $^{+ 0.0318 }_{- 0.0274 }$ 0.0387 $^{+ 0.0044 }_{- 0.0058 }$ 0.0034 0.8907 R$_\mathrm{C}$ 14
Jun 06, 2016 3513 79.39 $^{+ 2.13 }_{- 2.66 }$ 0.3208 $^{+ 0.0297 }_{- 0.0216 }$ 0.1442 $^{+ 0.0028 }_{- 0.0096 }$ 0.2800 $^{+ 0.0263 }_{- 0.0185 }$ 0.0409 $^{+ 0.0022 }_{- 0.0025 }$ 0.0021 1.1813 R 15
Jun 10, 2016 3518 79.20 $^{+ 2.87 }_{- 2.30 }$ 0.3234 $^{+ 0.0334 }_{- 0.0378 }$ 0.1472 $^{+ 0.0075 }_{- 0.0064 }$ 0.2813 $^{+ 0.0275 }_{- 0.0312 }$ 0.0459 $^{+ 0.0107 }_{- 0.0052 }$ 0.0029 1.0471 R 15
Jul 06, 2016 3551 80.52 $^{+ 5.97 }_{- 3.58 }$ 0.3130 $^{+ 0.0467 }_{- 0.0506 }$ 0.1356 $^{+ 0.0094 }_{- 0.0086 }$ 0.2755 $^{+ 0.0392 }_{- 0.0430 }$ 0.0374 $^{+ 0.0079 }_{- 0.0074 }$ 0.006 0.8156 R 16
Dec 02, 2016 3739 78.86 $^{+ 1.19 }_{- 1.02 }$ 0.3300 $^{+ 0.0242 }_{- 0.0173 }$ 0.1616 $^{+ 0.0299 }_{- 0.0196 }$ 0.2848 $^{+ 0.0126 }_{- 0.0152 }$ 0.0299 $^{+ 0.0072 }_{- 0.0024 }$ 0.0015 2.4622 I 17
Dec 16, 2016 3758 77.92 $^{+ 2.64 }_{- 1.81 }$ 0.3465 $^{+ 0.0250 }_{- 0.0352 }$ 0.1521 $^{+ 0.0144 }_{- 0.0130 }$ 0.2998 $^{+ 0.0206 }_{- 0.0286 }$ 0.0462 $^{+ 0.0030 }_{- 0.0038 }$ 0.0019 1.7937 R 15
Date Epoch $i$ $\Sigma$ $k$ $r_{\star}$ $r_\mathrm{P}$ PNR $\beta$ Filter Reference
-------------- ------- ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- -------- --------- -------- -----------
Jan 23, 2017 3806 80.24 $^{+ 2.38 }_{- 3.22 }$ 0.3077 $^{+ 0.0405 }_{- 0.0316 }$ 0.1436 $^{+ 0.0080 }_{- 0.0070 }$ 0.2686 $^{+ 0.0346 }_{- 0.0264 }$ 0.0345 $^{+ 0.0042 }_{- 0.0048 }$ 0.0024 2.8005 R 18
Jan 30, 2017 3815 79.93 $^{+ 2.45 }_{- 1.49 }$ 0.3195 $^{+ 0.0173 }_{- 0.0205 }$ 0.1415 $^{+ 0.0035 }_{- 0.0091 }$ 0.2795 $^{+ 0.0149 }_{- 0.0170 }$ 0.0395 $^{+ 0.0024 }_{- 0.0029 }$ 0.0018 1.1944 I 15
Feb 07, 2017 3825 74.51 $^{+ 3.79 }_{- 2.27 }$ 0.3841 $^{+ 0.0336 }_{- 0.0430 }$ 0.1322 $^{+ 0.0094 }_{- 0.0185 }$ 0.3314 $^{+ 0.0376 }_{- 0.0286 }$ 0.0445 $^{+ 0.0060 }_{- 0.0066 }$ 0.0048 0.6168 R 16
Feb 11, 2017 3830 80.68 $^{+ 3.09 }_{- 2.36 }$ 0.2977 $^{+ 0.0293 }_{- 0.0241 }$ 0.1295 $^{+ 0.0044 }_{- 0.0084 }$ 0.2642 $^{+ 0.0236 }_{- 0.0206 }$ 0.0368 $^{+ 0.0038 }_{- 0.0047 }$ 0.0009 2.3335 clear 12
Apr 12, 2017 3906 78.78 $^{+ 0.90 }_{- 0.76 }$ 0.3254 $^{+ 0.0108 }_{- 0.0120 }$ 0.1475 $^{+ 0.0034 }_{- 0.0046 }$ 0.2834 $^{+ 0.0099 }_{- 0.0101 }$ 0.0379 $^{+ 0.0028 }_{- 0.0027 }$ 0.0011 2.3205 clear 12
Nov 21, 2017 4189 77.73 $^{+ 2.03 }_{- 1.54 }$ 0.3459 $^{+ 0.0160 }_{- 0.0208 }$ 0.1563 $^{+ 0.0042 }_{- 0.0122 }$ 0.2990 $^{+ 0.0139 }_{- 0.0165 }$ 0.0465 $^{+ 0.0023 }_{- 0.0028 }$ 0.0021 0.984 R 15
Dec 21, 2017 4227 82.76 $^{+ 7.10 }_{- 6.05 }$ 0.3080 $^{+ 0.0867 }_{- 0.0397 }$ 0.1361 $^{+ 0.0209 }_{- 0.0115 }$ 0.2692 $^{+ 0.0706 }_{- 0.0314 }$ 0.0354 $^{+ 0.0041 }_{- 0.0037 }$ 0.0025 2.0785 V 18
Apr 04, 2018 4359 79.54 $^{+ 3.06 }_{- 3.00 }$ 0.3118 $^{+ 0.0376 }_{- 0.0323 }$ 0.1393 $^{+ 0.0024 }_{- 0.0066 }$ 0.2733 $^{+ 0.0327 }_{- 0.0284 }$ 0.0390 $^{+ 0.0016 }_{- 0.0017 }$ 0.0017 1.2029 R 19
Feb 12, 2019 4757 77.97 $^{+ 1.81 }_{- 1.59 }$ 0.3416 $^{+ 0.0300 }_{- 0.0357 }$ 0.1664 $^{+ 0.0186 }_{- 0.0141 }$ 0.2926 $^{+ 0.0206 }_{- 0.0277 }$ 0.0420 $^{+ 0.0019 }_{- 0.0042 }$ 0.0027 0.8879 R 18
Mar 06, 2019 4784 83.64 $^{+ 6.26 }_{- 3.93 }$ 0.2712 $^{+ 0.0651 }_{- 0.0235 }$ 0.1311 $^{+ 0.0076 }_{- 0.0056 }$ 0.2402 $^{+ 0.0545 }_{- 0.0202 }$ 0.0320 $^{+ 0.0067 }_{- 0.0042 }$ 0.0044 0.7301 V 20
Apr 10, 2019 4829 79.84 $^{+ 1.07 }_{- 0.93 }$ 0.3117 $^{+ 0.0115 }_{- 0.0113 }$ 0.1436 $^{+ 0.0021 }_{- 0.0029 }$ 0.2724 $^{+ 0.0100 }_{- 0.0095 }$ 0.0406 $^{+ 0.0030 }_{- 0.0035 }$ 0.0015 0.8415 R 15
Columns 3-7: Values of the derived photometric parameters and their errors. Column 8: Photometric noise rate. Column 9: Median value for the red noise.
References: (1) @hebb; (2) @hellier; (3) Colque J. (TRESCA); (4) Evans P. (TRESCA); (5) @mancini; (6) @lendl; (7) @dragomir; (8) T.G. Tan (TRESCA); (9) @bean; (10) Mašek M.; (11) @espinoza; (12) Mašek M., Hoňková K., Juryšek J. (TRESCA); (13) @seda; (14) This work (PEST); (15) This work (EABA); (16) This work (FRAM); (17) Eduardo Fernández-Lajús, Romina P. Di Sisto (TRESCA); (18) This work (CASLEO); (19) Carl R Knight (TRESCA); (20) Anaël Wünsche (TRESCA).
ASSESSMENT OF THE SYSTEMATIC UNCERTAINTIES ON THE MID-TRANSIT TIME MEASUREMENTS {#section:4}
===============================================================================
As can be noticed in columns 8 and 9 of Table \[table:3\], our sample is composed of different quality transits, with a wide range of values of PNR and levels of red noise. The higher values of $\beta$ imply the presence of systematics in the light curve which may have a non-astrophysical origin (such as that related with changes during the observations in the environmental and atmospheric variables i.e., temperature, airmass, fwhm, level of counts from the sky, etc, also introduced by the instruments used to acquire the data, shifts in the position of the star on the CCD, bad correction for pixel sensitivity, etc), or having an astrophysical nature (such as the systematics produced by stellar activity). This can be the case for WASP-19 which is an active star and might present a modulation or anomalies in the light curves due to spot-crossing events [@hebb; @tregloan]. Therefore, given that the main purpose of this work is to evaluate the existence of orbital decay, which depends directly on the errors in the mid-transit times measurements, we explored, in the first place, the influence of the values of the photometric parameters on the mid-times and, afterwards, the influence of the data quality and symmetry of the light curve.
With the first goal in mind, we carried out the three steps procedure described below:
- First, we assessed how different the values of the photometric parameters can be from those of @mancini, in order to still have a model that properly describes the observations. To do this, we ran JKTEBOP by keeping $i$, $\Sigma$, and $k$ fixed, and sampling $\pm 5 \sigma$ around those estimated by @mancini. The photometric parameters $l_{0}$ and $T_\mathrm{0}$ were fitted, while $q_{1}$ and $q_{2}$ were allowed to freely varying or not depending on the option chosen in Section \[section:3\] about how to manage the LD coefficients. As values of these four parameters, we assumed the same considered in Section \[section:3\].\
- Then, after visually inspecting the observations and their models, we defined for each transit ranges for the values of the photometric parameters in which it is warranted that the model computed with JKTEBOP, correctly represents the observations. In all these cases, we found that the $\Delta\chi^{2} = \chi^{2}_\mathrm{mod}-\chi^{2}_\mathrm{min}$ of the model is well within $1 \sigma$ i.e., the 68.3$\%$ confidence level. We performed this step to avoid adopting values for the photometric parameters that lead to models that do not properly describe the data.\
- We performed 1000 runs of JKTEBOP randomly varying the adopted values of the photometric parameters: $i$, $\Sigma$, and $k$ (all together and also individually[^12]) in the ranges defined in the previous step. For each transit light curve, we computed the mean value and standard deviation of the mid-transit times given as outputs of these different runs. In Figure \[figure:2\], we show the distribution of mid-transit times for the transit observed on April 15, 2012 in the K-band, where the adopted values of all the photometric parameters were allowed to vary (top panel), and the reduced chi-square (between 1.05 and 1.12) resulting after varying the adopted value of the inclination within $\pm 5\sigma$ of measurements by @mancini (bottom panel).
![Results for the transit observed on April 15, 2012 in the K-band. *Top panel:* Distribution of mid-transit times obtained after 1000 runs of JKTEBOP considering the adopted values of all the photometric parameters freely varying. *Bottom panel:* Reduced chi-square values of the models obtained by varying the adopted value of the inclination in $-$5 to $+$5 times the error, $\sigma$, computed by @mancini.[]{data-label="figure:2"}](Distribucion_T0_todosvarian_CLbuena.png "fig:"){width=".4\textwidth"} ![Results for the transit observed on April 15, 2012 in the K-band. *Top panel:* Distribution of mid-transit times obtained after 1000 runs of JKTEBOP considering the adopted values of all the photometric parameters freely varying. *Bottom panel:* Reduced chi-square values of the models obtained by varying the adopted value of the inclination in $-$5 to $+$5 times the error, $\sigma$, computed by @mancini.[]{data-label="figure:2"}](sigmai_vs_Chi2r.png "fig:"){width=".4\textwidth"}
One important point to notice here is that the inclination is the photometric parameter that most strongly affects the measured mid-transit times, producing variations as large as 20 seconds in the most extreme case. The values of depth and sum of relative radii play a minor role, causing variations in the mid-transit times of up to 1 second and less than 1 second, respectively. Additionally, as mentioned in Section \[section:3\], the influence of the values of the LD coefficients on the error in the measurement of $T_\mathrm{0}$ is negligible.
Furthermore, we checked if the models for the mid-times found by JKTEBOP by changing the adopted values of the photometric parameters are related to the quality of the light curve (level of white/red noise). Then, after applying the procedure described above, first we searched for possible correlations between the red noise level and standard deviation found for the mid-transit time ($\sigma_{\mathrm{T_0}}$) of each light curve. In order to remove any possible influence of different values of PNR on those of $\sigma_{\mathrm{T_0}}$, we analyzed the transits in three distinct groups depending on their measured photometric noise rate: those with PNR $\leq$ 1.5 mmag (named “Group 1”), the ones with 1.5 mmag $<$ PNR $\leq$ 3 mmag (Group 2) and finally, transits with PNR $>$ 3 mmag (Group 3). We also considered a group consisting of all the 74 transits (“Group All-$\beta$"). For each of these datasets, we computed the Pearson coefficient[^13] ($r$) and the p-value between $\beta$ and $\sigma_\mathrm{T_0}$. These results are summarized in Table \[table:4\]. In all the four cases, it is possible to see that $r$ $<$ 0.52 indicating weakly correlated parameters.\
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group All-$\beta$
--------- --------- --------- --------- -------------------
$r$ 0.224 0.515 0.035 0.262
p-value 0.241 0.003 0.900 0.023
: Correlation between $\beta$ and $\sigma_{\mathrm{T_0}}$[]{data-label="table:4"}
We also explored possible correlations between the values of PNR and $\sigma_{\mathrm{T_0}}$ for each light curve. In this case, in order to eliminate the effect of $\beta$ on the values of $\sigma_\mathrm{T_0}$, we separated the light curves in three different groups depending on their measured red noise level: those with $\beta < 1$ (Group A), the ones with 1 $\leq$ $\beta$ $<$ 2 (Group B), and transits with $\beta$ $\geq$ 2 (Group C). Same as before, we compared the results including all 74 transits in “Group All-PNR". In Table \[table:5\], we show the Pearson coefficient and p-value between PNR and $\sigma_\mathrm{T_0}$ calculated for each group. Here, it can be seen that for groups A, B and “All-PNR" the parameters are weakly correlated ($r$ $\leq$ 0.5), but for Group C, $r$ $=$ 0.769 points out a moderate correlation between the parameters. However, we caution that this correlation is based only on 6 points and the p-value is quite high, making this trend not very reliable.
Group A Group B Group C Group All-PNR
--------- --------- --------- --------- ---------------
$r$ 0.378 0.140 0.769 0.248
p-value 0.007 0.565 0.073 0.032
: Correlation between PNR and $\sigma_{\mathrm{T_0}}$[]{data-label="table:5"}
Additionally, transit light curves with a high degree of systematics and large dispersion in their photometric data-points tend to have their 4 contact points poorly defined. This makes it difficult for the model to correctly identify the ingress and egress of the transit, which causes a poorly constrained value for the inclination of the system and hence a mid-transit time that is not well constrained. Having this in mind, for all the transits in our sample, we measured the values of $\beta$ and PNR in sections of the light curve related to the estimation of the inclination. These sections were defined: i) Along the complete extension of the transit, ii) Before contact point 1, iii) Between contact points 1 and 2 (ingress), iv) Between contact points 2 and 3 (flat bottom), v) Between contact points 3 and 4 (egress), vi) After contact point 4, vii) Before contact point 1 and after contact point 4 (i.e., the out-of-transit), and viii) Between contact points 1 and 2 and contact points 3 and 4 (i.e., ingress and egress together). Either considering all the 74 transits or after excluding 4 light curves with $\sigma_\mathrm{T_0}$ $>$ 13 seconds, all our analyses of the $\beta$-PNR plane adopting $\sigma_\mathrm{T_0}$ as the perpendicular axis, did not show any clear correlation.
Symmetry can also play an important role in the determination of mid-transit times. Hence, we compared different quality indicators for symmetric sections of the light curve respect to $T_\mathrm{0}$: i) PNR between contact points 1 and 2 (ingress) and PNR between contact points 3 and 4 (egress), ii) $\beta$ between contact points 1 and 2 (ingress) and $\beta$ between contact points 3 and 4 (egress), iii) PNR/$\beta$ between contact points 1 and 2 (ingress) and PNR/$\beta$ between contact points 3 and 4 (egress), iv) $\chi^{2}$ of the model to data before $T_\mathrm{0}$ and after $T_\mathrm{0}$ (including, in both cases, the out-of-transit), and v) $\chi^{2}$ of the model to the ingress data-points and $\chi^{2}$ of the model to the egress data-points. No correlation between the degree of asymmetry, interpreted as the difference between quality indicators, and $\sigma_\mathrm{T_0}$ was found. We obtained the same null result in the search for a relation between the duration of the out-of-transit before/after ingress/egress.
In the absence of any correlation between the error in $T_\mathrm{0}$ and the quality or symmetry of the transit or the values of the LD coefficients, we decided to adopt $\sigma_\mathrm{T_0}$ i.e., the standard deviation found for $T_\mathrm{0}$ by varying the fixed values of the photometric parameters in $\pm 1 \sigma$, as the specific limit to the error in the mid-time of each transit due to the presence of systematics $e^{\beta}_\mathrm{T_0}$.
TIMING ANALYSIS {#section:5}
===============
The time stamps of the 74 full transits analyzed in this work were converted to Barycentric Julian Date in Barycentric Dynamical Time, $\mathrm{BJD}_\mathrm{TDB}$, with the online tool[^14] that uses the mathematical transformations described in @eastman.
The mid-transit time of each light curve was computed with the JKTEBOP code by performing 10000 Monte Carlo (MC) simulations and by using the residual permutation (RP) algorithm. In both cases, the only freely varying quantities were $\mathrm{T}_\mathrm{0}$, $l_{0}$, the coefficients of the polynomial to fit the out-of-transit data-points and the LD coefficients when corresponding. As initial values for the parameters, we adopted $i$, $k$, and $\Sigma$ as derived in Section \[section:3\], and for $e$, $P$, mass ratio, and the quadratic LD coefficients we kept the same quantities used in our first run of JKTEBOP. To be conservative, we adopted for the mid-time of each transit the mean value and the symmetric uncertainties, $\pm \sigma$, given by the task (MC or RP) that provided the largest error. Here, $\pm \sigma$ or equivalently $e^{f}_{T0}$, correspond to the 68.3$\%$ values (or the 15.87th and 84.13th percentiles) of the selected distribution. In order to provide reliable uncertainties, the final error for each mid-transit time measurement was computed as:
$$(e_\mathrm{T0})^2 = (e^{f}_\mathrm{T0})^2 + (e^{\beta}_\mathrm{T0})^2,$$
where $e^{f}_{T0}$ is the formal error calculated by the fit and $e^{\beta}_\mathrm{T_0}$ is the systematic error that accounts for the influence of the adopted values of the photometric parameters on the derived mid-times (see previous section). Our measurements of the mid-transit times of each of the 74 full transits are given in Table \[table:6\].
------- --------------------------------- ----------------- --------------------- -------------------------
Epoch $\mathrm{T}_{0}-2450000$ $e_\mathrm{T0}$ $e^{f}_\mathrm{T0}$ $e^{\beta}_\mathrm{T0}$
\[$\mathrm{BJD}_\mathrm{TDB}$\] \[s\] \[s\] \[s\]
53 4817.146361 13.95 13.88 1.30
609 5255.741162 8.68 8.63 0.96
614 5259.684594 31.02 31.02 0.19
632 5273.882529 61.78 61.35 7.28
709 5334.626037 12.98 12.89 1.52
714 5338.569384 21.14 19.44 8.29
733 5353.557749 13.21 13.09 1.77
752 5368.545551 39.68 39.00 7.33
969 5539.722944 18.00 17.95 1.31
1007 5569.698234 16.33 16.32 0.77
1021 5580.741547 22.09 22.01 1.87
1026 5584.686886 16.14 16.03 1.90
1026 5584.686843 13.94 13.92 0.71
1038 5594.152340 50.18 50.04 3.77
1047 5601.252355 35.19 35.12 2.27
1049 5602.831343 39.20 38.66 6.46
1054 5606.774231 15.51 15.50 0.67
1055 5607.562499 25.35 25.30 1.63
1074 5622.550599 23.09 22.26 6.11
1076 5624.128431 46.92 46.37 7.16
1116 5655.682291 36.15 36.13 1.11
1159 5689.603433 36.93 36.27 6.96
1164 5693.547077 13.11 13.09 0.83
1178 5704.590961 26.20 26.18 1.07
1183 5708.535638 13.56 13.56 0.35
1552 5999.616340 24.83 24.82 0.84
1552 5999.616494 17.38 17.33 1.26
1552 5999.616359 10.87 10.84 0.80
1552 5999.616055 16.78 16.64 2.15
1552 5999.616139 25.82 25.78 1.45
1552 5999.616338 17.71 17.68 1.10
1552 5999.616365 11.07 11.07 0.12
1552 5999.616509 18.98 18.98 0.27
1552 5999.616751 28.73 28.67 1.82
1580 6021.703582 13.40 13.10 2.82
1580 6021.703343 14.33 14.32 0.60
1580 6021.703628 9.85 9.79 1.09
1580 6021.704079 10.46 10.37 1.37
1580 6021.703801 11.05 11.02 0.77
1580 6021.703225 15.06 15.04 0.88
1580 6021.703927 10.32 10.31 0.49
1580 6021.703713 12.02 11.98 0.98
1580 6021.704289 41.68 41.59 2.65
1595 6033.538366 24.69 24.67 0.94
1595 6033.537996 34.28 33.62 6.65
1595 6033.537131 63.61 60.67 19.12
1633 6063.511736 21.39 19.75 8.20
1964 6324.620530 52.31 52.31 0.24
1977 6334.872072 44.81 44.72 2.77
2048 6390.880326 46.21 43.88 14.48
2106 6436.632877 56.16 56.16 0.27
2465 6719.826225 47.92 47.72 4.27
2490 6739.547650 13.19 13.06 1.83
2490 6739.547358 26.13 26.13 0.06
2792 6977.776470 9.07 6.30 6.53
3351 7418.736819 20.20 20.20 0.17
3389 7448.712917 6.62 6.59 0.62
3477 7518.131796 32.48 32.48 0.47
3513 7546.529748 23.84 23.84 0.47
3518 7550.472701 38.68 37.46 9.65
3551 7576.504698 64.34 64.08 5.77
------- --------------------------------- ----------------- --------------------- -------------------------
: Mid-transit times and uncertainties calculated in this work[]{data-label="table:6"}
------- --------------------------------- ----------------- --------------------- -------------------------
Epoch $\mathrm{T}_{0}-2450000$ $e_\mathrm{T0}$ $e^{f}_\mathrm{T0}$ $e^{\beta}_\mathrm{T0}$
\[$\mathrm{BJD}_\mathrm{TDB}$\] \[s\] \[s\] \[s\]
3739 7724.807825 71.55 71.23 6.79
3758 7739.794151 46.36 45.12 10.64
3806 7777.657426 121.27 120.50 13.67
3815 7784.758917 15.19 15.07 1.89
3825 7792.647526 65.59 65.54 2.64
3830 7796.591396 27.26 27.22 1.38
3906 7856.542283 45.30 45.29 1.05
4189 8079.785673 18.51 18.33 2.51
4227 8109.763837 131.92 131.83 4.64
4359 8213.887473 21.01 20.89 2.23
4757 8527.845759 39.13 38.98 3.52
4784 8549.144717 46.65 44.80 13.01
4829 8584.641667 23.14 23.13 0.37
------- --------------------------------- ----------------- --------------------- -------------------------
: Continued[]{data-label="table:6"}
Searching for possible orbital decay
------------------------------------
In order to confirm or rule out a possible orbital decay in the system, we fitted a linear and a quadratic model to the mid-transit times as a function of epoch. The linear model assumes that the orbit is circular and the orbital period, $P$, is constant:
$$\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{0}}(E)=\mathrm{T}_\mathrm{ref} + E \times P
\label{efe:lin}$$
where $E$ is the epoch number and $\mathrm{T}_\mathrm{ref}$ a reference minimum time. The quadratic model also assumes a circular orbit but the orbital period changes at a steady rate, $dP/dE$:
$$\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{0}}(E)=\mathrm{T}_\mathrm{ref} + E \times P + \frac{1}{2} \times \frac{dP}{dE} \times E^{2}.
\label{efe:cua}$$
We fitted each model by assuming a Gaussian likelihood function and used the *emcee* MCMC sampler implementation of @foreman to sample over the posterior probability distributions for all the free parameters (Figure \[corner\]), i.e. $\mathrm{T}_\mathrm{ref}$ and $P$ in Eq. \[efe:lin\] and $\mathrm{T}_\mathrm{ref}$, $P$, and $dP/dE$ in Eq. \[efe:cua\]. The prior corresponding to the changing orbital period in the quadratic ephemeris was allowed to vary between positive and negative numbers.
{width=".6\textwidth"} {width=".65\textwidth"}
Model $T_\mathrm{ref}$\[$BJD_\mathrm{TDB}$\] $P$\[days\] $dP/dE$\[days\]
----------- ---------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Linear $2454775.33817^{+0.00014}_{-0.00014}$ $0.788839007^{+0.000000064}_\mathrm{-0.000000064}$ –
Quadratic $2454775.33817^{+0.00030}_{-0.00030}$ $0.78883900^{+0.00000030}_{-0.00000029}$ $(0.89972 \times 10^{-12})^{+0.000000000058}_{-0.000000000058}$
In Table \[table:7\], we present the values and uncertainties adopted from the median and 16$\%$ and 84$\%$ percentiles of the drawn posterior distributions for the fitted parameters in the linear and quadratic models. Through the relation $dP/dt=P^{-1}(dP/dE)$, it is straightforward to calculate the change in the period over time, $dP/dt$. In this case,
$$\dot{P}=1.14(+73)(-74) \times 10^{-12}=0.036^{+2.3}_{-2.33} \quad \textrm{ms yr}^{-1}$$
is essentially consistent with zero. The comparison between the reduced chi-square values and the residuals root mean square of the best-fits for the linear ($\chi^{2}_\mathrm{r}=6.31$, 72 degrees of freedom and $rms=$1.19 minutes) and quadratic ($\chi^{2}_\mathrm{r}=6.35$; 71 degrees of freedom and $rms=$1.19 minutes) models indicates that the linear ephemeris provides a marginally better representation of the data than the quadratic one. Two other useful and widely used metrics to decide which model better represents the data are the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) and the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), defined as $\mathrm{BIC} = \chi^{2} + k_\mathrm{F}\log{N_\mathrm{P}}$ and $\mathrm{AIC} = \chi^{2} + 2k_\mathrm{F}$, respectively, where $k_\mathrm{F}$ is the number of free parameters in the model and $N_\mathrm{P}$ is the number of data-points (74 in this analysis). For the linear fit ($k_\mathrm{F}=$2), we measured $BIC_\mathrm{lin}=$ 463.04 and $AIC_\mathrm{lin}=$ 458.43, and $BIC_\mathrm{quad}=$ 464.05 and $AIC_\mathrm{quad}=$ 457.14 for the quadratic case ($k_\mathrm{F}=$3). The difference in the BIC values between both models is $\Delta BIC=BIC_\mathrm{quad}-BIC_\mathrm{lin}=$1.01, which according to @kass favors the constant period model over the changing orbital period scenario. On the contrary, for the AIC values, $\Delta AIC=AIC_\mathrm{lin}-AIC_\mathrm{quad}=$1.29 gives support to the quadratic model over the linear one [@burnham]. Here, it is important to notice that for both, $\Delta BIC$ and $\Delta AIC$, evidence in favor of one or another model is not strong. The reason for this discrepancy mainly arises because the quadratic coefficient is so small that both models can be considered as representative of a linear ephemeris.
Moreover, a global analysis of all these results, summarized in Table \[table:8\] and shown in Figure \[oc\], also seems to indicate that the evolution of the mid-transit times of WASP-19b over 10 years is best explained by a constant orbital period. This conclusion contradicts predictions of detectable variation in the mid-transit times after a decade of observations [@valsechi; @essick]. The seemingly best quadratic scenario predicts a very slow change in period, which would require $\sim 3 \times 10^{5}$ years of observations to detect a shift in mid-transit times of 10 seconds. Furthermore, this solution has a positive quadratic coefficient, indicating an increase in orbital period and not a decrease as expected due to tidal decay. Although the quadratic term is greater than zero and the evidence supporting a change in period is not strong, it is still possible to set an upper limit on the orbital decay of $\dot{P}_\mathrm{up}=-2.294$ ms $yr^{-1}$, by computing $\dot{P}_\mathrm{up}=\dot{P}-\sigma^{-}_{\dot{P}}$, where $\sigma^{-}_{\dot{P}}$ is the negative error found for the steady change in $P$.
The dimensionelss quantity $Q'_{\star}$, called modified tidal quality factor and defined in terms of the maximum tidal energy stored in the system relative to the energy dissipated in one cycle [@goldreich], is very important to characterize the evolution of the system under the effect of tidal forces. Specifically, large values of $Q'_{\star}$ imply inefficient tidal dissipation and hence a slow orbital evolution, while small values of $Q'_{\star}$ correspond to an efficient tidal dissipation resulting in a fast orbital evolution. It can be estimated by taking the upper limit of $\dot{P}$ through the expression:
$$Q'_{\star}= \frac{-27 \pi}{2 \dot{P}} \Big(\frac{M_\mathrm{P}}{M_\mathrm{\star}}\Big) r_\mathrm{\star}^{5},
\label{coeficiente_tidal}$$
obtained by rearranging the Eq. 5 of @wilkins in terms of $\dot{P}$. In this study, the values of the planetary and stellar masses, $M_\mathrm{P}$ and $M_\mathrm{\star}$, were adopted from @hellier, and the value assumed for the stellar radius relative to the semimajor axis, $r_\mathrm{\star}$, was the one determined in Section \[section:3\]. The uncertainties in $Q'_{\star}$ were computed by propagating the errors of $M_\mathrm{P}$, $M_\mathrm{\star}$, and $r_\mathrm{\star}$. Thus, we derived a lower limit on the modified quality factor of:
$$Q'_{\star} > (1.23 \pm 0.231) \times 10^{6}.$$
In a general context, our estimation of $Q'_{\star}$ is in the wide range of expected values (between $10^{5}-10^{9}$) predicted by studies based on large samples of hot Jupiters [@jackson; @essick; @bonomo; @penev; @collierjar; @hamer]. If compared with specific determinations of the modified tidal quality factor for WASP-19, our measurement is also in agreement with previous estimates [@hebb; @brown; @abe; @penev]. These comparisons can be visualized in Figure \[teffvslogq\], where we plot $T_\mathrm{eff}$ versus $log(Q'_{\star})$ for WASP-19 (in which the blue circle is the result obtained in this work and the red ones are the measurements of previous studies) and 75 other planets indicated in gray empty circles, for which @penev derived $Q'_{\star}$ by modeling the orbital and the stellar spin evolution.
Model $\chi^{2}_\mathrm{r}$ $rms$\[minutes\] $BIC$ $AIC$
----------- ----------------------- ------------------ -------- --------
Linear 6.31 1.19 463.04 458.43
Quadratic 6.35 1.19 464.05 457.14
![$T_\mathrm{eff}$ versus $\log Q'_{\star}$. The blue circle marks the value of $\log Q'_{\star}$ computed in this work for WASP-19, while red symbols indicate the results for the same target obtained in previous studies [@hebb; @brown; @abe; @penev]. As comparison, the values calculated by @penev for 75 other planets are presented in gray empty circles. Arrows pointing up mark lower limits of $Q'_{\star}$. For a better visualization, error bars in $T_\mathrm{eff}$ are not shown.[]{data-label="teffvslogq"}](Teff_vs_logQest.pdf){width=".5\textwidth"}
Searching for possible companions {#oc}
---------------------------------
@mancini and @espinoza found that a linear ephemeris is not a good fit to the data of WASP-19b. Then, to assess if these findings can be the result of perturbations produced by another body gravitationally bound to the system, we investigated a possible sinusoidal variation in the mid-transit times. To check this out, we searched for periodicities in the O-C residuals (see Figure \[oc\]), computed as the difference between the $\mathrm{T}_\mathrm{0}$ values estimated with JKTEBOP and those predicted by the linear ephemeris calculated in the previous section, by running a Lomb-Scargle (LS) periodogram [@horne] and a Phase Dispersion Minimization (PDM) algorithm [@pdm] to the data. The LS routine encountered a peak at 31.35 epochs or, equivalently, a period $\sim$ 25 days with an $FAP=53 \%$ estimated through 1000 Monte Carlo simulations, while PDM found a period around 198 days with $\Theta$ $\sim$ 0.86. The discrepancy in the periods found with both tasks and the high values of $FAP$ and $\Theta$ are indicative of a null detection of periodic variations in the mid-transit times. However, as can be seen in the next section, it is still possible to set an upper limit on the mass of a potential perturber (i.e. another planetary-mass body) bounded to the system, capable of producing detectable periodic transit timing variations (TTVs) in our data, by using the standard deviation found in the O-C residuals ($\sigma_\mathrm{TTV}=1.19$ minutes or, equivalently, 71.4 seconds).
{width=".8\textwidth"}
Constraints on the mass of a possible perturber
-----------------------------------------------
Measuring transit-timing variations provides a method to detect additional massive bodies that might be present (possibly non-transiting) in the system. In principle, sufficiently strong gravitational perturbations by the unseen companion, will cause the mid-transit time of the transiting planet to change periodically over time [@agol2005; @holman2005; @nesvorny2008] with a given amplitude depending on the perturbing bodies mass and orbital parameters. The TTV amplitude can be quantified by the root-mean-square (RMS) statistic which measures the scatter of mid-transit timing data around the nominal (unperturbed) linear ephemeris. Qualitatively, larger perturbations would result in a larger RMS scatter around the nominal ephemeris. For orbital architectures involving mean-motion resonances the TTV effect is amplified [@agol2005; @holman2005] and allows, in principle, the detection of very low-mass perturbing objects. For sufficiently precise timing data the modelling of the TTV signal enables one to infer the mass and orbit of the perturbing body [@Holman2010; @Ballard2011]. In this work we will not carry out a detailed TTV modeling analysis and will use the empiricially measured RMS scatter to infer an estimate of the upper mass limit of the perturbing body.
Here we apply the technique for TTV calculations as described in @TEMP2 [@TEMP4; @TEMP1]. The calculation of an upper mass-limit is performed numerically from directly integrating the orbits. We have modified the `FORTRAN`-based `MICROFARM`[^15] package [@go2003; @go2008] which utilizes OpenMPI[^16] to spawn hundreds of single-task parallel jobs on a suitable super-computing facility. The package main purpose is the numerical computation of the Mean Exponential Growth factor of Nearby Orbits [@cincsimo2000; @go2001; @ci2003 MEGNO] over a grid of initial values of orbital parameters for an $n$-body problem. The calculation of the RMS scatter of TTVs in the present work follows a direct brute-force method, which proved to be robust given the availability of computing power.
Within the framework of the three-body problem, we integrated the orbits of WASP-19b and an additional hypothetical perturbing planet. The mid-transit time was accurately calculated from an iteration process as a result of a series of back-and-forth integrations. The best-fit radii of both the transiting planet and the host star were necessary input parameters. In general, initial conditions for the transiting planet (semi-major axis, eccentricity, argument of pericentre and mass), including stellar properties, were taken to be those presented in @hellier. The orbital inclination and the stellar and planetary radii were adopted from Table \[table:2\]. The initial mean anomaly of the transiting planet was set to zero.
We then calculated an analytic least-squares regression to the time-series of transit epochs and mid-transit times to determine a best-fitting linear ephemeris with an associated RMS statistic for the scatter of computed transit times. The RMS statistic was based on a 20-year integration corresponding to $\simeq 9000$ transit events for WASP-19b. This procedure was then applied to a grid of masses and semi-major axes of the perturbing planet. We chose to encode the semi-major axis as the orbital period using the third law of Kepler.
In principle, no information about the properties of the perturbing body is available, except for a possible TTV signal. In this study, we have chosen to start the perturbing planet for two different orbital eccentricities: $i)$ circular ($e=0$) and $ii)$ moderate eccentricity ($e=0.1$). The orbit of the perturbing planet is initially co-planar with the transiting planet. This implies that $\Omega_2=0^{\circ}$ and $\omega_2=0^{\circ}$ for the circular case of the perturbing planet. This setting provides a most conservative estimate of the upper mass limit of a possible perturber [@bean2009; @fukui2011; @Hoyer2011; @Hoyer2012]. We refer the interested reader to @TEMP4 where the authors have studied the effect on upper mass limit for various initial orbital parameters. For example, while the initial eccentricity would change the overall system stability and introduce higher-order mean-motion resonances, the effect on upper mass limit due to different initial phase of the peturbing planet is subtle. The results are shown in Fig. \[megnottv\]. For the WASP-19b system, the measured transit-timing RMS scatter taking into account the 74 transit light curves analyzed in this work was $\rm TTV_{\rm RMS} \simeq 71\,\rm s$. Considering the circular case, an additional planet with a mass as low as $\simeq 2~M_{\oplus}$, $\simeq 2.5~M_{\oplus}$ and $\simeq 1.0~M_{\oplus}$ at the 1:3, 1:2 (interior) and 2:1 (exterior) mean-motion resonances could cause the observed RMS scatter. Hypothetical planets of $\simeq 3.5~M_{\oplus}$ and $\simeq 2~M_{\oplus}$ could cause the observed RMS scatter at the 5:3 and 3:1 exterior mean-motion resonances.
For the perturbing planet started on a moderate $e=0.1$ eccentric orbit the results change slightly. For the 1:3 and 1:2 resonance the measured TTV RMS scatter could be caused by a planet of mass $\simeq 18~M_{\oplus}$ and $\simeq 1~M_{\oplus}$, respectively. Due to the larger eccentricity the general instability area now engulfs the 5:3 exterior resonance. For the 2:1 resonance a mass of $\simeq 2~M_{\oplus}$ could cause the observed TTV scatter. Qualitatively, almost no change is observed for the 3:1 resonance allowing the same conclusion as for the circular case. Finally, the 4:1 resonance plays a role and a hypothetical planet of mass $\simeq 3~M_{\oplus}$ could explain the TTV RMS variations.
Dynamical MEGNO maps and orbital resonances
-------------------------------------------
In order to calculate the location of mean-motion resonances, we have used the same code to calculate MEGNO on the same parameter grid. However, this time we integrated each initial grid point for 1000 years, allowing this study to highlight the location of weak chaotic high-order mean-motion resonances. In short, MEGNO quantitatively measures the degree of stochastic behaviour of a non-linear dynamical system and has been proven useful in the detection of chaotic resonances [@go2001; @hi2010]. In addition to the Newtonian equations of motion, the associated variational equations of motion are solved simultaneously allowing the calculation of MEGNO at each integration time step. The `MICROFARM` package implements the `ODEX`[^17] extrapolation algorithm to numerically solve the system of first-order differential equations.
Following the definition of MEGNO [@cincsimo2000], denoted as $\langle Y\rangle$ in Fig. \[megnottv\], in a dynamical system that evolves quasi-periodically, the quantity $\langle Y \rangle$ will asymptotically approach 2.0 for $t \rightarrow \infty$. In that case, often the orbital elements associated with that orbit are bounded to within a certain range with no sign of diffusion in their time evolution. In case of a chaotic time evolution, the $\langle
Y\rangle$ diverges away from 2.0 with orbital parameters exhibiting erratic temporal excursions. For quasi-periodic orbits, we typically have $|\langle Y \rangle - 2.0| < 0.001$ at the end of each integration.
Importantly, MEGNO is unable to prove that a dynamical system is evolving quasi-periodically, meaning that a given system cannot be proven to be stable or bounded for all times. The integration of the equations of motion only considers a limited time period. However, once a given initial condition has found to be chaotic, there is no doubt about its erratic nature in the future.
From Fig. \[megnottv\] we find the usual instability region located in the proximity of the transiting planet ($P_2/P_1 \simeq 1.0$; where $P_2$ and $P_1$ are the orbital periods of the perturber and WASP-19b, respectively) with MEGNO color-coded as yellow (corresponding to $\langle Y\rangle > 5$). The extent of this region coincides with the results presented in @barnes2006. In each map the locations of mean-motion resonances are indicated by vertical arrows.
![Dynamical stability maps ($\langle Y \rangle$, MEGNO) for the WASP-19 transiting system considering the three-body problem. The parameters for the transiting planet were held fixed to the best-fit values. Quasi-periodic (i.e., bounded time evolution) initial conditions ($\langle Y\rangle$ close to 2.0) we chose to color-code MEGNO with a blue color. For initial conditions leading to chaotic (i.e., irregular time evolution) dynamics the MEGNO index is diverging away from 2.0 and we chose to color code with yellow. The black solid line shows the upper mass-limit of a perturbing body which produces a root-mean-square ($\rm TTV_{\rm RMS}$) transit-timing variation of $\simeq 71$ s as a function of period (or semi-major axis). The vertical arrows indicate orbital resonances between the two bodies. We considered two different initial eccentricities $e = 0.0$ (top panel) and $e = 0.1$ (bottom panel) of the perturbing planet. The two planets were assumed to be on initial co-planar orbits. *See electronic version for colors*.[]{data-label="megnottv"}](WASP19_Map001_GIMP.png "fig:"){width="1.0\columnwidth"} ![Dynamical stability maps ($\langle Y \rangle$, MEGNO) for the WASP-19 transiting system considering the three-body problem. The parameters for the transiting planet were held fixed to the best-fit values. Quasi-periodic (i.e., bounded time evolution) initial conditions ($\langle Y\rangle$ close to 2.0) we chose to color-code MEGNO with a blue color. For initial conditions leading to chaotic (i.e., irregular time evolution) dynamics the MEGNO index is diverging away from 2.0 and we chose to color code with yellow. The black solid line shows the upper mass-limit of a perturbing body which produces a root-mean-square ($\rm TTV_{\rm RMS}$) transit-timing variation of $\simeq 71$ s as a function of period (or semi-major axis). The vertical arrows indicate orbital resonances between the two bodies. We considered two different initial eccentricities $e = 0.0$ (top panel) and $e = 0.1$ (bottom panel) of the perturbing planet. The two planets were assumed to be on initial co-planar orbits. *See electronic version for colors*.[]{data-label="megnottv"}](WASP19_Map002_GIMP.png "fig:"){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION {#section:6}
======================
We have performed the first empirical study of orbital decay in the exoplanet WASP-19b, through the homogeneous determination of the mid-transit times of 74 complete transit light curves covering over 10 years. Contrary to what is expected by theoretical predictions (e.g., @valsechi [@essick]), we found no evidence of orbital decay nor periodic variations in the transit timings that would imply the presence of other bodies in the system. Nonetheless, we were able to put constraints on the upper mass of a possible perturber by carrying out a dynamical analysis. Particularly, at the first order mean-motion resonances, 1:2 and 2:1, we can exclude planetary companions of a few $M_{\earth}$ in mass, in both circular and moderate eccentric orbits.
A linear ephemeris is the best representation of the evolution of the mid-transit times as a function of epoch. Our analysis allowed us to place an upper limit on the steady changing rate of the orbital period, $\dot{P}=-2.294$ ms $yr^{-1}$, and thus a lower limit for the modified tidal quality factor, $Q'_{\star} = (1.23 \pm 0.231) \times 10^{6}$. Both quantities in good agreement with previous estimations (Figure \[teffvslogq\]). So far, the more promising candidates for presenting TTVs detectable with ground-based telescopes are the planetary systems WASP-4 [@wilson] and WASP-12 [@hebbw12]. For the first one, @bouma found that the transits observed by the TESS mission [@ricker] occurred 82 seconds earlier than predicted by the linear ephemeris. Later, @souw4 confirmed this variation through the analysis of 22 new transits of WASP-4b. Both tidal orbital decay and apsidal precession were proposed as plausible explanations for the transit timing variations detected, but these results are not conclusive yet. For WASP-12, @maciew12 [@macie] measured a departure from a constant period consistent with orbital decay. This shortening in the orbital period has been detected by @patra with observations of new transits and occultations, although these authors also proposed other two scenarios, different from orbital decay, to explain their measurements: the existence of a long-period third body in the system and orbital precession. Recently, @baluev performed a homogeneous analysis of the transits data of both systems and obtained contradicting results. On one hand, for WASP-4b, they do not find any TTV signal and indicate that the finding reported by previous studies appears to be model-dependent. On the other hand, for WASP-12b, they confirm with high significance the nonlinear trend detected in previous works but conclude that 10$\%$ of the observed TTV is produced by light-travel effect which dilutes the strength of the rate of orbital decay previously measured. Given the lack of clear empirical signs of orbital decay and the difficulty to theoretically estimate the stellar modified tidal quality factor, it is very important to perform long-term monitoring of those systems with short-period giant planets. In this context, even a negative result such as that found in this study becomes relevant to shed light on how planetary systems evolve due to stellar tides. If WASP-19 is observed by the TESS and CHEOPS [@broeg] missions, future transits of this exoplanet, and hence new precise measurements of the mid-times will be acquired. These new estimations, added to those presented in this paper in Table \[table:6\], will enable a revision to the values of $\dot{P}$ and $Q'_{\star}$ determined in this study.
One of the most accepted theories on tides is that based on the work by @zahn75 [@zahn77] that explored the contribution of different physical mechanisms on the tidal friction of close binary stars. This work found that for stars with convective cores and radiative envelopes (i.e., those with masses and effective temperatures larger than approximately those of the Sun), radiative damping is the dominant mechanism, leading to a less effective dissipation of tidal energy than in stars with radiative cores and convective envelopes, where turbulent dissipation is dominant. Therefore, it might be expected to measure large values of $Q'_{\star}$ in more massive and hotter than the Sun host stars and small values in hosts less massive and cooler than the Sun. Several subsequent studies [@barker; @essick; @penev], explored different regimes of this theory applied to exoplanetary systems where the hosts are main-sequence or slightly evolved stars, resulting in a range of seven orders of magnitude for the possible values of the stellar modified tidal quality factor ($10^{5}-10^{12}$). Thus, in order to move forward in our understanding of this matter, it is necessary to obtain empirical model-independent estimations of $Q'_{\star}$ derived directly from observational data, as done in this paper.
In this context, we tested the predictions by Zahn with a sample of 15 systems composed by a star and a planet, with measured values of the modified tidal quality factor. In all the cases, these $Q'_{\star}$ values were empirically determined by fitting the mid-transit times, measured from observed transits, as a function of epoch with a quadratic ephemeris. In Figure \[teffvsq\], we show a plot of effective temperature versus stellar modified tidal quality factor for these 15 exoplanetary systems. Here, green circles represent values of $Q'_{\star}$ that have been measured to be upper limits; blue circles are measured lower limits of $Q'_{\star}$; and red circles are measured $Q'_{\star}$ values. The gray shaded area can be interpreted as a transition zone that distinguishes stars with significant convective envelopes (below the left limit) from stars with negligible convective envelopes (beyond the right limit). Specifically, this area indicates the range of effective temperatures at which the percentage of the stellar convective zone mass ($M_\mathrm{CZ}$) respect to the total mass of the star i.e., $m_\mathrm{CZ}=(M_\mathrm{CZ}/M_{\star}) \times 100$, changes from 2$\%$ ($M_{\star} \sim$ 1 $M_\mathrm{\sun}$ and $T_\mathrm{eff} \sim$ 5700 K) to 0.035$\%$ ($M_{\star} \sim$ 1.4 $M_\mathrm{\sun}$ and $T_\mathrm{eff} \sim$ 6200 K), according to the models of @baraffe considering an age of $\sim$ 3 Gyr.
As can be seen, this plot suggests that stars with effective temperatures above $\sim$ 5600 K present $Q'_{\star}$ measurements that are larger than $\sim 1.12 \times 10^{5}$, meanwhile stars with effective temperatures down this limit have $Q'_{\star}$ values below this threshold. Our result implies that the change in the structure of the host star (from convective envelope/radiative core to radiative envelope/convective core), that would occur $\sim$ 6200 K considering the upper limit of the shaded region, is not the crucial factor affecting how quick the tidal evolution of its companion could happen. What might be important is the percentage of the stellar mass in the convective envelope, $m_\mathrm{CZ}$, given in Figure \[teffvsq\] by the size of the points. To be consistent, we used Eq. 5 of @murray to homogeneously estimate $M_\mathrm{CZ}$ for the main-sequence and slightly evolved stars analyzed, while for the only giant star in our sample, K2-39 [@vaneylen], we assumed a convective mass of 0.7 $M_\mathrm{\sun}$ [@donascimento; @pasquini]. In this figure, it is quite clear that the stars with more massive convective zones, and also $T_\mathrm{eff}$ < 5600 K, tend to present values of $Q'_{\star} < 1.12 \times 10^{5}$ and viceversa for stars with smaller $m_\mathrm{CZ}$ (below $\sim 4 \%$). Then, fast orbital changes (small $Q'_{\star}$) due to tidal forces are expected for the planets around stars with significant convective zones, and slow evolution (large $Q'_{\star}$) is predicted for those around less significant convective zone stars. This reinforces the idea discussed above that large stellar convective envelopes seem to be the key to understand the quick tidal evolution of close-in planets. However, we caution that this trend is based on a small sample of stars with planets, for some of which only upper and lower limits of $Q'_{\star}$ are measured, therefore more data with actual values of the modified tidal quality factor are needed to confirm or discard these results.
In this regard, space missions *Kepler* [@borucki] and K2 [@howell14] represent an invaluable source of information. They have not only observed the largest collection of stars with transiting planets known so far, but also provided several transits per target. This implies a huge amount of potential empirical measurements of the modified tidal quality factor by precisely determining the mid-transit times of those targets observed during several consecutive years. These values combined with the already available estimations of effective temperatures for the host stars, can further fill out the Figure \[teffvsq\] and confirm the trend found in this study.
Finally, we did not find any significant correlation between the planetary mass, the ratio of the planet to the stellar mass, and the orbital period with $Q'_{\star}$. In Table \[table:9\], we list the main values of the planetary and stellar properties used to plot the Figure \[teffvsq\].
{width=".8\textwidth"}
System $T_\mathrm{eff}$ $\log g$ $P$\[days\] $M_\mathrm{P}$ \[$M_\mathrm{Jup}$\] $Q'_{\star}$ M$_{cz}$/M$_{\star}$($\%$) Ref. $Q'_{\star}$ Ref $T_\mathrm{eff}$ and $\log g$
------------- ------------------ --------------------------- ------------- ------------------------------------- -------------- ---------------------------- ------------------- -----------------------------------
Kepler-78 5089 $\pm$ 50 4.6 $\pm$ 0.1 0.3550074 0.025 14695$^{b}$ 9.624195 1 1
WASP-19 5591 $\pm$ 62 4.46 $\pm$ 0.09 0.78884 1.114 1230000 3.609035 This work 2
WASP-43 4400 $\pm$ 200 4.5 $\pm$ 0.2 0.813477 2.052 100000 21.734019 3 4
WASP-103 6110 $\pm$ 160 4.22$^{+0.12}_{-0.05}$ 0.925542 1.49 1000000 0.245736 5 6
WASP-18 6526 $\pm$ 69 4.73 $\pm$ 0.08 0.941451 10.43 1000000 0.132701 7 2
KELT-16 6236 $\pm$ 54 4.253$^{+0.031}_{-0.036}$ 0.968995 2.75 110000 0.215928 5 8
WASP-12 6313 $\pm$ 52 4.37 $\pm$ 0.12 1.0914203 1.47 182000 0.010152 5 2
HAT-P-23 6000 $\pm$ 125 4.5 $\pm$ 0.2 1.212884 2.09 560000 1.088569 5 9
KELT-1 6516 $\pm$ 49 4.234$^{+0.012}_{-0.018}$ 1.217514 27.23 840000 0.021936 5 10
WASP-33 7430 $\pm$ 100 4.3 $\pm$ 0.2 1.219869 2.1 880000 0.000004 5 11
WASP-4 5513 $\pm$ 43 4.5 $\pm$ 0.1 1.338231 1.237 29000 4.580076 12 2
WASP-46 5761 $\pm$ 16 4.47 $\pm$ 0.06 1.43037 2.101 7000 1.654130 13 13
Kepler-1658 6216 $\pm$ 78 3.673 $\pm$ 0.026 3.8494 5.88 121900 0.000894 14 14
XO-1 5754 $\pm$ 42 4.61 $\pm$ 0.05 3.941512 0.9 400000 2.745198 15 2
K2-39 4881 $\pm$ 20 3.44 $\pm$ 0.07 4.60543 0.158 0.178$^{b}$ 46 16 16
References: (1) @sanchis13; (2) @mortier; (3) @hoyer; (4) @hellierw43; (5) @macie; (6) @gillon; (7) @wilkins; (8) @oberst; (9) @bakos; (10) @siverd; (11) @collier; (12) @bouma; (13) @petrucci18; (14) @chontos; (15) @southworth; (16) @vaneylen.
$^{b}$: This value of $Q'_{\star}$ was computed in this work by replacing in Eq. \[coeficiente\_tidal\] the measurements of $dP/dt$ and those of the planetary and stellar properties published in the paper cited in the seventh column, where $dP/dt$ was obtained by fitting a quadratic model to the mid-transit times as a function of epoch.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work has been partially supported by UNAM-PAPIIT IN-107518. R. P. thanks Carl Knight and Anaël Wünsche for nicely providing information about the observations of WASP-19b published in the ETD. R. P. and E. J. acknowledge DGAPA for their postdoctoral fellowships and Drs. L. Hebb, C. Hellier, J. Tregloan-Reed, D. Dragomir, J. Bean, E. Sedaghati and N. Espinoza for kindly providing the new transits presented in their studies. R. P. and E. J. are also grateful to the operators of the 1.54-m telescope at EABA, Cecilia Quiñones and Luis Tapia, for their support during the observing runs. All the authors thank the anonymous referee for useful comments and suggestions. We would also like to thank the Pierre Auger Collaboration for the use of its facilities. The operation of the robotic telescope FRAM is supported by the grant of the Ministry of Education of the Czech Republic LM2015038. The data calibration and analysis related to FRAM telescope is supported by the Ministry of Education of the Czech Republic MSMT-CR LTT18004 and MSMT/EU funds CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16$\_$013/0001402. This research has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France and NASA’s Astrophysics Data System Bibliographic Services.
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: romina@astro.unam.mx
[^2]: This work is partially based on observations obtained with the 1.54-m telescope at Estación Astrofísica de Bosque Alegre dependent on the National University of Córdoba, Argentina.
[^3]: Based on data acquired at Complejo Astronómico El Leoncito, operated under agreement between the Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas de la República Argentina and the National Universities of La Plata, Córdoba and San Juan (Programme ID: JS-2019A-06, PI: E. Jofré).
[^4]: IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.
[^5]: http://c-munipack.sourceforge.net/
[^6]: The Exoplanet Transit Database (ETD) can be found at:http://var2.astro.cz/ETD/credit.php; see also TRESCA at:http://var2.astro.cz/EN/tresca/index.php
[^7]: http://www.astro.keele.ac.uk/jkt/codes/jktebop.html
[^8]: $r_{\star} =\frac{R_{\star}}{a}$ and $r_\mathrm{P} =\frac{R_{P}}{a}$ are the ratios of the absolute radii of the star and the exoplanet, respectively, to the semimajor axis ($a$).
[^9]: The simultaneous fitting of this second order polynomial enables to normalize the light curve by removing any parabolic trend produced by differential extinction, stellar activity, and/or differences between the spectral types of the stars used as comparisons and WASP-19. However, this approach is not good to eliminate red noise components associated with shifts in the position of the star on the CCD, seeing fluctuations, background variations, among others, that affect the measured stellar flux. In order to account for and properly remove this systematics, it would be required, for example, to multiply the transit model by a polynomial of any combination of these parameters with an order higher than two.
[^10]: http://www.astro.keele.ac.uk/jkt/codes/jktld.html
[^11]: This methodology assures that the final estimations of $i$, $\Sigma$, and $k$ are not biased by the values derived from low significance data which present the largest errors. This is owing to each of these final quantities is computed as the weighted average of the values measured only from the 40 high-quality transits of our sample, where the weights are calculated as the inverse of the quadratic error in the parameter.
[^12]: In this case, when the adopted value of only one of the parameters was varied, the other two were kept fixed to those obtained by @mancini.
[^13]: In order to decide if a positive or negative correlation is weak, moderate or strong we adopted the following criteria, already used in @petrucci18: i) strongly correlated parameters if -1 $\leq$ r $\lesssim$ -0.8 or 0.8 $\lesssim$ r $\leq$ 1, ii) moderatly correlated parameters if -0.8 $\lesssim$ r $\lesssim$ -0.5 or 0.5 $\lesssim$ r $\lesssim$ 0.8, and weakly correlated parameters if -0.5 $\lesssim$ r $\leq$ 0 or 0 $\leq$ r $\lesssim$ 0.5.
[^14]: http://astroutils.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/time/hjd2bjd.html
[^15]: <https://bitbucket.org/chdianthus/microfarm/src>
[^16]: <https://www.open-mpi.org>
[^17]: <https://www.unige.ch/~hairer/prog/nonstiff/odex.f>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Classification performances of the supervised machine learning techniques such as support vector machines, neural networks and logistic regression are compared for modulation recognition purposes. The simple and robust features are used to distinguish continuous-phase FSK from QAM-PSK signals. Signals having root-raised-cosine shaped pulses are simulated in extreme noisy conditions having joint impurities of block fading, lack of symbol and sampling synchronization, carrier offset, and additive white Gaussian noise. The features are based on sample mean and sample variance of the imaginary part of the product of two consecutive complex signal values.'
author:
- Mohammad Bari
- Hussain Taher
- Syed Saad Sherazi
- Miloš Doroslovački
bibliography:
- 'bib\_asilomar2016.bib'
nocite:
- '[@Bari15asilomar1]'
- '[@Bari14asilomar]'
- '[@Bari15cssp]'
title: Supervised Machine Learning for Signals Having RRC Shaped Pulses
---
Machine learning, block fading, support vector machines, logistic regression, neural networks.
Introduction {#int}
============
Signal separation (SS) is used in applications such as interference identification, electronic warfare, enforcement of civilian spectrum compliance, radar, intelligent modems, cognitive and software defined radios. Most of the published work involving the above mentioned communication systems assume that the signals and their parameters are known. For instance , the works in [@ewaisha13] and [@ewaisha15] do not focus on the SS part. Understandably the focus is on the application itself. This paper studies the SS in noisy conditions that serve as a prerequisite for several applications including but not limited to those mentioned above.
The features in this work, discussed for several scenarios in [@Bari15spl]-[@Bari13asilomar], separate the continuous phase frequency shift keying (CPFSK) modulation from linear modulations of phase shift keying (PSK) and quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM). Root raised cosine (RRC) shaped pulses are used to generate the signals. Modulations are simulated to have the joint presence of block fading, lack of symbol and sampling synchronization, carrier offset, additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) and unknown pulse shape (unknown roll-off). None of the mentioned works discuss the effects of block fading on the performance of SS. Also, support vector machines (SVM) are the only pattern recognition-based approach being employed in the above mentioned works. In this paper, block fading is introduced to make the conditions more challenging. Furthermore, this work compares the classification performances of the SVM, logistic regression (LR) and neural networks (NN) for the same set of features. The order of modulation of the CPFSK signals (binary, 4-ary and 8-ary CPFSK) is identified in [@Bari15asilomar2]. In [@Bari15asilomar3], frequency modulated signals are separated from the linearly modulated signals.
Signal Model {#sig}
============
We model the complex baseband continuous-time received signal as [@Bari15asilomar1] $$s(t)=
x(t-t_0)e^{j(\Delta t+\theta_c)}\alpha(t)e^{j\psi(t)}+v(t)
\label{e1}$$ where $x(t)$ is the transmitted-signal, $\theta_c$ is the initial phase uniformly distributed over $[0,~2\pi)$, $\Delta$ is the carrier offset, $\alpha(t)e^{j\psi(t)}$ models the fading. $\alpha(t)$ is a Rayleigh random variable. $\psi(t)$ is uniformly distributed over $[0,2\pi)$ and is independent of $\alpha(t)$. $v(t)$ is zero-mean complex noise and $t_0$ is the time delay. Furthermore, it is assumed that the bandwidth $B$ of the receiver’s filter is in general larger than the bandwidth of the transmitted signal and the power spectral density of $v(t)$ does not vary within the filter’s bandwidth. In this work the center of the signal’s spectrum is translated to be around a certain desired normalized frequency, say $0$ or $\pi/2$.
For linear modulations the transmitted-signal is $$x(t-t_0)=
\sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty}a_ne^{j\theta_n}p(t-t_0-nT)
\label{e2}$$ where $(a_n,~\theta_n)$ are the amplitude and phase of the transmitted symbol, $p(t)$ is the pulse shape function and $T$ is the symbol period. In the case of FSK modulation $$x(t-t_0)=
e^{j\int\limits_{0}^{t-t_0}\sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty}b_nq(\rho-nT)d\rho}
\label{e3}$$ where $q(\rho)$ defines instantaneous frequency pulse shape and $b_n\in\{-1,+1\}$ for BFSK. Note that (\[e3\]) models continuous phase FSK, which is of higher practical interest than non-continuous phase FSK used in [@Bari13ciss].
Sampling period, $T_s$, is assumed to be $1/(2B)$. Symbol period is given by $$T=N_sT_s+\varepsilon T_s
\label{eT}$$ where $N_s$ is the oversampling and $\varepsilon$ is uniformly distributed in $[0,1)$. Finally the complex baseband discrete-time received signal is $$s[k]\hspace{-1mm}=\hspace{-1mm}
x(kT_s-t_0)e^{j(\Delta' k+\theta_c)}\alpha[k]e^{j\psi[k]}\hspace{-1mm}+v[k]\hspace{-1mm}=\hspace{-1mm}s(t)\vert_{t=kT_s}\label{e13}$$ where $\Delta'=\Delta T_s$, $\alpha[k]=\alpha(kT_s)$, $\psi[k]=\psi(kT_s)$ and $v[k]$ is complex circular AWGN having zero mean and unit variance. Note that $t_0=k_0T_s+\varepsilon_0T_s$ where $k_0$ is the integer part and $\varepsilon_0\in[0,1)$ is the fractional part of the time delay $t_0$ measured in sampling periods as time units.
The Three Features {#der}
==================
Let $$w[k]=s[k]s^*[k-1]
\label{e14}$$ where \* is the complex conjugate operator. We assume that $\alpha[k]=1,~\psi[k]=0$, i.e., fading is skipped for the sake of simplicity. $w[k]$ for noiseless QAM-PSK signals is $$\begin{split}
\hspace{-2mm}
w[k]\vert_{v[k]\equiv 0} &=\hspace{-2mm}
\sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty}a_n^2e^{j\Delta'}P_n[k]P_n^-[k]+
\\&~~~\hspace{-5mm}
\sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty}\sum\limits_{m=-\infty}^{+\infty}a_na_me^{j[\theta_n-\theta_m+\Delta']}P_n[k]P_m^-[k]
\end{split}
\label{e15}$$ where $P_n[k]P_m^-[k]=p(kT_s-t_0-nT)p(kT_s-T_s-t_0-mT).$ Similarly, applying $w[k]$ on noiseless FSK signals yields $$\begin{split}
w[k]\vert_{v[k]\equiv 0}&=
e^{j[\int\limits_{kT_s-T_s-t_0}^{kT_s-t_0}\omega'(\rho)\frac{d\rho}{T_s}+\Delta']}.
\end{split}
\label{e16}$$
Let us consider the means of imaginary part of $w[k]$ in (\[e15\]) and (\[e16\]) for linear and BFSK modulations, respectively. For equiprobable constellation points of each modulation, mean of imaginary part of $w[k]$ for 16-QAM, BPSK, 4-PSK and 8-PSK signals is given by $$\begin{split}
\hspace{-4mm}E[\mbox{Im}(w[k]\vert_{v[k]\equiv 0})]=&E[\mbox{Im}(w[k])]
\\&\hspace{-4mm}
=\mbox{sin}(\Delta')\sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty}P_n[k]P_n^-[k]E[a_n^2]
\label{e17}
\end{split}$$ where 16-QAM has constellation points $a_ne^{j\theta_n}\in\{k/\sqrt{10}+jl/\sqrt{10};~k,~l=-3,-1,+1,+3\}$, BPSK’s phases $\theta_n\in\{0,~\pi\}$, 4-PSK’s phases $\theta_n\in\{(2n+1)\pi/4;~n=0,1,2,3\}$, and 8-PSK’s phases $\theta_n\in\{(2n+1)\pi/8;~n=0,1,...,7\}$. Constellation points for 16-QAM, BPSK, 4-PSK and 8-PSK are chosen such that the average power is unity. Mean of imaginary part of $w[k]$ in (\[e16\]) for BFSK signal is $$E[\mbox{Im}(w[k]\vert_{v[k]\equiv 0})]\hspace{-1mm}=\hspace{-1mm}E[\mbox{Im}(w[k])]\hspace{-1mm}=\hspace{-1mm}\sin(\Delta')\hspace{-3mm}\prod_{m=-\infty}^{\infty}\hspace{-3mm}\cos(Q_m[k])
\label{e18}$$ where $$Q_m[k]=\int\limits_{kT_s-T_s-t_0}^{kT_s-t_0}q(p-mT)d\rho.
\label{e16a}$$
Next, let us consider the variances of imaginary part of $w[k]$ in (\[e15\]) for QAM and PSK modulations, and in (\[e16\]) for BFSK modulation. The variance for BPSK is $\vspace{-2mm}$ $$\begin{split}
\hspace{-2mm}\mbox{VAR}[\mbox{Im}(w[k]\vert_{v[k]\equiv 0})]&\hspace{-1mm}=\hspace{-1mm}
\sin^2(\Delta')\big[(\hspace{-2mm}\sum\limits_{m=-\infty}^{+\infty}\hspace{-3mm}P_m[k]P_m^-[k])^2+
\\&
\hspace{-18mm}\hspace{-3mm}\sum\limits_{m=-\infty}^{+\infty}\hspace{-3mm}P_m^2[k]\hspace{-3mm}\sum\limits_{m=-\infty}^{+\infty}\hspace{-3mm}(P_m^-[k])^2\hspace{-1mm}-\hspace{-1mm}2\hspace{-3mm}\sum\limits_{m=-\infty}^{+\infty}\hspace{-3mm}(P_m[k]P_m^-[k])^2\big].
\end{split}
\label{e18b}$$ For QAM, 4-PSK and 8-PSK modulations, whose signal constellations are invariant to $\pi/2$ rotation, the variance is $\vspace{-2mm}$ $$\begin{split}
\mbox{VAR}[\mbox{Im}(w[k]\vert_{v[k]\equiv 0})]\hspace{-1mm}&=\hspace{-1mm}
\sin^2(\Delta')\bigg[(E[a_0^4]\hspace{-1mm}-\hspace{-1mm}2E^2[a_0^2])\hspace{-3mm}
\\&\hspace{-31mm}
\sum\limits_{m=-\infty}^{+\infty}\hspace{-3mm}(P_m[k]P_m^-[k])^2
\hspace{-1mm}+\hspace{-1mm}E^2[a_0^2](\hspace{-2mm}\sum\limits_{m=-\infty}^{+\infty}\hspace{-3mm}P_m[k]P_m^-[k])^2\hspace{-0.5mm}\bigg]\hspace{-1.5mm}
+\hspace{-1.1mm}\frac{1}{2}E^2[a_0^2]\times
\\&\hspace{-29mm}
\bigg[\sum\limits_{m=-\infty}^{+\infty}P_m^2[k]\sum\limits_{m=-\infty}^{+\infty}(P_m^-[k])^2-(\sum\limits_{m=-\infty}^{+\infty}P_m[k]P_m^-[k])^2\bigg].
\end{split}
\label{e18a}$$ The variance of $\mbox{Im}(w[k])$ in (\[e16\]) for BFSK modulation is $$\begin{split}
\hspace{-2mm}\mbox{VAR}[\mbox{Im}(w[k]\vert_{v[k]\equiv 0})]\hspace{-1mm}&=\hspace{-1mm}\frac{1}{2}\hspace{-1mm}-\hspace{-1mm}\frac{1}{2}\hspace{-2mm}\prod\limits_{m=-\infty}^{+\infty}\hspace{-2mm}\cos(2Q_m[k])+
\\&
\hspace{-25mm}\sin^2(\Delta')\big(\hspace{-2mm}\prod\limits_{m=-\infty}^{+\infty}\hspace{-2mm}\cos(2Q_m[k])\hspace{-1mm}-\hspace{-2mm}\prod\limits_{m=-\infty}^{+\infty}\hspace{-2mm}\cos^2(Q_m[k])\big).
\end{split}
\label{e18c}$$
Supervised Learning Techniques {#sl}
==============================
In this work, classification performances of the SVM, LR and NN are compared for the features introduced in [@Bari15spl]. The features are
1. sample mean of $\mbox{Im}(w[k])$ for the signal $s[k]$ obtained by frequency downconversion to $\pi/2$,
2. sample variance of $\mbox{Im}(w[k])$ for the signal $s[k]$ obtained by frequency downconversion to 0, and
3. sample variance of $\mbox{Im}(w[k])$ for the signal $s[k]$ obtained by frequency downconversion to $\pi/2$.
The features based on $\mbox{Im}(w[k])$ for the signal $s[k]$ obtained by frequency downconversion to $\pi/2$ can be seen as based on $\mbox{Re}(w[k])$ for the signal $s[k]$ obtained by frequency downconversion to 0.
SVM
---
SVM are initially introduced in [@vapnik63]. The current soft margin form of SVM is presented in [@cortes95]. As in any pattern recognition-based approach, SVM create a classification model for the features of the known set of training realizations. The classification model can be linear as well as non-linear. This work uses the linear kernel because the number of features is small and a simple linear decision boundary suffices to separate the signals. For higher dimensional feature space, a more complicated decision boundary, a non-linear one, should be used to avoid the underfitting. It is desirable to have the separation between the features of two classes as wide as possible. The features of the new realizations are then predicted to belong to the either class depending upon which side of the decision boundary they lie. A detailed tutorial can be found in [@burges98].
LR {#LR}
--
For $m$ training examples, LR is the problem of maximizing the following log-likelihood $$L(\theta) = \sum_{i=1}^{m}\big(y_i\mbox{log}(h(x_i)) + (1-y_i)\mbox{log}(1-h(x_i))\big)$$ where $x_i$ is the $i^{\mbox{th}}$ training feature vector example. In this work, $x_i$ is a 3-dimensional feature vector $[x_{i1}, x_{i2}, x_{i3}]^T$, $y_i$ is the $i^{\mbox{th}}$ target value. $y_i\in\{0,1\}$ and $$h(x_i) = \frac{1}{1+e^{-\theta_0 - \sum_{j=1}^{u}\theta_{ij}x_{ij}}}$$ where $u$ is dimension of the feature vector $x_i$.
NN {#NN}
--
In this work, the input layer has three nodes, that is, the dimension of the feature vector is 3. There is only one hidden layer having 10 nodes. Since this work discusses the binary classification problem, the output layer has 1 node only.
Simulations and Discussion {#sim}
==========================
The simulation experiments are presented illustrating the classification performance of the SVM, LR and NN for the signals having RRC shaped pulses. The performance is measured by the accuracy, which is total number of correct classifications divided by total number of signals.
For CPFSK signals, the modulation index is defined as $$h=2f_dT
\label{eh}$$ where $f_d$ is the maximum frequency deviation. Using (\[eT\]) and (\[eh\]) we get $$h=(N_s+\epsilon)\delta/\pi$$ where $\delta=2\pi f_dT_s$. For BFSK $\delta=\beta'$ where $\beta'/T_s$ is the amplitude of the instantaneous frequency pulse $q(t)$ in (\[e3a\]). In this work, FSK signals have carrier frequencies $\beta_{mi}'\in\{\Delta'+(2i-(m+1))h\pi/((m-1)(N_s+\epsilon));~m=2,4,8;i=1,2,....,m\}$, where $\Delta'$ is uniformly distributed in $[\gamma'-\pi/20,~\gamma'+\pi/20]$. The value of $h$ is inversely proportional to the channel’s spectral efficiency. Therefore CPFSK signals having $h<1$ are more useful than those where $h\ge1$. Also, SS for $h<1$ is the more challenging scenario than that of $h\ge1.$ Because of the presence of block fading, the SS performance for different values of $h<1$ are very similar. Therefore, only the results for $h=1/2$ are presented in this work.
There are 10000 signals for each modulation (BFSK, 4-FSK, 8-FSK, BPSK, 4-PSK, 8-PSK and 16-QAM). Therefore the total number of modulated signals is 70000. There are 600 symbols in one realization and the oversampling factor $N_s=6$. Carrier offset, $\Delta'$, is uniformly distributed in $[\gamma'-\pi/20$, $\gamma'+\pi/20]$, where $\gamma'\in\{0,~\pi/2\}.$ Roll-off of the RRC pulses is in $\{k/10;~k=1,~2,~3,....,~10\}$. Both $\Delta'$ and roll-off of the RRC pulses are fixed for a realization and they vary independently from realization to realization following uniform distributions. $\varepsilon$ and $\varepsilon_0$ are both uniformly distributed in \[0,1), which means that $T$ and time delay are non-integer multiples of sampling period. This results in asynchronicity between sampling instants and symbol period. $\varepsilon$ and $\varepsilon_0$ remain unchanged for a particular realization. $k_0$ is uniformly distributed in $\{0, 1, 2, ..., \lceil N_s+\epsilon\rceil-1\}$. For block fading, $\alpha[k]e^{i\psi[k]}$ is a constant for a realization and varies independently for each realization. $\alpha[k]$ has unit mean square value, that is, $E[\alpha^2[k]]=1$ and $\psi[k]$ is uniformly distributed in $[0,2\pi)$.
The signals are simulated to have the joint presence of block fading, unknown roll-off, lack of symbol and sampling synchronization, carrier offset and AWGN.
[=7.25cm]{}
[=7.25cm]{}
[=7.25cm]{}
[=7.25cm]{}
[=7.25cm]{}
Figure \[fig\_SLN1000\] represents the accuracies of the SVM, LR and NN. For each classifier, the number of training realizations is 7000 (1000 realizations for each modulation) for a particular value of SNR. For this large number of training realizations, NN performs the best, especially for smaller values of SNR. LR performs marginally better than the SVM.
Figures \[fig\_SVM\], \[fig\_LR\] and \[fig\_NN\] represent the performances of the SVM, LR and NN, respectively. The performances are shown for different number of training realizations. The performance of the particular classifier do not seem to improve when the number of training realizations is increased from 1000 to 2000 for each modulation. Compared to NN, both SVM and LR perform consistently better with the increasing SNRs for the small number of training (50). The accuracies of the SVM and LR for 50 realizations are comparable to those of 1000 and 2000 training realizations. NN, on the other hand, performs poorly for 50 realizations as compared to its performances for 1000 and 2000 training realizations.
Figure \[fig\_SLN1000snrFixed5db\] represents the accuracies for a range of training realizations for a fixed value of SNR = 5 dB. It can be seen that the NN performs the best for a larger number of training realizations and LR performs marginally better than the SVM.
Conclusions {#con}
===========
The features are classified by SVM, LR and NN, trained for different number of realizations. Each classifier performs similarly for training of 1000 and 2000 realizations. For a low number of 50 training realizations, NN performs poorly. Both SVM and LR perform significantly better than the NN. For a larger number of 1000 or 2000 training realizations, NN performs slightly better than the others for SNRs less than 10 dB. The performances become identical after SNR of 10 dB. If more training realizations are available then NN should be used because of its superior performance for lower values of SNR. If fewer training realizations are available then because of the slightly better performance, especially for lower values of SNR, LR should be preferred over SVM.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'On manifolds with an even Riemannian conformally compact Einstein metric, the resolvent of the Lichnerowicz Laplacian, acting on trace-free, divergence-free, symmetric 2-tensors is shown to have a meromorphic continuation to the complex plane, defining quantum resonances of this Laplacian. For higher rank symmetric tensors, a similar result is proven for (convex cocompact) quotients of hyperbolic space.'
address: 'DMA, École Normale Supérieure, 45 rue d’Ulm, 75230 Paris cedex 05, France'
author:
- Charles Hadfield
title: Resonances for Symmetric Tensors on Asymptotically Hyperbolic Spaces
---
Introduction
============
This paper studies the meromorphic extension of the resolvent of the Laplacian acting on symmetric tensors above asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds. The geometric setting of asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds, modelled on convex cocompact quotients of hyperbolic space, dates to work of Mazzeo and Melrose [@Mazzeo; @mazzeo-melrose] and of Fefferman and Graham [@fefferman-graham:ci]. The meromorphic extension with finite rank poles of the resolvent of the Laplacian on functions is obtained in [@mazzeo-melrose] excluding certain exceptional points in ${\mathbb{C}}$. Refining the definition of asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds by introducing a notion of evenness, Guillarmou [@g:duke] provides the meromorphic extension to all of ${\mathbb{C}}$ and shows that for such an extension, said evenness is essential, see also [@guillope-zworski:pb]. By shifting viewpoint and studying a Fredholm problem, rather than using Melrose’s pseudodifferential calculus on manifolds with corners, Vasy [@v:ml:inventiones; @v:ml:functions] is also able to recover the result of [@g:duke]. This technique is presented in a very accessible article of Zworski [@zworski:vm] in a microlocal language (non-semiclassical). This alternative method is more appropriate when one considers vector bundles, and, for symmetric tensors, is lightly explained later in this introduction. Effectively contained in [@v:ml:inventiones], the meromorphic extension is explicitly obtained in [@v:ml:forms] for the resolvent of the Hodge Laplacian upon restriction to coclosed forms (or excluding top forms, for closed forms). Such a restriction is natural in light of works in a conformal setting [@aubry-g; @branson-gover], i.e. the boundary of the asymptotic space. In fact, from the conformal geometry viewpoint, Vasy’s method of placing the asympotically hyperbolic manifold in an ambient manifold equipped with a Lorentzian metric is very much in the spirit of both the tractor calculus [@branson-eastwood-gover] as well as the ambient metric construction [@fefferman-graham:am].
We announce the theorems (with precise definitions of the objects involved left to the body of the article) and sketch their resolution. Let $\overline{X}$ be a compact manifold with boundary $Y=\partial \overline{X}$. That $({X}, g)$ is asymptotically hyperbolic means that, locally near $Y$ in $\overline{X}$, there exists a chart $[0,{\varepsilon})_\rho\times Y$ such that on $(0,{\varepsilon})\times Y$, the metric $g$ takes the form $$g = \frac{d\rho^2 + h}{\rho^2}$$ where $h$ is a family of Riemannian metrics on $Y$, depending smoothly on $\rho\in [0,{\varepsilon})$. That $g$ is even means that $h$ has a Taylor series about $\rho=0$ in which only even powers of $\rho$ appear. Above ${X}$, we consider the set of symmetric cotensors of rank $m$, denoting this vector bundle ${\mathcal{E}}^{(m)}={\mathrm{Sym}}^m {\mathrm{T}}^*{X}$. On symmetric tensors, there exist two common Laplacians. The (positive) rough Laplacian ${\nabla}^*{\nabla}$ and the Lichnerowicz Laplacian $\Delta$, originally defined on 2-cotensors [@lichnerowicz], but easily extendible to arbitrary degree [@hms]. On functions, these two Laplacians coincide, on one forms, the Lichnerowicz Laplacian agrees with the Hodge Laplacian, and in general, for symmetric $m$-cotensors, the Lichnerowicz Laplacian differs from the rough Laplacian by a zeroth order curvature operator $$\Delta = {\nabla}^*{\nabla}+ q({\operatorname{R}}).$$ We construct the Lorentzian cone ${M}={{\mathbb{R}}^+_{s}}\times{X}$ with metric ${\eta}=-d{s}\otimes d{s}+ {s}^2 g$ (and call ${s}$ the Lorentzian scale). Pulling ${\mathcal{E}}^{(m)}$ back to ${M}$ we naturally see ${\mathcal{E}}^{(m)}$ as a subbundle of the bundle of all symmetric cotensors of rank $m$ above ${M}$, this larger bundle is denoted ${\mathcal{F}}= {\mathrm{Sym}}^m {\mathrm{T}}^*{M}$. On ${\mathcal{F}}$ we consider the Lichnerowicz d’Alembertian ${\operatorname{\square}}$. Up to symmetric powers of ${\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}}$ we may identify ${\mathcal{F}}$ with the direct sum of ${\mathcal{E}}^{(k)} = {\mathrm{Sym}}^k {\mathrm{T}}^*{X}$ for all $k\le m$. Indeed by denoting ${\mathcal{E}}={\oplus_{k=0}^m\,}{{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}}$ the bundle of all symmetric tensors above ${X}$ of rank not greater than $m$, we are able to pull back sections of this bundle and see them as sections of ${\mathcal{F}}$: $${\pi^*_{s}}:
C^\infty({X}; {\mathcal{E}}) \to C^\infty ({M}; {\mathcal{F}}).$$ A long calculation gives the structure of the Lichnerowicz d’Alembertian with respect to this identification. It is seen that ${s}^2{\operatorname{\square}}$ decomposes as the Lichnerowicz Laplacian $\Delta$ acting on each subbundle of ${{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}}$ for $0\le k\le m$ however these fibres are coupled via off-diagonal terms consisting of the symmetric differential ${\operatorname{d}}$ and its adjoint, the divergence ${\operatorname{\delta}}$. (There are also less important couplings due to the trace ${\operatorname{\Lambda}}$ and its adjoint ${\operatorname{L}}$.) Also present in the diagonal are terms involving ${{s}\partial_{s}}$ and $({{s}\partial_{s}})^2$. By conjugating by ${s}^{-\frac n2+m}$ we obtain an operator $${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}= {\nabla}^*{\nabla}+ ({{s}\partial_{s}})^2 + {\mathbf{D}}+ {\mathbf{G}}$$ where ${\mathbf{D}}$ is of first order consisting of the symmetric differential and the divergence, while ${\mathbf{G}}$ is a smooth endomorphism on ${\mathcal{F}}$. By appealing to the b-calculus of Melrose [@melrose:aps], we can push this operator acting on ${\mathcal{F}}$ above ${M}$ to a family of operators (holomorphic in the complex variable $\lambda$) acting on ${\mathcal{E}}$ above ${X}$ of the form $${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}= {\nabla}^*{\nabla}+ \lambda^2 + {\mathcal{D}}+ {\mathcal{G}}$$ where ${\mathcal{D}}$ is of first order consisting of the symmetric differential and the divergence, while ${\mathcal{G}}$ is a smooth endomorphism on ${\mathcal{E}}$. Explicitly, in matrix notation writing $$u = {\left[\begin{array}{c} u^{(m)} \\ \vdots \\ u^{(0)} \end{array}\right]},
\qquad
u\in C^\infty({X}; {\mathcal{E}}),
u^{(k)}\in C^\infty({X};{{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}})$$ the operator ${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}$ takes the following form
$$\setlength\unitlength{10pt} \left[
\begin{picture}(35.5,6)(-4.5,0)
\put(0,5){\makebox(0,0){$\Delta+\lambda^2 - c_m - {\operatorname{L}}{\operatorname{\Lambda}}$}}
\put(6.8,4.9){\makebox(0,0){$2b_{m-1}{\operatorname{d}}$}}
\put(12,4.9){\makebox(0,0){$-b_{m-2}b_{m-1}{\operatorname{L}}$}}
\put(0,3){\makebox(0,0){$-2b_{m-1}{\operatorname{\delta}}$}}
\put(0,1){\makebox(0,0){$-b_{m-2}b_{m-1}{\operatorname{\Lambda}}$}}
\put(26.7,-1){\makebox(0,0){$-b_0b_1{\operatorname{L}}$}}
\put(26.7,-3){\makebox(0,0){$2b_0{\operatorname{d}}$}}
\put(14.7,-5.05){\makebox(0,0){$-b_{0}b_{1}{\operatorname{\Lambda}}$}}
\put(19.9,-5.05){\makebox(0,0){$-2b_0{\operatorname{\delta}}$}}
\put(26.7,-5){\makebox(0,0){$\Delta+\lambda^2 - c_0 - {\operatorname{L}}{\operatorname{\Lambda}}$}}
\put(15,3){{ \tikz[overlay,remember picture,baseline] \node [anchor=base] (upup1) {};}} \put(21.7,1){{ \tikz[overlay,remember picture,baseline] \node [anchor=base] (upup2) {};}}
\put(10,3){{ \tikz[overlay,remember picture,baseline] \node [anchor=base] (up1) {};}} \put(21.7,-1){{ \tikz[overlay,remember picture,baseline] \node [anchor=base] (up2) {};}}
\put(5,3){{ \tikz[overlay,remember picture,baseline] \node [anchor=base] (center1) {};}} \put(21.7,-3){{ \tikz[overlay,remember picture,baseline] \node [anchor=base] (center2) {};}}
\put(5,1){{ \tikz[overlay,remember picture,baseline] \node [anchor=base] (down1) {};}} \put(16.7,-3){{ \tikz[overlay,remember picture,baseline] \node [anchor=base] (down2) {};}}
\put(5,-1){{ \tikz[overlay,remember picture,baseline] \node [anchor=base] (downdown1) {};}} \put(11.7,-3){{ \tikz[overlay,remember picture,baseline] \node [anchor=base] (downdown2) {};}}
\put(23,3){\mbox{\Huge 0}}
\put(3,-4){\mbox{\Huge 0}}
\end{picture}
\right]$$ for constants
(upup1.north west) – (upup2.south east);
(up1.north west) – (up2.south east);
(center1.north west) – (center2.south east);
(down1.north west) – (down2.south east);
(downdown1.north west) – (downdown2.south east);
$$b_k = \sqrt{m-k},
\qquad
c_k = \tfrac{n^2}{4} + m(n+2k+1) - k(2n+3k-1)$$ and operators: $\Delta$ the Lichnerowicz Laplacian; ${\operatorname{\delta}}$ the divergence; ${\operatorname{d}}$ the symmetric differential; ${\operatorname{\Lambda}}$ the trace; ${\operatorname{L}}$ the adjoint of the trace. (The operator ${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}$ naively does not appear self-adjoint for $\lambda\in i{\mathbb{R}}$ since ${\operatorname{\delta}}$ is the adjoint of ${\operatorname{d}}$. The sign discrepancy is due to the Lorentzian signature of ${\eta}$. The operator is indeed self-adjoint for $\lambda\in i{\mathbb{R}}$ as detailed in Proposition \[prop:QQ:selfadjoint\].) When this family of operators acts on ${L^2}$ sections, denoted ${L^2_{s}}({X};{\mathcal{E}})$ described in , it has an inverse for ${\operatorname{Re}}\lambda\gg1$. This family of operators has the following meromorphic family of inverses
\[thm:QQ\] Let $({X}^{n+1},g)$ be even asymptotically hyperbolic. Then the inverse of (Definition \[defn:QQ\]) $${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}\textrm{ acting on } {L^2_{s}}({X};{\mathcal{E}})$$ written ${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}^{-1}$ has a meromorphic continuation from ${\operatorname{Re}}\lambda\gg 1 $ to ${\mathbb{C}}$, $${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}^{-1} : C_c^\infty ( {X}; {\mathcal{E}})\to {\rho^{\lambda+\frac n2 - m}}\bigoplus_{k=0}^m \rho^{-2k} C^{\infty}_{\mathrm{even}}( \overline{X}; {{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}})$$ with finite rank poles.
Consider $u\in C^\infty({X}; {\mathcal{E}})$. Although the trace operator ${\operatorname{\Lambda}}$ acting on each subbundle ${{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}}$ gives a notion of $u$ being trace-free, it is more natural to consider the ambient trace operator from ${\mathcal{F}}$, denoted ${{\operatorname{\Lambda}}_{\eta}}$ (Subsection \[subsec:vecbundles\]). Pulling $u$ back to ${M}$, we have ${\pi^*_{s}}u\in C^\infty ({M}; {\mathcal{F}})$ and we may consider the condition that ${\pi^*_{s}}u \in \ker {{\operatorname{\Lambda}}_{\eta}}$. Avoiding extra notation for this subbundle of ${\mathcal{E}}$ (consisting of symmetric tensors above ${X}$ which are trace-free with respect to the ambient trace operator ${{\operatorname{\Lambda}}_{\eta}}$) we will simply refer to its sections using the notation $$C^\infty({X};{\mathcal{E}}) \cap \ker ( {{\operatorname{\Lambda}}_{\eta}}\circ {\pi^*_{s}})$$ On this subbundle, the operator ${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}$ takes the following form $$\setlength\unitlength{10pt} \left[
\begin{picture}(25.8,5.5)(-3,0)
\put(0,4.3){\makebox(0,0){$\Delta+\lambda^2 - c_m'$}}
\put(6.8,4.2){\makebox(0,0){$2b_{m-1}{\operatorname{d}}$}}
\put(0,2){\makebox(0,0){$-2b_{m-1}{\operatorname{\delta}}$}}
\put(19.9,-2.1){\makebox(0,0){$2b_0{\operatorname{d}}$}}
\put(13.1,-4.35){\makebox(0,0){$-2b_0{\operatorname{\delta}}$}}
\put(19.9,-4.3){\makebox(0,0){$\Delta+\lambda^2 - c_0'$}}
\put(8.5,2.5){{ \tikz[overlay,remember picture,baseline] \node [anchor=base] (up1) {};}} \put(16,-0.5){{ \tikz[overlay,remember picture,baseline] \node [anchor=base] (up2) {};}}
\put(4,2.5){{ \tikz[overlay,remember picture,baseline] \node [anchor=base] (center1) {};}} \put(16,-2.5){{ \tikz[overlay,remember picture,baseline] \node [anchor=base] (center2) {};}}
\put(4,0.5){{ \tikz[overlay,remember picture,baseline] \node [anchor=base] (down1) {};}} \put(11.5,-2.5){{ \tikz[overlay,remember picture,baseline] \node [anchor=base] (down2) {};}}
\put(17,2){\mbox{\Huge 0}}
\put(2,-3){\mbox{\Huge 0}}
\end{picture}
\right]$$ with the modified constants
(up1.north west) – (up2.south east);
(center1.north west) – (center2.south east);
(down1.north west) – (down2.south east);
$$c_k'=c_k - (m-k)(m-k-1).$$ Note that if $u=u^{(m)}\in C^\infty({X};{\mathcal{E}}^{(m)})$ then $u\in \ker{\operatorname{\Lambda}}$ if and only if ${\pi^*_{s}}u \in \ker {{\operatorname{\Lambda}}_{\eta}}$. Again, a similar meromorphic extension of the inverse may be obtained.
\[thm:QQ:tracefree\] Let $({X}^{n+1},g)$ be even asymptotically hyperbolic. Then the inverse of (Definition \[defn:QQ\]) $${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}\textrm{ acting on } {L^2_{s}}({X};{\mathcal{E}}) \cap \ker ( {{\operatorname{\Lambda}}_{\eta}}\circ {\pi^*_{s}})$$ written ${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}^{-1}$ has a meromorphic continuation from ${\operatorname{Re}}\lambda\gg 1 $ to ${\mathbb{C}}$, $${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}^{-1} : C_c^\infty ( {X}; {\mathcal{E}}) \cap \ker ( {{\operatorname{\Lambda}}_{\eta}}\circ {\pi^*_{s}}) \to {\rho^{\lambda+\frac n2 - m}}\left( \bigoplus_{k=0}^m \rho^{-2k} C^{\infty}_{\mathrm{even}}( \overline{X}; {{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}}) \right) \cap \ker ( {{\operatorname{\Lambda}}_{\eta}}\circ {\pi^*_{s}})$$ with finite rank poles.
In order to uncouple the Lichnerowicz Laplacian acting on ${\mathcal{E}}^{(m)}$ and obtain the desired meromorphic extension of the resolvent, we need to restrict further from simply trace-free tensors to trace-free divergence-free tensors. Equivalently, we must be able to commute the Lichnerowicz Laplacian with both the trace operator and the divergence operator. The first commutation is always possible giving the preceding structure of ${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}$ however, unlike in the setting of differential forms (where the Hodge Laplacian always commutes with the divergence), such a commutation on symmetric tensors depends on the geometry of $({X},g)$. For $m=2$ the condition is that the Ricci tensor be parallel, while for $m\ge 3$, the manifold must be locally isomorphic to hyperbolic space.
\[thm:main:2\] Let $({X}^{n+1},g)$ be even asymptotically hyperbolic and Einstein. Then the inverse of $$\Delta - \frac{n(n-8)}{4}+\lambda^2 \textrm{ acting on } {L^2}( {X}; {\mathcal{E}}^{(2)} )\cap\ker{\operatorname{\Lambda}}\cap\ker{\operatorname{\delta}}$$ written ${\operatorname{\mathcal{R}}_\lambda}$ has a meromorphic continuation from ${\operatorname{Re}}\lambda\gg 1 $ to ${\mathbb{C}}$, $${\operatorname{\mathcal{R}}_\lambda}: C_c^\infty ( {X}; {\mathcal{E}}^{(2)} )\cap\ker{\operatorname{\Lambda}}\cap\ker{\operatorname{\delta}}\to \rho^{\lambda+\frac n2-2} C^{\infty}_{\mathrm{even}}( \overline{X}; {\mathcal{E}}^{(2)} )\cap\ker{\operatorname{\Lambda}}\cap\ker{\operatorname{\delta}}$$ with finite rank poles.
\[thm:main:m\] Let $({X}^{n+1},g)$ be a convex cocompact quotient of ${\mathbb{H}^{n+1}}$. Then the inverse of $$\Delta - \frac{n^2 - 4m(n+m-2)}{4} +\lambda^2 \textrm{ acting on } {L^2}( {X}; {\mathcal{E}}^{(m)} )\cap\ker{\operatorname{\Lambda}}\cap\ker{\operatorname{\delta}}$$ written ${\operatorname{\mathcal{R}}_\lambda}$ has a meromorphic continuation from ${\operatorname{Re}}\lambda\gg 1 $ to ${\mathbb{C}}$, $${\operatorname{\mathcal{R}}_\lambda}: C_c^\infty ( {X}; {\mathcal{E}}^{(m)} )\cap\ker{\operatorname{\Lambda}}\cap\ker{\operatorname{\delta}}\to {\rho^{\lambda+\frac n2 - m}}C^{\infty}_{\mathrm{even}}( \overline{X}; {\mathcal{E}}^{(m)} )\cap\ker{\operatorname{\Lambda}}\cap\ker{\operatorname{\delta}}$$ with finite rank poles.
Note that on ${\mathbb{H}^{n+1}}$, the difference between the Lichnerowicz Laplacian and the rough Laplacian is $q({\operatorname{R}}) = -m(n+m-1)$. Thus by introducing a spectral parameter $s = \lambda + \tfrac n2$ (not to be confused with the Lorentzian scale), the previous operator $\Delta - c_m + \lambda^2$ may be equivalently written $${\nabla}^*{\nabla}- s(n-s) - m$$ in the spirit of [@dfg].
In order to demonstrate Theorem \[thm:QQ\], Vasy’s technique is to consider a slightly larger manifold ${X_{e}}$ as well as the ambient space ${M_{e}}={\mathbb{R}}^+\times {X_{e}}$. Using two key tricks near the boundary $Y=\partial\overline{X}$: the evenness property allows us to introduce the coordinate $\mu=\rho^2$ and twisting the Lorentzian scale with the boundary defining function gives (what is termed the Euclidean scale) ${t}={s}/\rho$, it is seen that the ambient metric $\eta$ may be extended non-degenerately past ${\mathbb{R}}^+\times Y$ to ${M_{e}}$. On ${\mathrm{Sym}}^m {\mathrm{T}}^*{M_{e}}$ we construct analogous to ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}$, an operator ${\operatorname{\mathbf{P}}}$ replacing appearances of ${s}$ by ${t}$ which, on ${M}$ is easily related to ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}$. Again the b-calculus provides a family of operators ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}$ on ${\oplus_{k=0}^m\,}{\mathrm{Sym}}^k {\mathrm{T}}^*{X_{e}}$ above ${X_{e}}$. Section \[sec:analysis\] shows precisely how this family of operators fits into a Fredholm framework giving a meromorphic inverse, and very quickly also provides Theorem \[thm:QQ\].
Such theorems are desirable for several reasons. Firstly, the quantum/classical correspondence between the spectrum of the Laplacian on a closed hyperbolic surface and Ruelle resonances of the generator of the geodesic flow on the unit tangent bundle [@faure-tsujii Proposition 4.1] has been extended to compact hyperbolic manifolds of arbitrary dimension [@dfg] at which point the correspondence is between Ruelle resonances and the spectrum of the Laplacian acting on trace-free, divergence-free, symmetric tensors of arbitrary rank. This correspondence is extended in [@ghw] to convex cocompact hyperbolic surfaces using the scattering operator [@graham-zworski] as well as [@dyatlov-g] to obtain Ruelle resonances in this open system. Theorem \[thm:main:m\] has been applied, along with results from [@dfg; @dyatlov-g], in order to provide such a correspondence in the setting of convex cocompact hyperbolic manifolds of arbitrary dimension [@h:qr]. Secondly, with knowledge of the asymptotics of the resolvent of the Laplacian on functions, it is possible to construct the Poisson operator, the Scattering operator, and study in a conformal setting, the GJMS operators and the $Q$-curvature of Branson [@djadli-g-herzlich Chapters 5,6]. This problem should be particularly interesting on symmetric 2-cotensors above a conformal manifold which, upon extension to a “bulk" Poincaré-Einstein manifold, makes contact with Theorem \[thm:main:2\]. Finally, and again with respect to Theorem \[thm:main:2\], the Lichnerowicz Laplacian plays a fundamental role in problems involving deformations of metrics and their Ricci tensors [@biquard; @delay:el; @graham-lee] as well as to linearised gravity [@wang]. Spectral analysis of the Lichnerowicz Laplacian [@delay:es; @delay:tt] as well as the desire to build a scattering operator emphasise the importance of considering this Laplacian acting on more general spaces than that of ${L^2}$ sections. From the viewpoint of gravitational waves, the recent work [@baskin-v-wunsch] studies decay rates of solutions to the wave equation (acting on the trivial bundle) on Minkowski space with metrics similar to . It is very natural to consider this problem on symmetric 2-cotensors acted upon by the Lichnerowicz d’Alembertian.
Theorem \[thm:main:2\] requires the global condition that the manifold be Einstein. It is unclear whether such a condition is necessary. Vasy’s technique deals with the condition of even asymptotic hyperbolicity near the boundary. Indeed, this is reflected in Theorem \[thm:QQ:tracefree\]. However to obtain our desired result, uncoupling the Lichnerowicz Laplacian from the operator ${\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}$ currently requires a global condition on the base manifold. One should study whether perturbation techniques could provide a more general theorem giving precise conditions for when such a meromorphic continuation exists.
The paper is structured as follows. Section \[sec:geom\] sets up the geometric side of the problem introducing the various manifolds of interest as well as the construction of the ambient metric ${\eta}$. This section also includes a digression into the model geometry ${X}={\mathbb{H}^{n+1}}$ to motivate Vasy’s construction. Section \[sec:symtensors\] introduces the algebraic aspects of symmetric tensors, introduces many notational conventions and establishes several relationships between symmetric tensors when working relative to the Lorentzian and Euclidean scales. Section \[sec:bcalc:microlocal\] recalls standard notions from microlocal analysis and explicits several notions from the b-calculus framework adapted to vector bundles. Section \[sec:Lap.DAlem.Q\] contains the bulk of the calculations of this paper, relating ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}$ and ${\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}$ with the Lichnerowicz Laplacian. Sections \[sec:P\] and \[sec:analysis\] introduce the operators ${\operatorname{\mathbf{P}}}$ and ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}$ and provide the desired meromorphic inverse. Section \[sec:proofs:main\] establishes the four theorems. Section \[sec:m=2\] details the particular case of symmetric cotensors of rank $m=2$. It is useful to gain insight into this problem via this low rank setting, and it is hoped that the presentation of this case will aid the reader particularly during Sections \[sec:Lap.DAlem.Q\] and \[sec:proofs:main\]. Finally, Section \[sec:highenergyestimates\] announces the high energy estimates one would obtain if the microlocal analysis performed in Section \[sec:analysis\] was performed using semiclassical notions.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
I would like to thank Colin Guillarmou for his guidance and for the many discussions placing this work in a wider context. Also Andrei Moroianu for his continued support and several useful comments on Section \[sec:Lap.DAlem.Q\]. Finally Rod Gover for originally sparking my interest in all things conformal.
Geometry {#sec:geom}
========
Model geometry
--------------
It is worth mentioning the model geometry which provides a clear geometric motivation for the construction of the ambient space as well as the Minkowski and Euclidean scales.
Let ${{\mathbb{R}}^{1,n+1}}$ be Minkowski space with the Lorentzian metric $$\begin{aligned}
{\eta}:=
-dx_0^2 + \sum_{i=1}^{n+1} dx_i^2\end{aligned}$$ and set ${M_{e}}$ to be Minkowski space minus the closure of the backward light cone. The metric gives the Minkowski distance function, denoted ${\eta}^2$, on ${{\mathbb{R}}^{1,n+1}}$ from the origin: $$\begin{aligned}
{\eta}^2(x)
:=
- x_0^2 + \sum_{i=1}^{n+1} x_i^2.\end{aligned}$$ Hyperbolic space ${X}={\mathbb{H}^{n+1}}$ is then identified with the (connected) hypersurface $$\begin{aligned}
{X}:=
{ \left\{ \left. x\in{{\mathbb{R}}^{1,n+1}}\,\right|\, {\eta}^2(x)=-1, x_{0}>0 \right\} }\end{aligned}$$ and is given the metric $g$ induced by the restriction of ${\eta}$. The boundary at infinity of hyperbolic space, i.e. the sphere $Y={\mathbb{S}^n}$, is identified with the (connected) submanifold $$\begin{aligned}
Y
:=
{ \left\{ \left. x\in{{\mathbb{R}}^{1,n+1}}\,\right|\, {\eta}^2(x)=0, x_{0}=1 \right\} }\end{aligned}$$ which, as an aside, inherits the standard metric, denoted $h$, by restriction of ${\eta}$. For completeness we introduce de Sitter space $dS^{n+1}$ as the hypersurface $$\begin{aligned}
dS^{n+1}
:=
{ \left\{ \left. x\in{{\mathbb{R}}^{1,n+1}}\,\right|\, {\eta}^2(x)=1 \right\} }.\end{aligned}$$ We define the forward light cone $$\begin{aligned}
{M}:=
{ \left\{ \left. x \in {{\mathbb{R}}^{1,n+1}}\,\right|\, {\eta}^2(x)<0, x_{0}>0 \right\} }\end{aligned}$$ and note the decomposition ${M}={{\mathbb{R}}^+_{s}}\times {X}$ via the identification $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathbb{R}}^+_{s}}\times {X}\ni ({s}, x) \mapsto {s}\cdot x \in {X}.\end{aligned}$$ In these coordinates, the metric ${\eta}$ restricted to ${M}$ takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
{\eta}=-d{s}\otimes d{s}+ {s}^{2}g\end{aligned}$$ and we refer to ${s}$ as the Minkowski scale. We define ${X_{e}}$ to be the subset of the $(n+1)$-sphere contained in ${M_{e}}$ $$\begin{aligned}
{X_{e}}:=
{ \left\{ x\in{{\mathbb{R}}^{1,n+1}}\,\left|\, \sum_{i=0}^{n+1} x_i^2 =1, x_{0} > \tfrac{-1}{\sqrt2} \right.\right\} }\end{aligned}$$ and note that the ambient space ${M_{e}}$ is diffeomorphic to ${{\mathbb{R}}^+_{t}}\times {X_{e}}$ via the identification $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathbb{R}}^+_{t}}\times {X_{e}}\ni ({t}, x) \mapsto {t}\cdot x \in {M_{e}}.\end{aligned}$$ We refer to ${t}$ as the Euclidean scale. The dilations induced by the Euclidean scale allow the following identification $$\begin{aligned}
{X_{e}}\simeq {X}\sqcup Y \sqcup dS^{n+1}.\end{aligned}$$
General setting
---------------
We now properly introduce the geometric setting of the article. Let $({X},g)$ be a Riemannian manifold of dimension $n+1$ which is even asymptotically hyperbolic [@g:duke Definition 1.2] with boundary at infinity denoted $Y$. We recall the definition of evenness.
Let $({X},g)$ be an asymptotically hyperbolic manifold. We say that $g$ is even if there exists a boundary defining function $\rho$ and a family of tensors $(h_{2i})_{i\in{\mathbb{N}}_0}$ on $Y=\partial \overline{X}$ such that, for all $N$, one has the following decomposition of $g$ near $Y$ $$\begin{aligned}
\phi^*(\rho^2 g) = dr^2 + \sum_{i=0}^N h_{2i}r^{2i} + O(r^{2N+2})\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi$ is the diffeomorphism induced by the flow $\phi_r$ of the gradient ${\operatorname{grad}}_{\rho^2g}(\rho)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\phi : \left\{ \begin{array}{rcl}
[0,1)\times Y & \to & \phi([0,1)\times Y)\subset \overline{X}\\
(r,y) & \mapsto & \phi_r(y)
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$
We define ${X^2}:= (\overline{X}\sqcup\overline{X})/Y$ to be the topological double of $\overline{X}$. (For a slicker definition, we stray ever so slightly from the model geometry.) From the diffeomorphism $\phi$ we initially construct a $C^\infty$ atlas on ${X^2}$ by noting that $Y\subset {X^2}$ is contained in an open set $U^2:=(U_-\sqcup U_+)/ Y$ with $U_\pm:=\phi([0,1)\times Y)$ and we declare this set to be $C^\infty$ diffeomorphic to $(-1,1)\times Y$ via $$\begin{aligned}
(-1,1)\times Y &\simeq& U^2 \\
(t,y)&\mapsto& \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\phi_{-t}(y)\in U_-, & \textrm{if }t\le 0 \\
\phi_{+t}(y)\in U_+, & \textrm{if } t\ge 0
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ Charts on the interior of ${X}$ in $\overline{X}$ complete the atlas on ${X^2}$.
We want to consider the boundary defining function $\rho$ as a function from ${X^2}$ to $[-1,1]$ such that ${X}$ may be identified with $\{\rho>0\}$. Using the previous chart for $U^2\simeq (-1,1)\times Y$ we initially set $$\begin{aligned}
\rho : \left\{ \begin{array}{rcl}
(-1,1)\times Y & \to & (-1,1) \\
(r,y) & \mapsto & r
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ and extend $\rho$ to a continuous function on ${X^2}$ by demanding that $\rho$ be constant on ${X^2}\backslash U^2$. In order to ensure smoothness at $\partial \overline{U^2}$ we deform $\rho$ smoothly on the two subsets $(-1,-1+{\varepsilon})\times Y$ and $(1-{\varepsilon},1)\times Y$ of $U^2$. This achieves our goal. We now define the function $\mu$ on ${X^2}$ by declaring $$\begin{aligned}
\mu : {X^2}\to [-1,1] :
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\mu=-\rho^2, & \textrm{if }\rho\le 0 \\
\mu=\rho^2 & \textrm{if } \rho\ge 0
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$
Although we have performed a deformation of $\rho$ near $\partial \overline{U^2}$ we will continue to think of $\rho$ and $\mu$ as coordinates for the first factor of $U^2=(-1,1)\times Y$ (if we wanted to be correct, in what follows we would replace $(-1,1)$ with $(-1+{\varepsilon},1-{\varepsilon})$ but this is cumbersome and we prefer to free up the variable ${\varepsilon}$). Of course, only the coordinates $(\mu,y)$ provide a smooth chart for ${X^2}$ near $Y$.
We now weaken the atlas on ${X^2}$ near $Y$. By the previous remark, we may think of $\mu$ as coordinates for the first factor of $U^2$ and we thus demand that the $C^\infty$ atlas is with respect to this coordinate rather than $\rho$ (as was the case for the initial atlas). It is now the case that on ${X^2}$, only $\mu$ (and not $\rho$) is a smooth function.
We define the set $C^\infty_{\mathrm{even}}(\overline{X})$ to be the subset of functions in $C^\infty({X})$ which are extensible to $C^\infty({X^2})$ and whose extension is invariant with respect to the natural involution on ${X^2}$. (For example, the restriction of $\mu$ to ${X}$. However such an invariant extension would of course not give the function $\mu$ previously constructed due to a sign discrepency.) We remark that $\dot C^\infty({X})$, the subset of functions in $C^\infty(\overline{X})$ which vanish to all orders at $Y$, injects naturally into $C^\infty({X^2})$ and may be identified with the subset of $C^\infty ({X^2})$ whose elements vanish on $\{\rho<0\}$. Such constructions may also readily be extended to the setting of vector bundles above ${X}$ by using a local basis near $Y$ of such a vector bundle which smoothly extends across $Y$.
\[def:threebasemanifolds\] We denote by ${X_{e}}$ the following extension of ${X}$ $$\begin{aligned}
{X_{e}}:=
\{\mu>-1\}\subset {X^2},\end{aligned}$$ by ${S}$ the hypersurface $\{\mu=-\tfrac 12\}\subset{X_{e}}$, and by ${X_{cs}}$ the open submanifold $\{\mu> -\tfrac 12\}\subset{X_{e}}$ such that $\partial \overline{X_{cs}}={S}$.
We construct two product manifolds ${M}:={{\mathbb{R}}^+_{s}}\times {X}$ and ${M_{e}}:={{\mathbb{R}}^+_{t}}\times {X_{e}}$. We supply ${M}$ with the Lorentzian cone metric $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:etaLcone}
{\eta}:= -d{s}\otimes d{s}+ {s}^{2}g\end{aligned}$$ and explain how this structure may be smoothly extended to ${M_{e}}$.
Using the even neighbourhod at infinity $U:=(0,1)_\mu\times Y$ we remark that, on ${{\mathbb{R}}^+_{s}}\times U$, the Lorentzian metric takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:etaLcone:even}
{\eta}= - d{s}\otimes d{s}+ {s}^{2}\left( \frac{d\mu\otimes d\mu}{4\mu^2} + \frac{h}{\mu} \right)\end{aligned}$$ where $h$ has a smooth Taylor expansion about $\mu=0$ by the evenness hypothesis. Upon the change of variables ${t}={s}/\rho$ with ${t}\in{\mathbb{R}}^+$, the metric, on ${{\mathbb{R}}^+_{t}}\times U$ takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
{\eta}= -\mu d{t}\otimes d{t}- \tfrac12 {t}(d\mu\otimes d{t}+ d{t}\otimes d\mu) + {t}^2 h\end{aligned}$$ or, in a slightly more attractive convention, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:rho-2eta}
{t}^{-2} {\eta}= -\tfrac\mu2 ({\tfrac{d{t}}{{t}}})^2 - \tfrac12 {\tfrac{d{t}}{{t}}}{\operatorname{\cdot}}d\mu + h\end{aligned}$$ with the convention for the symmetric product $\cdot$ introduced in the following section. From this display we see that, by extending $h$ to a family of Riemannian metrics on $Y$ parametrised smoothly by $\mu\in(-1,1)$, we can extend ${\eta}$ smoothly onto the chart ${{\mathbb{R}}^+_{t}}\times U^2 \subset {M_{e}}$. We do this, thus furnishing ${M_{e}}$ with a Lorentzian metric. As in the model geometry we refer to ${s}$ (which is only defined on ${M}$) as the Minkowski scale, and to ${t}$ (which is defined on ${M_{e}}$) as the Euclidean scale.
From , the measure associated with ${t}^{-2}{\eta}$ on ${{\mathbb{R}}^+_{t}}\times U^2$ is ${\tfrac{d{t}}{{t}}}{dx}$ where ${dx}=\frac12 d\mu\,d{\mathrm{vol}}_h$. On $U$, we have ${dx}= \rho^{n+2} d{\mathrm{vol}}_g$, hence ${dx}$ extends smoothly to a measure on ${X_{e}}$, also denoted ${dx}$, and which agrees with $d{\mathrm{vol}}_g$ on ${X}\backslash U$.
Symmetric Tensors {#sec:symtensors}
=================
This section introduces the necessary algebraic aspects of symmetric tensors and establishes conventions (which follow [@hms]).
A single fibre {#subsec:singlefibre}
--------------
Let $E$ be a vector space of dimension $n+1$ equipped with an inner product $g$ and let $\{e_i\}_{i=0}^n$ be an orthonormal basis and $\{e^i\}_{i=0}^n$ the corresponding dual basis for $E^*$. We denote by ${\mathrm{Sym}}^kE^*$ the $k$-fold symmetric tensor product of $E^*$. Elements are symmetrised tensor products $$u_1{\operatorname{\cdot}}\ldots {\operatorname{\cdot}}u_k := \sum_{\sigma \in \Pi_k} u_{\sigma(1)}\otimes \ldots\otimes u_{\sigma(k)},
\qquad
u_i\in E^*$$ where $\Pi_k$ is the permutation group of $\{1,\dots,k\}$. By linearity, this extends the operation ${\operatorname{\cdot}}$ to a map from ${\mathrm{Sym}}^kE^*\times {\mathrm{Sym}}^{k'}E^*$ to ${\mathrm{Sym}}^{k+k'}E^*$. Note the inner product takes the form $g=\tfrac12\sum_{i=0}^n e^i{\operatorname{\cdot}}e^i$ and that for $u\in E^*$ we write $u^k$ to denote the symmetric product of $k$ copies of $u$. The inner product induces an inner product on ${\mathrm{Sym}}^kE^*$ defined by $$\langle u_1{\operatorname{\cdot}}\ldots{\operatorname{\cdot}}u_k, v_1{\operatorname{\cdot}}\ldots{\operatorname{\cdot}}v_k \rangle := \sum_{\sigma\in\Pi_k} g^{-1}(u_1,v_{\sigma(1)})\ldots g^{-1}(u_k,v_{\sigma(k)}),
\qquad
u_{i},v_{i}\in E^*.$$ For $u\in E^*$, the metric adjoint of the linear map $u{\operatorname{\cdot}}: {\mathrm{Sym}}^kE^*\to{\mathrm{Sym}}^{k+1}E^*$ is the contraction ${u {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}} : {\mathrm{Sym}}^{k+1}E^*\to{\mathrm{Sym}}^kE^*$ defined by $$({u {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}v}) (w_1,\dots,w_k) := v(u^\#,w_1,\dots,w_k),
\qquad
u\in E^*,
v\in {\mathrm{Sym}}^k E^*,
w_i\in E$$ where $u^\#$ is dual to $u$ relative to the inner product on $E$. Contraction and multiplication with the metric $g$ define two additional linear maps: $${\operatorname{\Lambda}}: \left\{ \begin{array}{rcl}
{\mathrm{Sym}}^k E^* & \to & {\mathrm{Sym}}^{k-2} E^* \\
u & \mapsto & \sum_{i=0}^n {e^i {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}{e^i {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}u}}
\end{array}
\right.$$ and $${\operatorname{L}}: \left\{ \begin{array}{rcl}
{\mathrm{Sym}}^k E^* & \to & {\mathrm{Sym}}^{k+2} E^* \\
u & \mapsto & \sum_{i=0}^n e^i{\operatorname{\cdot}}e^i {\operatorname{\cdot}}u
\end{array}
\right.$$ which are adjoint to each other. As the notation is motivated by standard notation from complex geometry, we will refer to these two operators as Lefschetz-type operators.
Let $F$ be the vector space ${\mathbb{R}}\times E$ equipped with the standard Lorentzian inner product $-f\otimes f + g$ where $f$ is the canonical vector in ${\mathbb{R}}^*$. The previous constructions have obvious counterparts on $F$ which will not be detailed. (For this subsection, we write ${ \langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle_F }$ for the Lorentzian inner product on ${\mathrm{Sym}}^m F^*$.) The decomposition of $F$ provides a decomposition of ${\mathrm{Sym}}^mF^*$: $${\mathrm{Sym}}^mF^* = \bigoplus_{k=0}^m a_{k} \, f^{m-k} {\operatorname{\cdot}}{\mathrm{Sym}}^k E^*,
\qquad
a_k = \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{(m-k)!}}$$ and we write $$u = \sum_{k=0}^m a_k \, f^{m-k} {\operatorname{\cdot}}u^{(k)},
\qquad
u\in {\mathrm{Sym}}^mF^*,
u^{(k)}\in {\mathrm{Sym}}^kE^*.$$ The choice of the normalising constant $a_k$ is chosen so that ${ \langle u, v \rangle_F } = \sum_{k=0}^m (-1)^{m-k} { \langle u^{(k)}, v^{(k)} \rangle }$. There is a simple relationship between the terms $u^{(k)}$ in this decomposition of $u$ when $u$ is trace-free.
\[lem:trace:FE\] Let ${{\operatorname{\Lambda}}_F}$ and ${\operatorname{\Lambda}}$ denote the Lefschetz-type trace operators obtained from the inner products on $F$ and $E$ respectively. For $u\in {\mathrm{Sym}}^m F^*$ in the kernel of ${{\operatorname{\Lambda}}_F}$, we have $${\operatorname{\Lambda}}u^{(k)} = - b_{k-2}b_{k-1} u^{(k-2)}$$ where $u=\sum_{k=0}^m a_k f^{m-k}{\operatorname{\cdot}}u^{(k)}$ for $u^{(k)}\in{\mathrm{Sym}}^k E^*$ and constants $b_k = \sqrt{m-k}$.
Beginning with ${{\operatorname{\Lambda}}_F}f^{m-k} = (m-k)(m-k-1)f^{m-k-2}$ we obtain $${{\operatorname{\Lambda}}_F}\left( a_k \, f^{m-k} {\operatorname{\cdot}}u^{(k)} \right)
=
a_{k+2} \sqrt{(m-k)(m-k-1)} f^{m-k-2} {\operatorname{\cdot}}u^{(k)} + a_k \, f^{m-k} {\operatorname{\cdot}}{\operatorname{\Lambda}}u^{(k)}.$$ Therefore, as $u\in\ker{{\operatorname{\Lambda}}_F}$, equating powers of $f$ in the resulting formula for $${{\operatorname{\Lambda}}_F}\left( \sum_{k=0}^m a_k \, f^{m-k} {\operatorname{\cdot}}u^{(k)} \right)$$ gives $$a_k f^{m-k} {\operatorname{\Lambda}}u^{(k)} + a_{k} \sqrt{(m-k+2)(m-k+1)} f^{m-k} u^{(k-2)}=0. \qedhere$$
We introduce some notation for finite sequences to simplify the calculations below. Denote by ${\mathscr{A}}^k$ the space of all sequences $K=k_1\dots k_k$ with $0\leq k_r\leq n$. We write ${{\{k_r\toj\}K}}$ for the result of replacing the $r$^th^ element of $K$ by $j$. If $j$ is not present, this implies we remove the $r$^th^ element from $K$, while if $k_r$ is not present, this implies we add $j$ to $K$ to obtain $jK$. This notation extends to replacing multiple indices at once. For example, ${{\{k_p\to,k_r\to\}K}}$ indicates we first remove the $r$^th^ element from $K$ and then remove the $p$^th^ element from ${{\{k_r\to\}K}}$. We set $$e^K = e^{k_1}{\operatorname{\cdot}}\ldots {\operatorname{\cdot}}e^{k_m} \in\otimes^k E^*,
\qquad
K=k_1\dots k_m \in {\mathscr{A}}^k.$$
Vector bundles {#subsec:vecbundles}
--------------
These constructions are naturally extended to vector bundles above manifolds. We include this subsection in order to announce our notations and conventions. Consider ${M}$ and ${X}$ (with similar constructions for ${M_{e}}$ and ${X_{e}}$). We denote $${\mathcal{F}}:= {\mathrm{Sym}}^m {\mathrm{T}}^*{M},
\qquad
{{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}}:= {\mathrm{Sym}}^k {\mathrm{T}}^*{X},
\qquad
{\mathcal{E}}:= {\oplus_{k=0}^m\,}{{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}}.$$ If we want to make precise that ${\mathcal{F}}$ consists of rank $m$ symmetric cotensors, we will write ${\mathcal{F}}^{(m)}$. The Minkowski scale gives the decomposition ${M}={{\mathbb{R}}^+_{s}}\times {X}$ and we denote by $\pi$ the projection onto the second factor $\pi:{M}\to{X}$. (Remark that on ${M}$ this gives the same map as the projection $\pi:{M_{e}}\to{X_{e}}$ using the Euclidean scale ${M_{e}}={{\mathbb{R}}^+_{t}}\times {X_{e}}$.) This enables ${{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}}$ to be pulled back to a bundle over ${M}$ which we will also denote by ${{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}}$.
Given $u\in C^\infty({M}; {\mathcal{F}})$, we decompose $u$ in the following way $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:decomp:mink}
u = \sum_{k=0}^m a_k \, ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k} {\operatorname{\cdot}}u^{(k)},
\qquad
u^{(k)}\in C^\infty({M}; {{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}})\end{aligned}$$ where $a_k$ is the previously introduced constant $((m-k)!)^{-1/2}$. We say that such a decomposition is relative to the Minkowski scale.
For a fixed value of ${s}$, say ${s}_0$, there is an identification of the corresponding subset of ${M}$ with ${X}$ via the map $\pi_{|{s}={s}_0}$. We will thus reuse $\pi$ for the following map $$\pi_{{s}={s}_0} : \left\{ \begin{array}{rcl}
C^\infty({M}; {\mathcal{F}}) & \to & C^\infty ({X}; {\mathcal{E}})\\
u=\sum_{k=0}^m a_k \, ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k} {\operatorname{\cdot}}u^{(k)} & \mapsto & \sum_{k=0}^m \pi_{|{s}={s}_0} {u^{(k)}}
\end{array}
\right.$$ and in order to map from $C^\infty({X};{\mathcal{E}})$ to $C^\infty({M};{\mathcal{F}})$, taking into account the Minkowski scale, we introduce $${\pi^*_{s}}: \left\{ \begin{array}{rcl}
C^\infty({X}; {\mathcal{E}}) & \to & C^\infty ({M}; {\mathcal{F}})\\
u=\sum_{k=0}^m u^{(k)} & \mapsto & \sum_{k=0}^m a_k \, ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k} {\operatorname{\cdot}}\pi^* u^{(k)}
\end{array}
\right.$$
On ${M}$ we have two useful metrics. First, ${s}^{-2}\eta$ which takes the model form of the metric on $F$ introduced in the previous subsection $${s}^{-2}\eta = -\tfrac12 ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^2 + g.$$ Second, we have the metric $\eta$ which is geometrically advantageous as it gives the Lorentzian cone metric on ${M}$. Notationally we will distinguish the two constructions by decorating the Lefschetz-type operators with a subscript of the particular metric used. A similar decoration will be used for the two inner products on ${\mathcal{F}}$. There are two useful relationships. First, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:twoLambdas:eta}
{ \Lambda_{{s}^{-2}{\eta}}}u = {s}^4 {{\operatorname{\Lambda}}_{\eta}}u,
\qquad
u\in {\mathcal{F}}\end{aligned}$$ and second, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:twoinnprods:eta}
{ \langle u, v \rangle_{{s}^{-2}{\eta}} } = {s}^{2m} { \langle u, v \rangle_{\eta}},
\qquad
u,v\in {\mathcal{F}}\end{aligned}$$ On ${X}$, when the metric $g$ is used, no such decoration will be added. We can however make use of the metric ${s}^{-2}\eta$ by appealing to ${\pi^*_{s}}$. We introduce ${ \langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle_{s}}$ on $C^\infty({X};{\mathcal{E}})$ by declaring $${ \langle u, v \rangle_{s}} := { \langle {\pi^*_{s}}u, {\pi^*_{s}}v \rangle_{{s}^{-2}{\eta}} },
\qquad
u,v\in C^\infty({X};{\mathcal{E}}).$$ Note that such a definition does not depend on the value of ${s}\in{\mathbb{R}}^+$ at which point the inner product on ${\mathcal{F}}$ is applied. With this inner product given, and the measure $d{\mathrm{vol}}_g$ previously introduced, we obtain the notion of ${L^2}$ sections and define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:L2definitionforEwithS}
{L^2_{s}}({X};{\mathcal{E}}) := {L^2}({X}, d{\mathrm{vol}}_g ; {\mathcal{E}}, { \langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle_{s}} )\end{aligned}$$ whose inner product is provided by $${ ( u , v )_{s}} := \int_{{X}} { \langle u , v \rangle_{s}} \, d{\mathrm{vol}}_g,
\qquad
u,v\in C^\infty_c({X}; {\mathcal{E}}).$$ On ${X_{e}}$, we define ${L^2}$ sections with respect to the measure ${dx}$, $${L^2_{t}}({X_{e}};{\mathcal{E}}) := {L^2}({X_{e}}, {dx}; {\mathcal{E}}, { \langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle_{t}} ).$$ On ${X}$, the necessary correspondences between the constructions using the Lorentzian and Euclidean scales are given in the following lemma.
\[lem:innprod:changeofscales\] There exists $J\in C^\infty({X};{\operatorname{End}}{\mathcal{E}})$ such that $${\pi^*_{s}}u = {\pi^*_{t}}Ju,
\qquad
u\in C^\infty({X};{\mathcal{E}})$$ whose entries are homogeneous polynomials of degree at most $m$ in ${\tfrac{d\rho}{\rho}}$, upper triangular in the sense that $J ( {\mathcal{E}}^{(k_0)} ) \subset \oplus_{k=k_0}^m {{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}}$, and whose diagonal entries are the identity. Moreover, $${ \langle u, v \rangle_{s}} =\rho^{2m} { \langle J u, J v \rangle_{t}},
\qquad
u,v\in C^\infty({X};{\mathcal{E}}).$$ Finally, $${L^2_{s}}({X};{\mathcal{E}}) = \rho^{\frac n2 - m + 1} J^{-1} {L^2_{t}}({X};{\mathcal{E}}).$$
As ${t}={s}/\rho$, the differentials are related by $${\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}}= {\tfrac{d{t}}{{t}}}+ {\tfrac{d\rho}{\rho}}$$ hence by the binomial expansion $$a_k ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k}{\operatorname{\cdot}}\pi^* u^{(k)} = \sum_{j=0}^{m-k} a_{k+j} ({\tfrac{d{t}}{{t}}})^{m-k-j} {\operatorname{\cdot}}\textstyle\binom{m-k}{j} \frac{a_k}{a_{k+j}} ({\tfrac{d\rho}{\rho}})^j {\operatorname{\cdot}}\pi^* u^{(k)}.$$ where $u^{(k)}\in C^\infty({X};{{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}})$. This defines the endomorphism $J$ by declaring $$J u^{(k)} = \sum_{j=0}^{m-k} \textstyle\binom{m-k}{j} \frac{a_k}{a_{k+j}} ({\tfrac{d\rho}{\rho}})^j {\operatorname{\cdot}}u^{(k)}.$$ The second claim is direct from ${s}^{-2}\eta=\rho^{-2}{t}^{-2}\eta$, hence on ${\mathcal{F}}$, where the inner product requires $m$ applications of the inverse metric, ${ \langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle_{{s}^{-2}{\eta}} } = \rho^{2m}{ \langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle_{{t}^{-2}{\eta}} }$. The final claim follows from the second claim and the previously remarked correspondence, ${dx}= \rho^{n+2} d{\mathrm{vol}}_g$.
$\mathrm{b}$-Calculus and Microlocal Analysis {#sec:bcalc:microlocal}
=============================================
This section introduces the necessary b-calculus formalism on symmetric cotensors. The standard reference is [@melrose:aps], in particular we make much use of Chapters 2 and 5. We also recall some now standard ideas from microlocal analysis.
b-calculus {#subsec:b-calculus}
----------
For convenience we will only work on ${M}={{\mathbb{R}}^+_{s}}\times {X}$ rather than on both ${M}$ and ${M_{e}}$. We define $\overline{M}$ to be the closure of ${M}$ seen as a submanifold of ${\mathbb{R}}_{s}\times {X}$ with its usual topology. Then $$\overline{M}= {M}\sqcup {X}$$ where ${X}$ is naturally identified with the boundary $\partial\overline{M}=\{{s}=0\}$.
We let $\{e_i\}_{i=0}^n$ denote a (local) holonomic frame for ${\mathrm{T}}{X}$ and $\{e^i\}_{i=0}^n$ its dual frame for ${\mathrm{T}}^*{X}$. The Lie algebra of b-vector fields consists of smooth vector fields on $\overline{M}$ tangent to the boundary ${X}$. It is thus generated by $\{{{s}\partial_{s}}, e_i\}$. This provides the smooth vector bundle ${\leftidx{^{\mathrm{b}}}{{\mathrm{T}}}}\overline{M}$. The dual bundle, ${\leftidx{^{\mathrm{b}}}{{\mathrm{T}}}}^*\overline{M}$, has basis $\{ {\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}}, e^i \}$. This dual bundle is used to construct the b-symmetric bundle of $m$-cotensors, denoted ${\leftidx{^{\mathrm{b}}}{{\mathcal{F}}}}$. On the interior of $\overline{M}$, this bundle is canonically isomorphic to ${\mathcal{F}}$.
An operator ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}$ belongs to ${\mathrm{Diff}}^p_{\mathrm{b}}(\overline{M};{\operatorname{End}}{\leftidx{^{\mathrm{b}}}{{\mathcal{F}}}})$ if, relative to a frame generated by $\{{\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}},e^i\}$ the operator ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}$ may be written as a matrix $${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}=[{\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}_{i,j}]$$ whose coefficients ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}_{i,j}$ belong to ${\mathrm{Diff}}^p_{\mathrm{b}}(\overline{M})$. That is, each ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}_{i,j}$ may be written $${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}_{i,j} = \sum_{k,|\alpha|\le p} q_{i,j,k,\alpha} ({{s}\partial_{s}})^k \partial_{x}^\alpha$$ for smooth functions $q_{i,j,k,\alpha}\in C^\infty(\overline{M})$.
Operators in ${\mathrm{Diff}}^p_{\mathrm{b}}(\overline{M};{\operatorname{End}}{\leftidx{^{\mathrm{b}}}{{\mathcal{F}}}})$ provide indicial families of operators belonging to ${\mathrm{Diff}}^p({X};{\operatorname{End}}{\mathcal{E}})$. In order to define this mapping we recall the operator $\pi_{{s}={s}_0}$ defined in the previous section for ${s}_0\in{\mathbb{R}}^+$. This family of maps clearly has an extension to $\overline{M}$ giving $$\pi_{{s}={s}_0} :
C^\infty(\overline{M}; {\leftidx{^{\mathrm{b}}}{{\mathcal{F}}}}) \to C^\infty ({X}; {\mathcal{E}})$$ where ${s}_0\in [0,\infty)$. The indicial family mapping (with respect to the Minkowski scale ${s}$) $${\operatorname{I}}_{s}: {\mathrm{Diff}}^p_{\mathrm{b}}(\overline{M};{\operatorname{End}}{\leftidx{^{\mathrm{b}}}{{\mathcal{F}}}}) \to \mathcal{O}({\mathbb{C}}; {\mathrm{Diff}}^p({X};{\operatorname{End}}{\mathcal{E}})).$$ is defined by $${\operatorname{I}}_{s}({\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}},\lambda) \left( u \right)
:=
\pi_{{s}=0} \left(
{s}^{\lambda} {\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}{s}^{-\lambda} \left(
{\pi^*_{s}}u
\right)
\right),
\qquad
u\in C^\infty({X};{\mathcal{E}}).$$ When the scale ${s}$ is understood, we will use the convention of removing the bold font from such an operator and write $${\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}:= {\operatorname{I}}_{s}({\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}},\cdot),
\qquad
{{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}:= {\operatorname{I}}_{s}({\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}},\lambda).$$
This definition effectively does three things. First, if ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}$ is written as a matrix, relative to the decomposition established by the Minkowski scale , then ${\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}$ will take the same form but without the appearances of $a_k({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k}{\operatorname{\cdot}}$. Next, the functions $q_{i,j,k,\alpha}$ are frozen to their values at ${s}=0$. (These two results are due to the appearance of $\pi_{{s}=0}$.) Finally, due to the conjugation by ${s}^{\lambda}$, all appearances of ${{s}\partial_{s}}$ in ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}$ are replaced by the complex parameter $-\lambda$.
The choice to conjugate by ${s}^{-\lambda}$ is to ensure that the subsequent operators (in particular ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}$) acting on ${L^2}$ sections, have physical domains corresponding to ${\operatorname{Re}}\lambda\gg1$. If one is convinced that the convention ought to be conjugation by ${s}^\lambda$ rather than ${s}^{-\lambda}$ one can kill two birds with one stone: Considering the model geometry, which motivates the viewpoint of hyperbolic space “at infinity” inside the forward light cone of compactified Minkowski space, it would be somewhat more natural to introduce the coordinate $\tilde{s}={s}^{-1}$ on ${M}$, then construct the closure of ${M}$ as a submanifold of ${\mathbb{R}}_{\tilde{s}}\times{X}$. The indicial family would then by constructed via a conjugation of $\tilde{s}^\lambda$ and appearances of $\tilde {s}\partial_{\tilde {s}}=-{{s}\partial_{s}}$ would be replaced by $\lambda$. For this article, the aesthetics of such a choice are outweighed by the superfluous introduction of two dual variables, one for each of ${s}$ and ${t}$.
The b-operators we consider are somewhat simpler than the previous definition in that the coefficients $q_{i,j,k,\alpha}$ do not depend on ${s}$ (in the correct basis).
A b-operator ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}\in {\mathrm{Diff}}^p_{\mathrm{b}}(\overline{M}; {\leftidx{^{\mathrm{b}}}{{\mathcal{F}}}})$ is b-trivial if, for all ${s}_0\in{\mathbb{R}}^+$, $${\operatorname{I}}_{s}({\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}},\lambda) \left( u \right)
=
\pi_{{s}={s}_0} \left(
{s}^{\lambda} {\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}{s}^{-\lambda} \left(
{\pi^*_{s}}u
\right)
\right),
\qquad
u\in C^\infty({X};{\mathcal{E}}).$$
One advantage of this property is that self-adjointness of ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}$ easily implies self-adjointness of ${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}$ for $\lambda\in i{\mathbb{R}}$.
\[lem:selfadjointpreservation\] Suppose ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}$ is b-trivial and formally self-adjoint relative to the inner product $${ ( u , v )_{{s}^{-2}\eta}} = \int_{{M}} { \langle u , v \rangle_{{s}^{-2}{\eta}} } \, {\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}}d{\mathrm{vol}}_g,
\qquad
u,v\in C^\infty_c({M}; {\mathcal{F}}).$$ Then, the indicial family ${\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}$ is, upon restriction to $\lambda\in i{\mathbb{R}}$, formally self-adjoint relative to the inner product $${ ( u , v )_{s}} = \int_{{X}} { \langle u , v \rangle_{s}} \, d{\mathrm{vol}}_g,
\qquad
u,v\in C^\infty_c({X}; {\mathcal{E}}).$$ Moreover, for all $\lambda$, ${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}^* = {\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_{-\bar\lambda}$.
We prove only the first claim. That ${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}^* = {\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_{-\bar\lambda}$ for all $\lambda$ follows by the same reasoning making the obvious changes in the second display provided below. Let $\psi$ be a smooth function on ${{\mathbb{R}}^+_{s}}$ with compact support (away from ${s}=0$) and with unit mass $\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^+} \psi \, {\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}}=1$. Let $u,v\in C^\infty_c({X}; {\mathcal{E}})$. The b-triviality provides $$\begin{aligned}
{ ( {{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}u , v )_{s}}
&=
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^+} { ( {{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}u , v )_{s}} \,\psi\, {\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}}\\
&=
{ ( {s}^{\lambda} {\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}{s}^{-\lambda} {\pi^*_{s}}u , \psi {\pi^*_{s}}v )_{{s}^{-2}\eta}}\end{aligned}$$ For $\lambda\in i{\mathbb{R}}$ this develops as $$\begin{aligned}
{ ( {{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}u , v )_{s}} &= { ( {\pi^*_{s}}u , {s}^{\lambda} {\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}{s}^{-\lambda} \psi {\pi^*_{s}}v )_{{s}^{-2}\eta}} \\
&=
{ ( {\pi^*_{s}}u , \psi {s}^{\lambda} {\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}{s}^{-\lambda} {\pi^*_{s}}v )_{{s}^{-2}\eta}} +
{ ( {\pi^*_{s}}u , [{s}^{\lambda} {\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}{s}^{-\lambda} , \psi ] {\pi^*_{s}}v )_{{s}^{-2}\eta}} \\
&=
{ ( u , {{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}v )_{s}} +
{ ( {\pi^*_{s}}u , [{s}^{\lambda} {\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}{s}^{-\lambda} , \psi ] {\pi^*_{s}}v )_{{s}^{-2}\eta}} \end{aligned}$$ where the last line has again used the b-triviality. Thus we require $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:firstshittyequation}
{ ( {\pi^*_{s}}u , [{s}^{\lambda} {\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}{s}^{-\lambda} , \psi ] {\pi^*_{s}}v )_{{s}^{-2}\eta}} =0\end{aligned}$$ Consider ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}$ as a matrix ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}=[{\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}_{i,j}]$ with respect to a basis in which $${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}_{i,j} = \sum_{k,|\alpha|\le p} q_{i,j,k,\alpha} ({{s}\partial_{s}})^k \partial_{x}^\alpha$$ for $q_{i,j,k,\alpha}\in C^\infty({X})$. The key is to note that we may write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:secondshittyequation}
[ {s}^{\lambda} {\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}_{i,j} {s}^{-\lambda} , \psi ]
=
\sum_{k,|\alpha|\le p-1} \kappa_{i,j,k,\alpha} ({{s}\partial_{s}})^k \partial_{x}^\alpha\end{aligned}$$ for smooth functions (which depend on $\lambda$) $\kappa_{i,j,k,\alpha}\in C^\infty({X})$ such that every term in each $\kappa_{i,j,k,\alpha}$ is smoothly divisible by some non-zero integer ${{s}\partial_{s}}$-derivative of $\psi$. Factoring out these appearances and integrating over ${\mathbb{R}}^+$ in causes, by the fundamental theorem of calculus, the problematic term to vanish. The factorisation claim involving the functions $\kappa_{i,j,k,\alpha}$ follows directly from the following calculation. First $$\begin{aligned}
[ {s}^{\lambda} {\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}_{i,j} {s}^{-\lambda} , \psi ]
&=
\sum_{k,|\alpha|\le p} q_{i,j,k,\alpha} [ ({{s}\partial_{s}}-\lambda)^k \partial_{x}^\alpha , \psi ] \\
&=
\sum_{\substack{k,|\alpha|\le p \\ k\ge1}} q_{i,j,k,\alpha} [ ({{s}\partial_{s}}-\lambda)^k,\psi] \partial_{x}^\alpha\end{aligned}$$ and for $k>1$, $$\begin{aligned}
[ ({{s}\partial_{s}}-\lambda)^k,\psi]
&= \sum_{\ell=1}^k \textstyle\binom{k}{\ell}(-\lambda)^{k-\ell} [ ({{s}\partial_{s}})^\ell , \psi ] \\
&= \sum_{\ell=1}^k \sum_{m=1}^\ell \textstyle\binom{k}{\ell}(-\lambda)^{k-\ell} \textstyle\binom{\ell}{m} (({{s}\partial_{s}})^m\psi) ({{s}\partial_{s}})^{\ell-m}\end{aligned}$$ which, due to the appearance of $({{s}\partial_{s}})^m\psi$ gives with the desired structure.
The use of $d{\mathrm{vol}}_g$ is unimportant, the result holds for any measure on ${X}$ given such a measure also appears as $d{\mathrm{vol}}_g$ does in the inner product on ${M}$.
We finish this subsection by remarking the effect that the scale (Minkowski or Euclidean) has on the indicial family.
\[lem:indicialfamily:changeofscales\] For ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}\in{\mathrm{Diff}}^p_{\mathrm{b}}(\overline{M};{\leftidx{^{\mathrm{b}}}{{\mathcal{F}}}})$, the indicial families obtained using the scales ${s}$ and ${t}$ are related by $${\operatorname{I}}_{s}({\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}},\lambda) = \rho^{\lambda} J^{-1} {\operatorname{I}}_{t}({\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}},\lambda) J \rho^{-\lambda}$$ with $J$ presented in Lemma \[lem:innprod:changeofscales\].
Lemma \[lem:innprod:changeofscales\] provides ${\pi^*_{s}}= {\pi^*_{t}}\circ J$. Dual to this equation, $\pi_{{s}=0}=J^{-1}\circ \pi_{{t}=0}$. Combining these observations gives the result $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{I}}_{s}({\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}},\lambda) \left( u \right)
&=
\pi_{{s}=0} \left(
{s}^{\lambda} {\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}{s}^{-\lambda} \left(
{\pi^*_{s}}u
\right)
\right)\\
&=
J^{-1} \pi_{{t}=0}\left(
\rho^{\lambda}{t}^{\lambda} {\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}{t}^{-\lambda}\rho^{-\lambda} \left(
{\pi^*_{t}}J u
\right)
\right)\\
&=
\rho^{\lambda} J^{-1} {\operatorname{I}}_{t}({\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}},\lambda) (J \rho^{-\lambda} u ). \qedhere\end{aligned}$$
Microlocal analysis
-------------------
We recall standard objects in microlocal analysis (the necessary information is given in [@zworski:vm] for pseudodifferential operators acting on the trivial bundle, here we merely indicate the small changes that occur when acting on a vector bundle). Recall the open submanifold ${X_{cs}}=\{ \mu > -\tfrac12\}\subset{X_{e}}$ from Defintion \[def:threebasemanifolds\]. We will assume that ${L^2_{t}}({X_{e}};{\mathcal{E}})$ provides a notion of sections above ${X_{cs}}$ with Sobolev regularity $s$, denoted $H^s({X_{cs}};{\mathcal{E}})$, with norm ${\| \cdot \|_{H^s}}$ (see Subsection \[subsec:functionspaces\] for subtleties arising due to the boundary ${S}$) . Let $\zeta$ denote the coefficients of a covector relative to some local base for ${\mathrm{T}}^*{X_{cs}}$ such that we may define the Japanese bracket ${\langle\zeta\rangle}$. We denote by $$\Psi^p_{\mathrm{scal}}({X_{cs}}; {\operatorname{End}}{\mathcal{E}}) \subset \Psi^p({X_{cs}};{\operatorname{End}}{\mathcal{E}})$$ the space of properly supported pseudo-differential operators of order $p$ acting on ${\mathcal{E}}$ and which have scalar principal symbol. For $A\in \Psi^a_{\mathrm{scal}}({X_{cs}}; {\operatorname{End}}{\mathcal{E}})$ such a symbol is written $${\sigma(A)}\in S^a({\mathrm{T}}^*{X_{cs}}\backslash 0 ; {\operatorname{End}}{\mathcal{E}}) / S^{a-1}({\mathrm{T}}^*{X_{cs}}\backslash 0 ; {\operatorname{End}}{\mathcal{E}})$$ and is scalar. For such operators, it continues to hold that, for $B\in \Psi^b_{\mathrm{scal}}({X_{cs}}; {\operatorname{End}}{\mathcal{E}})$, the principal symbol of the composition $${\sigma(AB)} = {\sigma(A)}{\sigma(B)} \in S^{a+b}({\mathrm{T}}^*{X_{cs}}\backslash 0 ; {\operatorname{End}}{\mathcal{E}}) / S^{a+b-1}({\mathrm{T}}^*{X_{cs}}\backslash 0 ; {\operatorname{End}}{\mathcal{E}})$$ remains scalar. However now, as lower order terms are not required to be diagonal, the commutator has principal symbol $${\sigma([A,B])} \in S^{a+b-1}({\mathrm{T}}^*{X_{cs}}\backslash 0 ; {\operatorname{End}}{\mathcal{E}}) / S^{a+b-2}({\mathrm{T}}^*{X_{cs}}\backslash 0 ; {\operatorname{End}}{\mathcal{E}})$$ which, in general, is not scalar. In the case that $A\in \Psi^a({X_{cs}})\subset\Psi^a_{\mathrm{scal}}({X_{cs}};{\operatorname{End}}{\mathcal{E}})$ we get ${\sigma(\frac{1}{2i}[A,B])} = \frac12 {H_{{\sigma(B)}}}({\sigma(A)})$ where ${H_{{\sigma(B)}}}$ is the Hamiltonian vector field associated with ${\sigma(B)}$. Exactly as in the case that ${\mathcal{E}}$ is the trivial bundle, associated with the operator $A$ are the notions of the wave front set ${\mathrm{WF}}(A)$ and the characteristic variety ${\mathrm{Char}}(A)$.
There are two radial estimates used in the analysis of ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}$ (the family of operators introduced in Section \[sec:P\]) in order to prove Proposition \[prop:fredholm\]. The analysis is performed in [@v:ml:inventiones Section 2.4] for functions with an alternative description given in [@dyatlov-zworski:book E.5.2]. We will follow the second approach and translate the results into a (non semiclassical) setting adapted to vector bundles. For this, and to follow closely the referenced works, we introduce [@dyatlov-zworski:book Subsection E.1.2] the radially compactified cotangent bundle ${\overline{{\mathrm{T}}}\vphantom{{\mathrm{T}}}^*}{X_{cs}}$ and projection map $\kappa: {\mathrm{T}}^*{X_{cs}}\backslash0 \to \partial {\overline{{\mathrm{T}}}\vphantom{{\mathrm{T}}}^*}{X_{cs}}$. Consider $P\in \Psi^p_{\mathrm{scal}}({X_{cs}};{\operatorname{End}}{\mathcal{E}})$ with real principal symbol ${\sigma(P)}$ and Hamiltonian vector field ${H_{{\sigma(P)}}}$. Write $P$ in the following way $$P = {\operatorname{Re}}P + i {\operatorname{Im}}P$$ for $${\operatorname{Re}}P = \frac{P+P^*}{2} \in \Psi^p_{\mathrm{scal}}({X_{cs}};{\operatorname{End}}{\mathcal{E}}),
\qquad
{\operatorname{Im}}P = \frac{P-P^*}{2i} \in \Psi^{p-1}({X_{cs}};{\operatorname{End}}{\mathcal{E}}).$$ In the sense of [@dyatlov-zworski:book Definition E.52], let ${\Gamma_+}$ and ${\Gamma_-}$ be a source and a sink of ${\sigma(P)}$ respectively. Suppose that ${\langle\zeta\rangle}^{1-p}{H_{{\sigma(P)}}}$ vanishes on ${\Gamma_\pm}$. Then
\[lem:highregularity\] Let $s$ satisfy the following threshold condition on ${\Gamma_+}$ that $${\langle\zeta\rangle}^{1-p}( {\sigma({\operatorname{Im}}P)} + (s + \tfrac{1-p}{2}) {H_{{\sigma(P)}}} \log{\langle\zeta\rangle} ) \quad\textrm{is negative definite.}$$ Then for all $B_1\in \Psi^0({X_{cs}})$ with ${\mathrm{WF}}(I-B_1)\cap {\Gamma_+}=\varnothing$, there exists $A\in \Psi^0({X_{cs}})$ with ${\mathrm{Char}}(A)\cap {\Gamma_+}=\varnothing$ such that for any $u\in C_c^\infty({X_{cs}};{\mathcal{E}})$ (and any $N$ large enough) $${\| Au \|_{H^s}} \le C( {\| B_1Pu \|_{H^{s-p+1}}} + {\| u \|_{H^{-N}}}).$$
\[lem:lowregularity\] Let $s$ satisfy the following threshold condition on ${\Gamma_-}$ $${\langle\zeta\rangle}^{1-p} ( {\sigma({\operatorname{Im}}P)} + (s + \tfrac{1-p}{2}) {H_{{\sigma(P)}}} \log{\langle\zeta\rangle} ) \quad\textrm{is negative definite.}$$ Then for all $B_1\in \Psi^0({X_{cs}})$ with ${\mathrm{WF}}(I-B_1)\cap {\Gamma_-}=\varnothing$, there exists $A,B\in \Psi^0({X_{cs}})$ with ${\mathrm{Char}}(A)\cap {\Gamma_-}=\varnothing$ and ${\mathrm{WF}}(B)\cap{\Gamma_-}=\varnothing$ such that for any $u\in C_c^\infty({X_{cs}};{\mathcal{E}})$ (and any $N$ large enough) $${\| Au \|_{H^{s}}} \le C( {\| Bu \|_{H^s}} + {\| B_1Pu \|_{H^{s-p+1}}} + {\| u \|_{H^{-N}}}).$$
\[rem:highlowregularity\] There are two trivial but important points to make. First, a source for $P$ is a sink for $-P$ (and similarly a sink for $P$ is a source for $-P$). Second, we have assumed $P$ has real principal symbol therefore, when considering its adjoint $P^*$, we have ${H_{{\sigma(P^*)}}}= {H_{{\sigma(P)}}}$. Less trivially, by approximation [@dyatlov-zworski:book Lemma E.47], these results do not need to assume $u\in C_c^\infty({X_{cs}};{\mathcal{E}})$. In Lemma \[lem:highregularity\], if $s>\tilde s$ with $\tilde s$ satisfying the threshold condition and $u \in H^{\tilde s}({X_{cs}};{\mathcal{E}})$ then the inequality holds (on the condition that the right hand side is finite). Similarly in Lemma \[lem:lowregularity\], if $u$ is a distribution such that the right hand side of the inequality is well defined, then so too is the left hand side, and the inequality holds.
The Laplacian, the d’Alembertian and the Operator ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}$ {#sec:Lap.DAlem.Q}
===============================================================================
This section shows the relationship between the Laplacian on $({X},g)$ and the d’Alembertian on $(M,\eta)$. We first introduce several differential operators on ${X}$ using the Levi-Civita connection ${\nabla}$ of $g$ extended to all associated vector bundles associated with the principal orthonormal frame bundle. Let $\{e_i\}_{i=0}^n$ be a local orthonormal frame for ${\mathrm{T}}{X}$ and $\{e^i\}_{i=0}^n$ the corresponding dual frame for ${\mathrm{T}}^*{X}$. We define two first-order differential operators. Let the symmetrisation of the covariant derivative, called the symmetric differential, be denoted ${\operatorname{d}}$: $${\operatorname{d}}: \left\{ \begin{array}{rcl}
C^\infty({X}; {{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}}) & \to & C^\infty({X}; {\mathcal{E}}^{(k+1)}) \\
u & \mapsto & \sum_{i=0}^n e^i{\operatorname{\cdot}}{\nabla}_{e_i} u
\end{array}
\right.$$ and, by ${\operatorname{\delta}}$, its formal adjoint, called the divergence: $${\operatorname{\delta}}: \left\{ \begin{array}{rcl}
C^\infty({X}; {{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}}) & \to & C^\infty({X}; {\mathcal{E}}^{(k-1)}) \\
u & \mapsto & -\sum_{i=0}^n {e^i {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}{\nabla}_{e_i} u}
\end{array}
\right.$$ The two first order-operators behave nicely with ${\operatorname{L}}$ and ${\operatorname{\Lambda}}$ giving the following commutation relations [@hms Equation 8]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:HMScommutations}
[{\operatorname{\Lambda}},{\operatorname{\delta}}]=0=[{\operatorname{L}},{\operatorname{d}}],
\quad
[{\operatorname{\Lambda}},{\operatorname{d}}]=-2{\operatorname{\delta}},
\quad
[{\operatorname{L}},{\operatorname{\delta}}]=2{\operatorname{d}}.\end{aligned}$$ The rough Laplacian on this space will be denoted by ${\nabla}^*{\nabla}$: $${\nabla}^*{\nabla}: \left\{ \begin{array}{rcl}
C^\infty({X}; {{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}}) & \to & C^\infty({X}; {{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}}) \\
u & \mapsto & {\nabla}^*{\nabla}u
\end{array}
\right.$$ where ${\nabla}^*$ is the formal adjoint of ${\nabla}: C^\infty({X}; {{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}}) \to C^\infty({X}; {\mathrm{T}}^*{X}\otimes {{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}})$. Equivalently $${\nabla}^*{\nabla}\,u = (-{\operatorname{tr}}\circ {\nabla}\circ {\nabla}) (u),
\qquad
u\in C^\infty({X};{{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}})$$ where ${\operatorname{tr}}: {\mathrm{T}}^*{X}\otimes {\mathrm{T}}^*{X}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ is the trace operator obtained from $g$ and is extended to ${\operatorname{tr}}: {\mathrm{T}}^*{X}\otimes {\mathrm{T}}^*{X}\otimes {{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}}\to {{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}}$. For the Lichnerowicz Laplacian, we introduce the Riemann curvature tensor which will be denoted by ${\operatorname{R}}$: $${\operatorname{R}}_{{u},{v}}{w} = [{\nabla}_{u},{\nabla}_{v}] w - {\nabla}_{[u,v]}w,
\qquad
u,v,w\in C^\infty({X}; TX)$$ and is extended to all tensor bundles as a derivation. On symmetric $k$-cotensors we introduce the curvature endomorphism which will be denoted by $q({\operatorname{R}})$: $$q({\operatorname{R}}) \, u = \sum_{i,j=0}^{n} e^j{\operatorname{\cdot}}{e^i {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}{\operatorname{R}}_{e_i,e_j} u},
\qquad
u\in {{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}}.$$ The Lichnerowicz Laplacian, hereafter simply referred to as the Laplacian, will be denoted by $\Delta$: $$\Delta : \left\{ \begin{array}{rcl}
C^\infty({X}; {{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}}) & \to & C^\infty({X}; {{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}}) \\
u & \mapsto & ({\nabla}^*{\nabla}+ q({\operatorname{R}}) ) u
\end{array}
\right.$$ We decompose symmetric $k$-cotensors using the symmetrised basis elements: $$u = \sum_{K\in{\mathscr{A}}^k} u_K e^K,
\qquad
u\in C^\infty({X}; {{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}}),
u_K \in C^\infty({X}).$$ Useful formulae for the preceding operators thus far introduced are given in the following lemma. Recall the notation for finite sequences ${\mathscr{A}}^k$ introduced in the final paragraph of Subsection \[subsec:singlefibre\].
\[lem:simpleformulae\] Let $u\in C^\infty({X}; {{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}})$. At a point in ${X}$ about which $\{e_i\}$ are normal coordinates, the trace is $${\operatorname{\Lambda}}u
=
\sum_{K\in{\mathscr{A}}^k}
\sum_{k_r\in K} \sum_{k_{p} \in {{\{k_r\to\}K}}}
g^{k_r k_p}u_K e^{{\{k_p\to,k_r\to\}K}},$$ the symmetric differential is $${\operatorname{d}}u
=
\sum_{K\in{\mathscr{A}}^k} \sum_{i=0}^n
(e_i u_K) e^{{\{\toi\}K}},$$ the divergence is $${\operatorname{\delta}}u
=
- \sum_{K\in{\mathscr{A}}^k} \sum_{k_r\in K} \sum_{i=0}^n g^{ik_r} (e_i u_K) e^{{\{k_r\to\}K}},$$ the rough Laplacian is $${\nabla}^*{\nabla}\, u
=
\sum_{K\in {\mathscr{A}}^k}
\sum_{i,j=0}^n
\left(
-g^{ij} (e_i e_j u_K) e^K
+
\sum_{k_r\in K}
\sum_{\ell=0}^n
g^{i\ell} u_K ( {e_\ell} {\Gamma_{ij}^{k_r}}) e^{{\{k_r\toj\}K}}
\right)$$ where the connection coefficients are given locally by ${\nabla}_{e_i} e^k = - \sum_{j=0}^n {\Gamma_{ij}^{k}}e^j$. Finally, (at a point using normal coordinates), the Riemann curvature takes the form $${\operatorname{R}}_{e_i,e_j} e^\ell = -\sum_{k=0}^n \tensor{{{\operatorname{R}}}}{_{ij}^{\ell}_{k}} e^k,
\quad
\tensor{{{\operatorname{R}}}}{_{ij}^{\ell}_{k}} = {e_i} {\Gamma_{jk}^{\ell}} - {e_j} {\Gamma_{ik}^{\ell}}.$$
Similar in vein to we have the following two useful results, the second of which originates from [@lichnerowicz Section 10].
\[lem:laplaciancommutestracediv\] Let $u\in C^\infty ({X},{{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}})$ The Laplacian commutes with the Lefschetz-type trace operator $$[ {\operatorname{\Lambda}}, \Delta ] u =0$$ and commutes with the divergence under the following conditions $$[ {\operatorname{\delta}}, \Delta ] u =0 \textrm{ if } \left\{
\begin{array}{l}
k=0,1, \textrm{ } \\
k=2 \textrm{ and ${X}$ is Ricci parallel,} \\
k\ge 3 \textrm{ and ${X}$ is locally isomorphic to ${\mathbb{H}^{n+1}}$.}
\end{array}
\right.$$
The first result is very standard. As the metric is parallel, the Riemann curvature tensor (acting as a derivation on ${{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}}$) commutes with ${\operatorname{L}}$ hence $$[{\operatorname{L}},q({\operatorname{R}})]u = \sum_{i,j=0}^n ( {\operatorname{L}}{e^j {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}{e^i {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}}}- {e^j {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}{e^i {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}}}{\operatorname{L}}) \, {\operatorname{R}}_{e_i, e_j} u$$ and developing the second term with the aid of the commutation formula $[{e^i {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}},{\operatorname{L}}]= 2 e^i {\operatorname{\cdot}}$ provides $$\begin{aligned}
[{\operatorname{L}},q({\operatorname{R}})]u
&= \sum_{i,j=0}^n -2(e^j {\operatorname{\cdot}}{e^i {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}} + {e^j {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}e^i{\operatorname{\cdot}}}\,) \, {\operatorname{R}}_{e_i,e_j} u \\
&= \sum_{i,j=0}^n -2(e^j {\operatorname{\cdot}}{e^i {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}} + \delta^{ij} + e^i {\operatorname{\cdot}}{e^j {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}}) \, {\operatorname{R}}_{e_i,e_j} u\end{aligned}$$ which vanishes due to the skew-symmetry of the Riemann curvature tensor. By duality, $[{\operatorname{\Lambda}},q({\operatorname{R}})]=0$. Now using the commutation relations and the following characterisation of the Laplacian [@hms Proposition 6.2] $$\Delta = {\operatorname{\delta}}{\operatorname{d}}- {\operatorname{d}}{\operatorname{\delta}}+ 2q({\operatorname{R}})$$ provides the commutation of ${\operatorname{\Lambda}}$ with $\Delta$.
The second result is more involved as a demonstration via a direct calculation (however as these statements are well known, we only sketch said calculations). For $k=0,1$ the Laplacian and divergence agree with Hodge Laplacian and the adjoint of the exterior derivative. We will thus assume ${X}$ is Ricci parallel (and $k\ge 2$). We break the calculation into two parts studying $[ {\operatorname{\delta}},{\nabla}^*{\nabla}]$ and $[ {\operatorname{\delta}},q({\operatorname{R}})]$. As usual, we use a frame $\{e_i\}_{i=0}^n$ for ${\mathrm{T}}{X}$ with dual frame $\{e^i\}_{i=0}^n$ and calculate at a point about which the connection coefficients vanish. We act on $u=u_Ke^K\in C^\infty({X};{{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}})$. That the Ricci tensor is parallel implies, by the (second) Bianchi identity, $\sum_\ell {\nabla}_{e_\ell} \tensor{{{\operatorname{R}}}}{_{ij}^{\ell}_{k}}=0$. This observation is repeatedly used. Also, the Ricci endomorphism may be written $\sum_{i,j} {\operatorname{Ric}}_i^j e^i\otimes e_j$ with ${\operatorname{Ric}}_i^j = \sum_{k,\ell}g^{k\ell}( {\nabla}_{e_i} {\Gamma_{k\ell}^{j}} - {\nabla}_{e_k}{\Gamma_{\ell i}^{j}})$.
Consider $[ {\operatorname{\delta}},{\nabla}^*{\nabla}]$. Calculating simply $ {\operatorname{\delta}}{\nabla}^*{\nabla}$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{\delta}}{\nabla}^*{\nabla}&= -{\textstyle\sum}_{k} {e^k {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}{\nabla}_{e_k}} ( -{\operatorname{tr}}{\textstyle\sum}_{i,j} e^i \otimes {\nabla}_{e_i} ( e^j \otimes {\nabla}_{e_j})) \\
&= {\textstyle\sum}_{i,j,k} g^{ij} {e^k {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}{\nabla}_{e_k}{\nabla}_{e_i}{\nabla}_{e_j}} - {\textstyle\sum}_{i,j,k,\ell} g^{i\ell} ({\nabla}_{e_k} {\Gamma_{i\ell}^{j}} )\,{e^k {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}{\nabla}_{e_j}}\end{aligned}$$ with a similar calculation for ${\nabla}^*{\nabla}{\operatorname{\delta}}$. Combining these results and commuting ${\nabla}_{e_k}$ with ${\nabla}_{e_i}{\nabla}_{e_j}$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
[ {\operatorname{\delta}}, {\nabla}^*{\nabla}] & = {\textstyle\sum}_{i,j,k} g^{ij} {e^k {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}[ {\nabla}_{e_k} , {\nabla}_{e_i}{\nabla}_{e_j}]}- {\textstyle\sum}_i {({\operatorname{Ric}}e^i) {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}{\nabla}_{e_i}} \\
&= -{\textstyle\sum}_{i,j,k} g^{ij} {e^k {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}\{ {\nabla}_{e_i} , {\operatorname{R}}_{e_j,e_k} \} } - {\textstyle\sum}_i{({\operatorname{Ric}}e^i) {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}{\nabla}_{e_i}}\end{aligned}$$ where $\{\cdot,\cdot\}$ is the anticommutator. After a tedious calculation, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:deltalaprough}
[ {\operatorname{\delta}}, {\nabla}^*{\nabla}] u = \sum_i{({\operatorname{Ric}}e^i) {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}{\nabla}_{e_i}u} + 2({\operatorname{R}},{\nabla},u)\end{aligned}$$ where $({\operatorname{R}},{\nabla},u)$ is shorthand for the unwieldy term $$({\operatorname{R}},{\nabla},u)
=
\sum_{i,j} \sum_{k_r\in K} \sum_{k_p\in{{\{k_r\to\}K}}} \tensor{{\operatorname{R}}}{^{i k_r k_p}_{j}} ({\nabla}_{e_i} u_K) e^{{\{k_p\toj,k_r\to\}K}}.$$ For completeness we outline this calculation $$\begin{aligned}
-{\textstyle\sum}_{i,j,\ell} g^{ij} {e^\ell {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}\{ {\nabla}_{e_i} , {\operatorname{R}}_{e_j,e_\ell} \} } u
&= -{\textstyle\sum}_{i,j,\ell} {\textstyle\sum}_{k_r\in K} ( \{ {\nabla}_{e_i} , \tensor{{\operatorname{R}}}{_\ell ^{ik_r} _j } \} u_K) {e^\ell {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}e^{{\{k_r\toj\}K}}} \\
&= -2{\textstyle\sum}_{i,j,\ell} {\textstyle\sum}_{k_r\in K} \tensor{{\operatorname{R}}}{_\ell ^{ik_r} _j } ({\nabla}_{e_i} u_K) {e^\ell {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}e^{{\{k_r\toj\}K}}}\end{aligned}$$ where the anticommutator has been removed using $\sum_\ell {\nabla}_{e_\ell} \tensor{{{\operatorname{R}}}}{_{ij}^{\ell}_{k}}=0$. Developing the final term in the preceding display gives $$\begin{aligned}
{e^\ell {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}e^{{\{k_r\toj\}K}}} = g^{j\ell} e^{{\{k_r\to\}K}} + {\textstyle\sum}_{k_p\in{{\{k_r\to\}K}}} g^{k_p\ell} e^{{\{k_p\toj,k_r\to\}K}}\end{aligned}$$ which after a little rearrangement of dummy indices and using the algebraic symmetries of the Riemann curvature tensor gives $$-{\textstyle\sum}_{i,j,\ell} g^{ij} {e^\ell {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}\{ {\nabla}_{e_i} , {\operatorname{R}}_{e_j,e_\ell} \} } u = 2\sum_i{({\operatorname{Ric}}e^i) {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}{\nabla}_{e_i}u} + 2({\operatorname{R}},{\nabla},u)$$ upon subtraction of ${\textstyle\sum}_i{({\operatorname{Ric}}e^i) {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}{\nabla}_{e_i}u}$, this provides .
Consider $[ {\operatorname{\delta}},q({\operatorname{R}})]$. Similar to the previous calculations we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
[ {\operatorname{\delta}}, q({\operatorname{R}}) ]
&= {\textstyle\sum}_{i,j,k}-{e^k {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}e^j{\operatorname{\cdot}}{e^i {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}{\nabla}_{e_k}{\operatorname{R}}_{e_i,e_j}}} + e^j{\operatorname{\cdot}}{e^i {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}{\operatorname{R}}_{e_i,e_j} ({e^k {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}{\nabla}_{e_k}}}) \\
&= {\textstyle\sum}_{i,j,k} e^j{\operatorname{\cdot}}{e^i {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}{e^k {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}[{\operatorname{R}}_{e_i,e_j}, {\nabla}_{e_k}]}} - g^{jk} {e^i {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}{\nabla}_{e_k} {\operatorname{R}}_{e_i,e_j}} + e^j{\operatorname{\cdot}}{e^i {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}{({\operatorname{R}}_{e_i,e_j} e^k) {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}{\nabla}}_{e_k}}\end{aligned}$$ After an even more tedious calculation treating each of the three terms in the previous display, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:deltacurv}
[ {\operatorname{\delta}}, q({\operatorname{R}}) ] u = - [ {\operatorname{\delta}},{\nabla}^*{\nabla}]u - ({\nabla},{\operatorname{R}},u)\end{aligned}$$ where $({\nabla},{\operatorname{R}},u)$ represents the even more unwieldy term $$({\nabla},{\operatorname{R}},u) = \sum_{i,j,\ell} \sum_{ \substack{ k_r\in K \\ k_p \in {{\{k_r\to\}K}} \\ k_s \in {{\{k_p\to,k_r\to\}K}} }} g^{\ell k_s} ({\nabla}_{e_\ell} \tensor{{\operatorname{R}}}{_i ^{k_rk_p} _j}) u_K e^{{\{k_s\toi,k_p\toj,k_r\to\}K}}.$$ Again, we sketch the calculation. One of the three terms is easy to calculate directly giving $${\textstyle\sum}_{i,j,k} e^j{\operatorname{\cdot}}{e^i {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}{({\operatorname{R}}_{e_i,e_j} e^k) {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}{\nabla}}_{e_k}} u = -({\operatorname{R}},{\nabla},u).$$ Another term is also relatively easy, again using the trick that $\sum_\ell {\nabla}_{e_\ell} \tensor{{{\operatorname{R}}}}{_{ij}^{\ell}_{k}}=0$, $$- {\textstyle\sum}_{i,j,k}g^{jk} {e^i {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}{\nabla}_{e_k} {\operatorname{R}}_{e_i,e_j}} u=-{\textstyle\sum}_i{({\operatorname{Ric}}e^i) {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}{\nabla}_{e_i}u} -({\operatorname{R}},{\nabla},u)$$ The involved step is treating ${\textstyle\sum}_{i,j,k} e^j{\operatorname{\cdot}}{e^i {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}{e^k {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}[{\operatorname{R}}_{e_i,e_j}, {\nabla}_{e_k}]}}$. We first obtain $${\textstyle\sum}_{i,j,\ell} e^j{\operatorname{\cdot}}{e^i {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}{e^\ell {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}[{\operatorname{R}}_{e_i,e_j}, {\nabla}_{e_\ell}]}} u
=
{\textstyle\sum}_{i,k,\ell,m}\sum_{k_r\in K}([\tensor{{\operatorname{R}}}{_{ji}^{k_r}_m},{\nabla}_{e_\ell}]u_K) \, e^j{\operatorname{\cdot}}{e^i {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}{e^\ell {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}e^{{\{k_r\tom\}K}}}}$$ and it is important to realise that whenever the index $\ell$ contracts with $m$ (or $i$ or $j$), the resulting sum vanishes (as $\sum_\ell {\nabla}_{e_\ell} \tensor{{{\operatorname{R}}}}{_{ij}^{\ell}_{k}}=0$). Similarly, if $i$ and $m$ are contracted then, as Ricci is parallel, the resulting sum vanishes. Expanding the final part of the previous display (and letting ${\mathrm{terms}}(g^{\ell m}, g^{im})$ denote any terms involving $g^{\ell m}$ or $g^{im}$) gives $$\begin{aligned}
e^j{\operatorname{\cdot}}{e^i {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}{e^\ell {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}e^{{\{k_r\tom\}K}}}}
&= \sum_{k_p\in{{\{k_r\to\}K}}} g^{\ell k_p} e^j {\operatorname{\cdot}}{e^i {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}e^{{\{k_p\tom,k_r\to\}K}} } + {\mathrm{terms}}(g^{\ell m}) \\
&= \sum_{ \substack{ k_p\in{{\{k_r\to\}K}} \\ k_s\in {{\{k_p\to,k_r\to\}K}}} } g^{\ell k_p} g^{i k_s} e^{{\{k_s\toj,k_p\tom,k_r\to\}K}} + {\mathrm{terms}}({g^{\ell m}, g^{i m}})\end{aligned}$$ and after a little rearrangement of dummy indices, this gives $${\textstyle\sum}_{i,j,\ell} e^j{\operatorname{\cdot}}{e^i {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}{e^\ell {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}[{\operatorname{R}}_{e_i,e_j}, {\nabla}_{e_\ell}]}} u = -({\nabla},{\operatorname{R}},u)$$ whence is obtained.
Combining with gives $[ {\operatorname{\delta}},\Delta]u=-({\nabla},{\operatorname{R}},u)$. For symmetric tensors of rank two, such a summation (over $k_r,k_p,k_s$) does not arrive so such a term instantly vanishes and the result follows. For tensors of higher rank, one needs the Riemann curvature to be parallel. This is assured in the constant curvature setting of ${\mathbb{H}^{n+1}}$.
The objects thus far introduced in this section all have natural analogues in the Lorentzian setting on $({M},\eta)$. We denote by ${\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}$ the Levi-Civita connection of $\eta$ extended to all associated vector bundles and ${\leftidx{^{{M}}}{\mathrm{R}}{}}$ the Riemann curvature tensor of $\eta$. We let ${{\operatorname{d}}_{\eta}}$ and ${{\operatorname{\delta}}_{\eta}}$ denote the symmetric differential and the divergence with respect to $\eta$. Finally we let ${\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}^*{\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}$ denote the rough d’Alembertian and ${\operatorname{\square}}$ the (Lichnerowicz) d’Alembertian both constructed with respect to the metric $\eta$.
Minkowski scale and the operator ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}$
--------------------------------------------------------------
We define the first of our two main operators.
The second-order differential operator ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}\in{\mathrm{Diff}}^2({M}; {\operatorname{End}}{\mathcal{F}})$ is the following conjugation of the d’Alembertian: $${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}: \left\{ \begin{array}{rcl}
C^\infty({M}; {\mathcal{F}}) & \to & C^\infty({M}; {\mathcal{F}}) \\
u & \mapsto & {s}^{\frac n2-m +2} {\operatorname{\square}}{s}^{-\frac n2+m} \, u
\end{array}
\right.$$
\[lem:Qselfadjoint\] The differential operator ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}$ is formally self-adjoint with respect to the inner product $${ ( u , v )_{{s}^{-2}\eta}} = \int_{{M}} { \langle u , v \rangle_{{s}^{-2}{\eta}} } \, {\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}}d{\mathrm{vol}}_g,
\qquad
u,v\in C^\infty_c ({M}; {\mathcal{F}}).$$
The d’Alembertian is self-adjoint with respect to the following inner product $${ ( u , v )_\eta} = \int_{{M}} { \langle u , v \rangle_{\eta}} \, d{\mathrm{vol}}_\eta,
\qquad
u,v\in C^\infty_c ({M}; {\mathcal{F}}).$$
The two inner products on ${\mathcal{F}}$ are related via . Tracking the effects of the conjugations by powers of ${s}$ on ${\operatorname{\square}}$ as well as the multiplication by ${s}^2$ in order to obtain ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}$ implies self-adjointness when using the inner product ${ \langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle_{{s}^{-2}{\eta}} }$ with the measure ${s}^{-(n+2)}d{\mathrm{vol}}_\eta$ which gives the result as $d{\mathrm{vol}}_\eta = {s}^{n+2}{\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}}d{\mathrm{vol}}_g$.
\[lem:Qcommutestrace\] The operator ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}$ commutes with the Lefschetz-type trace operator ${s}^{-2}{ \Lambda_{{s}^{-2}{\eta}}}$. $$[ {s}^{-2}{ \Lambda_{{s}^{-2}{\eta}}}, {\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}] u = 0 ,
\qquad
u\in C^\infty({M};{\mathcal{F}}).$$
The Lorentzian analogue of Lemma \[lem:laplaciancommutestracediv\] is that the d’Alembertian commutes with ${{\operatorname{\Lambda}}_{\eta}}$ $$[{{\operatorname{\Lambda}}_{\eta}},{\operatorname{\square}}]=0.$$ This operator is related to our standard Lefschetz-type operator ${ \Lambda_{{s}^{-2}{\eta}}}$ via . The result is now a direct calculation. For clarity we denote differential operators with a superscript $(m)$ to indicate that they act on symmetric cotensors of rank $m$. In particular, on $C^\infty({M};{\mathcal{F}})$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
{s}^{-2}{ \Lambda_{{s}^{-2}{\eta}}}{\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}^{(m)}
&= {s}^2 {{\operatorname{\Lambda}}_{\eta}}{s}^{\frac n2-m+2} {\operatorname{\square}}^{(m)} {s}^{-\frac n2+m} \\
&= {s}^2{s}^{\frac n2-m+2} {\operatorname{\square}}^{(m-2)} {s}^{-\frac n2+m} {{\operatorname{\Lambda}}_{\eta}}\\
&= {s}^{\frac n2-(m-2)+ 2} {\operatorname{\square}}^{(m-2)} {s}^{-\frac n2 + (m-2)}{s}^2 {{\operatorname{\Lambda}}_{\eta}}\\
&= {\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}^{(m-2)} {s}^{-2} { \Lambda_{{s}^{-2}{\eta}}}.\qedhere\end{aligned}$$
The rest of this subsection is dedicated to proving
\[prop:decompQ:k:mink\] For $u\in C^\infty({M}; {\mathcal{F}})$ decomposed relative to the Minkowski scale , the conjugated d’Alembertian ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
a_{k+2}\,({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k-2}&{\operatorname{\cdot}}\big(
-b_kb_{k+1} {\operatorname{L}}\big)u^{(k)} +\\
a_{k+1}\,({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k-1}&{\operatorname{\cdot}}\big(
2b_k{\operatorname{d}}\big)u^{(k)} +\\
{\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}a_k\, ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k} {\operatorname{\cdot}}u^{(k)} \,=\,
a_{k\phantom{+0}}\,({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k\phantom{+0}}&{\operatorname{\cdot}}\big(
\Delta + ({{s}\partial_{s}})^2 - c_k - {\operatorname{L}}{\operatorname{\Lambda}}\big)u^{(k)} +\\
a_{k-1}\,({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k+1}&{\operatorname{\cdot}}\big(
-2b_{k-1} {\operatorname{\delta}}\big)u^{(k)} +\\
a_{k-2}\,({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k+2}&{\operatorname{\cdot}}\big(
-b_{k-2}b_{k-1} {\operatorname{\Lambda}}\big)u^{(k)}\end{aligned}$$ with constants $$\begin{aligned}
a_k &= ((m-k)!)^{-1/2}, \\
b_k & = \sqrt{m-k}, \\
c_k &= \tfrac{n^2}{4} + m(n+2k+1) - k(2n+3k-1).\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, relative to this scale, there exist ${\mathbf{D}}\in {\mathrm{Diff}}^1({M};{\operatorname{End}}{\mathcal{F}})$ and ${\mathbf{G}}\in C^\infty({M};{\operatorname{End}}{\mathcal{F}})$ independent of ${s}$ such that $${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}= {\nabla}^*{\nabla}+ ({{s}\partial_{s}})^2 + {\mathbf{D}}+ {\mathbf{G}}$$
The result will follow from Lemmas \[lem:decompk:rough:mink\] and \[lem:decompk:curvature\]. The conjugation by ${s}^{-\frac n2+m}$ is chosen so that the term $({{s}\partial_{s}}+\frac n2 - m)^2$ in Lemma \[lem:decompk:rough:mink\] becomes simply $({{s}\partial_{s}})^2$.
Proposition \[prop:decompQ:k:mink\] is a direct calculation which we present in the rest of this subsection. To begin we announce the following lemma whose proof need not be detailed.
\[lem:coneconnection\] In the Minkowski scale, with $\{e_i\}_{i=0}^n$ a local holonomic frame on $({X},g)$ with dual frame $\{e^i\}_{i=0}^n$ such that $g=\sum_{i,j} g_{ij} e^i\otimes e^j$, the connection ${\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}$ acts in the following manner: $$\begin{aligned}
{\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}_{{{s}\partial_{s}}} {\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}}&= - {\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}},
& {\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}_{e_i} {\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}}&= -\textstyle\sum_{j=0}^n g_{ij} e^j, \\
{\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}_{{{s}\partial_{s}}} e^i &= -e^i ,
& {\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}_{e_i}e^j &= \delta_i^j {\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}}+ {\nabla}_{e_i}e^j.\end{aligned}$$
This lemma provides the following two important formulae for the symmetrised basis $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:derivationbasis:tau}
{\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}_{{{s}\partial_{s}}} ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k}{\operatorname{\cdot}}e^K
=
-m ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k}{\operatorname{\cdot}}e^K\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:derivationbasis:X}
({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k-1}&{\operatorname{\cdot}}\left(
-(m-k) g_{ij} e^{{\{\toj\}K}}
\right) +\nonumber\\
{\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}_{e_i} ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k}{\operatorname{\cdot}}e^K \,=\,
({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k\phantom{+0}}&{\operatorname{\cdot}}\left(
-\textstyle\sum_{k_r\in K} {\Gamma_{ij}^{k_r}} e^{{\{k_r\toj\}K}}
\right)+\\
({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k+1}&{\operatorname{\cdot}}\left(
\textstyle\sum_{k_r\in K} \delta_i^{k_r} e^{{\{k_r\to\}K}}
\right)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the second result is a consequence of $${\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}_{e_i} e^K =\sum_{k_r\in K} \delta_i^{k_r} {\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}}{\operatorname{\cdot}}e^{{\{k_r\to\}K}} + {\nabla}_{e_j} e^K$$ and we recall that the connection coefficients were introduced in Lemma \[lem:simpleformulae\]. We split the calculation of the d’Alembertian into two calculations, treating the rough d’Alembertian separately from the curvature endomorphism.
\[lem:decompk:rough:mink\] For $u\in C^\infty({M};{\mathcal{F}})$ decomposed relative to the Minkowski scale , the rough d’Alembertian is given by $$\begin{aligned}
a_{k+2}\,({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k-2}&{\operatorname{\cdot}}\big(
-b_{k}b_{k+1} {\operatorname{L}}\big)u^{(k)} +\\
a_{k+1}\,({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k-1}&{\operatorname{\cdot}}\big(
2b_k{\operatorname{d}}\big)u^{(k)} +\\
{s}^2 \,{\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}^*{\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}\, a_k\, ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k} {\operatorname{\cdot}}u^{(k)} \,=\,
a_{k\phantom{+0}}\,({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k\phantom{+0}}&{\operatorname{\cdot}}\big(
{\nabla}^*{\nabla}+ ({{s}\partial_{s}}+ \tfrac n2 - m)^2 - \tilde c_k
\big)u^{(k)} +\\
a_{k-1}\,({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k+1}&{\operatorname{\cdot}}\big(
-2b_{k-1} {\operatorname{\delta}}\big)u^{(k)} +\\
a_{k-2}\,({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k+2}&{\operatorname{\cdot}}\big(
-b_{k-2}b_{k-1}{\operatorname{\Lambda}}\big)u^{(k)}\end{aligned}$$ with modified constants $$\tilde c_k = \tfrac{n^2}{4} + m(n+2k+1) - k(n+2k).$$
It suffices to consider a single term $u_K ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k} {\operatorname{\cdot}}e^K$ and we will ignore the normalising constants $a_k$ until the final step. Upon a first application of ${\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}$ we obtain a section of ${\mathrm{T}}^*{M}\otimes {\mathcal{F}}$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}u_K ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k} {\operatorname{\cdot}}e^K &= {{s}\partial_{s}}u_K {\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}}\otimes ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k}{\operatorname{\cdot}}e^K \\
&\quad + u_K {\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}}\otimes {\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}_{{{s}\partial_{s}}} \left( ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k}{\operatorname{\cdot}}e^K \right) \\
&\quad +{\textstyle\sum}_{i} e_i u_K e^i \otimes ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k} {\operatorname{\cdot}}e^K \\
&\quad + {\textstyle\sum}_{i} u_K e^i \otimes {\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}_{e_i} \left( ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k}{\operatorname{\cdot}}e^K \right) .\end{aligned}$$ Using and to develop the terms involving ${\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}_{{{s}\partial_{s}}}$ and ${\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}_{e_i}$ we group the result in terms of symmetric powers of ${\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}}$. In order to handle the equations we write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:4terms}
{\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}u_K ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k} {\operatorname{\cdot}}e^K=\boxed{1}+\boxed{2}+\boxed{3}+\boxed{4}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\boxed{1} &= - (m-k) {\textstyle\sum}_{i,j} u_K g_{ij} e^i \otimes ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k-1}{\operatorname{\cdot}}e^{{\{\toj\}K}}, \\
\boxed{2} &= ({{s}\partial_{s}}-m)u_K {\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}}\otimes ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k}{\operatorname{\cdot}}e^K, \\
\boxed{3} &= {\textstyle\sum}_i e_i u_K e^i \otimes ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k} {\operatorname{\cdot}}e^K -\sum_{i,j}u_K e^i\otimes ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k}{\operatorname{\cdot}}\textstyle\sum_{k_r\in K} {\Gamma_{ij}^{k_r}} e^{{\{k_r\toj\}K}}, \\
\boxed{4} &= - {\textstyle\sum}_iu_K e^i \otimes ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k+1} {\operatorname{\cdot}}\textstyle\sum_{k_r\in K} \delta_i^{k_r} e^{{\{k_r\to\}K}}.\end{aligned}$$ Taking the second derivative, we calculate at a point about which $\{e_i\}$ are normal coordinates. Of course, we only need to keep track of terms which are not subsequently killed upon applying the trace ${{\operatorname{tr}}_{\eta}}$ (which, as the notation suggests is the trace map from ${\mathrm{T}}^*{M}\otimes {\mathrm{T}}^*{M}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ built using the metric $\eta$).
$\boxed{1}$. Considering the first term in , applying ${\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}_{{{s}\partial_{s}}}$ provides only terms in the kernel of ${{\operatorname{tr}}_{\eta}}$ and applying ${\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}_{e_i}$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
{\textstyle\sum}_\ell e^\ell\otimes {\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}_{e_\ell} \boxed{1} & =
- (m-k) {\textstyle\sum}_{i,j,\ell} e_\ell u_K g_{ij} e^\ell\otimes e^i \otimes ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k-1}{\operatorname{\cdot}}e^{{\{\toj\}K}} \\
& \quad - (m-k) {\textstyle\sum}_{i,j,\ell} u_K g_{ij} e^\ell\otimes e^i \otimes
{\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}_{e_\ell} \left(
({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k-1}{\operatorname{\cdot}}e^{{\{\toj\}K}}
\right)
+ \ker {{\operatorname{tr}}_{\eta}}\end{aligned}$$ and we immediately apply ${{\operatorname{tr}}_{\eta}}$ to get $$\begin{aligned}
-{s}^2({{\operatorname{tr}}_{\eta}}\circ {\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}) \boxed{1}
&=
(m-k)({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k-1}{\operatorname{\cdot}}\left(
{\textstyle\sum}_i e_i u_Ke^{{\{\toi\}K}}
\right)
\\
&\quad +(m-k) u_K {\textstyle\sum}_j {\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}_{e_j} \left(
({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k-1}{\operatorname{\cdot}}e^{{\{\toj\}K}}
\right).\end{aligned}$$ The first term of the preceding display reduces to the symmetric differential $(m-k)({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k-1}{\operatorname{\cdot}}{\operatorname{d}}(u_K e^K)$ by Lemma \[lem:simpleformulae\]. The second term of the preceding display is calculated with the aid of and remembering that the connection coefficients cancel at the point of interest. Specifically $$\begin{aligned}
{\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}_{e_j} \left(
({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k-1}{\operatorname{\cdot}}e^{{\{\toj\}K}}
\right)
\,=\,
({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k-2}&{\operatorname{\cdot}}\left(
-{\textstyle\sum}_i (m-k-1) g_{ij} e^{{\{\toi,\toj\}K}}
\right)+\\
({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k\phantom{+0}}&{\operatorname{\cdot}}\left(
\delta_j^j e^K + \textstyle\sum_{k_r\in K} \delta_j^{k_r} e^{{\{\toj,k_r\to\}K}}
\right).\end{aligned}$$ Observe that ${\textstyle\sum}_j \textstyle\sum_{k_r\in K} \delta_j^{k_r} e^{{\{\toj,k_r\to\}K}} = k e^K$. Using Lemma \[lem:simpleformulae\] again this time to recover ${\operatorname{L}}$, the result is $$\begin{aligned}
({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k-2}&{\operatorname{\cdot}}\left(
-(m-k)(m-k-1){\operatorname{L}}\right)u_Ke^K +\\
({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k-1}&{\operatorname{\cdot}}\left(
(m-k){\operatorname{d}}\right)u_Ke^K +\\
-{s}^2({{\operatorname{tr}}_{\eta}}\circ {\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}) \boxed{1} \,=\,
({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k\phantom{+0}}&{\operatorname{\cdot}}\left(
-(m-k)(n+1+k)
\right)u_Ke^K.\end{aligned}$$
$\boxed{2}$. Considering the second term in is much simpler. A second application of ${\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}$ provides $$\begin{aligned}
{\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}\boxed{2} & = ({{s}\partial_{s}}-m-1)({{s}\partial_{s}}-m) )u_K {\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}}\otimes {\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}}\otimes ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k}{\operatorname{\cdot}}e^K \\
& \quad
-({{s}\partial_{s}}-m)u_K \sum_{i,j} g_{ij} e^i\otimes e^j \otimes ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k}{\operatorname{\cdot}}e^K + \ker {{\operatorname{tr}}_{\eta}}.\end{aligned}$$ and the desired result is $$\begin{aligned}
-{s}^2({{\operatorname{tr}}_{\eta}}\circ {\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}) \boxed{2} \,=\,
({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k}&{\operatorname{\cdot}}\left(
({{s}\partial_{s}}-m+n)({{s}\partial_{s}}-m)
\right)u_Ke^K,\end{aligned}$$
$\boxed{3}$. Considering the third term in is somewhat similar to the first term in that ${\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}_{{{s}\partial_{s}}}$ provides only terms in the kernel of ${{\operatorname{tr}}_{\eta}}$. Remembering that at the point of interest, the connection coefficients vanish, applying ${\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}_{e_j}$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
{\textstyle\sum}_j e^j\otimes {\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}_{e_j} \boxed{3} & =
{\textstyle\sum}_{i,j} e_je_i u_K e^j\otimes e^i \otimes ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k} {\operatorname{\cdot}}e^K \\
& \quad + {\textstyle\sum}_{i,j} e_i u_K e^j\otimes e^i \otimes {\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}_{e_j}\left(({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k} {\operatorname{\cdot}}e^K \right) \\
& \quad -{\textstyle\sum}_{i,j,\ell}u_K e^\ell\otimes e^i\otimes ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k}{\operatorname{\cdot}}\textstyle\sum_{k_r\in K} \left( {\nabla}_{e_\ell} {\Gamma_{ij}^{k_r}} \right) e^{{\{k_r\toj\}K}}
+ \ker {{\operatorname{tr}}_{\eta}}\end{aligned}$$ and we immediately apply ${{\operatorname{tr}}_{\eta}}$ to recover the rough Laplacian from the first and third terms in the previous display $$\begin{aligned}
-{s}^2({{\operatorname{tr}}_{\eta}}\circ {\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}) \boxed{3}
&=
({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k}{\operatorname{\cdot}}{\nabla}^*{\nabla}(u_Ke^K)
\\
&\quad - {\textstyle\sum}_{i,j} g^{ij} e_i u_K {\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}_{e_j}\left(({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k} {\operatorname{\cdot}}e^K \right)\end{aligned}$$ while the second term in the previous display is first treated using and then Lemma \[lem:simpleformulae\] to recover the symmetric differential and the divergence $$\begin{aligned}
- {\textstyle\sum}_{i,j} g^{ij} e_i u_K {\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}_{e_j}\left(({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k} {\operatorname{\cdot}}e^K \right)
&=
{\textstyle\sum}_{i,j,\ell} g^{ij} e_i u_K (m-k)({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k-1}{\operatorname{\cdot}}g_{\ell j} e^{{\{\to\ell\}K}} \\
& \quad +{\textstyle\sum}_{i,j,\ell} g^{ij} e_i u_K ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k+1}{\operatorname{\cdot}}\sum_{k_r\in K}\delta_{j}^{k_r} e^{{\{k_r\to\}K}}
\\
&= (m-k)({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k-1}{\operatorname{\cdot}}{\operatorname{d}}(u_Ke^K) \\
& \quad -({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k+1}{\operatorname{\cdot}}{\operatorname{\delta}}(u_Ke^K).\end{aligned}$$ The result is $$\begin{aligned}
({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k-1}&{\operatorname{\cdot}}\left(
(m-k){\operatorname{d}}\right)u_Ke^K +\\
-{s}^2({{\operatorname{tr}}_{\eta}}\circ {\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}) \boxed{3} \,=\,
({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k\phantom{+0}}&{\operatorname{\cdot}}\left(
{\nabla}^*{\nabla}\right)u_Ke^K +\\
({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k+1}&{\operatorname{\cdot}}\left(
- {\operatorname{\delta}}\right)u_Ke^K.\end{aligned}$$
$\boxed{4}$. Considering finally the fourth term in we immediately remove the sum over $i$ using the Kronecker delta. Again ${\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}_{{{s}\partial_{s}}}$ provides only terms in the kernel of ${{\operatorname{tr}}_{\eta}}$ and applying ${\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}_{e_i}$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
{\textstyle\sum}_i e^i\otimes {\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}_{e_i} \boxed{4} & =
-{\textstyle\sum}_{i}{\textstyle\sum}_{k_r\in K} e_i u_K e^i\otimes e^{k_r} \otimes ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k+1}{\operatorname{\cdot}}e^{{\{k_r\to\}K}} \\
&\quad - {\textstyle\sum}_i{\textstyle\sum}_{k_r\in K} u_K e^i\otimes e^{k_r} \otimes {\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}_{e_i} \left( ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k+1}{\operatorname{\cdot}}e^{{\{k_r\to\}K}} \right)
+ \ker {{\operatorname{tr}}_{\eta}}.\end{aligned}$$ and we immediately apply ${{\operatorname{tr}}_{\eta}}$ to get $$\begin{aligned}
-{s}^2({{\operatorname{tr}}_{\eta}}\circ {\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}) \boxed{4}
&=
({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k+1}{\operatorname{\cdot}}\left(
{\textstyle\sum}_i \sum_{k_r\in K} g^{i k_r}e_i u_Ke^{{\{k_r\to\}K}}
\right)
\\
&\quad +{\textstyle\sum}_i{\textstyle\sum}_{k_r\in K} g^{ik_r}u_K{\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}_{e_i} \left( ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k+1}{\operatorname{\cdot}}e^{{\{k_r\to\}K}} \right)\end{aligned}$$ The first term provides the divergence $-({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k+1}{\operatorname{\cdot}}{\operatorname{\delta}}(u_Ke^K)$ while the second term is treated using and then Lemma \[lem:simpleformulae\] to recover a multiple of $u_Ke^K$ and a term involving ${\operatorname{\Lambda}}$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\textstyle\sum}_i{\textstyle\sum}_{k_r\in K} g^{ik_r}u_K{\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}_{e_i} &\left( ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k+1}{\operatorname{\cdot}}e^{{\{k_r\to\}K}} \right) \\
&=
-(m-k+1)({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k}{\operatorname{\cdot}}{\textstyle\sum}_{i,j}{\textstyle\sum}_{k_r\in K} g^{ik_r}g_{ij} e^{{\{\toj,k_r\to\}K}} \\
&\quad - ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k+2} {\operatorname{\cdot}}{\textstyle\sum}_{k_r\in K} {\textstyle\sum}_{k_p\in {{\{k_r\to\}K}}} g^{k_rk_p} e^{{\{k_p\to,k_r\to\}K}} \\
&=
-k (m-k+1)({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k}{\operatorname{\cdot}}u_Ke^K \\
&\quad - ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k+2}{\operatorname{\cdot}}{\operatorname{\Lambda}}(u_Ke^K).\end{aligned}$$ The result is $$\begin{aligned}
-{s}^2({{\operatorname{tr}}_{\eta}}\circ {\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}) \boxed{4} \,=\,
({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k\phantom{+0}}&{\operatorname{\cdot}}\left(
-k(m-k+1)
\right)u_Ke^K +\\
({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k+1}&{\operatorname{\cdot}}\left(
- {\operatorname{\delta}}\right)u_Ke^K +\\
({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k+2}&{\operatorname{\cdot}}\left(
-{\operatorname{\Lambda}}\right)u_Ke^K.\end{aligned}$$
Upon summation of these four terms coming from we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k-2}&{\operatorname{\cdot}}\left(
-(m-k)(m-k-1) {\operatorname{L}}\right)u^{(k)} +\\
({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k-1}&{\operatorname{\cdot}}\left(
2(m-k){\operatorname{d}}\right)u^{(k)} +\\
{s}^2 \,{\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}^*{\leftidx{^{{M}}}{{\nabla}}}({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k} {\operatorname{\cdot}}u^{(k)} \,=\,
({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k\phantom{+0}}&{\operatorname{\cdot}}\left(
{\nabla}^*{\nabla}+ ({{s}\partial_{s}}+\tfrac n2 - m)^2 - \tilde c_k
\right)u^{(k)} +\\
({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k+1}&{\operatorname{\cdot}}\left(
-2k {\operatorname{\delta}}\right)u^{(k)} +\\
({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k+2}&{\operatorname{\cdot}}\left(
-k(k-1){\operatorname{\Lambda}}\right)u^{(k)}\end{aligned}$$ with constant $\tilde c_k$ as announced in the proposition. The final step is to reintroduce the normalisation constants $a_k$. Treating, for example, the term containing $({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k-1}$ amounts to observing $$a_{k+1}^{-1} (m-k) a_k = \sqrt{(m-k)}$$ This completes the demonstration.
\[lem:decompk:curvature\] For $u\in C^\infty({M}; {\mathcal{F}})$ decomposed relative to the Minkowski scale , the curvature endomorphism acts diagonally with respect to the Minkowski scale and is given by $${s}^2 q({\leftidx{^{{M}}}{\mathrm{R}}{}}) u^{(k)} = \left(
q({\operatorname{R}}) + k(n+k-1) - {\operatorname{L}}{\operatorname{\Lambda}}\right)u^{(k)}.$$
We need only concern ourselves with the effect of $q({\leftidx{^{{M}}}{\mathrm{R}}{}})$ on $({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k}{\operatorname{\cdot}}e^K$. It is easy to see from Lemma \[lem:coneconnection\] that ${{\leftidx{^{{M}}}{\mathrm{R}}{}}}_{{{s}\partial_{s}}, e_i}$ is the zero endomorphism, that ${{\leftidx{^{{M}}}{\mathrm{R}}{}}}_{e_i, e_j} {\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}}=0$, and that $\eta( {{\leftidx{^{{M}}}{\mathrm{R}}{}}}_{e_i, e_j} e_k^*, {\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})=0$. Therefore we need only calculate the effect of $q({\leftidx{^{{M}}}{\mathrm{R}}{}})$ on $e^K$. The non-trivial information of ${\leftidx{^{{M}}}{\mathrm{R}}{}}$ is encoded in the following equation: $$\tensor{{{\leftidx{^{{M}}}{\mathrm{R}}{}}}}{_{ij}^{k}_{\ell}} = g_{j\ell} \delta_i^k - g_{i\ell} \delta_j^k + \tensor{{\operatorname{R}}}{_{ij}^k_\ell}.$$ We extend ${{\leftidx{^{{M}}}{\mathrm{R}}{}}}_{e_i,e_j}$ to ${{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}}$ giving $${{\leftidx{^{{M}}}{\mathrm{R}}{}}}_{e_i,e_j} e^K = {\operatorname{R}}_{e_i,e_j} e^K + \sum_{k_r\in K}
\left( \delta_j^{k_r}g_{i\ell} - \delta_i^{k_r} g_{j\ell}\right)
e^{{\{k_r\to\ell\}K}}$$ Calculating the interior product requires the metric, in particular $${s}^2 {e^i {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}_{\eta}{{\leftidx{^{{M}}}{\mathrm{R}}{}}}_{e_i,e_j} } = {e^i {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}{{\leftidx{^{{M}}}{\mathrm{R}}{}}}_{e_i,e_j} }$$ where ${ {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}_{\eta}}$ uses the metric $\eta$ to identify ${\mathrm{T}}{M}$ with ${\mathrm{T}}^*{M}$. Consequently calculating $$\sum_i \left(
{s}^2 {e^i {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}_{\eta}{{\leftidx{^{{M}}}{\mathrm{R}}{}}}_{e_i,e_j} e^K }
-
{e^i {\operatorname{\lrcorner}}{\operatorname{R}}_{e_i,e_j} e^K }
\right)$$ gives $$\sum_{i}
\sum_{k_r\in K}
\left( \delta_j^{k_r}g_{i\ell} - \delta_i^{k_r} g_{j\ell}\right)
\left(
g^{i\ell} e^{{\{k_r\to\}K}}
+
\sum_{k_{p} \in {{\{k_r\to\}K}}} g^{ik_p} e^{{\{k_p\to,k_r\to\ell\}K}}
\right).$$ Applying $\sum_{j} e^j{\operatorname{\cdot}}$ to the preceding display provides ${s}^2 q({\leftidx{^{{M}}}{\mathrm{R}}{}})- q({\operatorname{R}})$. Splitting the calculation into four terms, the results are $$\begin{aligned}
{\textstyle\sum}_{i,j}{\textstyle\sum}_{k_r\in K} e^j {\operatorname{\cdot}}\delta_j^{k_r}g_{i\ell}
g^{i\ell} e^{{\{k_r\to\}K}}
&= k(n+1) e^K, \\
-{\textstyle\sum}_{i,j}{\textstyle\sum}_{k_r\in K} e^j {\operatorname{\cdot}}\delta_i^{k_r} g_{j\ell}
g^{i\ell} e^{{\{k_r\to\}K}}
&= -k e^K,\\
{\textstyle\sum}_{i,j}{\textstyle\sum}_{k_r\in K} {\textstyle\sum}_{k_{p} \in {{\{k_r\to\}K}}} e^j {\operatorname{\cdot}}\delta_j^{k_r}g_{i\ell}
g^{ik_p} e^{{\{k_p\to,k_r\to\ell\}K}}
& = k(k-1) e^K, \\
-{\textstyle\sum}_{i,j}{\textstyle\sum}_{k_r\in K}\sum_{k_{p} \in {{\{k_r\to\}K}}} e^j {\operatorname{\cdot}}\delta_i^{k_r} g_{j\ell}
g^{ik_p} e^{{\{k_p\to,k_r\to\ell\}K}}
&=-{\operatorname{L}}{\operatorname{\Lambda}}e^K.\end{aligned}$$ Upon summation of these four terms, the proof is complete.
\[prop:decompQ:k:mink:tracefree\] Suppose $u\in C^\infty({M}; {\mathcal{F}})$, decomposed relative to the Minkowski scale , is trace-free with respect to the trace operator ${ \Lambda_{{s}^{-2}{\eta}}}$. Then the conjugated d’Alembertian ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
a_{k+1}\,({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k-1}&{\operatorname{\cdot}}\big(
2b_k{\operatorname{d}}\big)u^{(k)} +\\
{\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}a_k\, ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k} {\operatorname{\cdot}}u^{(k)} \,=\,
a_{k\phantom{+0}}\,({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k\phantom{+0}}&{\operatorname{\cdot}}\big(
\Delta + ({{s}\partial_{s}})^2 - c_k'\,
\big)u^{(k)} +\\
a_{k-1}\,({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^{m-k+1}&{\operatorname{\cdot}}\big(
-2b_{k-1} {\operatorname{\delta}}\big)u^{(k)}\end{aligned}$$ with constants $a_k$, $b_k$ announced in Proposition \[prop:decompQ:k:mink\] and the modified constants $$c_k' = c_k - (m-k)(m-k-1).$$
This follows directly from the structure of ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}$ given in Proposition \[prop:decompQ:k:mink\] and the condition that ${\operatorname{\Lambda}}u^{(k)} = - b_{k-2}b_{k-1} u^{(k-2)}$ coming from Lemma \[lem:trace:FE\].
The indicial family of ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}$
----------------------------------------------------
\[defn:QQ\] Denote by ${\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}$ the indicial family of the operator ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}\in {\mathrm{Diff}}^2_{\mathrm{b}}(\overline{{M}} ; {\mathcal{F}})$ relative to the Minkowski scale ${s}$. $${\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}= {\operatorname{I}}_{s}({\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}};\lambda) \in {\mathrm{Diff}}^2({X}; {\mathcal{E}}).$$
The previous section introduced ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}$ as a differential operator on ${\mathcal{F}}$ above ${M}$ however, from the structure of ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}$ given as announced in Proposition \[prop:decompQ:k:mink\], it is clear that the operator extends to $\overline{M}$. Moreover by the same proposition we immediately get the structure of ${\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}$.
\[prop:decompQQ:k:mink\] For $u=\sum_{k=0}^m u^{(k)}\in C^\infty({X}; {\mathcal{E}})$, the operator ${\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&\big(
-b_k b_{k+1} {\operatorname{L}}\big)u^{(k)} +\\
&\big(
2 b_k {\operatorname{d}}\big)u^{(k)} +\\
{{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}u^{(k)} \,=\,
&\big(
\Delta +\lambda^2 - c_k - {\operatorname{L}}{\operatorname{\Lambda}}\big)u^{(k)} +\\
&\big(
-2b_{k-1} {\operatorname{\delta}}\big)u^{(k)} +\\
&\big(
-b_{k-2}b_{k-1}{\operatorname{\Lambda}}\big)u^{(k)}\end{aligned}$$ with constants $$b_k = \sqrt{m-k},
\qquad
c_k = \tfrac{n^2}{4} + m(n+2k+1) - k(2n+3k-1).$$ Consequently, there exist ${\mathcal{D}}\in {\mathrm{Diff}}^1({X};{\operatorname{End}}{\mathcal{E}})$ and ${\mathcal{G}}\in C^\infty({X};{\operatorname{End}}{\mathcal{E}})$ independent of $\lambda$ such that $${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}= {\nabla}^*{\nabla}+ \lambda^2 + {\mathcal{D}}+ {\mathcal{G}}$$
\[prop:QQ:selfadjoint\] The family of differential operators ${\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}$ is, upon restriction to $\lambda\in i{\mathbb{R}}$, a family of formally self-adjoint operators with respect to the inner product $${ ( u , v )_{s}} = \int_{{X}} \sum_{k=0}^m (-1)^{m-k} { \langle u^{(k)} , v^{(k)} \rangle } \, d{\mathrm{vol}}_g$$ where $u={\sum_{k=0}^m u^{(k)}}$, $v=\sum_{k=0}^m v^{(k)}$ for $u^{(k)},v^{(k)} \in C^\infty_c ({X}; {{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}})$. Moreover, for all $\lambda$, ${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}^* = {\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_{-\bar\lambda}$.
Lemmas \[lem:selfadjointpreservation\] and \[lem:Qselfadjoint\].
The operator ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}$ preserves the subbundle ${\mathcal{F}}\cap\ker{ \Lambda_{{s}^{-2}{\eta}}}$ by Lemma \[lem:Qcommutestrace\]. As ${\pi^*_{s}}$ is algebraic, we may consider it as a map from ${\mathcal{E}}$ over ${X}$ to ${\mathcal{F}}$ over ${M}$. We thus obtain the subbundle ${\mathcal{E}}\cap\ker({ \Lambda_{{s}^{-2}{\eta}}}\circ{\pi^*_{s}})$ over ${X}$; symmetric tensors above ${X}$ which are trace-free with respect to the ambient trace operator ${ \Lambda_{{s}^{-2}{\eta}}}$. It thus follows that ${\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}$ may also be considered a family of differential operators on this subbundle and we obtain
\[prop:decompQQ:k:mink:tracefree\] For $u=\sum_{k=0}^m u^{(k)}\in C^\infty({X}; {\mathcal{E}})\cap\ker({ \Lambda_{{s}^{-2}{\eta}}}\circ{\pi^*_{s}})$, the operator ${\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&\big(
2 b_k {\operatorname{d}}\big)u^{(k)} +\\
{{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}u^{(k)} \,=\,
&\big(
\Delta +\lambda^2 - c_k'
\big)u^{(k)} +\\
&\big(
-2b_{k-1} {\operatorname{\delta}}\big)u^{(k)}.\end{aligned}$$
The operator ${\operatorname{\mathbf{P}}}$ and its indicial family {#sec:P}
==================================================================
This section introduces the operator ${\operatorname{\mathbf{P}}}$ on ${M_{e}}$ and its indicial family ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}$ on ${X_{e}}$ and similar results to those presented for ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}$ and ${\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}$ are given. The relationship between these two constructions is also detailed.
Euclidean scale
---------------
The manifold ${M_{e}}={{\mathbb{R}}^+_{t}}\times {X_{e}}$ has been equipped with the Lorentzian metric $\eta$ which agrees with the Lorentzian cone metric put on ${M}$. Recalling the smooth chart $U=(0,1)_\mu\times Y\subset {X}\subset{X_{e}}$ the metric, on ${{\mathbb{R}}^+_{t}}\times U$ takes the form of and we may assume that this is the form of $\eta$ on the larger chart ${{\mathbb{R}}^+_{t}}\times U^2$ where $U^2=(-1,1)_\mu\times Y$. For later use we record the behaviour of ${\leftidx{^{{M_{e}}}}{{\nabla}}}$.
\[lem:Mthreeconnection\] On the chart ${{\mathbb{R}}^+_{t}}\times(-1,1)_\mu\times Y$ with $\{e_i\}_{i=1}^n$ a local holonomic frame on $Y$ with dual frame $\{e^i\}_{i=1}^n$ such that $h=\sum_{i,j} h_{ij} e^i\otimes e^j$, the connection ${\leftidx{^{{M_{e}}}}{{\nabla}}}$ acts in the following manner: $$\begin{aligned}
{\leftidx{^{{M_{e}}}}{{\nabla}}}_{{{t}\partial_{t}}} {\tfrac{d{t}}{{t}}}&= 0,
&{\leftidx{^{{M_{e}}}}{{\nabla}}}_{\partial_\mu}{\tfrac{d{t}}{{t}}}&=0, \\
{\leftidx{^{{M_{e}}}}{{\nabla}}}_{{{t}\partial_{t}}} d\mu &= -d\mu,
&{\leftidx{^{{M_{e}}}}{{\nabla}}}_{\partial_\mu}d\mu&=-{\tfrac{d{t}}{{t}}}, \\
{\leftidx{^{{M_{e}}}}{{\nabla}}}_{{{t}\partial_{t}}} e^i &= -e^i,
&{\leftidx{^{{M_{e}}}}{{\nabla}}}_{\partial_\mu}e^i&=-\tfrac 12 h^{ij}(\partial_\mu h_{jk}) e^k,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\leftidx{^{{M_{e}}}}{{\nabla}}}_{e_i}{\tfrac{d{t}}{{t}}}&= -(\partial_\mu h_{ij}) e^j,\\
{\leftidx{^{{M_{e}}}}{{\nabla}}}_{e_i}d\mu&= -2((1-\mu\partial_\mu)h_{ij}) e^j,\\
{\leftidx{^{{M_{e}}}}{{\nabla}}}_{e_i}e^j&= -\delta_i^j{\tfrac{d{t}}{{t}}}-\tfrac 12 h^{jk}(\partial_\mu h_{ik}) d\mu + {\leftidx{^Y}{{\nabla}}}_{e_i} e^j.\end{aligned}$$
Motivated by the structure of ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}$ from the previous section we define the second of a our two main operators
The second-order differential operator ${\operatorname{\mathbf{P}}}\in{\mathrm{Diff}}^2({M_{e}}; {\mathcal{F}})$ is the following conjugation of the d’Alembertian: $${\operatorname{\mathbf{P}}}: \left\{ \begin{array}{rcl}
C^\infty({M}; {\mathcal{F}}) & \to & C^\infty({M_{e}}; {\mathcal{F}}) \\
u & \mapsto & {t}^{\frac n2-m+2} {\operatorname{\square}}{t}^{-\frac n2+m} \, u
\end{array}
\right.$$
Note that on ${M}\subset{M_{e}}$ there is a trivial correspondence between ${\operatorname{\mathbf{P}}}$ and ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}$, $${\operatorname{\mathbf{P}}}= \rho^{-\frac n2+m-2} {\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}\rho^{\frac n2-m}$$ and that, since $\rho=1$ on ${X}\backslash U$, we have equality ${\operatorname{\mathbf{P}}}={\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}$ on ${M}\backslash ({\mathbb{R}}^+\times U)$.
The operator ${\operatorname{\mathbf{P}}}\in {\mathrm{Diff}}^2({M_{e}};{\mathcal{F}})$ naturally extends to an operator ${\operatorname{\mathbf{P}}}\in{\mathrm{Diff}}^2_{\mathrm{b}}(\overline{M_{e}};{\leftidx{^{\mathrm{b}}}{{\mathcal{F}}}})$ and is b-trivial.
The important point is to verify that at $\mu=0$, ${\operatorname{\mathbf{P}}}$ fits into the b-calculus framework. This is reasonably clear from Lemma \[lem:Mthreeconnection\]. Indeed, the Lie algebra of b-vector fields is generated by $\{{{t}\partial_{t}},\partial_\mu, e_i\}$ where $\{e_i\}_{i=1}^n$ is a local holonomic frame on $Y$, while the b-cotangent bundle has basis $\{{\tfrac{d{t}}{{t}}},d\mu, e^i\}$ with $\{e^i\}_{i=1}^n$ the dual frame on ${\mathrm{T}}^*Y$. Lemma \[lem:Mthreeconnection\] thus shows that ${\leftidx{^{{M_{e}}}}{{\nabla}}}$ is a b-connection. Taking the trace using $\eta$ and then multiplying by ${t}^2$ is equivalent to taking the trace with ${t}^{-2}\eta$ whose structure indicates it is a b-metric. Therefore ${t}^{2}\,{\leftidx{^{{M_{e}}}}{{\nabla}}}^*{\leftidx{^{{M_{e}}}}{{\nabla}}}$ is a b-differential operator. That ${t}^2\,{\leftidx{^{{M_{e}}}}{{\nabla}}}^*{\leftidx{^{{M_{e}}}}{{\nabla}}}$ is b-trivial is also immediate from Lemma \[lem:Mthreeconnection\] and the structure of ${t}^{-2}\eta$. A similar line of reasoning for $q({\leftidx{^{{M_{e}}}}{\mathrm{R}}{}})$ (which uses one application of the inverse of the metric $\eta$) shows that ${t}^2 {\operatorname{\square}}$ is also a b-differential operator. The final conjugation by powers of ${t}$ preserves the b-structure (and its b-triviality) as it merely conjugates appearances of ${{t}\partial_{t}}$. This implies the result.
\[lem:Pselfadjoint\] The differential operator ${\operatorname{\mathbf{P}}}$ is formally self-adjoint with respect to the inner product $${ ( u , v )_{{t}^{-2}\eta}} = \int_{{M_{e}}} { \langle u , v \rangle_{{t}^{-2}{\eta}} } \, {\tfrac{d{t}}{{t}}}{dx},
\qquad
u,v\in C^\infty_c ({M_{e}}; {\mathcal{F}}).$$
By the correspondence between ${\operatorname{\mathbf{P}}}$ and ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}$ on ${M}\backslash({\mathbb{R}}^+\times U)$ and Lemma \[lem:Qselfadjoint\], it suffices to verify this claim when $u,v$ are supported on ${{\mathbb{R}}^+_{t}}\times U^2$. The d’Alembertian is self-adjoint with respect to the following inner product $${ ( u , v )_\eta} = \int_{{M_{e}}} { \langle u , v \rangle_{\eta}} \, d{\mathrm{vol}}_\eta,
\qquad
u,v\in C^\infty_c ({{\mathbb{R}}^+_{t}}\times U^2; {\mathcal{F}}).$$ The two inner products on the fibres of ${\mathcal{F}}$ are related via the Euclidean scale analog of . Tracking the effects of the conjugations by powers of ${t}$ on ${\operatorname{\square}}$ as well as the multiplication by ${t}^2$ in order to obtain ${\operatorname{\mathbf{P}}}$ implies self-adjointness when using the inner product ${ \langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle_{{t}^{-2}{\eta}} }$ with the measure ${t}^{-n-2}d{\mathrm{vol}}_\eta$. As $\det \eta = - \tfrac14 {t}^{2n+2} \det h$ we have $${t}^{-n-2}d{\mathrm{vol}}_\eta = \tfrac12 {\tfrac{d{t}}{{t}}}d\mu \, d{\mathrm{vol}}_h. \qedhere$$
The indicial family of ${\operatorname{\mathbf{P}}}$ {#subsec:indicialfamilyP}
----------------------------------------------------
Denote by ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}$ the indicial family of the operator ${\operatorname{\mathbf{P}}}\in {\mathrm{Diff}}^2_{\mathrm{b}}(\overline{{M_{e}}} ; {\leftidx{^{\mathrm{b}}}{{\mathcal{F}}}})$ relative to the Euclidean scale ${t}$. $${{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_\lambda}= {\operatorname{I}}_{t}({\operatorname{\mathbf{P}}};\lambda) \in {\mathrm{Diff}}^2({X_{e}}; {\mathcal{E}}).$$
Lemma \[lem:indicialfamily:changeofscales\] gives the following proposition (whose final statement follows as $\rho$ is constant on ${X}\backslash U$).
\[prop:PPandQQ:changeofscales\] On ${X}\subset{X_{e}}$ the indicial family operators ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}$ and ${\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}$ are related by $${{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_\lambda}= \rho^{-\lambda - \frac n2 + m -2} J {{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}J^{-1} {\rho^{\lambda+\frac n2 - m}}$$ with $J$ presented in Lemma \[lem:innprod:changeofscales\]. Moreover, on ${X}\backslash U$, we have equality ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}={\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}$.
\[prop:PPselfadjoint\] The family of differential operators ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}$ is, upon restriction to $\lambda\in i{\mathbb{R}}$, a family of formally self-adjoint operators with respect to the inner product $${ ( u , v )_{t}} = \int_{{X_{e}}} { \langle u , v \rangle_{t}} \, {dx},
\qquad
u,v\in C^\infty_c({X_{e}}; {\mathcal{E}}).$$ Moreover, for all $\lambda$, ${{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_\lambda}^* = {\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_{-\bar\lambda}$.
Microlocal Analysis {#sec:analysis}
===================
This section constructs an inverse to the family ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}$ introduced in the preceding section. This is done by first showing that the family is a family of Fredholm operators and then by considering a Cauchy problem which provides an inverse for ${\operatorname{Re}}\lambda\gg 1$. In [@v:ml:functions; @zworski:vm], the procedure is described for functions, rather than symmetric tensors. We are required to alter only minor details in order to apply the technique to symmetric tensors.
Function spaces {#subsec:functionspaces}
---------------
From Subsection \[subsec:vecbundles\], we have the space of ${L^2}$ sections ${L^2_{t}}({X_{e}};{\mathcal{E}})$. This defines $H^s_{\mathrm{loc}}({X_{e}}; {\mathcal{E}})$, the space of (locally) $H^s$ sections for $s\in{\mathbb{R}}$. For all notions of Sobolev regularity, we will only use the Euclidean scale; we thus need not decorate these spaces with a subscript ${t}$.
As is standard, we denote by $\dot C^\infty({X_{cs}}; {\mathcal{E}})$ the set of smooth sections which are extensible to smooth sections over ${X_{e}}$ and whose support is contained in $\overline{X_{cs}}$. And by $C^\infty(\overline{X_{cs}}; {\mathcal{E}})$ all smooth sections which are smoothly extensible to ${X_{e}}$.
Following [@hormander3 Appendix B.2] we obtain, for $s\in{\mathbb{R}}$, the Sobolev spaces $$\dot H^s(\overline {X_{cs}}; {\mathcal{E}})
\quad
\textrm{and}
\quad
{\overline{H}\vphantom{H}}^s({X_{cs}}; {\mathcal{E}})$$ which are, respectively, the set of elements in $H^s_{\mathrm{loc}}({X_{e}}; {\mathcal{E}})$ supported by $\overline{X_{cs}}$ and the space of restrictions to ${X_{cs}}$ of $H^s_{\mathrm{loc}}({X_{e}}; {\mathcal{E}})$. Then $\dot H^s(\overline {X_{cs}}; {\mathcal{E}})$ gets its norm directly from that of $H^s_{\mathrm{loc}}({X_{e}}; {\mathcal{E}})$ while the norm of an element in ${\overline{H}\vphantom{H}}^s({X_{cs}}; {\mathcal{E}})$ is that obtained by taking the infimum of the norms of all permissible extensions of the element which have compact support in ${X_{e}}$. (Such norms will be denoted, for simplicity, by ${\| \cdot \|_{\dot H^s}}$ and ${\| \cdot \|_{{\overline{H}\vphantom{H}}^s}}$. Furthermore, if an object is supported away from ${S}$, these norms correspond and we may simply write ${\| \cdot \|_{H^s}}$.)
The inner product ${ \langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle_{t}}$ gives the ${L^2}$ pairing $${ ( \cdot , \cdot )_{t}}
: \dot C^\infty({X_{cs}}; {\mathcal{E}}) \times C^\infty(\overline{X_{cs}}; {\mathcal{E}}) \to {\mathbb{C}}$$ which extends by density [@hormander3 Theorem B.2.1] to a pairing between the spaces $\dot H^{-s}(\overline{X_{cs}}; {\mathcal{E}})$ and ${\overline{H}\vphantom{H}}^s({X_{cs}}; {\mathcal{E}})$ providing the identification of dual spaces $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:dualHsdotbar}
({\overline{H}\vphantom{H}}^s({X_{cs}}; {\mathcal{E}}))^* \simeq \dot H^{-s}(\overline {X_{cs}}; {\mathcal{E}}),
\qquad
s\in{\mathbb{R}}.\end{aligned}$$
For $s\in{\mathbb{R}}$, let ${\mathcal{X}}^s$ and ${\mathcal{Y}}^s$ be the following two spaces $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{Y}}^s & = {\overline{H}\vphantom{H}}^s ({X_{cs}}; {\mathcal{E}}), \\
{\mathcal{X}}^s & = \{ u : u\in {\mathcal{Y}}^s, {\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}u \in {\mathcal{Y}}^{s-1} \}\end{aligned}$$ These spaces come with the standard norms, in particular, $$\| u \|_{{\mathcal{X}}^{s}} = \| u \|_{{\mathcal{Y}}^{s}} + \|{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}u \|_{{\mathcal{Y}}^{s-1}},
\qquad
u\in {\mathcal{X}}^s.$$
It will be seen that $\lambda$ does not appear in the principal symbol of ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}$, it is thus unimportant to explicit with respect to what value of $\lambda$ the preceding norm is taken as all such norms are equivalent.
When restricting to $U^2\subset{X_{e}}$ we will let $\{e_i\}_{i=1}^n$ denote an orthonormal frame for $(Y,h)$ (which depends on $\mu\in (-1,1)$) and by $\{e^i\}_{i=1}^n$ its dual frame. The frames are completed to frames for $TU^2$ and ${\mathrm{T}}^*U^2$ by including $\partial_\mu$ and $d\mu$ respectively. A dual vector will take the notation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:localbasisT*U}
\xi d\mu + \sum_{i=0}^n \eta_i e^i \in {\mathrm{T}}^*U^2.\end{aligned}$$
The following subsection proves the following two propositions.
\[prop:fredholm\] For fixed $s$, the family of operators $${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}: {\mathcal{X}}^{s} \to {\mathcal{Y}}^{s-1}$$ is Fredholm for ${\operatorname{Re}}\lambda > \frac12 - s$.
Lemmas \[lem:Pfinitekernel\] and \[lem:Pfinitecokernel\].
\[prop:inverse:existence\] For fixed $s$, the Fredholm operator ${{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_\lambda}: {\mathcal{X}}^s\to {\mathcal{Y}}^{s-1}$ are Fredholm of index 0 for ${\operatorname{Re}}\lambda > m+\frac12 - s$ and it has a meromorphic inverse $${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}^{-1} : {\mathcal{Y}}^{s-1} \to{\mathcal{X}}^s$$ with poles of finite rank.
Lemmas \[lem:Ptrivialkernel\] and \[lem:Ptrivialcokernel\].
Proofs of Propositions \[prop:fredholm\] and \[prop:inverse:existence\]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On ${{\mathbb{R}}^+_{t}}\times U^2$, the inverse of the metric $\eta$ takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:structurerho2eta-1}
{t}^2 \eta^{-1} = -2 {{t}\partial_{t}}{\operatorname{\cdot}}\partial_\mu + 2\mu \partial_\mu{\operatorname{\cdot}}\partial_\mu + h^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ which implies to highest order for ${t}^2\,{\leftidx{^{{M_{e}}}}{{\nabla}}}^*{\leftidx{^{{M_{e}}}}{{\nabla}}}$, that $${t}^2\,{\leftidx{^{{M_{e}}}}{{\nabla}}}^*{\leftidx{^{{M_{e}}}}{{\nabla}}}= -4\mu \partial_\mu^2 + 4{{t}\partial_{t}}\partial_\mu + \Delta_h + {\mathrm{Diff}}^1({{\mathbb{R}}^+_{t}}\times U^2 ; {\operatorname{End}}{\mathcal{F}})$$ where $\Delta_h$ may be considered the rough Laplacian on $(Y,h)$. Considering ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}$, conjugation by ${t}^{-\frac n2 + m}$ replaces ${{t}\partial_{t}}$ by $({{t}\partial_{t}}- \tfrac n2 + m)$ and we can absorb the newly created term $4(-\tfrac n2 + m)\partial_\mu$ into ${\mathrm{Diff}}^1({{\mathbb{R}}^+_{t}}\times U^2 ; {\operatorname{End}}{\mathcal{F}})$. Also, the curvature term is of order zero so $${\operatorname{\mathbf{P}}}= -4\mu \partial_\mu ^2 + 4{{t}\partial_{t}}\partial_\mu + \Delta_h + {\mathbf{A}}$$ for some ${\mathbf{A}}\in {\mathrm{Diff}}^1({{\mathbb{R}}^+_{t}}\times U^2 ; {\operatorname{End}}{\mathcal{F}})$. This structure of ${\operatorname{\mathbf{P}}}$ immediately gives the structure of ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}$ to highest order. Keeping track of the term $4{{t}\partial_{t}}\partial_\mu$ for the moment, we write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:PPl-using-LOT}
{{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_\lambda}= -4\mu\partial_\mu^2 - 4\lambda \partial_\mu + \Delta_h + {{\mathcal{A}}_\lambda}.\end{aligned}$$ where ${{\mathcal{A}}_\lambda}\in{\mathrm{Diff}}^1(U^2 ; {\operatorname{End}}{\mathcal{E}})$ is the indicial family of ${\mathbf{A}}$. The most obvious conclusion we draw from such a presentation of ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}$ is that ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}$ is a family of elliptic operators on $U^2\cap\{\mu>0\}$ and a family of strictly hyperbolic operators for $\{\mu<0\}$ (with respect to the level sets $\{\mu=\mathrm{constant}\}$). Of course the ellipticity extends to all of ${X}$. The principal symbol on $U^2$ is also immediately recognisable as $${\sigma({\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}})} = 4\mu \xi^2 + |\eta|^2$$ using the notation from and $|\eta|^2=\sum_{i=1}^n \eta_i^2$. And on $U^2$, the Hamiltonian vector field associated with ${\sigma({\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}})}$ is $${H_{{\sigma({\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}})}}} = 8\mu \xi \partial_\mu - 4\xi^2 \partial_\xi + {H_{|\eta|^2}}.$$
The strategy to obtain a Fredholm problem is to combine standard results for elliptic and hyperbolic operators with some analysis performed at the junction $Y=\{\mu=0\}$. The analysis was first presented in [@v:ml:inventiones Section 4.4]. It turns out the dynamics of interest are those of radial sources and sinks [@dyatlov-zworski:book Definition E.52]. The original radial estimates of Melrose [@melrose:scat] on asymptotically Euclidean spaces have been adapted to functions on asymptotically hyperbolic spaces by Vasy [@v:ml:inventiones]. Indeed, to see that such dynamics are relevant for ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}$, consider ${\sigma({\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}})}$ and ${H_{{\sigma({\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}})}}}$ given in the preceding displays. Define the characteristic variety $\Sigma\subset {\mathrm{T}}^*{X_{cs}}\backslash 0$ which is contained in ${\mathrm{T}}^*U$. As $(\mu,y,0,\eta)\not\in\Sigma$, we may split $\Sigma={\Sigma_+}\sqcup{\Sigma_-}$ given by ${\Sigma_\pm}=\Sigma\cap\{\pm\xi>0\}$. At $Y$ remark that $$\Sigma\cap {\mathrm{T}}^*_YU = \{ (0,y,\xi,0) : \xi\neq 0 \} \subset N^*Y$$ and recalling the projection $\kappa:{\mathrm{T}}^*U\backslash0\to\partial{\overline{{\mathrm{T}}}\vphantom{{\mathrm{T}}}^*}U$ define $${\Gamma_+}=\kappa({\Sigma_+}\cap Y),
\quad
{\Gamma_-}=\kappa({\Sigma_-}\cap Y).$$ In [@v:ml:functions Section 3.2], it is shown that ${\Gamma_\pm}$ are respectively a source and a sink for ${\sigma({\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}})}$. In order to apply Lemmas \[lem:highregularity\] and \[lem:lowregularity\], we introduce the principal symbol of the imaginary part of ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}$. By Remark \[rem:highlowregularity\], ${H_{{\sigma({\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}})}}}={H_{{\sigma({\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}^*)}}}$ and by Proposition \[prop:PPselfadjoint\], ${{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_\lambda}^*={\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_{-\bar\lambda}$ hence ${\sigma({\operatorname{Im}}{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}})}=-{\sigma({\operatorname{Im}}{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}^*)}$. Also, by a direct calculation using the structure of $ {H_{{\sigma({\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}})}}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:HamiltonianSourceSink}
{\langle\xi+\eta\rangle}^{-1} {H_{{\sigma({\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}})}}}\log{\langle\xi+\eta\rangle} = \mp 4,
\quad
\textrm{on ${\Gamma_\pm}$.}\end{aligned}$$ In fact Proposition \[prop:PPselfadjoint\] along with gives more precisely $${\operatorname{Im}}{{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_\lambda}= \frac{ {{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_\lambda}- {{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_\lambda}^*}{2i} = 4i ({\operatorname{Re}}\lambda) \partial_\mu + \frac{ {\mathcal{A}}_{\lambda} - {\mathcal{A}}_{-\bar\lambda} }{2i}$$ however as ${\mathbf{A}}$ is first order, ${{\mathcal{A}}_\lambda}$ may be written as the sum of a first order operator independent of $\lambda$ and a zeroth order operator (which may depend on $\lambda$). Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:imaginary:subprincipalsymbol}
{\sigma( {\operatorname{Im}}{{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_\lambda})} = -4 {\operatorname{Re}}\lambda \, \xi.\end{aligned}$$ Bringing this altogether in preparation for the proof of Proposition \[prop:fredholm\] we have
\[lem:thresholdconditions\] For ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}$, ${\Gamma_+}$ is a source, while ${\Gamma_-}$ is a source for $-{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}$. In both situations, the threshold condition, when working on $H^s({X_{cs}};{\mathcal{E}})$, is satisfied if $$s > - {\operatorname{Re}}\lambda + \tfrac12.$$ For ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}^*$, ${\Gamma_-}$ is a sink, while ${\Gamma_+}$ is a sink for $-{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}^*$. In both situations, the threshold condition, when working on $H^{\tilde s}({X_{cs}};{\mathcal{E}})$, is satisfied if $$\tilde s < {\operatorname{Re}}\lambda + \tfrac 12.$$
We explain the first result, all others are similar after taking into account Remark \[rem:highlowregularity\]. On ${\Gamma_+}$, by and , $${\langle\xi+\eta\rangle}^{-1} ( {\sigma({\operatorname{Im}}{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}})} + (s-\tfrac 12) {H_{{\sigma({\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}})}}}\log{\langle\xi+\eta\rangle})
=
-4 ({\operatorname{Re}}\lambda+s-\tfrac12).$$ For this to be negative definite requires precisely that $s >- {\operatorname{Re}}\lambda + \tfrac12$.
\[lem:Pfinitekernel\] Restricting to $s>-{\operatorname{Re}}\lambda + \frac 12$, the operators ${{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_\lambda}: {\mathcal{X}}^s\to {\mathcal{Y}}^{s-1}$ have finite dimensional kernels.
It suffices to obtain an estimate, for $u\in{\mathcal{X}}^s$, of the form $${\| u \|_{{\overline{H}\vphantom{H}}^s}} \le C \left( {\| {{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_\lambda}u \|_{{\overline{H}\vphantom{H}}^{s-1}}} + {\| \psi u \|_{H^{-N}}} \right).$$ for some $\psi$ supported on $\{\mu>-\frac12\}$ and such that $\psi=1$ near $\{\mu>-\frac12+{\varepsilon}\}$. This is done by writing $u=(\psi_- + \psi_0 + \psi_+)u$ with the supports of $\psi_-, \psi_0, \psi_+$ respectively contained in $\{\mu<-{\varepsilon}\}, \{|\mu|<2{\varepsilon}\}, \{\mu>{\varepsilon}\}$. The estimate for $\psi_+u$ is due to ellipticity of ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}$. The estimate for $\psi_-u$ is due to hyperbolicity which allows us to reduce to the estimate for $\psi_0 u$: $${\| \psi_- u \|_{{\overline{H}\vphantom{H}}^s}} \le C \left( {\| {{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_\lambda}u \|_{{\overline{H}\vphantom{H}}^{s-1}}} + {\| \psi_0 u \|_{H^{s}}} \right).$$ The estimate for $\psi_0 u$ is obtained by microlocalising. Away from $\Sigma$, ellipticity gives the result, while near $\Sigma$, propagation of singularities implies that the norms can be controlled by ${\Gamma_\pm}$. The high regularity results for ${\Gamma_+}$ and ${\Gamma_-}$ from Lemma \[lem:highregularity\] are applicable as these are sources for ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}$ and $-{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}$ respectively. Lemma \[lem:thresholdconditions\] ensures that the threshold conditions are satisfied (by hypothesis of this proposition). The desired estimate is obtained.
\[lem:Pfinitecokernel\] Restricting to $s>-{\operatorname{Re}}\lambda + \frac 12$, the operators ${{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_\lambda}: {\mathcal{X}}^s\to {\mathcal{Y}}^{s-1}$ have finite dimensional cokernels.
To show that the range is of finite codimension we study the adjoint operator ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}^*$. By the dual space of ${\overline{H}\vphantom{H}}^{s-1}({X_{cs}}; {\mathcal{E}})$ is $\dot H^{1-s}(\overline{X_{cs}};{\mathcal{E}})$ and the dimension of the kernel of ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}^*$ equals the dimension of the cokernel of ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}$. It suffices to obtain an estimate of the form $$v\in \dot H^{1-s}(\overline{X_{cs}};{\mathcal{E}})\cap \ker {\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}^*
\quad
\implies
\quad
{\| v \|_{\dot H^{1-s}}} \le C {\| \psi v \|_{H^{-N}}}$$ with $\psi$ as defined in the previous proof. Again, we use the partition $v=(\psi_- + \psi_0 + \psi_+)v$. Again, the estimate for $\psi_+v$ is due to ellipticity of ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}^*$. This time, the estimates for $\psi_-v$ are immediate due to hyperbolicity and the requirement at ${S}$ that $v$ vanish to all orders which implies that $v=0$ on $\{\mu<0\}$. The estimate for $\psi_0v$ is obtained by microlocalising. (Away from ${\mathrm{Char}}(P)$, the result is obtained by ellipticity.) The low regularity results for ${\Gamma_-}$ and ${\Gamma_+}$ from Lemma \[lem:lowregularity\] are applicable as these are sinks for ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}^*$ and $-{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}^*$ respectively. Lemma \[lem:thresholdconditions\] ensures that the threshold conditions are satisfied. Therefore there exists $A,B\in\Psi^0({X_{cs}})$ with ${\mathrm{Char}}(A)\cap{\Gamma_\pm}=\varnothing$ and ${\mathrm{WF}}(B)\cap{\Gamma_\pm}=\varnothing$ such that ${\| A\psi_0v \|_{H^{1-s}}}\le C( {\| B\psi_0v \|_{H^{1-s}}} + {\| \psi v \|_{H^{-N}}})$. As $v=0$ on $\{\mu<0\}$ and is smooth (by ellipticity of ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}^*$) on $\{\mu>0\}$, we have ${\mathrm{WF}}(B\psi_0v)\cap {\mathrm{Char}}({\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}^*)=\varnothing$ so microellipticty gives ${\| B\psi_0v \|_{H^{1-s}}} \le C {\| \psi v \|_{H^{-N}}}$. The desired estimate is obtained.
\[lem:Ptrivialkernel\] For ${{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_\lambda}$ with $\lambda\in{\mathbb{R}}$ acting on ${\overline{H}\vphantom{H}}^s({X_{cs}};{\mathcal{E}})$, the kernel of ${{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_\lambda}$ is trivial for $\lambda\gg1$.
Consider $u\in\ker{{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_\lambda}$. By the estimate obtained in Lemma \[lem:Pfinitekernel\], $u\in C^\infty(\overline{X_{cs}};{\mathcal{E}})$. Restricting our attention to $\{\mu>0\}$, Proposition \[prop:PPandQQ:changeofscales\] gives $$\rho^{-\lambda - \frac n2 + m -2} J {{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}J^{-1} {\rho^{\lambda+\frac n2 - m}}u =0$$ so defining $\tilde u = J^{-1} {\rho^{\lambda+\frac n2 - m}}u$ we get ${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}\tilde u =0$. Or by Proposition \[prop:decompQQ:k:mink\], $$( {\nabla}^*{\nabla}+ \lambda^2 + {\mathcal{D}}+ {\mathcal{G}}) \tilde u = 0.$$ Now ${\mathcal{D}}$ may be bounded (up to a constant) by ${\nabla}$ (and ${\mathcal{G}}$ by a constant as the curvature is bounded on ${X}$) so we can find $C$ independent of $\lambda$ such that $$|{ ( {{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}\tilde u , \tilde u )_{s}} |\ge C^{-1} \|{\nabla}\tilde u\|_{s}^2 + (\lambda^2 - C)\|\tilde u\|_{s}^2$$ and taking $\lambda\gg \sqrt{C}$ shows $\tilde u=0$ on $\{\rho>0\}$. By smoothness, $u$ vanishes on $\{\mu\ge0\}$ (and so to do all its derivates on $Y$). Standard hyperbolic estimates give the desired result $u=0$ if we can show a type of unique continuation result that $u=0$ on $\{\mu>-{\varepsilon}\}$.
To this end we work on $U^2$ and consider ${\operatorname{\mathbf{P}}}$ written in the following form $${{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_\lambda}= -\mu\partial_\mu^2 + \Delta_h + {\mathcal{B}_\lambda}$$ for ${\mathcal{B}_\lambda}=-4\lambda\partial_\mu + {{\mathcal{A}}_\lambda}\in {\mathrm{Diff}}^1(U^2;{\operatorname{End}}{\mathcal{E}})$. Let ${ \langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle_{h,{t}} }$ on ${\mathrm{T}}^*Y\otimes {\mathcal{E}}$ denote the coupling of the metrics $h$ on ${\mathrm{T}}^*Y$ with ${ \langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle_{t}}$ on ${\mathcal{E}}$. For ease of presentation, we will assume throughout this demonstration that all objects are real-valued. Consider $u,v\in C_c^\infty(U^2,{\mathcal{E}})$ (and we may assume ${\mathrm{supp}}\, u \subset(-1,0]\times Y$) then we have the following formula $${ \langle {\leftidx{^Y}{{\nabla}}}u, {\leftidx{^Y}{{\nabla}}}v \rangle_{h,{t}} } = { \langle \Delta_h u, v \rangle_{t}} + {\textrm{div}}$$ where ${\textrm{div}}$ denotes any term which is of divergence nature on $Y$, hence vanishes upon integrating over $Y$ (using $d{\mathrm{vol}}_h$). Indeed such an equation is obtained by considering $f\in C^\infty(Y)$ and calculating, at some value $\mu$, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{Y} { \langle {\leftidx{^Y}{{\nabla}}}u, {\leftidx{^Y}{{\nabla}}}v \rangle_{h,{t}} } f d{\mathrm{vol}}_h
& = \int_Y { \langle {\leftidx{^Y}{{\nabla}}}u, {\leftidx{^Y}{{\nabla}}}( f v) \rangle_{h,{t}} } - { \langle {\leftidx{^Y}{{\nabla}}}u, {\leftidx{^Y}{{\nabla}}}f\otimes v \rangle_{h,{t}} } \,d{\mathrm{vol}}_h \\
& = \int_Y ({ \langle \Delta_h u, v \rangle_{t}} + {\textrm{div}})f \, d{\mathrm{vol}}_h\end{aligned}$$ where the second term was dealt with in the following way: $$\begin{aligned}
\int_Y { \langle {\leftidx{^Y}{{\nabla}}}u , {\leftidx{^Y}{{\nabla}}}f \otimes v \rangle_{h,{t}} }\, d{\mathrm{vol}}_h
&= \int_Y \sum_i { \langle {\leftidx{^Y}{{\nabla}}}_{e_i} u , v \rangle_{t}} {{\operatorname{tr}}_h}(e^i \otimes {\leftidx{^Y}{{\nabla}}}f) \, d{\mathrm{vol}}_h \\
&= \int_Y {\leftidx{^Y}{{\nabla}}}^* ( \sum_i { \langle {\leftidx{^Y}{{\nabla}}}_{e_i} u, v \rangle_{t}} e^i ) f \, d{\mathrm{vol}}_h.\end{aligned}$$ With this formula established we define, for given $u$, $${\mathcal{H}}(\mu) = |\mu| { \langle \partial_\mu u, \partial_\mu u \rangle_{t}} + { \langle {\leftidx{^Y}{{\nabla}}}u, {\leftidx{^Y}{{\nabla}}}u \rangle_{h,{t}} } + { \langle u, u \rangle_{t}}$$ and on $\{\mu<0\}$ (using $v=\partial_\mu u$ in the previously established formula) $$-\partial_\mu{\mathcal{H}}= -2 { \langle {\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}u , \partial_\mu u \rangle_{t}} + { \langle (2{\mathcal{B}_\lambda}-\partial_\mu)u , \partial_\mu u \rangle_{t}} + {\textrm{div}}- \tilde {\mathcal{H}}.$$ where $\tilde{\mathcal{H}}$ has the same structure as ${\mathcal{H}}$ but with appearances of $h$ (used to construct the various inner products) replaced by its Lie derivative, $\mathcal{L}_{\partial_\mu} h$. Recall that ${\mathrm{supp}}\, u\subset (-1,0]\times Y$ and $u$ is smooth, hence $\partial_\mu^N u=0$ at $\{\mu=0\}$ for all $N$. Continuing to work on $\{\mu<0\}$, $$\begin{aligned}
-\partial_\mu ( |\mu|^{-N}{\mathcal{H}}) &+ |\mu|^{-N}{\textrm{div}}\\
&=
-N|\mu|^{-N-1}{\mathcal{H}}- 2|\mu|^{-N} {\operatorname{Re}}{ \langle {{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_\lambda}u, \partial_\mu u \rangle_{t}} + |\mu|^{-N} { \langle (2{\mathcal{B}_\lambda}-\partial_\lambda)u, \partial_\mu u \rangle_{t}} - |\mu|^{-N} \tilde {\mathcal{H}}.\end{aligned}$$ Now suppose that $u\in \ker{{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_\lambda}$. Fix $\delta>0$ small and let $0<{\varepsilon}<\delta$. We take the previous display and insert it into the operator $\int_{-\delta}^{-{\varepsilon}}\int_Y\dots \,d\mu\, d{\mathrm{vol}}_h$. The first term on the left hand side of the previous display is treated with the fundamental theorem of calculus, the second term vanishes due to the appearance of $\int_Y {\textrm{div}}\,d{\mathrm{vol}}_h$. We claim the right hand side is negative for large $N$. Indeed the second term vanishes as $u$ is assumed in the kernel of ${{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_\lambda}$. Considering the third term, ${ \langle (2{\mathcal{B}_\lambda}-\partial_\lambda)u, \partial_\mu u \rangle_{t}}$ is quadratic in $u$, ${\leftidx{^Y}{{\nabla}}}u$, and $\partial_\mu u$ hence for $N$ large enough, it may be bounded by $N|\mu|^{-1}{\mathcal{H}}$, thus the third term’s potential positivity may be absorbed by the negativity of the first term. The fourth term may be treated in a similar manner upon consideration of the Taylor expansion of $h$ at $Y$. We obtain $$\delta^{-N} \int_Y {\mathcal{H}}(-\delta) \, d{\mathrm{vol}}_h \le {\varepsilon}^{-N} \int_Y {\mathcal{H}}(-{\varepsilon}) \, d{\mathrm{vol}}_h.$$ As $u$ is smooth and vanishes to all orders at $\mu=0$, we may bound $ \int_Y {\mathcal{H}}(-{\varepsilon}) \, d{\mathrm{vol}}_h$ by $C |\mu|^K$ on $[-{\varepsilon},0]$ for arbitrarily large $K$. We can obtain a similar bound for $ \int_Y {\mathcal{H}}(-{\varepsilon}) \, d{\mathrm{vol}}_h$. In particular, for $K>N$. This produces $$\delta^{-N} \int_Y {\mathcal{H}}(-\delta) \, d{\mathrm{vol}}_h \le C {\varepsilon}^{-N+K}$$ and letting ${\varepsilon}\to 0^+$ shows $\int_Y {\mathcal{H}}(-\delta)\,{\operatorname{d}}{\mathrm{vol}}_h=0$ hence ${\mathcal{H}}(-\delta)=0$. Doing this for all $\delta$ less than the original $\delta$ gives ${\mathcal{H}}=0$ near $0$. Hence $\partial_\mu u$ and ${\nabla}^Y u$ vanish and $u=0$ near $0$. This suffices to conclude the proof.
\[lem:Ptrivialcokernel\] For ${{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_\lambda}^*$ with $\lambda\in{\mathbb{R}}$ acting on $\dot H^{1-s}(\overline{X_{cs}};{\mathcal{E}})$, the kernel of ${{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_\lambda}^*$ is trivial for $\lambda\gg1$.
Take $\lambda$ satisfying the threshold condition and consider $v\in\ker{{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_\lambda}^*$. Hyperbolicity, as used in Lemma \[lem:Pfinitecokernel\], implies $v=0$ on $\{\mu\le0\}$, and that $v$ is smooth on ${X}$ due to ellipticity. The strategy given in Lemma \[lem:Pfinitecokernel\] implies $v\in \dot H^{\tilde s}(\overline{X_{cs}};{\mathcal{E}})$ for all $\tilde s < \lambda + \tfrac 12$ which with $\lambda\gg n$ implies $v$ is continuous. By the same logic, again by taking $\lambda$ sufficiently large, we may assume $v$ is regular enough to conclude ${\partial_\mu^N v}_{|Y}=0$ for $N\le \tfrac 12 \lambda$. Equivalently, $v_{|{X}} \in \rho^{2N} C^\infty_{\mathrm{even}}(\overline{X};{\mathcal{E}})$. Meanwhile, direct calculations on $C^\infty({X};{\mathcal{E}})$ give $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^{N}{\nabla}^*{\nabla}\rho^{-N} &= {\nabla}^*{\nabla}- N^2 - N(\Delta \log \rho) +2N{\nabla}_{{{\rho\partial_\rho}}}, \\
\rho^{N}{\operatorname{d}}\rho^{-N} &= d - N {\tfrac{d\rho}{\rho}}{\operatorname{\cdot}}, \\
\rho^{N} {\operatorname{\delta}}\rho^{-N} &= {\operatorname{\delta}}+ N {{\tfrac{d\rho}{\rho}}{\operatorname{\lrcorner}}}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta \log \rho = n - (\tfrac 12 \sum_{ij} h^{ij} {{\rho\partial_\rho}}h_{ij})\in n-\rho^2 C^\infty_{\mathrm{even}}(\overline{X};{\mathcal{E}})$. Also for $\tilde u \in C^\infty_c({X};{\mathcal{E}})$ we have $$|{ ( 2N {\nabla}_{{{\rho\partial_\rho}}} \tilde u , \tilde u )_{s}}|
=
|N \int_{X}\| u \|_{s}^2 \partial_\rho \left(\tfrac{d\rho \, d{\mathrm{vol}}_h}{\rho^{n}}\right)|
\le
CN \| u \|_{s}^2.$$ So consider the difference operator $({{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}- N^2+2N{\nabla}_{{{\rho\partial_\rho}}}) - \rho^{N}{{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}\rho^{-N}$ acting on $\tilde u\in C^\infty_c({X};{\mathcal{E}})$. All terms are of order $N$ and of differential order 0. Similar to the previous proof (and using the preceding remark in order to treat the term involving $N{\nabla}_{{{\rho\partial_\rho}}}$) we may obtain $$|{ ( \rho^{N} {{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}\rho^{-N} \tilde u , \tilde u )_{s}} | \ge C^{-1} \|{\nabla}\tilde u\|_{s}^2 + (\lambda^2 - N^2 - CN)\| \tilde u\|_{s}^2$$ and provided $N\gg C$, the final term in the preceding display may be written with coefficient $\lambda^2-2N^2$. Set $N=\lfloor \frac 12 \lambda \rfloor$ with $\lambda\gg 2C$. So that $$|{ ( \rho^{N} {{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}\rho^{-N} \tilde u , \tilde u )_{s}} | \ge C^{-1} \|{\nabla}\tilde u\|_{s}^2 + \tfrac12 \lambda^2 \| \tilde u\|_{s}^2.$$ Considering the Hilbert space $\{ w\in {L^2_{s}}({X};{\mathcal{E}}) : B(w,w)<\infty \}$ with $B(w,w)=\| \rho^N {{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}\rho^{-N} w\|_{s}^2<\infty$, the previous inequality shows that $w\mapsto { ( w , \tilde f )_{s}}$ is a linear functional for $\tilde f\in {L^2_{s}}({X};{\mathcal{E}})$ so by the Riesz representation theorem, there exists $\tilde u\in {L^2_{s}}({X};{\mathcal{E}})$ with ${ ( \rho^N{{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}\rho^{-N} w , \tilde u )_{s}} = { ( w , \tilde f )_{s}}$ for all $w$. To show $v$ vanishes on ${X}$, it suffices to show ${ ( f , v )_{t}}=0$ for all $f\in C^\infty_c({X};{\mathcal{E}})$. Let $f\in C^\infty_c({X};{\mathcal{E}})$ and $$\tilde f = \rho^{\lambda+\frac n2 - m + 2} J^{-1} \rho^{-N} f \in C^\infty_c({X};{\mathcal{E}})$$ Then the preceding argument gives $\tilde u\in {L^2_{s}}({X};{\mathcal{E}})$ such that $\rho^{-N} {{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}\rho^N \tilde u = \tilde f$ hence ${{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_\lambda}u = f$ where $$u = J \rho^{-\lambda - \frac n2 + m} \rho^{N} \tilde u \in \rho^{-\frac 12 \lambda + 1} {L^2_{t}}({X};{\mathcal{E}})$$ (the inclusion is a consequence of Lemma \[lem:innprod:changeofscales\]). This gives $u$ enough regularity to perform the following pairing which provides the desired result $${ ( f , v )_{t}} = { ( {{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_\lambda}u , v )_{t}} = { ( u , {{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_\lambda}^* v )_{t}} = { ( u , 0 )_{t}} = 0. \qedhere$$
Proofs of Theorems {#sec:proofs:main}
==================
Proof of Theorem \[thm:QQ\]
---------------------------
Proposition \[prop:PPandQQ:changeofscales\] gives $${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}= J^{-1} \rho^{\lambda + \frac n2 - m +2} {{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_\lambda}\rho^{-\lambda - \frac n2 + m} J$$ By Propositions \[prop:fredholm\] and \[prop:inverse:existence\], there is a meromorphic family ${\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}^{-1}$ on ${\mathbb{C}}$ mapping $\dot C^\infty({X};{\mathcal{E}})$ to $C^\infty({X_{cs}};{\mathcal{E}})$. Hence an extension of ${\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}^{-1}$ from ${\operatorname{Re}}\lambda\gg1$ to all of ${\mathbb{C}}$ as a meromorphic family is given by $${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}^{-1} = J^{-1} {\rho^{\lambda+\frac n2 - m}}r_{X}{{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_\lambda}^{-1} \rho^{-\lambda - \frac n2 + m - 2} J$$ where $r_{X}$ is the restriction of sections above ${X_{cs}}$ to sections above ${X}$. The previous display implies $${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}^{-1} : \dot C^\infty ( {X}; {\mathcal{E}})\to {\rho^{\lambda+\frac n2 - m}}J^{-1} C^{\infty}_{\mathrm{even}}( \overline{X}; {\mathcal{E}})$$ and for $f\in \dot C^\infty({X};{\mathcal{E}})$, we may write near $\partial\overline{X}$ $${{{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}^{-1} f}_{|U} = \mu^{\frac\lambda2 + \frac n4-\frac m2}J^{-1} \sum_{k=0}^m \sum_{\ell=0}^k (d\mu)^{k-\ell}{\operatorname{\cdot}}\tilde u^{(\ell)},
\qquad
\tilde u^{(\ell)} \in C^\infty_{\mathrm{even}}([0,1)\times Y ; {\mathrm{Sym}}^\ell {\mathrm{T}}^*Y)$$ The proof of Lemma \[lem:innprod:changeofscales\] shows that the part of $J$ (or $J^{-1}$) which sends ${{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}}$ to ${\mathcal{E}}^{(k+p)}$ for $0\le p \le m-k$ is, up to a constant, $(\frac{d\mu}{\mu})^p$. Therefore, $${{{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}^{-1} f}_{|U} \in\mu^{\frac\lambda2 + \frac n4-\frac m2}\bigoplus_{k=0}^m \bigoplus_{p=0}^{m-k} (\tfrac{d\mu}{\mu})^p{\operatorname{\cdot}}\bigoplus_{\ell=0}^{k} (d\mu)^{k-\ell} {\operatorname{\cdot}}C^{\infty}_{\mathrm{even}}( [0,1)\times Y ; {\mathrm{Sym}}^\ell {\mathrm{T}}^*Y )$$ hence on ${X}$, $${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}^{-1} f \in {\rho^{\lambda+\frac n2 - m}}\bigoplus_{k=0}^m \bigoplus_{p=0}^{m-k} \rho^{-2p} C^\infty_{\mathrm{even}}(\overline{X};{\mathcal{E}}^{(k+p)})$$ which is contained in ${\rho^{\lambda+\frac n2 - m}}\bigoplus_{k=0}^m \rho^{-2k} C^\infty_{\mathrm{even}}(\overline{X};{{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}})$.
\[rem:asymptotics\] Suppose that, for $f\in \dot C^\infty({X};{\mathcal{E}})$, it were possible to write in the preceeding proof that near $\partial\overline{X}$ $${{{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}^{-1} f}_{|U} = {\rho^{\lambda+\frac n2 - m}}J^{-1} \tilde u^{(m)},
\qquad
\tilde u^{(m)} \in C^\infty_{\mathrm{even}}(\overline U ; {\mathcal{E}}^{(m)})$$ then as $J^{-1}$ acts as the identity upon restriction to ${\mathcal{E}}^{(m)}$, we would obtain $${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}^{-1} f \in {\rho^{\lambda+\frac n2 - m}}C^\infty_{\mathrm{even}}(\overline{X};{\mathcal{E}}^{(m)})$$ This will be useful for the asymptotics given in Theorems \[thm:main:2\] and \[thm:main:m\].
Proof of Theorem \[thm:QQ:tracefree\]
-------------------------------------
The meromorphic inverse of ${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}$ is precisely that given in the preceding proof $${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}^{-1} = J^{-1} {\rho^{\lambda+\frac n2 - m}}r_{X}{{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_\lambda}^{-1} \rho^{-\lambda - \frac n2 + m - 2} J.$$ All we must check is, given $f\in \dot C^\infty({X};{\mathcal{E}})\cap\ker({ \Lambda_{{s}^{-2}{\eta}}}\circ{\pi^*_{s}})$, that the resulting section $u={{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}^{-1}f$ is indeed trace-free with respect to the ambient trace operator. To this end, we first lift the equation ${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}u=f$ to an equation on ${M}$ involving ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}$ giving $${s}^{\lambda} {\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}{s}^{-\lambda} \left(
{\pi^*_{s}}u
\right)
= {\pi^*_{s}}f.$$ We apply ${ \Lambda_{{s}^{-2}{\eta}}}$ to obtain an equation on ${\mathcal{F}}^{(m-2)}$. Using the hypothesis ${ \Lambda_{{s}^{-2}{\eta}}}{\pi^*_{s}}f=0$ and Lemma \[lem:Qcommutestrace\] to commute ${s}^{-2}{ \Lambda_{{s}^{-2}{\eta}}}$ with ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}$ gives $${s}^2{s}^{\lambda}{\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}{s}^{-\lambda}{s}^{-2}
{ \Lambda_{{s}^{-2}{\eta}}}\left( {\pi^*_{s}}u \right) = 0.$$ Freezing this differential equation at ${s}=0$ with $\pi_{{s}=0}$ to obtain the indicial family of ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}$ provides the equation $${\operatorname{I}}_{s}({\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}},\lambda+2) \pi_{{s}=0} { \Lambda_{{s}^{-2}{\eta}}}\left( {\pi^*_{s}}u \right) = 0.$$ Section \[sec:analysis\] ensures that for ${\operatorname{Re}}\lambda\gg1$, this operator has trival kernel hence $$\pi_{{s}=0} { \Lambda_{{s}^{-2}{\eta}}}\left( {\pi^*_{s}}u \right) = 0$$ and $u\in\ker({ \Lambda_{{s}^{-2}{\eta}}}\circ{\pi^*_{s}})$ as required.
Proof of Theorems \[thm:main:2\] and \[thm:main:m\]
---------------------------------------------------
We are finally in a position to consider the original problem of proving Theorems \[thm:main:2\] and \[thm:main:m\]. Let $$f\in \dot C^\infty({X}; {\mathcal{E}}^{(m)})\cap\ker{\operatorname{\Lambda}}\cap\ker {\operatorname{\delta}}$$ and define, using Theorem \[thm:QQ\], $$u
=
\sum_{k=0}^m u^{(k)}
=
{{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}^{-1} f
,\qquad
u^{(k)} \in \rho^{\lambda + \frac n2 - m - 2k} C^\infty_{\mathrm{even}}(\overline{X}; {{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}}).$$ Note that the growth near $\partial \overline{X}$ of $u^{(k)}$ and $ {\operatorname{\delta}}u^{(k)}$ may be controlled by the size of ${\operatorname{Re}}\lambda$ hence for ${\operatorname{Re}}\lambda\gg1$ we may assume that they are sections of ${L^2_{s}}({X};{{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}})$ and ${L^2_{s}}({X};{\mathcal{E}}^{(k-1)})$ respectively. We claim, for ${\operatorname{Re}}\lambda\gg1$ and $|{\operatorname{Im}}\lambda| \ll 1$, that $$u=u^{(m)} \in {\rho^{\lambda+\frac n2 - m}}C^\infty_{\mathrm{even}}(\overline{X}; {{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}}) \cap \ker {\operatorname{\Lambda}}\cap \ker {\operatorname{\delta}}$$ at which point the equation ${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}u = f$ decouples giving $$(\Delta+\lambda^2-c_m)u = f$$ and by uniqueness of the ${L^2}$ inverse of the Laplacian, we have the formula, for ${\operatorname{Re}}\lambda\gg1$ and $|{\operatorname{Im}}\lambda| \ll 1$, $$(\Delta +\lambda^2 - c_m)^{-1} = J^{-1} {\rho^{\lambda+\frac n2 - m}}r_{X}{{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}_\lambda}^{-1} \rho^{-\lambda-\frac n2 +m-2} J.$$ with the right hand side giving the meromorphic extension of the resolvent announced in the theorems.
To this end take ${\operatorname{Re}}\lambda\gg1$ and $|{\operatorname{Im}}\lambda| \ll 1$. By Theorem \[thm:QQ:tracefree\], we deduce $u$ is trace-free with respect to the ambient trace operator thus ${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}$ takes the form detailed in Proposition \[prop:decompQQ:k:mink:tracefree\]. We begin by remarking, that while working on ${L^2_{s}}({X};{{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}})$ if ${\operatorname{\mathcal{R}}_\lambda}^{(k)}$ is any operator of the form $(\Delta+\lambda^2+O(1))^{-1}$ (which has order $O(|\lambda|^{-2})$, then the operator ${\operatorname{d}}{\operatorname{\mathcal{R}}_\lambda}^{(k)} {\operatorname{\delta}}$ has norm of order $O(1)$. We define ${\operatorname{\mathcal{R}}_\lambda}^{(0)}=(\Delta+\lambda^2-c_0')^{-1}$ and for $0<k<m$, $${\operatorname{\mathcal{R}}_\lambda}^{(k)} = \left(\Delta+\lambda^2 -c_k' + 4(m-k+1) {\operatorname{d}}{\operatorname{\mathcal{R}}_\lambda}^{(k-1)} {\operatorname{\delta}}\right)^{-1}.$$ The component of ${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}u = f$ in ${\mathcal{E}}^{(0)}$ reads, $$(\Delta+\lambda^2 - c_0')u^{(0)} = 2\sqrt m {\operatorname{\delta}}u^{(1)}$$ hence $u^{(0)} = 2\sqrt{m} {\operatorname{\mathcal{R}}_\lambda}^{(0)} {\operatorname{\delta}}u^{(1)}$. The component of ${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}u = f$ in ${\mathcal{E}}^{(1)}$ now reads, $$(\Delta+\lambda^2 - c_1' + 4m{\operatorname{d}}{\operatorname{\mathcal{R}}_\lambda}^{(0)} {\operatorname{\delta}})u^{(1)} = 2\sqrt{m-1} {\operatorname{\delta}}u^{(2)}$$ hence $u^{(1)} = 2\sqrt{m-1} {\operatorname{\mathcal{R}}_\lambda}^{(1)} {\operatorname{\delta}}u^{(2)}$. Continuing, we obtain on ${\mathcal{E}}^{(m)}$, $$(\Delta+\lambda^2 - c_m + 4 {\operatorname{d}}{\operatorname{\mathcal{R}}_\lambda}^{(m-1)} {\operatorname{\delta}})u^{(m)} = f.$$ Applying the divergence, we recall Lemma \[lem:laplaciancommutestracediv\]. For this, we must assume that if $m=2$ then ${X}$ has parallel Ricci curvature, and if $m\ge 3$ then ${X}$ is locally isomorphic to ${\mathbb{H}^{n+1}}$. We obtain, $$(\Delta+\lambda^2 - c_m + 4 {\operatorname{\delta}}{\operatorname{d}}{\operatorname{\mathcal{R}}_\lambda}^{(m-1)}) {\operatorname{\delta}}u^{(m)}=0.$$ Again, $ {\operatorname{\delta}}{\operatorname{d}}{\operatorname{\mathcal{R}}_\lambda}^{(m-1)}$ has norm of order $O(1)$ so we may invert this equation and deduce that ${\operatorname{\delta}}u^{(m)}=0$. This implies, for all $k<m$, $$u^{(k)} = 2\sqrt{m-k} {\operatorname{\mathcal{R}}_\lambda}^{(k)} {\operatorname{\delta}}u^{k+1} = 0.$$ Therefore $u=u^{(m)}$. By Remark \[rem:asymptotics\], $u\in {\rho^{\lambda+\frac n2 - m}}C^\infty_{\mathrm{even}}(\overline{X}; {\mathcal{E}}^{(m)})$. By Theorem \[thm:QQ:tracefree\], $u\in\ker{\operatorname{\Lambda}}$. And as previously mentioned $u\in\ker {\operatorname{\delta}}$. This completes the proof.
Symmetric cotensors of rank 2 {#sec:m=2}
=============================
This section details the results announced in Sections \[sec:Lap.DAlem.Q\] and \[sec:proofs:main\] for rank 2 symmetric cotensors. In this low rank, writing the action of the d’Alembertian, or its conjugation ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}$, on ${\mathcal{F}}={\mathrm{Sym}}^2{\mathrm{T}}^*{M}$ is tractable.
The operator ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}$ for 2-cotensors {#subsec:Minkowski:2}
----------------------------------------------------------
Using the decomposition given by the Minkowksi scale, we write $$u =
{\left[\begin{array}{ccc} 1 & {\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}}{\operatorname{\cdot}}& \tfrac{1}{\sqrt2}({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^2 \end{array}\right]}
{\left[\begin{array}{c} u^{(2)} \\ u^{(1)} \\ u^{(0)} \end{array}\right]},
\qquad
u\in C^\infty({M}; {\mathcal{F}}),
u^{(k)}\in C^\infty({M};{{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}})$$ The change of basis matrix $J$ takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
J & = {\left[\begin{array}{ccc} 1&{\tfrac{d\rho}{\rho}}{\operatorname{\cdot}}&\tfrac{1}{\sqrt2}({\tfrac{d\rho}{\rho}})^2 \\
0&1&\sqrt2{\tfrac{d\rho}{\rho}}{\operatorname{\cdot}}\\
0&0&1 \end{array}\right]}.\end{aligned}$$ Propositions \[prop:decompQ:k:mink\] and \[prop:decompQ:k:mink:tracefree\] become
\[prop:decompQ:2:mink\] For $u\in C^\infty({M}; {\mathcal{F}})$ decomposed relative to the Minkowski scale , the conjugated d’Alembertian ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}$ is given by $${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}u = {\left[\begin{array}{ccc} 1 & {\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}}{\operatorname{\cdot}}& \tfrac{1}{\sqrt2}({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^2 \end{array}\right]}
{\left[\begin{array}{ccc} \Delta +({{s}\partial_{s}})^2 - c_2-{\operatorname{L}}{\operatorname{\Lambda}}&2{\operatorname{d}}&-\sqrt2{\operatorname{L}}\\
-2 {\operatorname{\delta}}&\Delta + ({{s}\partial_{s}})^2 - c_1&2\sqrt2{\operatorname{d}}\\
-\sqrt2{\operatorname{\Lambda}}&-2\sqrt2 {\operatorname{\delta}}&\Delta + ({{s}\partial_{s}})^2 - c_0 \end{array}\right]}
{\left[\begin{array}{c} u^{(2)} \\ u^{(1)} \\ u^{(0)} \end{array}\right]}$$ with constants $$c_2 = \tfrac{1}{4}n(n-8), \qquad c_1=\tfrac{1}{4}(n^2+16), \qquad c_0=\tfrac{1}{4}(n^2+8n+8).$$ If, furthermore, $u$ is trace-free with respect to the trace operator ${ \Lambda_{{s}^{-2}{\eta}}}$, then ${\operatorname{\Lambda}}u^{(2)}=-\sqrt 2u^{(0)}$, and $${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}u = {\left[\begin{array}{ccc} 1 & {\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}}{\operatorname{\cdot}}& \tfrac{1}{\sqrt2}({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^2 \end{array}\right]}
{\left[\begin{array}{ccc} \Delta +({{s}\partial_{s}})^2 - c_2'&2{\operatorname{d}}&0 \\
-2{\operatorname{\delta}}&\Delta +({{s}\partial_{s}})^2 - c_1'&2\sqrt2{\operatorname{d}}\\
0&-2 \sqrt2{\operatorname{\delta}}&\Delta +({{s}\partial_{s}})^2 - c_0' \end{array}\right]}
{\left[\begin{array}{c} u^{(2)} \\ u^{(1)} \\ u^{(0)} \end{array}\right]}$$ with modified constants $$c_2' = c_2,
\qquad
c_1'=c_1,
\qquad
c_0'=\tfrac{1}{4}(n^2+8n).$$
The indicial family of ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Q}}}$ for 2-cotensors
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Propositions \[prop:decompQQ:k:mink\] and \[prop:decompQQ:k:mink:tracefree\] become
\[prop:decompQQ:2:mink\] For $u=\sum_{k=0}^2 u^{(k)} \in C^\infty({X}; {\mathcal{E}})$ the operator ${\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}$ is given by $${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}u = {\left[\begin{array}{ccc} \Delta +\lambda^2 - c_2-{\operatorname{L}}{\operatorname{\Lambda}}&2{\operatorname{d}}&-\sqrt2{\operatorname{L}}\\
-2 {\operatorname{\delta}}&\Delta + \lambda^2 - c_1&2\sqrt2{\operatorname{d}}\\
-\sqrt2{\operatorname{\Lambda}}&-2\sqrt2 {\operatorname{\delta}}&\Delta + \lambda^2 - c_0 \end{array}\right]}
{\left[\begin{array}{c} u^{(2)} \\ u^{(1)} \\ u^{(0)} \end{array}\right]}$$ and if, furthermore, $u\in\ker({ \Lambda_{{s}^{-2}{\eta}}}\circ{\pi^*_{s}})$ then $${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}u = {\left[\begin{array}{ccc} \Delta +\lambda^2 - c_2'&2{\operatorname{d}}&0 \\
-2{\operatorname{\delta}}&\Delta +\lambda^2 - c_1'&2\sqrt2{\operatorname{d}}\\
0&-2 \sqrt2{\operatorname{\delta}}&\Delta +\lambda^2 - c_0' \end{array}\right]}
{\left[\begin{array}{c} u^{(2)} \\ u^{(1)} \\ u^{(0)} \end{array}\right]}$$ with previously announced constants.
Illustration of proof for 2-cotensors
-------------------------------------
Let $f\in \dot C^\infty({X}; {\mathcal{E}}^{(2)})\cap\ker{\operatorname{\Lambda}}\cap\ker{\operatorname{\delta}}$ and define $${\left[\begin{array}{c} u^{(2)} \\ u^{(1)} \\ u^{(0)} \end{array}\right]}
= J^{-1} \rho^{\lambda + \frac n2 - 2} r_{X}{\operatorname{\mathcal{P}}}^{-1} \rho^{-\lambda-\frac n2} J
{\left[\begin{array}{c} f \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{array}\right]}$$ Take ${\operatorname{Re}}\lambda\gg1$ and $|{\operatorname{Im}}\lambda| \ll 1$. By Theorem \[thm:QQ\] $$u^{(k)} \in \rho^{\lambda + \frac n2 - 2 - 2k} C^\infty_{\mathrm{even}}(\overline{X}; {{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}})$$ and by Proposition \[prop:PPandQQ:changeofscales\], ${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}u =f$. Theorem \[thm:QQ:tracefree\] forces $${ \Lambda_{{s}^{-2}{\eta}}}\left( u^{(2)} + {\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}}{\operatorname{\cdot}}u^{(1)} + \tfrac1{\sqrt2} ({\tfrac{d{s}}{{s}}})^2.u^{(0)}
\right) = 0$$ hence ${\operatorname{\Lambda}}u^{(2)}=-\sqrt 2u^{(0)}$. And ${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}u =f$ reads explicitly $${\left[\begin{array}{ccc} \Delta +\lambda^2 - c_2&2{\operatorname{d}}&0 \\
-2{\operatorname{\delta}}&\Delta +\lambda^2 - c_1&2\sqrt2{\operatorname{d}}\\
0&-2 \sqrt2{\operatorname{\delta}}&\Delta +\lambda^2 - c_0' \end{array}\right]}
{\left[\begin{array}{c} u^{(2)} \\ u^{(1)} \\ u^{(0)} \end{array}\right]}
=
{\left[\begin{array}{c} f \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{array}\right]}$$ Introducing the resolvents ${\operatorname{\mathcal{R}}_\lambda}^{(0)}$ and ${\operatorname{\mathcal{R}}_\lambda}^{(1)}$ provides $${\left[\begin{array}{ccc} \Delta +\lambda^2 - c_2 + 4{\operatorname{d}}{\operatorname{\mathcal{R}}_\lambda}^{(1)}{\operatorname{\delta}}&0&0 \\
-2{\operatorname{\delta}}&\Delta +\lambda^2 - c_1+ 8{\operatorname{d}}{\operatorname{\mathcal{R}}_\lambda}^{(0)}{\operatorname{\delta}}&0 \\
0&-2 \sqrt2{\operatorname{\delta}}&\Delta +\lambda^2 - c_0' \end{array}\right]}
{\left[\begin{array}{c} u^{(2)} \\ u^{(1)} \\ u^{(0)} \end{array}\right]}
=
{\left[\begin{array}{c} f \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{array}\right]}$$ and applying ${\operatorname{\delta}}$ assuming that ${X}$ is Einstein provides the homogeneous equation $${\left[\begin{array}{ccc} \Delta +\lambda^2 - c_2 + 4{\operatorname{\delta}}{\operatorname{d}}{\operatorname{\mathcal{R}}_\lambda}^{(1)}&0&0 \\
-2{\operatorname{\delta}}&\Delta +\lambda^2 - c_1+ 8{\operatorname{\delta}}{\operatorname{d}}{\operatorname{\mathcal{R}}_\lambda}^{(0)}&0 \\
0&-2 \sqrt2{\operatorname{\delta}}&\Delta +\lambda^2 - c_0' \end{array}\right]}
{\left[\begin{array}{c} {\operatorname{\delta}}u^{(2)} \\ {\operatorname{\delta}}u^{(1)} \\ {\operatorname{\delta}}u^{(0)} \end{array}\right]}
=
{\left[\begin{array}{c} 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{array}\right]}.$$ The lower triangular nature of this system implies ${\operatorname{\delta}}u^{(k)}=0$ for all $k$. Hence the system ${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}u = f$ collapses. So $u^{(0)}$ and $u^{(1)}$ vanish and by Remark \[rem:asymptotics\], $$u=u^{(2)} \in \rho^{\lambda + \frac n2 - 2} C^\infty_{\mathrm{even}}(\overline{X}; {{\mathcal{E}}^{(k)}})$$ giving $(\Delta +\lambda^2 - c_2) u = f$.
High Energy Estimates via Semiclassical Analysis {#sec:highenergyestimates}
================================================
This article shows the meromorphic continuation of the resolvent of the Laplacian on symmetric tensors using microlocal techniques. This direction means one does not talk about introducing complex absorbers but rather studies the problem on a manifold with boundary. If one were to follow more closely the track established by Vasy, one obtains semiclassical estimates. We state these estimates.
On ${X}$, whose smooth structure at infinity is the even structure given by $\mu$ rather than $\rho$, we have the semiclassical spaces $H^s_{|\lambda|^{-1}}({X};{\mathcal{E}})$.
Suppose that ${X}$ is an even asymptotically hyperbolic manifold which is non-trapping. Then the meromorphic continuation, written ${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}^{-1}$ of the inverse of ${{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}$ initially acting on ${L^2_{s}}( {X}; {\mathcal{E}})$ has non-trapping estimates holding in every strip $|{\operatorname{Re}}\lambda|<C, |{\operatorname{Im}}\lambda|\gg0$: for $s > \frac 12 + C$ $$\| \rho^{-\lambda -\frac n2 + m} {{\operatorname{\mathcal{Q}}}_\lambda}^{-1} f \|_{H^s_{|\lambda|^{-1}}({X};{\mathcal{E}})}
\le
C |\lambda|^{-1} \| \rho^{-\lambda-\frac n2 + m-2} f\|_{H^{s-1}_{|\lambda|^{-1}}({X};{\mathcal{E}})}.$$ If ${X}$ is furthermore Einstein, then restricting to symmetric 2-cotensors, the meromorphic continuation ${\operatorname{\mathcal{R}}_\lambda}$ of the inverse of $$\Delta - \frac{n(n-8)}{4} +\lambda^2$$ initially acting on ${L^2}( {X}; {\mathcal{E}}^{(2)} )\cap\ker{\operatorname{\Lambda}}\cap\ker{\operatorname{\delta}}$ has non-trapping estimates holding in every strip $|{\operatorname{Re}}\lambda|<C, |{\operatorname{Im}}\lambda|\gg0$: for $s > \frac 12 + C$ $$\| \rho^{-\lambda -\frac n2 + 2} {\operatorname{\mathcal{R}}_\lambda}f \|_{H^s_{|\lambda|^{-1}}({X};{\mathcal{E}}^{(2)})}
\le
C |\lambda|^{-1} \| \rho^{-\lambda-\frac n2} f\|_{H^{s-1}_{|\lambda|^{-1}}({X};{\mathcal{E}}^{(2)})}.$$
\#1[[arXiv:\#1](http://arxiv.org/abs/#1)]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Human personality is significantly represented by those words which he/she uses in his/her speech or writing. As a consequence of spreading the information infrastructures (specifically the Internet and social media), human communications have reformed notably from face to face communication. Generally, Automatic Personality Prediction (or Perception) (APP) is the automated forecasting of the personality on different types of human generated/exchanged contents (like text, speech, image, video, etc.). The major objective of this study is to enhance the accuracy of APP from the text. To this end, we suggest five new APP methods including term frequency vector-based, ontology-based, enriched ontology-based, latent semantic analysis (LSA)-based, and deep learning-based (BiLSTM) methods. These methods as the base ones, contribute to each other to enhance the APP accuracy through ensemble modeling (stacking) based on a hierarchical attention network (HAN) as the meta-model. The results show that ensemble modeling enhances the accuracy of APP.'
author:
- |
Majid Ramezani\
Computerized Intelligence Systems Laboratory\
Department of Computer Engineering\
University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran\
`m_ramezani@tabrizu.ac.ir`\
Mohammad-Reza Feizi-Derakhshi $^*$\
Computerized Intelligence Systems Laboratory\
Department of Computer Engineering\
University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran\
`mfeizi@tabrizu.ac.ir`\
Mohammad-Ali Balafar\
Department of Computer Engineering\
University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran\
`balafarila@tabrizu.ac.ir`\
Meysam Asgari-Chenaghlu\
Computerized Intelligence Systems Laboratory\
Department of Computer Engineering\
University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran\
`m.asgari@tabrizu.ac.ir`\
Ali-Reza Feizi-Derakhshi\
Computerized Intelligence Systems Laboratory\
Department of Computer Engineering\
University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran\
`derakhshi96@ms.tabrizu.ac.ir`\
Narjes Nikzad-Khasmakhi\
Computerized Intelligence Systems Laboratory\
Department of Computer Engineering\
University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran\
`n.nikzad@tabrizu.ac.ir`\
Mehrdad Ranjbar-Khadivi\
Department of Computer Engineering\
Shabestar Branch, Islamic Azad University\
Shabestar, Iran.\
`mehrdad.khadivi@iaushab.ac.ir`\
Zoleikha Jahanbakhsh-Nagadeh\
Department of Computer Engineering\
Naghadeh Branch, Islamic Azad University\
Naghadeh, Iran.\
`zoleikha.jahanbakhsh@srbiau.ac.ir`\
Elnaz Zafarani-Moattar\
Department of Computer Engineering\
Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University\
Tabriz, Iran.\
`e.zafarani@iaut.ac.ir`\
Taymaz Rahkar-Farshi\
Department of Software Engineering\
Altinbas University, Istanbul, Turkey.\
`taymaz.farshi@altinbas.edu.tr`\
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Automatic Personality Prediction; an Enhanced Method Using Ensemble Modeling'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
*Personality* is defined as the characteristic set of behaviors, cognitions, and emotional patterns [@corr2009cambridge] as well as thinking patterns [@kazdin2000encyclopedia]. Analyzing the personality of people, psychologists achieve these patterns and find what makes them, who they are. It serves a variety of purposes such as analyzing health, personality and mental disorders, work and academic successes, matrimonial stability, friendships, political psychology, human resource employment and management, marketing and customer behaviors, etc. The *Automatic Personality Prediction* (or *Perception*) (*APP*) is the automatic prediction of the personality of individuals [@7899604]. Nowadays, people interact with each other through miscellaneous information infrastructures including social media (with different data types like text, image, voice and video and also different frameworks), image and video sharing networks, emails, short message services (SMS), etc. All of them, as a kind of human interactions, provide various presentations of people’s personality; even better than the real world. Discovering people’s behavioral, cognitive, emotional and thinking patterns, without facing them, would be interesting and may have different objectives.
Recent trends in APP have led to a proliferation of studies through analyzing different data types, in particular analyzing speech [@7344614; @10.1007/978-3-319-14445-0_16; @Jothilakshmi2017], image [@10.1007/978-3-030-00021-9_54; @Celli:2014:API:2647868.2654977; @10.1007/978-3-319-27671-7_71], video [@10.1007/978-3-319-93034-3_51; @Gucluturk_2017_ICCV; @10.1007/978-3-319-49409-8_25], , social media contents and activities [@10.1007/978-981-13-9187-3_65; @chen2016user; @8494744], emails [@10.1007/978-3-642-38844-6_29], handwriting [@8769221; @wijaya2018personality], touch screen-based interaction [@8463375], signature [@8122145], nonverbal behaviors [@7163171], mobile short message services (SMS) [@10.1007/978-3-319-21206-7_44], and so on. Along with this growth in APP, however there is an increasing concern over the accuracy of the predictions. The major objective of present study was to suggest an enhanced method to improve the accuracy of APP, using ensemble modeling. Thereby, the key research question of this study was whether or not applying ensemble modeling would help to improve the accuracy of APP? To do so we have suggested five new APP methods, including *term frequency vector-based*, *ontology-based*, *enriched ontology-based*, *latent semantic analysis-based*, and *deep learning-based* methods. All of them, as the independent base methods will cooperate together to reduce the generalization error of the prediction, through ensemble modeling [@kotu2018data]. Actually, ensemble modeling is a process where multiple diverse base models are used to predict an outcome [@kotu2018data] rather than any of the constituent models alone. So the hypothesis that will be tested is that the prediction error decreases when the ensemble method is used.
To date, several personality trait models have been introduced. Allport’s trait theory [@allport1937personality], Cattell’s 16 Factor Model [@cattell1970handbook], Eysenck’s Giant Three [@eysenek1950dimensions], Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) [@briggs1976myers], and the Big Five Model (Five Factor Model) amongst others are considered as some of the most important models [@mccrae1992introduction], in which the last one is the most widely accepted trait model, presently [@Matz2016]. The Big Five personality traits foundation, has borrowed from lexical hypothesis [@goldberg1993structure]. It basically states that people encode in their everyday language all those essential personality characteristics and individual differences [@Uher2013]. Furthermore, the Big Five model appears to be nearly universally held, independent of cultures [@mccrae2005universal]. It basically describes the personality traits in five broad categories: *openness*, *conscientiousness*, *extroversion*, *agreeableness*, and *neuroticism* [@john1999big]. Usually, they are called by the acronym *OCEAN* or *CANOE*. Each of the five personality factors or traits represents a range between two extremes; to be specific, extroversion represent a continuum, between extreme extroversion and extreme introversion [@cherry2019big]. Table \[tab: Table1\], illustrates some of the main characteristics of each of the five traits.
It is worthwhile noting that, due to the fact that the Big Five model is founded based on lexical hypothesis, lexical methods are selected to carry out the personality prediction. This is the reason why we have selected lexical methods like term frequency-based, ontology-based and LSA-based methods for APP. Then these methods are diversified by a deep learning-based method to be applied in ensemble modeling.
The present study makes two noteworthy contributions to APP as follows: *i)* developing five new methods to APP, *ii)* enhancing the personality prediction accuracy, by establishing an ensemble model.
The rest of this study is organized in the following manner: the second section gives a brief literature review of APP. In the third section, five proposed new methods for APP as well as ensemble modeling architecture are described. The experimental results are presented and discussed respectively in the fourth and fifth section. Some conclusions are drawn in the final section, and the areas for further research are identified, also.
[max width=]{}
[@p[5cm]{}@p[3.2cm]{}@p[5cm]{}@]{} **Description of *LOW* values** & **Personality trait** & **Description of *HIGH* values**\
& **Openness (O)** &\
[l]{}
• Dislikes changes\
• Does not enjoy new things\
• Conventional\
• Resists new ideas\
• Prefers familiarity\
• Not very imaginative\
• Has trouble with abstract or theoretical concepts\
• Skeptical\
• Traditional in thinking\
• Consistent and cautious
&&
[l]{}
• Very creative\
• Clever, insightful, daring, and varied interests\
• Embraces trying new things or visiting new places\
• Unconventional\
• Focused on tackling new challenges\
• Intellectually curious\
• Inventive\
• Happy to think about abstract concepts\
• Enjoys the art\
• Eager to meet new people
\
& **Conscientiousness (C)** &
\
[l]{}
• Easy going and careless\
• Messy and less detailed-oriented\
• Dislikes structure and schedule\
• Fails to return things or put them back, where they belong\
• Procrastinates on important tasks and rarely completes them on time\
• Fails to stick to a schedule\
• Is always late when meeting others
& &
[l]{}
• Competent and efficient\
• Goal- and detail-oriented\
• Well organized, self-discipline and dutiful\
• Spends time preparing\
• Predictable and deliberate\
• Finishes important tasks on time\
• Does not give in to impulses\
• Enjoys adhering to a schedule\
• Is on time when meeting others\
• Works hardly\
• Reliable and resourceful\
• Persevered
\
& **Extroversion (E)** &\
[l]{}
• Introspective\
• Solitary and reserved\
• Dislikes being at the center of attentions\
• Feels exhausted when having to socialize a lot\
• Finds it difficult to start conversations\
• Dislikes making small talks\
• Carefully thinks things before speaking\
• Thoughtful
& &
[l]{}
• Outgoing and energetic\
• Assertive and talkative\
• Able to be articulate\
• Enjoys being the center of attentions\
• Likes to start conversations\
• Enjoys being with others and meeting new people\
• Tendency to be affectionate\
• Finds it easy to make new friends\
• Has a wide social circle of friends and acquaintances\
• Says things before thinking about them\
• Feels organized when around other people\
• Social confidence
\
& **Agreeableness (A)** &\
[l]{}
• Challenging and detached\
• Takes little interest in others\
• Can be seen as insulting or dismissive of others\
• Does not care about other people’s feelings or problems\
• Can be manipulative\
• Prefers to be competitive and stubborn\
• Insults and belittles others\
• Manipulates others to get what they want
& &
[l]{}
• Friendly and compassionate toward others\
• Altruist and unselfish\
• Loyal and patient\
• Has a great deal of interest in and wants to help others\
• Feels empathy and concern for other people\
• Prefers to cooperate and be helpful\
• Polite and trustworthy\
• Cheerful and considerate\
• Modest
\
& **Neuroticism (N)** &\
[l]{}
• Emotionally stable\
• Deals well with stress\
• Rarely feels sad or depressed\
• Does not worry much and is very relax\
• Confident and secure\
• Optimist
& &
[l]{}
• Anxious of many different things and nervous\
• Experiences a lot of stress\
• Irritable\
• Impulsive and moody\
• Jealous\
• Lack of confidence\
• Self-criticism\
• Oversensitive\
• Instable and insecure\
• Timid\
• Pessimist
\
Literature Review
=================
The history of *psychological researches* in personality goes as far back as Ancient Greece. A number of miscellaneous theories have proposed to explain *what is that makes us who we are*? Some theories are aimed to explain *how personality develops* [@ewen2014introduction], whereas others are concerned with *individual differences in personality* [@ashton2013individual]. Reaching maturity, nowadays psychological researches in personality are mainly focused on analyzing the relationship between personality and different human behaviors; such as analyzing the relationship between personality and[^1]:
aggressive and violent behavior [@BARLETT2012870], antisocial behavior [@LeCorff2010], delinquency [@yun2017test], gambling [@Reardon2019], alcohol use [@rosenstrom2018prediction], good citizenship and civic duty [@PRUYSERS201999], emotion regulation strategies [@BARANCZUK2019217], marital instability [@mohammadi2018role], investment and trading performance [@CHEN2018], consumer behaviors [@10.1007/978-3-319-47874-6_24], trustability [@Muller2019], entrepreneurship [@LEUTNER201458], job burnout and job engagement [@KIM200996], employability analysis to find best candidate [@10.1007/978-3-319-30927-9_3], decision making [@MENDES201950], orienting voting choices [@VECCHIONE2011737], political attitudes [@JONASON2014181] and preference [@ABE201870], academic/workplace performance [@higgins2007prefrontal], academic motivations and achievements [@KOMARRAJU200947][@pozzebon2014major], learning style [@MARCELA20153473] and learning goal orientation [@SORIC2017126], personal goals [@REISZ2013699], forgiveness [@walker2017exploring], subjective well-being [@Anglim2016], and Internet of Things (IoT) [@MONTAG2019128].
On the other hand, *computational researches* in personality are mainly focused on personality prediction, rather than analyzing its relationship with different behaviors (as mentioned above). However, it is not unexpected that Artificial Intelligence (AI) expedite its maturity quickly, and all of the relevant applications of personality prediction will be tackled masterfully by AI.
Generally contributions in computational personality prediction can be studied from different points of view. The most comprehensive classification could be done based on the source of input information; namely, *text*, *speech*, *video*, *image* and *social media activities*.
**Text**: written text as a kind of human interaction, would reflect his/her personality. Proving this hypothesis, several studies have focused on personality prediction from the text. Wright and Chin [@10.1007/978-3-319-08786-3_21] trained a Support Vector Machine (SVM) to classify the personality of writers in Big Five model, using features such as bag of words, essay length, word sentiment, negation count, and part-of-speech n-grams. They also have investigated the correlation between different features and predictivity of each of the five personality dimensions. In their analysis of written expression, Arjaria et al. [@Arjaria2019] questioned a person uniqueness from written text in Big Five model. They proposed a Multi-Label Naïve Bayes (MLNB) classifier to predict the personality of writer. Moreover, they have tested MLNB classifier with a different number of features to find that which written text is formed by which type of trait. Several studies investigating personality prediction from written text, have been carried out on social networks. The study of the structural features of a text in personality prediction was carried out by [@8422105]. The authors proposed a bidirectional Long Short Term Memory (LSTM) network, concatenated with a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) to accomplish the task from YouTube contents. Interestingly, they implemented the evaluations on both short text and long text datasets and proved the suggested models’ ability. For the same target, a two level hierarchical deep neural network based on Recurrent CNN structure proposed by Xue et al. [@Xue2018], in order to extract the deep semantic vector representations of each user’s text post. Then, they concatenated the vectors with statistical features (like rate of emoticons, rate of capital letters and words, and total number of text posts of each user), to construct the input feature space for traditional regression algorithm to carry out final prediction in Big Five model. Santos et al. [@10.1007/978-3-319-64206-2_4] examined that which of the Big Five personality traits are best predicted by different text genres and the needed amount of text for doing the task appropriately. Dandannavar, et al. [@8769304] have surveyed personality prediction using social media text.
**Speech**: As proved by social psychology, speech includes a lot of information that largely reflect speaker’s personality, spontaneously and unconsciously. Mohammadi and Vinciarelli [@7344614] showed that it is possible to attribute the Big Five traits to speakers appropriately using prosodic features. They also have compared and analyzed the effect of different prosodic features on prediction. In the same vein, Zhao et al. [@10.1007/978-3-319-14445-0_16] performed personality prediction in Chinese. In their investigation into personality prediction, Jothilakshmi et al. [@Jothilakshmi2017] proposed a technique based on modeling the relationship between speech signal and personality traits using spectral features. They have used K-Nearest Neighbor and SVM classifier in the Big Five model.
**Image**: There is no considerable amount of literature on personality prediction from image. Much of the current literature pays particular attention to facial images. The studies in psychology presented thus far provide evidences that, faces play a leading role in daily assessment of human character by others. A recent study by Xu et al. [@10.1007/978-3-030-00021-9_54] involved a multi view facial feature extraction model to evaluate the possible correlation between personality traits and face images. Trying to develop a comprehensive personality prediction model based on Support Vector Regression, they proposed 22 facial features. Moreover, they introduced two datasets to investigate the correlation between personality traits and face images. Using the content of Facebook profile pictures, such as facial close ups, facial expressions, and alone or with others, Celli et al. [@Celli:2014:API:2647868.2654977] developed a model to extract users’ personality. Ferwerda et al. [@10.1007/978-3-319-27671-7_71] tried to infer personality traits from the way users manipulate the appearance of their images through applying filters over them, in Instagram. They suggested their method as a new way to facilitate personalized systems.
**Video**: Undoubtedly personality prediction from pure text, speech or image, despite its successes, ignores some salient information about human characteristic. Recent trends in multimodal data analysis, including visual and audio, have led to a proliferation of studies in personality prediction from videos, which is called *Apparent Personality Analysis* (*APA*). The purpose of APA is to develop methods to find personality traits of users in short video sequences. To develop a personality mining framework, Vo et al. [@10.1007/978-3-319-93034-3_51] exploited all the information from videos including visual, audio and textual perspectives, using First Impression dataset and YouTube Personality dataset. Extracting textual, audio and video features, they have used a multimodal mixture density boosting network which combines advanced deep learning techniques to build a multilayer neural network. In order to find those information that apparent personality traits recognition model rely on when making prediction, Gucluturk et al. [@Gucluturk_2017_ICCV] performed a number of experiments. They characterize the audio and visual information that drive the predictions. Furthermore, an online application was developed which provides anyone the opportunity to receive feedback on their apparent personality traits. To achieve the APA’s purpose, a Deep Bimodal Regression framework was suggested by Zhang et al. [@10.1007/978-3-319-49409-8_25]. In the visual modality, they extracted frames from each video and then designed a deep CNN to predict the Big Five traits. They also extracted the log filter bank features from the original audio of each video, in audio modality. Then, a linear regressor was trained to recognize the Big Five traits.
**Social media activities**: In the light of recent events in personality prediction, there is now some concern about human activities in social media. Besides that, they make it possible to create and share different types of information (text, image, voice, video, links, etc.), exposing their thoughts, feelings and opinions, they allow analyzers to scrutinize the users’ different activities, such as likes, visits, mentions, forwards, replies, friends chain, and many others depending on the context. Hima and Shanmugam investigated the correlation between different users’ behaviors in social media and the Big Five personality traits [@10.1007/978-981-13-9187-3_65]; namely, they found that *extroversion* is correlated with the number of friends or followers, more social media groups, frequent uses of social media, and *neuroticism* is correlated with less use of private messages, sharing more information, spending more time in social media and so on. Chen et al. [@chen2016user] called into question that, is it possible for enterprises to obtain the personality information of customers unconsciously, to employ an effective communication strategy? They showed that, perusing the users’ interactions in social media (Facebook), makes it possible to predict the personality of customers. In their analysis, Tadesse et al. examined the presence of structures of social networks and linguistic features to predict users’ personality on Facebook [@8494744]. Buettner developed a personality-based product recommender framework [@Buettner2017]. He analyzed social media data to predict users’ personality according to his/her product preferences. A personality prediction system from digital footprint on social media was proposed by Azucar et al. [@AZUCAR2018150]. In addition, they have investigated the impact of different types of digital footprints on prediction accuracy.
Contributions in computational personality prediction can also be classified differently based on: the output aspect (into *personality predictive systems* and *personality generative systems*), the final target of analysis (into *personality predictor systems* and *personality-based recommender systems*), and other probable classifications. Table \[tab: Table2\], lists several other contributions in personality prediction for more study.
\[1\][>p[\#1]{}]{}
[max width=]{}
[@p[5cm]{}@p[2.1cm]{}@p[2.1cm]{}@p[1.7cm]{}@p[2.1cm]{}@p[2cm]{}@p[1.6cm]{}@P[3cm]{}@]{}
**Ref.** & **Source of the input data** & **Type of input data** & **System target** & **Predictive or Generative** & **Trait Theory** & **Language** & **Technique**
\
[@10.1007/978-3-642-38844-6_29] & Email & Text & Personality prediction & Predictive & Big Five & English &
3 learning algorithms, including Joint Model, Sequential Model, and Survival Model
\
[@levitan2016identifying] & Dialogue & Speech & Deception detection & Predictive & Big Five & English & Acoustic-prosodic and lexical features as well as 4 machine learning algorithms, including SVM, logistic regression, AdaBoost and random forest
\
[@7899604] & Audiovisual data & Video & Personality prediction & Predictive & Big Five & English & Random decision forest
\
[@dave2016application] & Social media images & Image & Personality prediction & Predictive & Big Five & - & Convolutional neural networks
\
[@8122145] & Signature images & Image & Personality prediction & Predictive & Big Five & - & Back propagation neural network
\
[@Souri2018] & Social network’s profile (Facebook) & Social media activities & Personality prediction & Predictive & Big Five & - & Boosting decision tree
\
[@10.1007/978-3-030-16181-1_46] & Social network’s profile (Facebook) & Text & Personality prediction & Predictive & 5 traits & Spanish & Different algorithms in WEKA
\
[@8260763] & Social network’s profile (Facebook) & Social media activities & Personality prediction & Predictive & Big Five & - & Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator algorithm (LASSO)
\
[@8104567] & Social network’s information (Twitter) & Social media activities & Personality prediction & Predictive & Big Five & Bahasa Indonesia & SVM and XGBoost algorithm
\
[@Gavrilescu2018] & Handwriting & Graphological features & Personality prediction & Predictive & Big Five & English & Back propagation neural network
\
[@10.1007/978-3-319-67401-8_39] & Designed character generation tool & Values for 3 personality traits & Generating virtual characters whose physical attributes reflects respected personality traits & Generative & 3 personality traits (dominance, agreeableness, trustworthiness) & - & Linier programming
\
[@vernon2014modeling] & Not specified & Scores for 3 personality traits & Generating new face illustrations & Generative & 3 personality traits (approachability, dominance, youthful-attractiveness) & - & A 3 layer neural network in order to synthesize cartoon face-like images
\
[@8442031] & Questionnaire and Twitter account & Personality traits derived from questionnaires and social media activities & Major recommendation system for students based on their personality & Predictive & MBTI 16 personality types & Arabic & ID3 algorithm
\
[@10.1007/978-3-319-20267-9_25] & Users’ input & Users personality traits score & Movie recommendation system & Predictive & Big Five & - & Gaussian process for personality inference and collaborative filtering for recommendation
\
Methods
=======
The aim of our study was to enhance the automatic personality prediction from the text, through ensemble modeling. Ensemble modeling causes to the production of better predictive performance compared to each single method, by combining all of the methods. Therefore, we introduced five different basic methods, having various processing level, to be applied in ensemble modeling; including *term frequency vector-based*, *ontology-based*, *enriched ontology-based*, *latent semantic analysis-based*, and *deep learning-based (BiLSTM)* methods.
All the methods in the current study were carried out using *Essays Dataset* [@pennebaker1999linguistic]. It contains 2,467 essays and totally 1.9 million words. Essays have been written by psychology students. Then they were asked to reply the Big Five Inventory Questionnaire. Finally, a binary label is attributed to each of the essays in each five personality trait. Table \[tab: Table 3\] presents the distribution of labels in each of the five traits. Due to the fact that, the general writing style exposes the writer’s personality, each of the five methods proposed in this study, uses Essays Dataset without applying familiar pre-processing activities in natural language processing (like stemming, anaphora resolution, stop words removal, etc.). Furthermore, the Big Five personality model is used in this study.
**True** **False**
----------------------- ---------- -----------
**Openness** 1271 1196
**Conscientiousness** 1253 1214
**Extroversion** 1276 1191
**Agreeableness** 1310 1157
**Neuroticism** 1233 1234
: The distribution of labels in Essays Dataset[]{data-label="tab: Table 3"}
Base Methods
------------
### Term Frequency Vector-Based Method
*Term frequency* is a weight that is assigned to a term, depending on the number of occurrences of the term in the document. According to the rudimentary principles of information retrieval, term frequency indicates the significance of a particular term within the overall document. The representation of a set of documents as vectors in a common vector space is known as the *vector space model* and is fundamental to a host of information retrieval operations ranging from scoring documents on a query, document classification, and document clustering [@manning2010introduction]. Toward this end, we assigned an *essay vector* for each essay in dataset based on the term frequencies, indicating the relative importance of each term in each dimension. In order to find the personality label for an input essay in each of the traits in Big Five model (i.e. A, E, O, C and N), we aggregated the cosine similarity between input essay vector and ‘True’ labeled essays’ vectors in Essays Dataset. In same manner, the cosine similarity between input essay vector and ‘False’ labeled essays’ vectors was aggregated. The bigger value for similarity, determined the label for input essay, in current personality trait.
### Ontology-Based Method
In the context of computer and information science, *ontology* is a set of representational primitives, intended for modeling knowledge about individuals, their attributes, and their relationships to other individuals [@Gruber2009]. As a way of knowledge representation for machine, ontology groups all of the individuals into sets of cognitive synonyms called *synsets*, each expressing a distinct concept. Synsets are interlinked through conceptual-semantic and lexical relations. In an effort to automatic personality prediction, we hypothesize that the used synsets’ networks by writers are able to expose his/her personality traits in texts. For that purpose, for each personality trait in the Big Five model, at first we extracted all of the individuals and their related synsets from ‘True’ labeled essays in Essays Dataset. The same operation was repeated for ‘False’ labeled essays, separately. Each of the extracted individuals and synsets has an *importance* value that is equal to one at their first occurrences. During extraction, the reoccurrence of each individual or sysnet in next times, increases its importance (one for each). Then, for a given input essay, we extracted all of the individuals and their related synsets in a same manner. Finally, for predicting the input essays’ labels in each of the five traits, we aggregated the importance of common individuals and synsets between the input essay and ‘True’ labeled essays, and ‘False’ labeled essays as well. The bigger importance value, determined the label for input essay in the current trait. In order to do so, we used WordNet 2.0 [@fellbaum2005wordnet] ontology. It contains 152,059 unique individuals and 115,424 synsets.
### Enriched Ontology-Based Method
There is an undeniable correlation between personality and individual differences in word use. Yarkoni investigated and presented the most correlated words (both positive and negative) with five personality traits in the Big Five model [@YARKONI2010363]. For instance, he showed that *‘restaurant’* (0.21) and *‘drinks’* (0.21) are positively, and *‘cat’* (-0.2) and *‘computer’* (-0.19) are negatively correlated with extroversion. In the previous method, we extracted all of the individuals and their synsets from ‘True’ and ‘False’ labeled essays in each personality trait, separately. Here, intended to enrich the previous method, we added the most correlated words (as listed in [@YARKONI2010363]) and their synsets up to the previously extracted sets correspondingly in each personality trait. Then similar to the ontology-based method in order to predict an input essay’s labels in each trait, the importance values of existed individuals and synsets were aggregated; both in ‘True’ labeled essays and ‘False’ labeled essays. The bigger importance value, determined the label for current personality trait.
### Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA)-Based Method
*Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA)* is a method for extraction and representation of the contextual meaning of words by statistical computations applied to a large corpus of text [@10108001638539809545028]. The main idea behind LSA is that, the presence or non-presence of the words in different contexts are considered as the basis of mutual limitations, that significantly determines the similarity of meaning of words and phrases [@landauer2013handbook]. LSA is a method in vector space that is considerably able to identify and extract the semantic relations those are formed in the mind of writers during writing. The capability of LSA in terms of representing human knowledge, has been approved in a variety of ways [@landauer2013handbook]. LSA is a mathematical-statistical method composed of two basic steps: the first step involves the representation of input text in the form of a matrix whose rows are allocated to each of the unique words in the text, and columns are allocated to sentences, passage or any other text units or contexts (such as paragraph and document or essay). Choosing essay as the considered text unit, we will have a *term$\times$essay (t$\times$e)* matrix (hereafter *A*), whose cells are equal to the frequency of the terms in the corresponding essay. The second step of LSA is applying the mathematical operator calling *Singular Value Decomposition (SVD)* over the matrix obtained from the previous step. Applying SVD to *A*, decomposes it into three matrices; namely, *U*, *$\Sigma$* and *V*.
$$\label{eq: euation1}
\scriptsize
A_{t\times e} = U_{t\times c} \Sigma_{c\times c} V^T_{c\times e}$$
Where *U* stands for a *term$\times$concept (t$\times$c)* and column-orthogonal matrix whose columns are called left singular values; *$\Sigma$=diag[($\sigma_1$, $\sigma_2$, …. , $\sigma_c$)]{}* is a diagonal and *concept$\times$concept (c$\times$c)* matrix whose main diagonal elements are the *eigenvalues* of *A*. These values have been sorted in descending order in main diagonal of the matrix; $V^T$ denotes an orthogonal *concept$\times$essay (c$\times$e)* matrix whose columns are called right singular values.
Matrices obtained from applying SVD to *A* can be interpreted as follows; $U_{term\times concept}$ is a matrix in which each column identifies a skilfully extracted concept (or topic) from the text by SVD. The rows in *U*, same as the *A*, are allocated to the unique terms. The cells’ values in *U* emphasize the weight (importance) of each term in the corresponding concept. Besides, *$\Sigma_{concept\times concept}$* is a diagonal matrix with descending values in the main diagonal, each of which values emphasize the importance of concepts in the essay. Not all the cells in the main diagonal in *U* have nonzero values; just a number of them which is called *rank(A)*, have nonzero values. As a consequence, applying SVD to *A* practically causes to a dimensionality reduction and trivial concepts removal. It is approved that such dimensionality reduction leads to better approximations for human cognitive behavior. Finally, *$V^T_{concept\times essay}$* indicates a new representation for essays based on extracted concepts by SVD, rather than the original terms or words.
For the purpose of APP, at first the *A* matrix for both ‘True’ labeled and ‘False’ labeled essays in Essays Dataset, in each five personality trait are obtained, separately. Then we will have ten matrices, two for each personality trait. All of the matrices have a dimensionality equal to *term$\times$essay*. Next, we applied SVD and decomposed all of the ten matrices to *U*, $\Sigma$ and *V* corresponding matrices, as described before. After that, in each personality trait, the *U* and $\Sigma$ decomposed matrices were selected for both ‘True’ labeled, and ‘False’ labeled essays. Multiplying $U_{term\times concept}$ and $\Sigma_{concept\times concept}$, a $B_{term\times concept}$ was achieved, which emphasizes the importance of each term in each concept. Furthermore, multiplying *U* and $\Sigma$ will causes to remove less importance terms (by attributing zero values). Once giving an input essay, a *term$\times$1* vector was produced. Finally, in order to predict the personality traits’ labels, we aggregated the column wise cosine similarity between input essay vector and *B* matrices, both for ‘True’ labeled and ‘False’ labeled essays. The bigger value for similarity, determined the label for input essay.
### Deep Learning-Based Method
As the fifth method for APP, we suggested a deep learning *Bidirectional Long Short Term Memory (BiLSTM)* network. Unlike traditional neural networks that cope with inputs independently, *Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN*) take into account a set of previous inputs. This property competently makes RNNs capable of learning from sequential data, like text documents. LSTM as a special kind of RNNs, benefits understanding of previous words (past information) to understand each word (in forward direction), Whilst BiLSTM benefits both understandings of previous and next words (past and future information) in forward and backward directions respectively. It looks much like humans do.
First of all, some preprocessing steps like tokenization, data cleaning and lowercasing were performed on essays’ texts. Next, each unique tokenized word was mapped to an integer id and accordingly, the list of words in each essay text was converted to a list of ids and were post padded to the maximum essay length. In consequence, 2,467 essay vectors with the same lengths (2,854) were produced. The proposed network architecture includes four layers: an input layer, an embedding layer with 128 neurons, a BiLSTM layer with 200 neurons, and a dense layer with five neurons (one for each personality trait). Figure \[fig: Figure 1\] shows a summary of the model. It must be noted that, we used early stopping to avoid overfitting with tenfold cross-validation in our experiments. Besides, the designed network performs multi label text classification for five personality traits, in parallel.
![Summary of the deep learning model[]{data-label="fig: Figure 1"}](Figure1.png){height="6cm"}
Ensemble Modeling
-----------------
The main idea behind *ensemble modeling* is to improve the overall predictive performance through combining the decisions from multiple models [@vanRijn2018]. Actually, it takes into account the multiple diverse base models’ votes to predict an outcome, rather than a single model (much like using the wisdom of the crowd in making a prediction). As a consequence of manipulating independent and diverse base models, the generalization error of prediction will be decreased [@kotu2018data], that is a great incentive to use ensemble modeling. Among different ensemble methods, *Bagging (Bootstrap Aggregation)* [@breiman1996bagging], *Boosting* [@FREUND1997119], and *Stacking* [@WOLPERT1992241] are more common. The first two ones are often used to combine homogeneous base methods [@10.1145/3093241.3093262] aimed to decrease variance and reduce the bias respectively, whilst the third one is often used to combine heterogeneous base methods [@KANG201535] aimed to improve predictions. Experiments show that, applying heterogeneous base methods will improve the ensemble modeling efficiency [@van2018online]. Regarding our different five base methods, a stacking-based ensemble modeling was suggested to accomplish APP objectives.
Algorithm \[Algorithm: stacking\], presents the stacking algorithm which was used for the purpose of ensemble modeling here. As can be seen, the algorithm contains three sequential steps: it commences by making decision about base classification methods as well as a meta-model, in the first step. Aforementioned five suggested APP methods, were selected as the five base classification methods, and a Hierarchical Attention Network (HAN) [@yang2016hierarchical] was selected as the meta-model, also. During the second step, base methods are responsible for making predictions, that are not the final predictions but they have the essential role in making them. Actually, base methods’ predictions (as the wisdom of the crowd) are then used to train the meta-model in the third step. At last, the meta-model will make the final predictions on input essays.
**Step 1: initial decisions** 2.0em 2.0em *specification of a meta-model; a Hierarchical Attention Network (HAN) was selected*
**Step 2: making prediction using base classification methods** 2.0em *run M base classification methods* 2.0em
2.0em **Step 3: setting up the ensemble model**
2.0em 2.0em *generate the ensemble predictions*
The major objectives of the Hierarchical Attention Network or HAN, are to obtain two fundamental insights about document structure [@yang2016hierarchical]: firstly, achieving a hierarchical representation of documents (hierarchy); and secondly, achieving context-dependent meaning or importance of different words and sentences (attention). The idea behind the former objective is that, since documents utilize a hierarchical structure, namely words form sentences and sentences form documents, a hierarchical representation of documents will also be helpful. The idea that different words and sentences in a document, context dependently convey different information and importance, forms the main idea behind the next objective. Paying attention to those words and sentences which more contribute to classification decisions, would be so valuable and may result in better performance [@10.1145/2661829.2661935]. They can be regarded as convincing incentives to use HAN as a meta-model in ensemble modeling of APP.
![the architecture of a Hierarchical Attention Network (HAN) combined with base methods’ predictions to carry out stacking in document level classification. Where *L* is equal to the number of sentences (*s*) in essay; each sentence $s_i$ contains $T_i$ words; $w_{it}$ where $t \in [1, T]$ denotes the words in the $i^{th}$ sentence; $h$ implies the hidden states that serves as memory cells to track the state of sequences in forward ($\protect\overrightarrow{h}$) and backward ($\protect\overleftarrow{h}$) directions, in order to incorporate contextual information; $\alpha$ stands for word/sentences attentions which uses $u_w$/$u_s$ as the word/sentence level context vector; *v* denotes the document level vector of each essay. []{data-label="fig: Figure 2"}](Figure2.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Figure \[fig: Figure 2\], depicts the general architecture of a HAN which is combined with base methods’ predictions to carry out the stacking algorithm. The HAN produces a document level vector (*v*) for each of the essays in Essays Dataset, step by step from the word level vectors. An overview of its stepwise operation includes: *i)* ***word encoder*** that embeds the words to vectors, incorporating the contextual information of them (in forward and backward directions); *ii)* ***word attention*** that extracts (pays attention) those words that are important to the meaning of the sentence, due to the fact that they have unequal contributions in sentence meaning; *iii)* ***sentence encoder*** that produces document vector using sentence vectors, incorporating contextual information of sentences in the same manner; *iv)* ***sentence attention*** that rewards those sentences which play determining role in document classification. The final output of HAN is a document level vector (*v*) for each essay that conveys all the information of sentences in the essay (for more details about HAN, please refer to [@yang2016hierarchical]). Practically, *v* is considered as the meaningful extracted features that are resulted from the meta-model.
With the purpose of ensemble modeling, the HAN were trained using Essays Dataset. 80% of the essays were used to train the model, and 20% were used to test it. Following the production of document level vectors for essays, they were fed to a dense layer in combination with suggested five base methods predictions, in order to train the meta-model to produce the final predictions. Finally, the softmax activation function determines the final prediction of essays classification in each of the five personality traits.
Results
=======
Evaluation Measures
-------------------
*Precision*, *recall*, *f-measure*, and *accuracy* are the most well-known evaluation measures in binary classification systems ([@manning2010introduction] for more study). Generally, there are two sets of labels for documents that have determining role in evaluation measures, containing *gold standard* and *ground truth*. The former refers to the set of reference labels for the documents, as the most accurate benchmark, and the latter refers to the set of system assigned (predicted) labels for documents. Moreover, there are two another determining notions, namely *relevant* and *non-relevant* documents. Considering the user’s needed information, relevant documents are those that meet the needs and vice versa.
Practically, there are four possible combinations of actual labels and system assigned labels (observations), as shown in Table \[tab: Table 4\]: *true positive* or *TP* (the number of retrieved items that are relevant), *false positive* or *FP* (the number of retrieved items that are non-relevant), *false negative* or *FN* (the number of not retrieved items that are relevant), and *true negative* or *TN* (the number of not retrieved items that are non-relevant). Respecting the contents of Table \[tab: Table 4\], a better understanding about measures and the idea behind each of them, could be achieved.
\[1\][>p[\#1]{}]{}
[P[2.7cm]{}P[2.3cm]{}P[0.6cm]{}|P[2.0cm]{}|P[2.3cm]{}|]{}
& & &\
& & & Relevant Items & Non-Relevant Items\
& & & **True** & **False**\
& Retrieved Items & **True** & *TP* & *FP*\
& Not Retrieved Items & **False** & *FN* & *TN*\
*Precision* is equal to the proportion of the number of retrieved documents that are relevant. As Equation \[eq: Equation 2\] reveals, high values for precision, denote to the low false positive rates. Actually, precision is intended to reply the question that *“what proportion of all the items that are labeled by the system, are correctly labeled”*? This is why it is called ‘precision’. $$\scriptsize
\label{eq: Equation 2}
\begin{aligned}
Precision =& \frac{\# \text{\textit{relevant items reteived}}}{\# \text{\textit{retreived items}}}
\\
=& \frac{\# \text{\textit{system predicted True label items}}}{\# \text{\textit{total system predicted True items (Ground Truth)}}}
\\
=& \frac{TP}{TP+FP}
\end{aligned}$$ *Recall* is equal to the proportion of relevant documents that are retrieved. Considering Equation \[eq: Equation 3\], recall mainly tries to reply the question that *“what proportion of expected items, are correctly labeled by the system”*? This is why it is called ‘recall’. $$\scriptsize
\label{eq: Equation 3}
\begin{aligned}
Recall =& \frac{\# \text{\textit{relevant items reteived}}}{\# \text{\textit{relevant items}}}
\\
= & \frac{\# \text{\textit{system predicted True label items}}}{\# \text{\textit{all items in Gold Standard}}}
\\
=& \frac{TP}{TP+FN}
\end{aligned}$$ It should be noted that, precision and recall are not individually appropriate for evaluating the system performance. Specifically, there would be systems with high precision but low recall, and vice versa. Addressing this matter, the *f-measure* as a relation that trades off precision versus recall, is suggested. In fact, it is the weighted harmonic mean of precision and recall, in which both of them are weighted equally: $$\scriptsize
\label{eq: Equation 4}
f-measure = \frac{2 \times precision \times recall}{precision + recall}$$ Another intuitive measures that simply evaluates the system performance is *accuracy*. As Equation \[eq: Equation 5\] reveals, it is the proportion of the system assigned (predicted) correct labels outside the total possible observations. *TN*, a factor which is ignored in f-measure, is paid attention here. $$\scriptsize
\label{eq: Equation 5}
Accuracy = \frac{TP+TN}{TP+TN+FP+FN}$$
System Outputs
--------------
Comparing precision and recall reveals that, *FP* and *FN* are two key factors that influence their values. Hence, it is conceivable that they would be considered where the *FP* and *FN* are more important. While, *TP* and *TN* are key factors determining the value of Accuracy. Regarding the APP systems’ functionality, accuracy is preferable to precision and recall, and thereby f-measure. Despite the fact, both of the accuracy and f-measure have been used by researchers for APP systems evaluation. Of course, keeping in mind the ideas behind precision and recall, they would have meaningful interpretations. From that perspective, we decided to achieve them and consequently the f-measure for each of the suggested methods, however that we will basically rely on accuracy.
### Base Methods Outputs
This paper proposed five distinct methods for APP, each of which performs the prediction independently, during the first step. Specifically, the term frequency vector-based, ontology-based, enriched ontology-based, LSA-based, and deep learning-based (BiLSTM) methods were called into action. Table \[tab: Table 5\], provides the results obtained from the four evaluation measures in each method, namely: precision, recall, f-measure, and accuracy. The performance of each method, is evaluated separately in each of the personality traits in the Big Five model.
Among the five proposed base methods, term frequency vector-based method was the first one that unexpectedly obtained the best results for accuracy in all of the five traits, as it can be seen from the Table \[tab: Table 5\]. This method has also achieved the highest average accuracy value in five traits.
The ontology-based method as well as enriched ontology-based method, approximately have achieved the same results in accuracy for all of the five traits. However that ontology-based method achieved better average accuracy value, enriched ontology-based method slightly acts better in all of the five personality traits, except openness. Nevertheless, insignificant differences between corresponding accuracy values, reveal that enriching the method does not cause to improve the predictions, remarkably. Even though it has worsened the predictions in openness.
Interestingly, the accuracy values for LSA-based method equaled exactly to ontology-based method’s values, except neuroticism, in which the ontology-based method outperformed. Comparing average accuracy values, with a slight difference it has achieved the lowest value.
Deep learning-based methods, generally outperform other methods in most tasks. However, contrary to expectations, there were no significant enhancements in accuracy values, with regard to ontology and LSA-based methods. At the same time, it has finished most predictions (except conscientiousness) in second place. Actually, just the simplest suggested method, namely the term frequency vector-based method, had better results than suggested deep learning-based method. Nevertheless, among the five suggested base methods, the deep learning-based method has achieved the highest precisions for three personality traits and the remained highest two precisions were achieved by the term frequency vector-based method.
In general, as can be seen in Table \[tab: Table 5\], among five suggested base methods for APP, the term frequency vector-based method has achieved best accuracy values in all of the five personality traits in the Big Five model, when they were used independently.
[max width=]{}
**Measure** **Method** **O** **C** **E** **A** **N** **Avg.**
--------------------- ------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
\*[**Precision**]{} TF Vector-Based 59.84 54.87 56.95 58.04 54.92 56.92
Ontology-Based 51.52 50.79 51.72 53.10 49.98 51.42
Enriched Ontology-Based 52.31 51.18 51.76 53.67 50.02 51.79
LSA-Based 51.52 50.79 51.72 53.10 42.31 49.89
Deep Learning-Based (BiLSTM) **61.24** 48.64 59.45 **69.18** 50.74 57.85
Ensemble Modeling 58.23 **59.32** **63.45** 60.18 **61.24** **60.48**
\*[**Recall**]{} TF Vector-Based 52.40 60.65 56.50 58.17 58.88 57.32
Ontology-Based **100** **100** **100** **100** **100** **100**
Enriched Ontology-Based 40.05 91.70 **100** 87.63 **100** 83.88
LSA-Based **100** **100** **100** **100** 8.92 81.78
Deep Learning-Based (BiLSTM) 55.22 49.38 55.84 55.65 51.48 53.51
Ensemble Modeling 56.54 60.16 68.32 63.12 60.15 61.66
\*[**F-measure**]{} TF Vector-Based 55.87 57.62 56.73 58.10 56.83 57.03
Ontology-Based **68.00** **67.37** **68.18** **69.37** 66.65 **67.91**
Enriched Ontology-Based 45.37 65.69 68.22 66.57 **66.68** 62.51
LSA-Based **68.00** **67.37** **68.18** **69.37** 14.73 57.53
Deep Learning-Based (BiLSTM) 58.07 49.01 57.59 61.68 51.10 55.49
Ensemble Modeling 57.37 59.74 65.80 61.62 60.69 61.04
\*[**Accuracy**]{} TF Vector-Based **57.36** 54.68 55.41 55.45 55.29 55.64
Ontology-Based 51.52 50.79 51.72 53.10 49.98 51.42
Enriched Ontology-Based 50.30 51.36 51.80 53.26 50.06 51.36
LSA-Based 51.52 50.79 51.72 53.10 48.40 51.11
Deep Learning-Based (BiLSTM) 52.83 49.39 53.85 54.86 52.43 52.67
Ensemble Modeling 56.30 **59.18** **64.25** **60.31** **61.14** **60.24**
: Evaluation results for suggested methods[]{data-label="tab: Table 5"}
### Ensemble Modeling Outputs
In the second step toward ensemble modeling, we used a HAN as the meta-model to implement the stacking algorithm. Comparing average accuracy values among six suggested APP methods (five base methods and an ensemble modeling method), ensemble modeling method achieved the highest value, as can be seen from table \[tab: Table 5\]. It also outperforms in all of the five personality traits, except openness in which the term frequency vector-based method slightly acts better. Moreover, this method has achieved the highest average precision among all methods. Consequently, as hypothesized our experiments prove that the prediction error decreases when the ensemble method is used.
Figure \[fig: Figure 3\], compares the performance of all suggested methods (five base method as well as ensemble modeling method), in predicting openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism over the Essays Dataset.
Discussion
==========
Prior to discussing the results of suggested methods for APP, particular attention must be paid to some facts about personality prediction. Indeed, personality prediction is really a complicated task. Actually, it is correct even for human. One cannot deny that people face a challenge even when they are analyzing and expressing their own personality. What is more, people usually act conservatively when writing and speaking. Besides, the formal style of writing or speech undoubtedly will conceal some facts about people personality. Over and above, as previously stated, each of the five personality traits, represents a range between two extremes. Obviously, the binary classification of a continuum will cause to miss some information about personality traits. Respecting the facts, it should be confessed that the personality prediction task is really complicated both for human and for machine.
As it can be inferred from Table 5, among the five suggested base methods, unexpectedly the term frequency vector-based method in spite of its simplicity, generally outperforms all other base methods when they are applied independently. Taking into account the simplicity of the method and the complexity of the task, *Occam’s Razor* springs to one’s mind; it is most likely that, the simplest solution is the right one. At the same time, the deep learning-based method that was expected to achieve the highest accuracies, has achieved the second best accuracies. This would be as a result of suggested deep network’s less ability of prediction, due to the less amounts of personality related informational content in essays. Notably, this method achieves the highest precision in most (three from five) personality traits. It means that, in spite of low accuracies, deep learning-based method causes the most precise predictions. Of course, we believe that considering the task’s complexity, enriching the dataset will cause to improve the accuracies for deep learning methods (however it will also improve other method’s accuracies). It must be said that, we have also designed an LSTM network for APP, but it could not overcome the BiLSTM’s outcomes.
Among the five suggested base methods the three remained methods approximately perform equally. Using ontology lexical database and its semantic networks among words, results same predictions to LSA-based method. The Ontology-based method’s poor results approve that, the existed semantic network among words cannot be regarded as a distinguishing criterion for personality traits. Even enriching the method with the most correlated words in five personality traits, does not improve the results remarkably. We believe that modeling the vast semantic network among words, potentially increases the *oversensitivity* of the model. The resulted values for recall and precision for this methods, support this idea; approximately all of the expected items (100% for ontology-based and about 84% for enriched method) are predicted correctly (recall), but just about half of the predictions are labeled correctly (precision). In addition, a possible explanation for this outcome is that, ontologies formally specify the *types* rather than *type samples*.
Likely, LSA-based method is affected by oversensitivity, that despite its ability in latent semantic relation acquisition among words, causes to poor accuracies. Moreover, comparing the obtained results from LSA and term frequency-based method points to the fact that, term frequency vectors (in which each dimension is dedicated to a unique word) are more successful than topic vectors (in which each dimension is dedicated to a unique extracted topic). It can be interpreted as a justification of the lexical hypothesis; more important personality characteristics are more likely to be encoded in a single word [@2018wiley].
Generally, results approve that among five suggested base methods the simple term frequency-based method is so competent to predict personality in all five personality traits in the Big Five model, albeit it loses the relative ordering of the terms in essays.
At last, we finally achieved the major objective of our study; we enhanced the accuracy of APP using ensemble modeling. Actually, it is due to the substantial ability of stacking. During training, the meta-model was trained using both Essays Dataset’s essays as well as their actual labels (gold standard), and base methods’ predictions (ground truth). Practically, it compares the base methods’ predictions with actual corresponding labels for each essay. Afterwards, during final classification it assigns more weights to those methods with correct classifications. Consequently, the accuracy of APP was improved.
Conclusion and Future Works
===========================
Nowadays, texts provide a large amount of human interactions in different information infrastructures (social media, email, etc.). Automatic Personality Prediction (APP) from the text, uncovers the personality characteristics of the writers, without facing or even knowing them. Enhancing the accuracy of APP, will step researches ahead toward automating the analysis of the relation between personality and various human behaviors (rather than pure APP). For that purpose, in this study we have presented an ensemble modeling method that was based on five new APP methods, including term frequency vector-based, ontology-based, enriched ontology-based, latent semantic analysis-based, and deep learning-based (BiLSTM) methods. We have obtained satisfactory results proving that as we have hypothesized, ensembling the base methods enhances the accuracy of APP. Moreover, we have found that when the five APP methods have been used independently, the simple term frequency vector-based method outperforms all others.
Each of the five personality traits represents a range between two extremes. This means that the Big Five model, represents the personality of individuals in a five dimensional space. In simple words, contrary to binary classification, each of the five personality traits may have different values, indicating the intensity of each trait. Thereby, fuzzy classification sounds so much better than binary classification. Further works are required to establish this idea.
Reaching maturity and meeting acceptable accuracies via computational researches in personality prediction, will attract APP researchers’ attention to focus on automatic analyzing the relationship between personality and different human behaviors, promptly. Namely, automatic prediction of: aggressive and violent behavior, antisocial behavior, delinquency, good citizenship and civic duty, marital instability, political attitude, orienting voting choices, IoT, etc[^2]. This topics also are deferred to future work.
Moreover, as it can be inferred, prediction or perception is prior to generation in personality analysis, in which its quality is determining factor in posterior. Achieving acceptable performance in APP, will facilitate investigations in *Automatic Personality Generation (APG)*. As a consequence, it is recommended that further researches should be undertaken in APG.
Acknowledgments
===============
This project is supported by a research grant of the University of Tabriz (number S/806).
Declarations
============
**Funding** This study was funded by the University of Tabriz (grant number S/806).\
**Conflict of Interest** All of the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest against any company or institution.\
**Ethical standards** This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
[^1]: For more attention by computational researchers
[^2]: A more complete list is provided at the beginning of section 2
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'This work addresses the problem of semantic image segmentation of nighttime scenes. Although considerable progress has been made in semantic image segmentation, it is mainly related to daytime scenarios. This paper proposes a novel method to *progressive* adapt the semantic models trained on daytime scenes, along with large-scale annotations therein, to nighttime scenes via the bridge of twilight time — the time between dawn and sunrise, or between sunset and dusk. The goal of the method is to alleviate the cost of human annotation for nighttime images by transferring knowledge from standard daytime conditions. In addition to the method, a new dataset of road scenes is compiled; it consists of 35,000 images ranging from daytime to twilight time and to nighttime. Also, a subset of the nighttime images are densely annotated for method evaluation. Our experiments show that our method is effective for knowledge transfer from daytime scenes to nighttime scenes, without using extra human annotation.'
author:
- 'Dengxin Dai$^{1}$ and Luc Van Gool$^{1,2}$[^1][^2]'
bibliography:
- 'IEEEfull.bib'
title: '**Dark Model Adaptation: Semantic Image Segmentation from Daytime to Nighttime** '
---
INTRODUCTION
============
Autonomous vehicles will have a substantial impact on people’s daily life, both personally and professionally. For instance, automated vehicles can largely increase human productivity by turning driving time into working time, provide personalized mobility to non-drivers, reduce traffic accidents, or free up parking space and generalize valet service [@autonomous:vehicle:guide:policymakers]. As such, developing automated vehicles is becoming the core interest of many, diverse industrial players. Recent years have witnessed great progress in autonomous driving [@drive:surroundview:route:planner], resulting in announcements that autonomous vehicles have driven over many thousands of miles and that companies aspire to sell such vehicles in a few years. All this has fueled expectations that fully automated vehicles are coming soon. Yet, significant technical obstacles must be overcome before assisted driving can be turned into full-fletched automated driving, a prerequisite for the above visions to materialize.
While perception algorithms based on visible light cameras are constantly getting better, they are mainly designed to operate on images taken at daytime under good illumination [@vision:atmosphere; @semantic:foggy:scene]. Yet, outdoor applications can hardly escape from challenging weather and illumination conditions. One of the big reasons that automated cars have not gone mainstream yet is because it cannot deal well with nighttime and adverse weather conditions. Camera sensors can become untrustworthy at nighttime, in foggy weather, and in wet weather. Thus, computer vision systems have to function well also under these adverse conditions. In this work, we focus on semantic object recognition for nighttime driving scenes.
Robust object recognition using visible light cameras remains a difficult problem. This is because the structural, textural and/or color features needed for object recognition sometimes do not exist or highly disbursed by artificial lights, to the point where it is difficult to recognize the objects even for human. The problem is further compounded by camera noise [@nighttime:noise:reduction:16] and motion blur. Due to this reason, there are systems using far-infrared (FIR) cameras instead of the widely used visible light cameras for nighttime scene understanding [@night:vision:pedestrian:05; @day:night:16]. Far-infrared (FIR) cameras can be another choice [@night:vision:pedestrian:05; @day:night:16]. They, however, are expensive and only provide images of relatively low-resolution. Thus, this work adopts visible light cameras for semantic segmentation of nighttime road scenes. Another reason of this choice is that large-scale datasets are available for daytime images by visible light cameras [@Cityscapes]. This makes model adaptation from daytime to nighttime feasible.
High-level semantic tasks is usually tackled by learning from many annotations of real images. This scheme has achieved a great success for good weather conditions at daytime. Yet, the difficulty of collecting and annotating images for all other weather and illumination conditions renders this standard protocol problematic. To overcome this problem, we depart from this traditional paradigm and propose another route. Instead, we choose to *progressively* adapt the semantic models trained for daytime scenes to nighttime scenes, by using images taken at the twilight time as intermediate stages. The method is based on progressively self-learning scheme, and its pipeline is shown in Figure \[fig:pipeline\].
\[fig:pipeline\]
The main contributions of the paper are: 1) a novel model adaptation method is developed to transfer semantic knowledge from daytime scenes to nighttime scenes; 2) a new dataset, named *Nighttime Driving*, consisting of images of real driving scenes at nighttime and twilight time, with $35,000$ unlabeled images and $50$ densely annotated images. These contributions will facilitate the learning and evaluation of semantic segmentation methods for nighttime driving scenes. *Nighttime Driving* is available at <http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~daid/NightDriving/>.
Related Work {#sec:related}
============
Semantic Understanding of Nighttime Scenes
------------------------------------------
A lot of work for nighttime object detection/recognition has focused on human detection, by using FIR cameras [@night:vision:pedestrian:05; @pedestrian:detection:tracking:night:09] or visible light cameras [@cnn:human:detection:nighttime:17], or a combination of both [@nighttime:pedestrian:detection:08]. There are also notable examples for detecting other road traffic objects such as cars [@nighttime:object:proposal:18] and their rear lights [@night:rear:lights:16]. Another group of work is to develop methods robust to illumination changes for robust road area detection [@road:detection:illumination:invariant] and semantic labeling [@outdoor:transformation:labeling:iv15]. Most of the research in this vein had been conducted before deep learning was widely used.
Semantic understanding of visual scenes have recently undergone rapid growth, making accurate object detection feasible in images and videos in daytime scenes [@DomainAdaptiveFasterRCNN; @refinenet]. It is natural to raise the question of how to extend those sophisticated methods to other weather conditions and illumination conditions, and examine and improve the performance therein. A recent effort has been made for foggy weather [@semantic:foggy:scene]. This work would like to initiate the same research effort for nighttime.
Model Adaptation
----------------
The concurrent work in [@SynRealDataFogECCV18] on adaptation of semantic models from clear weather condition to light fog then to dense fog is closely related to ours.
Road Scene Understanding
------------------------
Road scene understanding is a crucial enabler for applications such as assisted or autonomous driving. Typical examples include the detection of roads [@recent:progress:lane], traffic lights [@traffic:light:survey:16], cars and pedestrians [@Cityscapes; @semantic:foggy:scene], and tracking of such objects [@vehicles:road:survey:13; @pathtrack]. We refer the reader to the excellent surveys [@looking:at:human]. The aim of this work is to extend/adapt the advanced models developed recently for road scene understanding at daytime to nighttime, without manually annotating nighttime images.
Approach {#sec:approach}
========
Training a segmentation model with large amount of human annotations should work for nighttime images, similar to what has been achieved for daytime scene understanding [@MastRCNN; @refinenet]. However, applying this protocol to other weather conditions and illumination conditions is problematic as it is hardly affordable to annotate the same amount of data for all different conditions and their combinations. We depart from this protocol and investigate an automated approach to transfer the knowledge from existing annotations of daytime scenes to nighttime scenes. The approach leverages the fact that illumination changes continuously between daytime and nighttime, through the twilight time. Twilight is the time between dawn and sunrise, or between sunset and dusk. Twilight is defined according to the solar elevation angle, which is the position of the geometric center of the sun relative to the horizon [@twilight:definition]. See Figure \[fig:twillight\] for an illustration.
During a large portion of twilight time, solar illumination suffices enough for cameras to capture the terrestrial objects and suffices enough to alleviate the interference of artificial lights to a limited amount. See Figure \[fig:pipeline\] for examples of road scenes at twilight time. These observations lead to our conjecture that the domain discrepancy between daytime scenes and twilight scenes, and the the domain discrepancy between twilight scenes and nighttime scenes are both smaller than the domain discrepancy between daytime scenes and nighttime scenes. Thus, images captured during twilight time can serve our purpose well — transfer knowledge from daytime to nighttime. That is, twilight time constructs a bridge for knowledge transfer from our source domain daytime to our target domain nighttime.
![Twilight is defined according to the solar elevation angle and is categorized into three subcategories: civil twilight, nautical twilight, and astronomical twilight. (picture is from wikipedia).[]{data-label="fig:twillight"}](Twilight2.png){width="0.9\linewidth"}
In particular, we train a semantic segmentation model on daytime images using the standard supervised learning paradigm, and apply the model to a large dataset recorded at civil twilight time to generate the class responses. The three subgroups of twilight are used: civil twilight, nautical twilight, and astronomical twilight [@twilight:definition]. Since the domain gap between daytime condition and civil twilight condition is relatively small, these class responses, along with the images, can then be used to fine-tune the semantic segmentation model so that it can adapt to civil twilight time. The same procedure is continued through nautical twilight and astronomical twilight. We then apply the final fine-tuned model to nighttime images.
This learning approach is inspired by the stream of work on model distillation [@hinton2015distilling; @dai:metric:imitation; @supervision:transfer]. Those methods either transfer supervision from sophisticated models to simpler models for efficiency [@hinton2015distilling; @dai:metric:imitation], or transfer supervision from the domain of images to other domains such as depth maps [@supervision:transfer]. We here transfer the semantic knowledge of annotations of daytime scenes to nighttime scenes via the unlabeled images recorded at twilight time.
Let us denote an image by $\mathbf{x}$, and indicate the image taken at *daytime*, *civil twilight time*, *nautical twilight time*, *astronomical twilight time* and *nighttime* by $\mathbf{x}^0$, $\mathbf{x}^1$, $\mathbf{x}^2$, $\mathbf{x}^3$, and $\mathbf{x}^4$, respectively. The corresponding human annotation for $\mathbf{x}^0$ is provided and denoted by $\mathbf{y}^0$, where $\mathbf{y}^0(m,n) \in\{1, ..., C\}$ is the label of pixel $(m,n)$, and $C$ is the total number of classes. Then, the training data consist of labeled data at daytime $\mathcal{D}^0 =\{(\mathbf{x}^0_i, \mathbf{y}^0_{i})\}_{i=1}^{l^0}$, and three unlabeled datasets for the three twilight categories: $\mathcal{D}^1=\{\mathbf{x}^1_{j}\}_{j=1}^{l^1}$, $\mathcal{D}^2=\{\mathbf{x}^2_{k}\}_{k=1}^{l^2}$, and $\mathcal{D}^3=\{\mathbf{x}^3_{q}\}_{q=1}^{l^3}$, where $l^0$, $l^1$, $l^2$, and $l^3$ are the total number of images in the corresponding datasets. The method consists of eight steps and it is summarized below.
1. train a segmentation model with daytime images and the human annotations: $$\min_{\phi^0} \frac{1}{l^0}\sum_{i=1}^{l^0} L(\phi^0(\mathbf{x}^0_i), \mathbf{y}^0_i),$$ where $L(.,.)$ is the cross entropy loss function; \[item1\]
2. apply segmentation model $\phi^0$ to the images recorded at civil twilight time to obtain “noisy” semantic labels: $\hat{\mathbf{y}}^1 = \phi^0(\mathbf{x}^1)$, and augment dataset $\mathcal{D}^1$ to $\hat{\mathcal{D}}^1$: $\hat{\mathcal{D}}^1=\{(\mathbf{x}^1_j, \hat{\mathbf{y}}^1_j)\}_{j=1}^{l^1}$; \[item2\]
3. instantiate a new model $\phi^1$ by duplicating $\phi^0$, and then fine-tune (retrain) the semantic model on $\mathcal{D}^0$ and $\hat{\mathcal{D}}^1$: $$\phi^1 \leftarrow \phi^0,$$ and $$\min_{\phi^1} \Big(\frac{1}{l^0}\sum_{i=1}^{l^0} L(\phi^1(\mathbf{x}^0_i), \mathbf{y}^0_i) + \frac{\lambda^1 }{l^1}\sum_{j=1}^{l^1} L(\phi^1(\mathbf{x}^1_j), \hat{\mathbf{y}}^1_j) \Big),
\label{eq:step3}$$ where $\lambda^1$ is a hyper-parameter balancing the weights of the two data sources; \[item3\]
4. apply segmentation model $\phi^1$ to the images recorded at nautical twilight time to obtain “noisy” semantic labels: $\hat{\mathbf{y}}^2 = \phi^1(\mathbf{x}^2)$, and augment dataset $\mathcal{D}^2$ to $\hat{\mathcal{D}}^2$: $\hat{\mathcal{D}}^2=\{(\mathbf{x}^2_k, \hat{\mathbf{y}}^2_k)\}_{k=1}^{l^2}$; \[item4\]
5. instantiate a new model $\phi^2$ by duplicating $\phi^1$, and fine-tune (train) semantic model on $\mathcal{D}^0$, $\hat{\mathcal{D}}^1$ and $\hat{\mathcal{D}}^2$: $$\phi^2 \leftarrow \phi^1,$$ and then $$\begin{gathered}
\min_{\phi^2} \Big( \frac{1}{l^0}\sum_{i=1}^{l^0} L(\phi^2(\mathbf{x}^0_i), \mathbf{y}^0_i) + \frac{\lambda^1}{l^1}\sum_{j=1}^{l^1} L(\phi^2(\mathbf{x}^1_j), \hat{\mathbf{y}}^1_j) \\
+ \frac{\lambda^2}{l^2}\sum_{k=1}^{l^2} L(\phi^2(\mathbf{x}^2_k), \hat{\mathbf{y}}^2_k) \Big),
\label{eq:step5}\end{gathered}$$ where $\lambda^1$ and $\lambda^2$ are hyper-parameters regulating the weights of the datasets; \[item5\]
6. apply segmentation model $\phi^2$ to the images recorded at astronomical twilight data to obtain “noisy” semantic labels: $\hat{\mathbf{y}}^3 = \phi^2(\mathbf{x}^3)$, and augment dataset $\mathcal{D}^3$ to $\hat{\mathcal{D}}^3$: $\hat{\mathcal{D}}^3=\{(\mathbf{x}^3_q, \hat{\mathbf{y}}^3_q)\}_{q=1}^{l^3}$; ; \[item6\]
7. instantiate a new model $\phi^3$ by duplicating $\phi^2$, and fine-tune (train) the semantic model on all four datasets $\mathcal{D}^0$, $\hat{\mathcal{D}}^1$, $\hat{\mathcal{D}}^2$ and $\hat{\mathcal{D}}^3$: $$\phi^3 \leftarrow \phi^2,$$ and then $$\begin{gathered}
\min_{\phi^3} \Big( \frac{1}{l^0}\sum_{i=1}^{l^0} L(\phi^3(\mathbf{x}^0_i), \mathbf{y}^0_i) + \frac{\lambda^1}{l^1}\sum_{j=1}^{l^1} L(\phi^3(\mathbf{x}^1_j), \hat{\mathbf{y}}^1_j) \\
+ \frac{\lambda^2}{l^2}\sum_{k=1}^{l^2} L(\phi^3(\mathbf{x}^2_k), \hat{\mathbf{y}}^2_k) + \frac{\lambda^3}{l^3}\sum_{q=1}^{l^3} L(\phi^3(\mathbf{x}^3_q), \hat{\mathbf{y}}^3_q) \Big),
\label{eq:step7}\end{gathered}$$ where $\lambda^1$, $\lambda^1$ and $\lambda^3$ are hyper-parameters regulating the weights of the datasets; \[item7\]
8. apply model $\phi^3$ to nighttime images to perform the segmentation: $\hat{\mathbf{y}}^4 = \phi^3(\mathbf{x}^4)$.
We term our method Gradual Model Adaptation. During training, in order to balance the weights of different data sources (in Equation \[eq:step3\], Equation \[eq:step5\] and Equation \[eq:step7\]), we empirically give equal weight to all training datasets. An optimal value can be obtained via cross-validation. The optimization of Equation \[eq:step3\], Equation \[eq:step5\] and Equation \[eq:step7\] are implemented by feeding to the training algorithm a stream of hybrid data, for which images in the considered datasets are sampled proportionally according to the parameters $\lambda^1$, $\lambda^2$, and $\lambda^3$. In this work, they all set to $1$, which means all datasets are sampled at the same rate.
Rather than applying the model trained on daytime images directly to nighttime images, Gradual Model Adaptation breaks down the problem to three progressive steps to adapt the semantic model. In each of the step, the domain gap is much smaller than the domain gap between daytime domain and nighttime domain. Due to the unsupervised nature of this domain adaptation, the algorithm will also be affected by the noise in the labels. The daytime dataset $\mathcal{D}^1$ is always used for the training, to balance between noisy data of similar domains and clean data of a distinct domain.
Experiments {#sec:experiment}
===========
Data Collection
---------------
*Nighttime Driving* was collected during 5 rides with a car inside multiple Swiss cities and their suburbs using a GoPro Hero 5 camera. We recorded 5 large video sequence with length of about 2 hours. The video recording starts from daytime, goes through twilight time and ends at full nighttime. The video frames are extracted at a rate of one frame per second, leading to 35,000 images in total. According to [@twilight:definition] and the sunset time of each recording day, we partition the dataset into five parts: daytime, civil twilight time, nautical twilight time, astronomical twilight time, and nighttime. They consist of 8000, 8750, 8750, 8750, and 9500 images, respectively.
We manually select 50 nighttime images of diverse visual scenes, and construct the test set of *Nighttime Driving* therefrom, which we term *Nighttime Driving-test*. The aforementioned selection is performed manually in order to guarantee that the test set has high diversity, which compensates for its relatively small size in terms of statistical significance of evaluation results. We annotate these images with fine pixel-level semantic annotations using the 19 evaluation classes of the Cityscapes dataset [@Cityscapes]: *road*, *sidewalk*, *building*, *wall*, *fence*, *pole*, *traffic light*, *traffic sign*, *vegetation*, *terrain*, *sky*, *person*, *rider*, *car*, *truck*, *bus*, *train*, *motorcycle* and *bicycle*. In addition, we assign the *void* label to pixels which do not belong to any of the above 19 classes, or the class of which is uncertain due to insufficient illumination. Every such pixel is ignored for semantic segmentation evaluation.
Experimental Evaluation
-----------------------
Our model of choice for experiments on semantic segmentation is the RefineNet [@refinenet]. We use the publicly available *RefineNet-res101-Cityscapes* model, which has been trained on the daytime training set of Cityscapes. In all experiments of this section, we use a constant base learning rate of $5\times{}10^{-5}$ and mini-batches of size 1.
Our segmentation experiment showcases the effectiveness of our model adaptation pipeline, using twilight time as a bridge. The models which are obtained after the initial adaptation step are further fine-tuned on the union of the daytime Cityscapes dataset and the previously segmented twilight datasets, where the latter sets are labeled by the adapted models one step ahead.
We evaluate four variants of our method and compare them to the original segmentation model trained on daytime images directly. Using the pipeline described in Section \[sec:approach\], three models can be obtained, in particular $\phi^1$, $\phi^2$, and $\phi^3$.
We also compare to an alternative adaptation approach which generates labels (by using the original model trained on daytime data) for all twilight images at once and fine-tunes the original daytime segmentation model once. To put in another word, the three-step progressive model adaptation is reduced to a one-step progressive model adaptation.
Model Fine-tuning on twilight data Mean IoU
------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Refinenet [@refinenet] — 35.2
Refinenet $\phi^1$ ($\rightarrow$ civil) 38.6
Refinenet $\phi^2$ ($\rightarrow$ civil $\rightarrow$ nautical) 39.9
Refinenet $\phi^3$ ($\rightarrow$ civil $\rightarrow$ nautical $\rightarrow$ astronomical) **41.6**
Refinenet $\rightarrow$ all twilight (1-step adaptation) 39.1
: Performance comparison between the variants of our method to the original segmentation model.[]{data-label="table:experiments"}
**Quantitative Results**. The overall intersection over union (IoU) over all classes of the semantic segmentation by all methods are reported in Tables \[table:experiments\]. The table shows that all variants of our adaptation method improve the performance of the original semantic model trained with daytime data. This is mainly due to the fact that twilight time fall into the middle ground of daytime and nighttime, so the domain gaps from twilight to the other two domains are smaller than the direct domain gap of the two.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
{width="24.00000%"} {width="24.00000%"} {width="24.00000%"} {width="24.00000%"}
{width="24.00000%"} {width="24.00000%"} {width="24.00000%"} {width="24.00000%"}
{width="24.00000%"} {width="24.00000%"} {width="24.00000%"} {width="24.00000%"}
{width="24.00000%"} {width="24.00000%"} {width="24.00000%"} {width="24.00000%"}
{width="24.00000%"} {width="24.00000%"} {width="24.00000%"} {width="24.00000%"}
{width="24.00000%"} {width="24.00000%"} {width="24.00000%"} {width="24.00000%"}
{width="24.00000%"} {width="24.00000%"} {width="24.00000%"} {width="24.00000%"}
\(b) ground truth
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
\[fig:sem:seg1\]
Also, it can be seen from the table that our method benefits from the progressive adaptation in three steps, i.e. from daytime to civil twilight, from civil twilight to nautical twilight, and from nautical twilight to astronomical twilight. The complete pipeline outperforms the two incomplete alternatives. This means that the gradual adaptation closes the domain gap progressively. As the model is adapted one more step forward, the gap to the target domain is further narrowed. Data recorded through twilight time constructs a trajectory between the source domain (daytime) and the target domain (nighttime) and makes daytime-to-nighttime knowledge transfer feasible.
Finally, we find that our three-step progressive pipeline outperforms the one-step progressive alternative. This is mainly due to the unsupervised nature of the model adaptation: the method learns from generated labels for model adaptation. This means that the accuracy of the generated labels directly affect the quality of the adaptation. The one-step adaptation alternative proceeds more aggressively and in the end learns from more noisy generated labels than than our three-step complete pipeline. The three-step model adaptation method generate labels only on data which falls slightly off the training domain of the previous model. Our three-step model adaptation strikes a good balance between computational cost and quality control.
**Qualitative Results**. We also show multiple segmentation examples by our method (the three-step complete pipeline) and the original daytime RefineNet model in Figure \[fig:sem:seg1\]. From the two figures, one can see that our method generally yields better results than the original RefineNet model. For instance, in the second image of Figure \[fig:sem:seg1\], the original RefineNet model misclassified some *road* area as *car*.
While improvement has been observed, the performance of for nighttime scenes is still a lot worse than that for daytime scenes. Nighttime scenes are indeed more challenging than daytime scenes for semantic understanding tasks. There are more underlying causal factors of variation that generated night data, which requires either more training data or more intelligent learning approaches to disentangle the increased number of factors. Also, the models are adapted in an unsupervised manner. Introducing a reasonable amount of human annotations of nighttime scenes will for sure improve the results. This constitutes our future work.
**Limitation**. Many regions in nighttime images are uncertain for human annotators. Those areas should be treated as a separate, special class; algorithms need to be trained to predict this special class as well. It is misleading to assign a class label to those areas. This will be implemented in our next work. We also argue that street lamps should be considered as a separate class in addition to the classes considered in Cityscapes’ daytime driving.
CONCLUSIONS {#sec:conclusion}
===========
This work has investigated the problem of semantic image segmentation of nighttime scenes from a novel perspective. This paper has proposed a novel method to *progressive* adapts the semantic models trained on daytime scenes to nighttime scenes via the bridge of twilight time — the time between dawn and sunrise, or between sunset and dusk. Data recorded during twilight times are further grouped into three subgroups for a three-step progressive model adaptation, which is able to transfer knowledge from daytime to nighttime in an unsupervised manner. In addition to the method, a new dataset of road driving scenes is compiled. It consists of 35,000 images ranging from daytime to twilight time and to nighttime. Also, 50 diverse nighttime images are densely annotated for method evaluation. The experiments show that our method is effective for knowledge transfer from daytime scenes to nighttime scenes without using human supervision.
**Acknowledgement** This work is supported by Toyota Motor Europe via the research project TRACE-Zurich.
[^1]: $^{1}$Dengxin Dai and Luc Van Gool are with the Toyota TRACE-Zurich team at the Computer Vision Lab, ETH Zurich, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland [firstname.lastname@vision.ee.ethz.ch ]{}
[^2]: $^{2}$Luc Van Gool is also with the Toyota TRACE-Leuven team at the Dept of Electrical Engineering ESAT, KU Leuven 3001 Leuven, Belgium
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The emission from neutral hydrogen (HI) clouds in the post-reionization era ($z \le 6$), too faint to be individually detected, is present as a diffuse background in all low frequency radio observations below $1420 \, {\rm MHz}$. The angular and frequency fluctuations of this radiation ($\sim 1 \, {\rm mK}$) is an important future probe of the large scale structures in the Universe. We show that such observations are a very effective probe of the background cosmological model and the perturbed Universe. In our study we focus on the possibility of determining the redshift space distortion parameter $\beta$, coordinate distance $r_{\nu}$, and its derivative with redshift, $r''_{\nu}$. Using reasonable estimates for the observational uncertainties and configurations representative of the ongoing and upcoming radio interferometers, we predict parameter estimation at a precision comparable with supernova Ia observations and galaxy redshift surveys, across a wide range in redshift that is only partially accessed by other probes. Future HI observations of the post-reionization era present a new technique, complementing several existing one, to probe the expansion history and to elucidate the nature of the dark energy.'
author:
- Somnath Bharadwaj$^1$
- 'Shiv K. Sethi$^2$'
- Tarun Deep Saini
bibliography:
- 'apssamp.bib'
title: 'Estimation of Cosmological Parameters from HI Observations of Post-reionization Epoch'
---
Introduction
============
Determining the expansion history of our Universe and parameterizing the constituents of the Universe at a high level of precision, are currently some of the most important goals in cosmology. While high-redshift ($z \leq 2$) supernova Ia observations (e.g. [@riess; @perlmutter]) and galaxy surveys ($z \leq 1$ ) (e.g. [@tegmark]) probe the local universe; and CMBR observations (e.g. [@dunkley; @komatsu]) probe the recombination era $(z \sim 1000)$, the expansion history is largely unconstrained across the vast intervening redshift range. Observations of redshifted $21 \,{\rm
cm}$ radiation from neutral hydrogen (HI) hold the potential of probing the universe over a large redshift range ($20 \ge z \ge 0$): from the dark ages to to the present epoch (eg. [@BA5; @furla]). Such observations can possibly be realized at several redshifts, using the currently functioning GMRT [^1]. Several new telescopes are currently being built with such observations in mind (eg. MWA [^2] & LOFAR [^3]). Such observations will map out the large-scale HI distribution at high redshifts. It has recently been proposed [@wlg; @chang] that Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO) in the redshifted $21 \,{\rm cm}$ signal from the post-reionization era ($z \le 6$) is a very sensitive probe of the dark energy. The BAO is a relatively small ($\sim 10-15$ per cent) feature that sits on the HI large-scale structure (LSS) power spectrum. In this paper we investigate the possibility of probing the expansion history in the post-reionization era using the HI LSS power spectrum without reference to the BAO. Unless otherwise stated we use the parameters $(\Omega_{m0},\Omega_{\Lambda0}, \Omega_b h^2, h,
n_s,\sigma_8)=(0.3,0.7, 0.024,0.7,1.0,1.0)$ referred to as the LCDM model in our analysis.
At redshifts $z \le 6$, the bulk of the neutral gas is in clouds that have HI column densities in excess of $2 \times 10^{20}\,\,{\rm
atoms/cm^{2}}$ [@peroux; @lombardi; @lanzetta]. These high column density clouds are observed as damped Lyman-$\alpha$ absorption lines seen in quasar spectra. These observations indicate that the ratio of the density $\rho_{\rm gas}(z)$ of neutral gas to the present critical density $\rho_{\rm crit}$, of the universe has a nearly constant value $\rho_{\rm gas}(z)/\rho_{\rm crit} \sim 10^{-3}$, over a large redshift range $0 \le z \le 3.5$. This implies that the mean neutral fraction of the hydrogen gas is $ \bar{x}_{\HI}=50\,\,\Omega_{\rm gas}
h^2 (0.02/\Omega_b h^2) =2.45 \times 10^{-2}$, which we adopt for the entire redshift range $z \le 6$. The redshifted $21 \, {\rm cm}$ radiation from the HI in this redshift range will be seen in emission. The emission from individual clouds ($ < 10 \,\mu{\rm Jy}$) is too weak to be detected with existing instruments unless the image is significantly magnified by gravitational lensing [@saini]. The collective emission from the undetected clouds appears as a very faint background in all radio observations at frequencies below $1420 \,
{\rm MHz}$. The fluctuations in this background with angle and frequency is a direct probe of the HI distribution at the redshift $z$ where the radiation originated. It is possible to probe the HI power spectrum at high redshifts by quantifying the the fluctuations in this radiation ([@bns; @bs]).
Formulation
===========
The Multi-frequency Angular Power Spectrum ( MAPS) $C_{\ell}(\Delta \nu)$ [@datta1] quantifies the statistics of the HI signal as a joint function of the angular multipole $\ell$ and the frequency separation $\Delta \nu$. We define the angular power spectrum $C_{\ell}=C_{\ell}(0)$ and the frequency decorrelation function $$\kappa_{\ell}(\Delta \nu)=\frac{C_{\ell}(\Delta \nu)}{C_{\ell}(0)}\,\,,
\label{eq:kappa}$$ to separately characterize the angular and the $\Delta \nu$ dependence respectively. The latter quantifies whether the HI signal at two different frequencies $\nu$ and $\nu+\Delta \nu$ is correlated $\kappa_{\ell}(\Delta \nu) \sim 1$ or uncorrelated $\kappa_{\ell}(\Delta \nu) \sim 0$ . The function $C_{\ell}(\Delta
\nu)$ can be estimated directly from observations without reference to a cosmological model (eg. [@ali08]). However, it is necessary to assume a background cosmological model in order to interpret $C_{\ell}(\Delta \nu)$ in terms of the three dimensional LSS HI power spectrum. On the large scales of interest here, it is reasonable to assume that HI traces the dark matter with a possible linear bias $b$, whereby the three dimensional HI power spectrum is $b^2 P(k)$, where $P(k)$ is the dark matter power spectrum at the redshift where HI signal originated. We have [@datta1] $$C_l(\Delta \nu)=
\frac{\bar{T}^2~ }{\pi r_{\nu}^2}
\int_{0}^{\infty} {\rm d} k_{\parallel} \,
\cos (k_{\parallel}\, r'_{\nu}\, \Delta \nu) \, P_{\rm HI}({\bf k}) \,,
\label{eq:fsa}$$ where the three dimensional wavevector ${\bf k}$ has been decomposed into components $k_{\parallel}$ and $l/r_{\nu}$, along the line of sight and in the plane of the sky respectively. The comoving distance $r_{\nu}$ is the distance at which the HI radiation originated. Note that $(1+z)^{-1} \, r_{\nu}=d_{\rm A}(z)$ is the angular diameter distance and $r_{\nu}^{'}=d r_{\nu}/d \nu$. The temperature occurring in eq. (\[eq:fsa\]) is given by $$\bar{T}(z)=4.0 \, {\rm mK}\,\,(1+z)^2 \, \left(\frac{\Omega_b
h^2}{0.02}\right) \left(\frac{0.7}{h} \right) \frac{H_0}{H(z)} \,,
\label{eq:a5}$$ and $P_{\rm HI}({\bf k})$ is the three dimensional power spectrum of the “21 cm radiation efficiency in redshift space”, which in this situation is given by $$P_{\rm HI}(\k)=\bar{x}^2_{\HI} b^2 \left( 1+ \beta \mu^2 \right)^2
P(k) \,.
\label{eq:d1}$$ The term $\left( 1+ \beta \mu^2 \right)^2$ arises due to HI peculiar velocities ([@bns; @bharad04]), which we assume to be determined by the dark matter. This is the familiar redshift space distortion seen in galaxy redshift surveys, where $\mu=k_{\parallel}/k$. and $\beta
=f(z)/b$ is the linear distortion parameter, which is the ratio of $f(z)$ that quantifies the growth rate of linear perturbations, and $b$ the linear bias.
Results and Conclusions
=======================
The expected signal $C_l(\Delta \nu)$ from a few representative redshifts, calculated for the LCDM model, is plotted in Figure \[fig:cl\], and in Figure \[fig:kappa\] we have plotted the frequency decorrelation function $\kappa_{\ell}(\Delta \nu)$ as a function of $\Delta \nu$, for a fixed redshift $z=3.0$ and for $\ell=100,\,1000 \,\& \,10000$. The HI signal is smaller than $\sim 1
\, {\rm mK}$, and it decreases with increasing $l$. The shape or $\ell$ dependence is decided by the shape of $P(k)$ at all comoving wave-numbers $k \ge \ell/r_{\nu}$. The signal at two different frequencies $\nu$ and $\nu+\Delta \nu$ decorrelates rapidly with increasing $\Delta \nu$ and $\kappa_{\ell}(\Delta \nu) < 0.1$ at $\Delta \nu > 5 \, {\rm MHz}$. The decorrelation occurs at a smaller $\Delta \nu$ for the larger multipoles (Figure \[fig:kappa\]). While the HI signal at a frequency separation $\Delta \nu>5\, {\rm MHz}$ is expected to be uncorrelated, the foregrounds are expected to be highly correlated even at frequency separations larger than this (eg. [@santos]). This should in principle allow the HI signal to be separated from the foregrounds, which are a few orders of magnitude larger (eg. [@mcquinn; @mor2]).
It is clear from eq. (\[eq:fsa\]) that $C_{\ell}(\Delta \nu)$ depends on the background cosmological model through the parameters $(\beta,r_{\nu},r^{'}_{\nu})$. Assuming that the dark matter power spectrum $P(k)$ is known a priori, observations of $C_{\ell}(\Delta\nu)$ can be used to determine the values of these three parameters. It is convenient to replace $r^{'}_{\nu}$ with the dimensionless parameter [@ali1] $$p(z)=\frac{d \ln\left [r_{\nu}(z) \right]}{d
\ln(z)} \,.$$ Figure \[fig:parm\] shows the variation of the three parameters $(\beta,r_{\nu},p)$ across the redshift range $z\le 6$ for the LCDM model.
We separately consider parameter estimation using $C_{\ell}$ and $\kappa_{\ell}(\Delta \nu)$. The former does not depend on $p$. The amplitude $A= (\bar{T} \bar{x}_{\HI} b)^2 /\pi r_{\nu}^2$ of $C_{\ell}$ is uncertain, and we consider the joint estimation of three parameters $(A,\beta,r_{\nu})$ from observations of $C_{\ell}$. The value of $\kappa_{\ell}(\Delta \nu)$ is insensitive to the amplitude $A$, leaving three parameters $(\beta,r_{\nu},p)$ that can be jointly estimated from this. We use the Fisher matrix (e.g. [@tth]) to determine the accuracy at which these parameters can be estimated.
Parameter estimation depends on two distinct aspects of the observing instrument. The first is the $\ell$ range [*ie.*]{} $\ell_{min}$, $\ell_{max}$, and the sampling interval $\Delta \ell$, which corresponds to the smallest $\ell$ spacing at which we have independent estimates of $C_{\ell}(\Delta \nu)$ . This is determined by the instrument’s field of view, and is inversely related to it. The second is the observational uncertainty in $C_{\ell}(\Delta \nu)$. This is a sum, in quadrature, of the instrumental noise and the cosmic variance. The cosmic variance contribution $\delta
C_{\ell}/C_{\ell}=\sqrt{{2}/{((2 \ell +1) \, {\rm f} \, \Delta
\ell})}$ (${\rm f}$ is the fraction of sky observed) is further reduced because the large frequency bandwidth $\Delta\nu_B$ provides several independent estimates of $C_{\ell}$. We assume that $\delta
C_{\ell}$ is reduced by a factor we $\sqrt{\Delta\nu_B/(1 \, {\rm
MHz})}$ because of this. The instrumental uncertainties were estimated using relations [@ali08] between $\delta C_{\ell}$ and the noise in the individual visibilities measured in radio-interferometric observations. For this we assume that the baselines in the radio-interferometric array have a uniform u-v coverage.
We consider three different instrumental configurations for parameter estimation.
- The currently functional GMRT has too few antennas for cosmological parameter estimation. We consider an enhanced version of the GMRT with a substantially larger number of antennas ($N=120$) , each identical to those of the existing GMRT. The antennas have a relatively small field of view ($\theta_{\rm FWHM}\sim 0.8^{\circ}$ at $610 \, {\rm MHz}$) and the array has relatively large baselines spanning $\ell_{min}=500$ to $\ell_{max}=10,000$ with $\Delta
\ell=100$.
- The upcoming MWA will have a large number of small sized antennas. The antennas have a relatively large field of view ($\theta_{\rm FWHM}\sim 5^{\circ}$ at $610 \, {\rm MHz}$), and the array is expected to be quite compact spanning $\ell_{min}=100$ to $\ell_{max}=2000$ with $\Delta \ell=20$. The first version of this array is expected to have $N=500$ antennas which is what we consider.
- This is a future, upgraded version of the MWA which is expected to have $N=5000$ antennas.
For each of these configurations, we assume that 16 simultaneous primary beams can be observed. We present results for $2$ years of observation for A and B, and $1000$ hours for C. Throughout we assume frequency channels $0.05 \, {\rm MHz}$ wide, a bandwidth $\Delta \nu_B
=32 \, {\rm MHz}$, and that a single field is observed for the entire duration. For parameter estimation we use: $\delta
\kappa_{\ell}(\Delta \nu)=\sqrt{2} \, \delta C_{\ell}/C_{\ell}$.
We find that observations of $C_{\ell}$ impose very poor constraints on the parameters $\beta$ and $r_{\nu}$, and we do not show these here. The accuracy is considerable higher for $\kappa_{\ell}(\Delta
\nu)$, which captures the three dimensional clustering of the HI as compared to $C_{\ell}$, which quantifies only the angular dependence. Figure \[fig:par\] shows the predicted estimates for the parameters $\beta$, $r_{\nu}$ and $p$ at various redshifts. Further, we find that a compact, wide-field array (B,C) is considerably more sensitive to these parameter as compared to case A.
Considering the three parameters individually:
[**Redshift-space distortion parameter: $\beta$** ]{}. This has traditionally been measured from galaxy redshift surveys [@Peacock; @Hawkins; @Ross; @Guzzo], with uncertainties in the range $0.1 \le \Delta \beta/\beta \le 0.2$. These observations have, till date, been restricted to $z \le 1$. Future galaxy surveys are expected to achieve higher redshifts and smaller uncertainties. Galaxy surveys have the drawback that at very high redshifts they probe only the most luminous objects, which are expected to be highly biased. HI observations do not have this limitation and could provide high precision $(\Delta \beta/\beta <0.1)$ estimates over a large redshift range.
[**Coordinate distance, $r_\nu$**]{}: The most direct measurement of the coordinate distance comes from supernova type Ia observations for $z
\le 2$. Current Sn Ia observations give $\Delta r_\nu/r_\nu \simeq
0.07$ [@sai04] for a single supernova. The statistical error in the coordinate distance can be further reduced by observing a large number of supernovae in a small redshift bin; thus the fundamental limitation of this technique is due to unknown systematics in the supernovae themselves, since it is certainly possible that supernovae at high redshift are different. Figure 4 shows that the HI method might have the potential to enable a precise measurement of the coordinate distance up to much larger redshifts. Furthermore, such a complimentary probe will also help in ascertaining systematics in the supernova probe.
[**Derivative of coordinate distance, p**]{}: This quantifies the Alcock-Paczynski (AP) effect [@Alcock], which is well accepted as a means to study the expansion history at high $z$, though such observations have not been possible till date. Observations of redshifted $21\, {\rm cm}$ radiation hold the potential of measuring the AP effect [@Nusser; @ali1; @Barkana]. The parameter $p$ is not affected by the overall amplitude $A$ and the bias $b$, and is a sensitive probe of the spatial curvature (Figure \[fig:parm\]). Our estimates indicate that it will be possible to measure $p$ with an accuracy $\Delta p/p \sim 0.03$ over a large $z$ range.
The parameters $(\beta,r_{\nu}, p)$ chosen for our analysis occur naturally when we interpret $C_{\ell}(\Delta \nu)$ in terms of the three dimensional dark matter power spectrum $P(k)$. Further, these parameters are very general in that they do not refer to any specific model for either the dark energy or the dark matter, and are valid even in models with alternate theories of gravity (eg. [@Carroll; @Dvali]). In fact, observations of these three parameters at different redshifts can in principle be used to distinguish between these possibilities.
For the purpose of this paper, we illustrate the cosmological parameter estimation by considering the simplest LCDM model, with two unknown parameters $\Omega_{m0}$ and $\Omega_{k0}$, and $\Omega_{\Lambda0}=1-\Omega_{m0}-\Omega_{k0}$. In Figure \[fig:contour\] we plot the $1\hbox{--}\sigma$ confidence interval for the estimation of $\Omega_{m0}$ and $\Omega_{k0}$, using a single measurement of $p$ alone, [*ie.*]{} only one of the three parameters measured at a single redshift $z=3$. Note that $p$ is insensitive to $H_0$ and hence it is not considered as an additional parameter here. It is possible to combine measurements at different $z$ to improve the constraints on cosmological parameters. We shall undertake a detailed analysis for quantifying the precision that can be achieved by combining different data sets (CMBR, galaxy surveys) for a more complicated dark energy model in a future work.
In conclusion, HI observations of the post-reionization era can, in principle, determine the expansion history at a high level of precision and thereby constrain cosmological models. Neither the upcoming initial version of the MWA which is planned to have $ 500$ antenna elements nor any conceivable upgradation of the existing GMRT will be in a position to carry out such observations, the observation time needed being too large. We find that an enhanced version of the MWA, which is planned to have $5000$ antenna elements, would be in a position to meaningfully constrain cosmological models. By combining different probes, we expect to achieve an unprecedented precision in the determination of cosmological parameters. This will be a step towards pinning down the precise nature of dark energy in the universe.
[99]{} S. Perlmutter, et al. , , 517, 565 (1999) A. G. Riess, et al., ApJ, 607, 665 (2004) M. Tegmark, et al., Phys. Rev. D., 69, 103501 (2004) J. Dunkley et al., astro-ph/0803.0577 E. Komatsu et al. astro-ph/0803.0547 Bharadwaj S. & Ali S. S. 2005, , 356, 1519 Furlanetto , S. R. , Oh ,S. P.,. & Briggs,F., 2006, Phys.Rept. 433, 181 S. Wyithe, A. Loeb, & P. Geil, astro-ph/0709.2955 Chang, T.-C., Pen, U.-L., Peterson, J. B., & McDonald, P. 2008, Physical Review Letters, 100, 091303 Péroux, C., McMahon, R. G., Storrie-Lombardi, L. J. & Irwin, M .J. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 1103 Storrie–Lombardi, L. J., McMahon, R. G., Irwin, M. J. 1996, MNRAS, 283, L79 Lanzetta, K. M., Wolfe, A. M., Turnshek, D. A. 1995, ApJ, 430, 435 Saini T., Bharadwaj S. & Sethi, K. S. 2001, ApJ, 557, 421 S. Bharadwaj, B. B. Nath, & S. K. Sethi, JApA, 22, 21 (2001) S. Bharadwaj & S. K. Sethi, JApA, 22, 293 (2001) Datta, K. K., Choudhury, T. R., & Bharadwaj, S. 2007, , 378, 119 Ali, S. S., Bharadwaj, S., & Chengalur, J. N. 2008, , 385, 2166 Bharadwaj, S., & Ali, S. S. 2004, , 352, 142 Santos, M.G., Cooray, A. & Knox, L. 2005, 625, 575 M. McQuinn, O. Zahn, M. Zaldarriaga, L. Hernquist, & S. R. Furlanetto, ApJ, 653, 815 (2006) Morales M. F. Bowman J. D. & Hewitt J. N., 2006, , 648, 767
Ali, S. S., Bharadwaj, S., & Pandey, B. 2005, , 363, 251 Tegmark, M., Taylor, A. N. & Heavens, A. F. 1997, ApJ, 480, 22 Peacock, J. A., et al. 2001, , 410, 169 Hawkins, E., et al. 2003, , 346, 78 Ross, N. P., et al. 2007, , 381, 573 Guzzo, L., et al. 2008, , 451, 541 Saini, T. D., Weller, J., & Bridle, S. L. 2004, , 348, 603 Alcock, C., & Paczynski, B. 1979, , 281, 358 Nusser, A. 2005, , 364, 743 Barkana, R. 2006, , 372, 259 Carroll, S. M., Duvvuri, V., Trodden, M., & Turner, M. S. 2004, , 70, 043528 Dvali, G., Gabadadze, G., & Porrati, M. 2000, Physics Letters B, 485, 208
[^1]: http://www.gmrt.ncra.tifr.res.in/
[^2]: http://www.haystack.mit.edu/ast/arrays/mwa/
[^3]: http://www.lofar.org/
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
Localization properties of scalar single particle states are analyzed by explicit calculational examples with a focus on the massless case. Problems arising from the non-existence of relativistic particle position operators respecting the causal structure of Minkowski spacetime are illustrated by exploring the conflicts arising from localization and causal properties commonly imposed on single particle states. These topics necessitate the introduction of quantum field theoretical localization concepts and are scarcely discussed and often misinterpreted in the literature.\
0.1 cm [**Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme (2010).**]{} 11.10.-z - Field theory; 11.30.-j Symmetry and conservation laws.\
0.1 cm [**Mathematics Subject Classification (2010).**]{} 81T05, 81T13, 81T70.\
0.1 cm [**Keywords.**]{} Localization, causality, quantization.
author:
- |
Andreas Walter Aste$^{a,b},$ Maik Uwe Frensel$^a$\
$\quad$\
$^{a}$*Department of Physics, University of Basel, 4056 Basel, Switzerland*\
$^{b}$*Paul Scherrer Institute, 5232 Villigen PSI, Switzerland*
date: 'October 16, 2015'
title: |
Localization properties and causality aspects\
of massless and massive scalar particles
---
Introduction
============
One might think that everything has been said about the Klein-Gordon equation [@Klein; @Gordon; @Pauli_Weisskopf] $$\biggl( \frac{1}{c^2} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} - \Delta + {{\mkern0.75mu\mathchar '26\mkern -9.75mu\lambda}}_c^{-2} \biggr) \varphi(ct,\vec{x})=
(\Box + {{\mkern0.75mu\mathchar '26\mkern -9.75mu\lambda}}_c^{-2}) \varphi(x) = 0 \, , \quad {{\mkern0.75mu\mathchar '26\mkern -9.75mu\lambda}}_c = \frac{\hbar}{m c}
\label{Klein-Gordon_equation}$$ or about the simpler wave equation $$\Box \varphi(x) = 0 \label{wave_equation}$$ which is unrelated to Planck’s constant $h$ and does not contain a mass or length scale like the reduced Compton wave length ${{\mkern0.75mu\mathchar '26\mkern -9.75mu\lambda}}_c$. The massless wave equation (\[wave\_equation\]) is used to describe massless scalar particles in flat spacetime, which, as a remarkable matter of fact, have never been observed experimentally in the physical particle spectrum. The massless case has to be clearly distinguished from the massive case due to group theoretical reasons related to the representation theory of the proper orthochronous Poincaré group; there is no classical counterpart to a massless quantum particle.\
Massless scalar fields play some theoretical rôle in cosmological inflation models on curved spacetime [@Inflaton], however, contrary to the massive case which differs strongly from the massless case due to the existence of a length scale and the corresponding exponential decay of correlation functions, the scalar massless case with its special properties has not been discussed in the literature in great detail so far. One reason might be the fact that massless interacting theories like, e.g., massless scalar electrodynamics, the theory of the electromagnetic interactions of a mass-zero charged scalar field, has led to endless paradoxes like infinite cross sections when one tried to interpret it in a consistent manner, i.e. there is strong evidence against the existence of an S-matrix in such a theory. However, the Coleman-Weinberg mechanism shows a way out in the sense that radiative corrections may produce spontaneous symmetry breakdown in theories for which the semiclassical (tree) approximation does not indicate such breakdown such that the theory of a massless charged scalar finally becomes the theory of a massive vector meson and a massive scalar meson [@Coleman].\
For the sake of notational convenience, above and in the following Cartesian Minkowski coordinates $x$ are used where the speed of light [*in vacuo*]{} $c$ is equal to one such that $x^\mu=(ct,\vec{x})=(x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3)=(x_0,-x_1,-x_2,-x_3)$ and $\partial_\mu=\partial/ \partial x^\mu$. Planck’s constant plays no r$\hat{\mbox{o}}$le then since there is no first-quantized massless field theory. The spacetime-dependent phase of a plane wave with four-wave number $k^\mu$, or four-momentum $p^\mu = \hbar k^\mu$ is then given by $kx=k_\mu x^\mu = k^0 x^0 -k^1 x^1 -k^2 x^2 -k^3 x^3 = k_0 x^0 - \vec{k} \cdot \vec{x}$.\
Solutions of the massless wave equation
=======================================
For the sake of completeness, we start with some basic considerations concerning massless scalar fields. In many cases, the generalization of the discussion below to the massive case is straightforward.\
The general solution of the wave equation $$\Box \varphi(x)=0 \quad \mbox{or} \quad -k^2 \hat{\varphi}(k) =0$$ has its support on the light cone in momentum space, since $ \hat{\varphi}(k)=0$ must hold for $k^2 \neq 0$, and can be written in the form $$\varphi(x) = \int \frac{d^4 k}{(2 \pi)^4} \hat{\varphi}(k) e^{-ikx}
= \int \frac{d^4 k}{(2 \pi)^3} \delta(k^2) \tilde{\varphi}(k) e^{-ikx}$$ With $\omega(\vec{k}) = |\vec{k}| = \sqrt{k_1^2 + k_2^2 + k_3^2}$, the distributional identity $$\delta(k^2)= \delta((k^0-|\vec{k}|)(k^0+|\vec{k}|)) = \frac{1}{2 \omega(\vec{k})}(\delta(k^0-|\vec{k}|) + \delta(k^0+|\vec{k}|)) \, ,$$ holds, hence the frequency decomposition with $k=(\omega(\vec{k}),\vec{k})$ $$\varphi(x) =
\int \frac{d^3 k}{(2 \pi)^3 2 \omega(\vec{k})} \bigl[ \hat{\varphi}^- (\vec{k}) e^{-ikx} + \hat{\varphi}^+ (\vec{k}) e^{ikx} \bigr] \, ,$$ follows, with $$\hat{\varphi}^+ (\vec{k})= \tilde{\varphi}(-\omega(\vec{k}),-\vec{k}) \, .$$ The objects considered above may have a smooth analytic or a singular distributional (operator valued) character, depending on the theoretical setting under study. For the moment, $ \varphi(x)$ shall be considered as a complex Klein-Gordon wave function. Since we want to describe single particle states and since we have to work in a Hilbert space setting in quantum mechanics, the $ \hat{\varphi}^\pm$ shall be elements of the two Hilbert spaces $\hat{\mathds{H}}_0^\pm$ which result from the unique completion of the space of infinitely differentiable functions of compact support $(C_0^\infty (\mathds{R}^3), \, ( \cdot , \cdot ) )$ equipped with the Lorentz invariant relativistic scalar product $$( \hat{\varphi}^\pm ,\hat{\psi}^\pm ) = \int
\frac{d^3 k}{(2 \pi)^3 2 \omega(\vec{k})} \hat{\varphi}^{\pm} (\vec{k})^* \hat{\psi}^\pm (\vec{k}) \, , \quad \label{LIS}
$$ with the star $^*$ denoting complex conjugation. In configuration space, the wave equation generates a unitary dynamics on both spaces $\mathds{H}_0^{\pm}$. Then the expression $$j^\mu (x) = i \varphi (x)^* \! \stackrel {\leftrightarrow}{\partial^\mu} \! \varphi(x) =i \varphi (x)^* \partial^\mu \varphi(x) + c.c.
\label{cc}$$ gives rise to a real four-current Klein-Gordon density which fulfills the continuity equation $\partial_\mu j^\mu=0$, and the total charge $$\int \limits_{x^0=const.} d^3 x \, j^0(x) = \int \limits_{x^0=const.} d^3 x \,
\int \frac{d^3 k'}{(2 \pi)^3 2 \omega(\vec{k}')} \int \frac{d^3 k}{(2 \pi)^3 2 \omega(\vec{k})}$$ $$\times \bigl[ \hat{\varphi}^- (\vec{k}')^* e^{ik'x} + \hat{\varphi}^+ (\vec{k}')^* e^{-ik'x} \bigr]
\bigl[\omega(\vec{k}) \hat{\varphi}^- (\vec{k}) e^{-ikx} - \omega(\vec{k}) \hat{\varphi}^+ (\vec{k}) e^{ikx} \bigr]
+ c.c.$$ $$=\int \limits_{x^0=const.} \frac{d^3 k}{2(2 \pi)^3 2 \omega(\vec{k})} \bigl[ | \hat{\varphi}^- ( \vec{k}) |^2
- | \hat{\varphi}^+ (\vec{k}) |^2 + \hat{\varphi}^+ (\vec{k})^* \hat{\varphi}^- (-\vec{k}) e^{-2i \omega(\vec{k}) x^0}
- \hat{\varphi}^- (\vec{k})^* \hat{\varphi}^+ (-\vec{k}) e^{+2i \omega(\vec{k}) x^0}
\bigr]$$ $$+ c.c.$$ $$= \int \limits_{x^0=const.} \frac{d^3 k}{(2 \pi)^3 2 \omega(\vec{k})} \bigl[ | \hat{\varphi}^- ( \vec{k}) |^2
- | \hat{\varphi}^+ (\vec{k}) |^2 \bigr] \, , \label{current}$$ where the distributional Fourier transform of the Dirac $\delta$-distribution $$\int d^n x \, e^{\pm i ( \vec{k}-\vec{k'}) \cdot \vec{x}} = ( 2 \pi)^n \delta^{(3)} (\vec{k}-\vec{k'})
\label{Foudel}$$ for $n=3$ has been used. The standard interpretation of the indefinite current eq. (\[cc\]) is that $ \varphi(x)$ describes two particles with opposite charge: a particle with negative-frequency wave function $$\varphi^- (x) = \int \frac{d^3 k}{(2 \pi)^3 2 \omega(\vec{k})}
\hat{\varphi}^- (\vec{k}) e^{-ikx} \, ,$$ and an anti-particle with positive-frequency wave function $$\varphi^+ (x) = \int \frac{d^3 k}{(2 \pi)^3 2 \omega(\vec{k})} \hat{\varphi}^+ (\vec{k}) e^{+ikx} \, .$$ Of course, it is a matter of pure convention to label the frequency of the wave function of a particle as negative. Both in the negative- and the positive-frequency case, the energy of the (anti-)particle is positive.\
It is common usage to call the current eq. (\[cc\]) a local quantity, since it depends *locally* on quantities of the scalar field like the field strength or its derivatives. Still, the situation is a bit more involved.
Localization of the massless Klein-Gordon current
=================================================
In order to understand the locality properties of the charge current eq. (\[cc\]) properly, the structure of the charge density $j^\mu(x)$ has to be understood from both the single particle wave function aspect as well as from the quantum field theoretical point of view. A complex Klein-Gordon wave function $\varphi(x)$ can be specified, e.g., by Cauchy data at $t=x^0=0$ $$\varphi(0,\vec{x})= \varphi_0 (\vec{x}) \, , \quad \dot{\varphi}(0,\vec{x})=\dot{\varphi}_0 (\vec{x})$$ for the future $x^0 > 0$. However, if one considers a wave function describing only one particle alone in the universe, the situation is completely different, since the time derivative $\partial_0 \varphi(x)= \dot{\varphi}(x)$ depends in this case on the wave function $ \varphi(x)$. One has, e.g., for a negative-frequency and correspondingly positive-energy one-particle wave function $$\varphi^- (x) = \int \frac{d^3 k}{(2 \pi)^3 2 \omega(\vec{k})} \hat{\varphi}^- (\vec{k})
e^{i(\vec{k} \cdot \vec{x} -\omega(\vec{k}) \cdot t)} \, ,$$ which transforms passively under a change of inertial systems described by a proper orthochronous Poincar$\acute{\mbox{e}}$-transformation $x^\mu \rightarrow x'^\mu=\Lambda^\mu_{\, \, \nu}x^\nu +a^\mu$ or $x'= \Lambda x + a$, where $a$ is a four-vector and the Lorentz transformation matrix $\Lambda \in SO^+(1,3)$ fulfills $\Lambda^\mu_{\, \, \alpha} g_{\mu \nu} \Lambda^\nu_{\, \, \beta}
=g_{\alpha \beta} = \mbox{diag} (1,-1,-1,-1)$ or $\Lambda^T g \Lambda =g$, $\det{A}=1$ and $\Lambda^0_{\, \, 0} \ge 1$, via $${\varphi^-}' (x')= \varphi'^- (x')= \varphi^-(x)= \varphi^- (\Lambda^{-1}(x'-a)) \, .$$ Indeed, the time derivative of the wave function can be expressed by the wave function itself via the *non-local* expression $$\dot{\varphi}^-(x) =
\int \frac{d^3 k}{(2 \pi)^3 2 \omega(\vec{k})} (-i \omega(\vec{k})) \hat{\varphi}^- (\vec{k})
e^{i(\vec{k} \cdot \vec{x} -\omega(\vec{k}) \cdot t)} =
-\frac{i}{2} \int \frac{d^3 k}{(2 \pi)^3 }
\hat{\varphi}^- (\vec{k}) e^{i(\vec{k} \cdot \vec{x} -\omega(\vec{k}) \cdot t)} \, , \label{nonlocal}$$ becoming a convolution in position (or ’configuration’) space $$\dot{\varphi}^- (x^0, \vec{x}) = \int d^3 x' \, \sigma(\vec{x}-\vec{x}') \varphi^- (x^0, \vec{x}')
\label{convo}$$ with the integral kernel $$\sigma(\vec{x}-\vec{x}') = - \frac{i}{(2 \pi)^3} \int d^3 k \, |\vec{k}| e^{i \vec{k} \cdot (\vec{x}-\vec{x}')} \, .
\label{kernel}$$ The kernel can be calculated easily by the help of the well-known distributional identity involving the Dirac delta distribution $$\Delta_k \frac{1}{| \vec{k}|} = \bigl( \partial_{k^1}^2 +\partial_{k^2}^2 +\partial_{k^3}^2 \bigr)
\frac{1}{| \vec{k}|} = -4 \pi \delta^{(3)} (\vec{k})$$ which can be Fourier transformed to $$\int d^3 k \, e^{i \vec{k} \cdot \vec{x}} \Delta_k | \vec{k} |^{-1} = -4 \pi \int d^3 k \, \delta^{(3)} (\vec{k})
e^{i \vec{k} \cdot \vec{x}} = -4 \pi \, ,$$ therefore from shifting the momentum-space Laplace operator by partial integration to the exponential phase term above one has $$-|\vec{x}|^2 \int d^3 k \, \frac{e^{i \vec{k} \cdot \vec{x}}}{| \vec{k}|} = -4 \pi$$ and consequently $$\int d^3 k \, \frac{e^{i \vec{k} \cdot \vec{x}}}{| \vec{k}|} = \frac{4 \pi}{| \vec{x} |^2} \, .$$ In an analogous manner, one may write $$-| \vec{x} |^2 \sigma(\vec{x}) = - \frac{i}{(2 \pi)^3} \int d^3 k \, e^{i \vec{k} \cdot \vec{x}} \Delta_k |\vec{k}|
= - \frac{2i}{(2 \pi)^3} \int d^3 k \, \frac{e^{i \vec{k} \cdot \vec{x}}}{| \vec{k} |} \, ,$$ where $\Delta_k | \vec{k} | = 2/|\vec{k}|$ has been used, leading to the result $$\sigma(\vec{x}) = \frac{i}{\pi^2} |\vec{x}|^{-4} \, . \label{massless_kernel}$$ This highly singular distribution can be expressed in a regularized form as a derivative in position space of the smoother distribution $| \vec{x} |^{-2}$ $$\frac{1}{2} \Delta \frac{1}{| \vec{x} |^2} = \frac{1}{| \vec{x} |^4} \, .$$ Using the distibutional derivatives like $$\Delta \ln |\vec{x}|^2 = \frac{2}{| \vec{x}|^2}$$ the spherically symmetric kernel can be written in dipole or tripole form $$\sigma (\vec{x}) = \frac{i}{(2 \pi)^2} \Delta^2 \ln | \vec{x}|^2 = \frac{i}{6 (2 \pi)^2} \Delta^3 (x^2 \ln | \vec{x} |^2 ) \, .$$ Eq. (\[kernel\]) can also be evaluated directly (with $k=|\vec{k}|$ and $x=|\vec{x}|$ for notational convenience here) $$\sigma(\vec{x}) = - \frac{i}{(2 \pi)^3} \int \limits_{0}^{\infty} dk \, k^2 \int \limits_{-1}^{+1} 2 \pi \, d (\cos \vartheta) \,
k e^{ikx \cos \vartheta}
= - \frac{1}{(2 \pi)^2 x } \int \limits_{0}^{\infty} dk \, k^2 (e^{ikx}-e^{-ikx})$$ $$= - \frac{i}{2 \pi^2 x } \int \limits_{0}^{\infty} dk \, k^2 \sin (kx) \, .$$ This divergent integral becomes meaningful as the weak (i.e. distributional) limit of the convergent integrals $$\sigma(\vec{x}) = - \frac{i}{2 \pi^2 x } \lim \limits_{\alpha \searrow 0} \int \limits_{0}^{\infty} dk \, k^2 \sin (kx) e^{-\alpha k} =
- \frac{i}{2 \pi^2 x } \lim \limits_{\alpha \searrow 0} \frac{2x ( 3 \alpha^2 -x^2)}{(x^2+\alpha^2)^3} = \frac{i}{\pi^2 x^4} \, ,$$ again reproducing eq. (\[massless\_kernel\]).\
We conclude that the Klein-Gordon density $j^0 (x)$ in the setting of single particle wave mechanics is only formally a local quantity, since its definition contains a time derivative depending in a non-local manner on the single particle wave function. It will be shown below in a more general way in what sense a single particle cannot be localized.\
In the case of massive particles, the corresponding integral kernel $\sigma^m(\vec{x})$ of a particle with mass $m$ involves the Compton wavelength $m^{-1}$ of course, and decays exponentially on this length scale. The uncertainty in eq. (\[convo\]) discussed above has nothing to do with the usual quantum mechanical position uncertainty of a particle due to the spatial extension of the wave function in the non-relativistic case. In a way, it is a generic uncertainty of the single-particle wave function itself.\
Some expressions given above can be obtained as special cases from the general distributional weak limit given for $g>-1$ by $$\int \limits_{0}^{\infty} dk \, k^g \sin (kx) = \lim \limits_{\alpha \searrow 0} \int \limits_{0}^{\infty} dk \, k^g \sin (kx) e^{-\alpha k} =
\cos \bigl( \pi g/2) \Gamma(1+g) x^{-(g+1)} \, .$$
Negative charge densities from positively charged particles
===========================================================
Interpreting $j^0$ generated by a single particle wave $\varphi^- (x)$ function containing one frequency type only $$\varphi^-(x) = \int \frac{d^3 k}{(2 \pi)^3 2 \omega ( \vec{k} )} \hat{\varphi}^- ( \vec{k} ) e^{-ikx} \, , \quad
k^0= \omega(\vec{k}) = | \vec{k} | \, ,$$ has strange consequences, since even in the presence of negative or positive frequencies only $j^0$ can be positive and negative at different spacetime regions. This can easily be illustrated by superposing two negative frequency plane waves according to $$\varphi^-_{sup} (x) = e^{-ik_1 x} + \alpha e^{-ik_2 x} \, , \quad
\omega_1= k_1^0=|\vec{k}_1| \, , \quad \omega_2=k_2^0 = | \vec{k}_2| \, , \quad
\alpha \in \mathds{R} \, .$$ Concentrating on the spatial origin of the coordinate system for the sake of simplicity, one has ($x^0=t$) $$j^0 (t, \vec{0}) = (e^{i \omega_1 t} + \alpha e^{i \omega_2 t}) (\omega_1 e^{-i \omega_1 t} + \alpha
\omega_2 e^{-i \omega_2 t}) + c.c.$$ $$= 2 [\omega_1 + \alpha^2 \omega_2 + \alpha ( \omega_1 + \omega_2) \cos ( (\omega_1 - \omega_2) t) ] \, .$$ E.g., for the numerical values $\omega_1=1$, $\omega_2=4$, and $\alpha=1/2$ one has $\omega_1 + \alpha^2 \omega_2 = 2 < 5/2 = \alpha (\omega_1 + \omega_2)$, and therefore the amplitude of the oscillatory cosine-term, which is greater than the temporal mean of $j^0 (t, \vec{0})$, will cause local oscillations between negative and positive values of $j^0$. Even if the Klein-Gordon wave function is restricted to a single particle type, the charge density can be indefinite. This is quite a remarkable result, since the indefiniteness of the Klein-Gordon density is often attributed in the literature to the presence of both positive and negative frequency solutions of the Klein-Gordon equation. If fact, even when one of the frequency types is projected away, the Klein-Gordon density remains indefinite.\
The incorrect claim that for negative-frequency wave functions, the timelike component $j^0(x)$ of the Klein-Gordon current is positive-definite in Minkowski space, and that therefore “a consistent theory \[of localization in Minkowski space\] can be developed for a free \[relativistic spin-zero\] particle” [@Schweber] turns out to be totally false since, as eventually rigorously proved by Gerlach et al. [@Gerlach1; @Gerlach2; @Gerlach3], the opposite is actually true: for any single-frequency solution of the Klein-Gordon equation there are points in Minkowski space where $j^0(x) < 0$ and points where $j^0(x) > 0$ at the same time. Hence, the Klein-Gordon current is never a probability current. As a matter of fact, the problem of sharp localization of spin-zero quantum particles in relation to classical Lorentz frames turns out to be unsolvable, as will be discussed in detail at the end of this paper. This observation remains true for arbitrary spin values, for massive as well as for quantum particles of zero mass. Claims that no problems with the conventional notion of particle localizability occur in the case of relativistic quantum particles of spin-1/2 also turn out to be wrong [@Wightman].
Non-covariant localization
==========================
Defining a wave function $\hat{\varphi}^-_{NW} (\vec{k})$ in momentum space in the sense of Newton and Wigner [@NewtonWigner] $$\hat{\varphi}^-_{NW} (\vec{k}) = (2 \omega(\vec{k}))^{-1/2} \hat{\varphi}^- (\vec{k}) \, ,$$ the norm squared of a positive energy single particle state becomes, according to the Lorentz invariant scalar product defined in eq. (\[LIS\]) $$\int d^3 x \, \hat{\varphi}^-_{NW} (x^0,\vec{x})^* \hat{\varphi}^-_{NW} (x^0,\vec{x}) =
\int d^3 k \, \hat{\varphi}^-_{NW} (\vec{k})^* \hat{\varphi}^-_{NW} (\vec{k})$$ due to Parseval’s theorem, with the Newton-Wigner wave function in position space given by $$\hat{\varphi}^-_{NW} (x^0,\vec{x}) = \int \frac{d^3 k}{(2 \pi)^3 \sqrt{2 \omega(\vec{k})}} \,
\hat{\varphi}^- (\vec{k}) e^{-ikx} \, .$$ Accordingly, $\hat{\varphi}^-_{NW} (x^0,\vec{x})$ can be written as a convolution $$\hat{\varphi}^-_{NW} (x^0,\vec{x}) = \int \frac{d^3 k}{(2 \pi)^3 2 \omega({\vec{k})}} \sqrt{2 \omega(\vec{k})}
\hat{\varphi}^- (\vec{k}) e^{-ikx} =
\int d^3 x' \, \sigma_{NW} (\vec{x} - \vec{x}') \varphi^- (x^0, \vec{x}')$$ with $$\sigma_{NW} (\vec{x} -\vec{x}') = \int \frac{d^3k}{(2 \pi)^3}
\frac{e^{i \vec{k} (\vec{x}-\vec{x}')}}{ \sqrt{2 \omega(\vec{k})} } \, . \label{NWKernel}$$ Using the distributional Fourier transform eq. (\[Foudel\]), eq. (\[NWKernel\]) follows from the short calculation $$\int d^3 x' \sigma_{NW} (\vec{x} - \vec{x}') \hat{\varphi}^- (x^0, \vec{x}')$$ $$=\frac{1}{(2 \pi)^6} \int d^3 x' \int d^3 k \int \frac{d^3 k'}{2 \omega(\vec{k'})} \, \sqrt{2 \omega(\vec{k}')}
e^{i \vec{k}' (\vec{x}-\vec{x}')} \hat{\varphi}^- (\vec{k}) e^{i \vec{k} \vec{x}' - i \omega(\vec{k}) x^0}$$ $$= \frac{1}{(2 \pi)^3} \int d^3 k \int \frac{ d^3 k'}{ \sqrt{2 \omega(\vec{k'})}} \delta^{(3)} (\vec{k}'-\vec{k})
\hat{\varphi}^- (\vec{k}) e^{i \vec{k}' \vec{x} - i \omega(\vec{k}) x^0} \, .$$ The kernel can also be evaluated directly (with $k=|\vec{k}|$ and $x=|\vec{x}|$ for notational convenience) $$\sigma_{NW} (\vec{x}) = \frac{1}{(2 \pi)^3} \int \limits_{0}^{\infty} dk \, \frac{k^2}{\sqrt{2 k}} \int \limits_{-1}^{+1} 2 \pi \,
d ( \cos \vartheta ) \, e^{ikx \cos \vartheta}
= - \frac{i}{ \sqrt{2} (2 \pi)^2 x } \int \limits_{0}^{\infty} dk \, k^{1/2} (e^{ikx}-e^{-ikx})$$ $$= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2} 2 \pi^2 x } \int \limits_{0}^{\infty} dk \, k^{1/2} \sin (kx)
= \frac{1}{8 \sqrt{ \pi^3 }} \frac{1}{x^{5/2}} \, ,$$ where the distributional weak limit $$\int \limits_0^\infty dk \, k^{1/2} \sin (kx) =
\cos (\pi/ 4) \Gamma (3/2) x^{-3/2} = \frac{\sqrt{2 \pi}}{4} x^{-3/2}$$ was used.\
We mention here that the Newton-Wigner wave function $\varphi_{NW} (x)$ is related to the covariant wave function $\varphi(x)$ in the massive case by $$\varphi_{NW}^m (x^0, \vec{x}) = \frac{1}{(2 \pi)^2 \Gamma (1/4)} \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}} \int d^3x'
\biggr( \frac{2}{{{\mkern0.75mu\mathchar '26\mkern -9.75mu\lambda}}_c |\vec{x} - \vec{x}'|} \biggr)^{5/4}
K_{5/4} \biggl( \frac{| \vec{x} - \vec{x}'|}{{{\mkern0.75mu\mathchar '26\mkern -9.75mu\lambda}}_c} \biggr) \varphi(x^0, \vec{x}' ) \, .$$ A full derivation of this result, which is hardly found stated correctly in the literature, is given in the appendix.
Second quantization
===================
In order to provide a well-defined setting for the forthcoming discussion on a quantum field theoretical level, we discuss some basic properties and definitions concerning the free, i.e. non-interacting scalar quantum field describing neutral or charged spin-0 particles of mass $m$ in (3+1) spacetime dimensions. It is rather common to represent such a field according to $$\varphi(x)=\varphi^{-}(x)+\varphi^{+}(x)$$ $$=
\frac{1}{(2 \pi)^{3/2}} \int \frac{d^3 k}{\sqrt{2 k^0}}
[a(\vec{k}) e^{-ikx}+a^\dagger(\vec{k}) e^{+ikx}] \quad \mbox{(neutral)},$$ $$\varphi_c(x)=\varphi_c^{-}(x)+\varphi_c^{+}(x)$$ $$=
\frac{1}{(2 \pi)^{3/2}} \int \frac{d^3 k}{\sqrt{2 k^0}}
[a(\vec{k}) e^{-ikx}+b^\dagger(\vec{k}) e^{+ikx}] \quad \mbox{(charged)},$$ where $k x= k_\mu x^\mu=k^0 x^0 - \vec{k} \cdot \vec{x}$, $k^0 \overset{!}{=}E= \omega(\vec{k})=
\sqrt{\vec{k}^2+m^2}>0$, $\pm$ denotes the positive and negative frequency parts of the fields and $\dagger$ a ’hermitian conjugation’. For notational convenience, the same symbol for the quantized field and its non-quantized version discussed above shall be used. The non-vanishing *distributional* commutator relations for the destruction and creation field operators in the above Fourier decomposition are $$[a(\vec{k}),a^\dagger(\vec{k'})]=[b(\vec{k}),b^\dagger(\vec{k'})]=
\delta^{(3)} (\vec{k}-\vec{k'}) \, , \label{algeb1}$$ otherwise $$[a(\vec{k}),a(\vec{k'})]=[b(\vec{k}),b(\vec{k'})]
=[a^\dagger
(\vec{k}),a^\dagger(\vec{k'})]
=[b^\dagger(\vec{k}),b^\dagger(\vec{k'})]= 0 \label{algeb2}$$ and $$[a(\vec{k}),b(\vec{k'})]=[a(\vec{k}),b^\dagger(\vec{k'})]
=[a^\dagger
(\vec{k}),b(\vec{k'})]=[a^\dagger(\vec{k}),b^\dagger(\vec{k'})]= 0 \label{algeb2a}$$ holds. The destruction (or ’annihilation’, or ’absorption’) operators act on the *non-degenerate* vacuum $|0\rangle$ according to $$a(\vec{k}) |0 \rangle=b(\vec{k}) |0 \rangle = 0 \quad \mbox{for all} \, \, k \in \mathds{R}^3 \, . \label{vacstate}$$ It is crucial to require the existence of a state $| 0 \rangle$ which is annihilated by all the $a(\vec{k})$ and $b(\vec{k})$, since otherwise there would be many inequivalent irreducible Hilbert space representations of the algebraic relations given by eqns. (\[algeb1\]) -(\[algeb2a\]), and eq. (\[vacstate\]) selects the one in Fock space where the $a(\vec{k})$ and $b(\vec{k})$ can be interpreted as destruction and the $a^\dagger(\vec{k})$ and $b^\dagger(\vec{k})$ as creation (or ’emission’) operators.\
Single-particle wave functions or states of, e.g., $a$-particles represented in momentum space $\Psi_1(\vec{k})$, $\Psi_2(\vec{k})$ are $$| \Psi_1 \rangle = \int d^3 k \, \Psi_1(\vec{k}) a^\dagger(\vec{k})|0 \rangle \, , \quad
| \Psi_2 \rangle = \int d^3 k' \, \Psi_2(\vec{k'}) a^\dagger(\vec{k'}) |0 \rangle \, , \label{single_particle}$$ their scalar product becomes, from a formal but correct distributional calculation exploiting the commutation relations above, $$\langle \Psi_1 | \Psi_2 \rangle =
\int d^3 k d^3 k' \, {\Psi_1}(\vec{k})^* \Psi_2(\vec{k'})\langle 0 | a(\vec{k}) a^\dagger(\vec{k'}) | 0 \rangle$$ $$=\int d^3 k d^3 k' \, {\Psi_1}(\vec{k})^* \Psi_2(\vec{k'}) \langle 0 | [\delta^{(3)}(\vec{k}-\vec{k'}) +
a^\dagger(\vec{k'}) a(\vec{k}) ] | 0 \rangle
= \int d^3 k \, {\Psi_1}(\vec{k})^* \Psi_2(\vec{k}) \, .$$ This scalar product can be written in a manifestly covariant form by using differently normalized creation and destruction operators fulfilling $$[\tilde{a}(\vec{k}),\tilde{a}^\dagger(\vec{k'})]=[\tilde{b}(\vec{k}),\tilde{b}^\dagger(\vec{k'})]=
(2 \pi)^3 (2 k^0) \delta^{(3)} (\vec{k}-\vec{k'}) \, .$$ Then one represents the single $a$-particle states by $$| \Psi_1 \rangle = \frac{1}{( 2 \pi)^3} \int \frac{d^3 k}{2 \omega(\vec{k})} \, \tilde{\Psi}_1(\vec{k})
\tilde{a}^\dagger(\vec{k})|0 \rangle \, , \quad
| \Psi_2 \rangle = \frac{1}{( 2 \pi)^3} \int \frac{d^3 k'}{2 \omega(\vec{k'})} \, \tilde{\Psi}_2(\vec{k'})
\tilde{a}^\dagger(\vec{k'}) |0 \rangle \, ,$$ and the scalar product becomes $$\langle \Psi_1 | \Psi_2 \rangle
= \int \frac{d^3 k}{( 2 \pi)^3 2 \omega(\vec{k})} \, {\tilde{\Psi}_1}(\vec{k})^* \tilde{\Psi}_2(\vec{k})
= \int \frac{d^4 k}{(2 \pi)^3} \delta(k^2-m^2) \Theta(k^0) \hat{\Psi}_1 (k)^* \hat{\Psi}_2 (k)$$ with $\hat{\Psi}_{1,2} (\sqrt{\vec{k}^2+m^2}, \vec{k})= \tilde{\Psi}_{1,2} (\vec{k})$. $\Theta$ denotes the Heaviside step distribution.\
In configuration space, the two strategies just described are directly related to the description of a particle by a Klein-Gordon wave function or the corresponding Newton-Wigner wave function. The appealing property of the normalization according to eq. (\[algeb1\]) is the fact that after an inverse three-dimensional Fourier transform, the configuration space operator $$a(\vec{x}) = \frac{1}{(2 \pi)^{3/2}} \int d^3k \, a(\vec{k}) e^{i \vec{k} \vec{x}}$$ implies the seemingly local commutation relation $$[a(\vec{x}) , a^\dagger (\vec{x}')] = \delta^{(3)} ( \vec{x} - \vec{x}') \, .$$ However, the Newton-Wigner type wave function of a particle state $| \vec{x} \rangle = a^\dagger (\vec{x}) | 0 \rangle$ ’created at a point’ $\vec{x}$ $$\langle 0 | \varphi(x') | \vec{x} \rangle =
\frac{1}{(2 \pi)^3} \langle 0 | \int \frac{d^3 k'}{\sqrt{2 k'^0}} a(\vec{k'}) e^{-i k' x'}
\int d^3 k \, a^\dagger ( \vec{k}) e^{-i \vec{k} \vec{x}} | 0 \rangle$$ $$= \frac{1}{(2 \pi)^3} \int \frac{d^3 k}{\sqrt{2 k^0}} e^{-i k^0 x'^0 + i \vec{k} (\vec{x}' - \vec{x})}$$ has no point-like support.
Causal properties of commutation and correlation distributions
==============================================================
From the above algebraic relations represented by free fields on a Fock space $\mathcal{F}$ one constructs the scalar Feynman propagator as distributional time-ordered vacuum expectation value $$\Delta_F(x-y)=-i \langle 0 | T (\varphi_c (x) \varphi_c^\dagger(y)) | 0 \rangle \, ,$$ where translational invariance implies $$\Delta_F(x)=-i \langle 0 | T (\varphi_c (x) \varphi_c^\dagger(0)) | 0 \rangle$$ or $$\Delta_F(x)=-i \langle 0 | T (\varphi(x) \varphi(0)) | 0 \rangle,$$ for neutral fields. The wave equation holds in a distributional sense $$(\Box+m^2) \Delta_F(x)=(\partial_\mu \partial^\mu+m^2) \Delta_F(x)=- \delta^{(4)} (x)$$ and one also defines the positive- and negative-frequency Pauli-Jordan $C$-number distributions or, up to an imaginary factor, ’Wightman two-point functions’ $$\Delta^{\pm}(x)=-i[\varphi^{\mp}(x),\varphi^{\pm}(0)] =-i[\varphi_c^{\mp}(x),\varphi_c^{\dagger \, \pm}(0)] \, ,$$ $$\Delta(x)=\Delta^{+}(x)+\Delta^{-}(x)
= -i [\varphi(x),\varphi(0)] = -i [\varphi_c(x), \varphi_c^\dagger(0)]\, ,$$ i.e. $$\Delta^{+}(x)=-i \langle 0 | \varphi^- (x) \varphi^+ (0) | 0 \rangle \, ,$$ $$\Delta^{-}(x)=+i \langle 0 | \varphi^- (0) \varphi^+ (x) | 0 \rangle \, . \label{delta_plus}$$ The retarded propagator is given by $\Delta^{ret}(x)=\Theta(x^0) \Delta(x)$, a product of distributions which is well-defined due to the harmless scaling behaviour of $ \Delta(x)$ at the origin $x=0$.\
Some important properties of the objects and their Fourier transforms introduced so far are enlisted in the following: $\Delta(x)$ vanishes for space-like arguments $x$ with $x^2 < 0$, as required by causality. One has $$\hat{\Delta}^{\pm}(k)=\frac{1}{(2 \pi)^2} \int d^4 x \, \Delta^{\pm} (x) e^{ikx}$$ $$=\mp \frac{i}{2 \pi} \Theta(\pm k^0)
\delta(k^2-m^2) \, , \label{pj_expl}$$ $$\Delta^+(x) = - \Delta^-(-x) \, \ ,$$ $$\Delta(x)=\Delta^+(x)-\Delta^+(-x) \, ,$$ $$\Delta(-x)=-\Delta(x) \, .$$ $$\Delta_F(x)=\Theta(x^0) \Delta^+(x) - \Theta(-x^0) \Delta^-(x) \, .$$ $$(\Box+m^2) \Delta^{\pm}(x)=0 \, , \quad (k^2-m^2) \hat{\Delta}^\pm(k)=0 \, .$$ $$\Delta^{ret}=\Delta_F+\Delta^{-} \, ,$$ $$\displaystyle \Delta^{ret}(x)=\int \frac{d^4 k}{(2 \pi)^4} \frac{e^{-ikx}}{k^2-m^2+i k^0 0} \, ,$$ $$(\Box+m^2) \Delta^{ret}(x)=- \delta^{(4)} (x) \, .$$ For $m=0$ the scalar Feynman propagator in configuration space is $$\Delta_F^0(x)
=\int \frac{d^4 k}{(2 \pi)^4} \frac{e^{-ikx}}{k^2+i0}$$ $$=\frac{i}{4 \pi^2} \frac{1}{x^2-i0} =
\frac{i}{4 \pi^2} P \frac{1}{x^2}-
\frac{1}{4 \pi} \delta (x^2) \, ,$$ where $P$ denotes the principal value and $\delta$ the one-dimensional Dirac distribution, and the massless Pauli-Jordan distributions in configuration space are given by $$\displaystyle \Delta^0(x)
=-\frac{1}{2 \pi} \mbox{sgn} (x^0) \delta(x^2) \, ,$$ $$\displaystyle \Delta^\pm_0(x) = \pm \frac{i}{4 \pi^2} \frac{1}{(x_0 \mp i0)^2 -\vec{x}^2} \, ,$$ and since $\Delta^{ret}(x)=\Theta(x^0) \Delta(x)$ one has $$\Delta^{ret}_0(x)
=-\frac{1}{2 \pi} \Theta (x^0) \delta(x^2) \, .$$
A notational issue concerning the principal value in the case of $\Delta_0^+$ is clarified by $$\frac{1}{(x^0-i0)^2-\vec{x}^2}=\frac{1}{((x^0-i0)-|\vec{x}|)((x^0-i0)+|\vec{x}|)}$$ $$=\frac{1}{2|\vec{x}|} \frac{1}{x^0-|\vec{x}|-i0}- \frac{1}{2|\vec{x}|} \frac{1}{x^0+|\vec{x}|-i0}
=P \frac{1}{x^2}+i \pi \mbox{sgn}(x^0) \delta(x^2)$$ or $$\frac{1}{(x^0-i0)^2-\vec{x}^2}=
\frac{1}{x^2-2i0 x^0-0^2}=\frac{1}{x^2-i0 \mbox{sgn}(x^0)}
= P \frac{1}{x^2}+i \pi \mbox{sgn}(x^0) \delta(x^2) \, .$$
Locality and causality in quantum field theory
==============================================
As a matter of fact, causality is not completely understood from a philosophical and physical point of view. Technically, in quantum field theory causality is usually expressed in the form of (anti-)commutation relations for bosonic (fermionic) operator valued distributions which are intimately connected with the support properties of the corresponding objects. In quantum field theory, quantum field operators are local, but states are non-local. This has far reaching consequences for renormalization techniques used in perturbative quantum field theory [@Aste].\
A single particle theory is problematic due to its non-local aspects, but in quantum field theory particles together with their anti-particles conspire in such a way that causal propagation of specific physically relevant quantities is ensured and can be calculated by the help of, e.g., integral kernels like the retarded propagator $\Delta^{ret}$, which has its [*causal*]{} distributional support $$\mbox{supp} \, \Delta^{ret} (x) \subseteq \overline{V}^+ = \{ x \mid x^2 \ge 0 \, , \, x^0 \ge 0 \}$$ in the closed forward (future-directed) light-cone $\overline{V}^+$, i.e. $\Delta^{ret} (\varphi) = 0$ holds for all test functions in the Schwartz space $\varphi \! \in
\! \mathcal{S}(\mathds{R}^4)$ with support $\mbox{supp} ( \varphi ) \subset
\mathds{R}^4 - \overline{V}^+$.\
A *particular* solution of the inhomogeneous Klein-Gordon equation $$(\Box + m^2) \varphi(x) = j(x) \, , \label{inhomo_sol}$$ where the source term $j$ may act locally and have compact support in spacetime, is given by $$\varphi^{part}(x) = - \int d^4 x' \, \Delta^{ret} (x-x') j(x') \, ,$$ since $$(\Box + m^2) \int d^4 x' \, \Delta^{ret} (x-x') j(x') = - \int d^4 x' \,
\delta^{(4)} (x-x') j(x') = -j(x) \, .$$ Causal behaviour of $\varphi^{part}$ is ensured by eq. (\[inhomo\_sol\]) in the sense that $\mbox{supp} \, \varphi^{part}$ will lie in the causal future of $\mbox{supp} \, j$, but it will necessarily contain negative and positive frequency parts.\
The Pauli-Jordan distribution $\Delta$ also has [*causal support*]{}, it vanishes outside the closed forward light-cone and backward light-cone $\overline{V}^-$ such that $$\mbox{supp} \, \Delta(x) \subseteq \overline{V}= \overline{V}^- \cup \overline{V}^+ \, , \quad
\overline{V}^-=\{x \, | \, x^2 \ge 0, \, x^0 < 0 \}$$ in the sense of distributions. Furthermore, it solves the wave equation $\Box \Delta(x) = 0$ with the Cauchy data $\Delta(0,\vec{x})=0$ and $(\partial_0 \Delta)(0, \vec{x})= -\delta^{(3)}(\vec{x})$. This specific feature of $\Delta$ that it can be restricted as a distribution to a space-like hyperplane allows the calculation of a Klein-Gordon wave function from Cauchy data given, e.g., at $x^0=ct=0$ $$\varphi_0(\vec{x})=\varphi(0,\vec{x}) \, , \quad \dot{\varphi}_0(\vec{x}) = \partial_0 \varphi(x) |_{x^0=0} \, .$$ From the homogeneous solution with $(\Box +m^2) \varphi(x)=0$ $$\varphi(x)= - \int \limits_{x'^0=0} d^3 x' \, \Delta (x-x') \, \overset{\leftrightarrow}{\partial'_0} \, \varphi(x')
\label{general_sol}$$ follows indeed (note that $\partial'_0 \Delta(x-x') = - \partial_0 \Delta(x-x')$) $$\varphi(0,\vec{x}) = - \int d^3 x' \, \bigl[ (\partial_0 \Delta) (0, \vec{x}-\vec{x}') \varphi_0(\vec{x}')
+ \Delta(0,\vec{x}-\vec{x}') \dot{\varphi}(0,\vec{x}') \bigr]$$ $$= \int d^3 x' \delta^{(3)} (\vec{x}- \vec{x}') \varphi_0(\vec{x}') = \varphi_0 (\vec{x})$$ and $$(\partial_0 \varphi) (0,\vec{x}) = - \int d^3 x' \, \bigl[ (\partial_0^2 \Delta) (0, \vec{x}-\vec{x}') \varphi_0(\vec{x}')
+ (\partial_0 \Delta) (0,\vec{x}-\vec{x}') \dot{\varphi}(0,\vec{x}') \bigr]$$ $$= \int d^3 x' \delta^{(3)} (\vec{x}- \vec{x}') \dot{\varphi}_0(\vec{x}') = \dot{\varphi}_0 (\vec{x}) \, ,$$ since all time derivatives of even order of $\Delta(x^0,\vec{x})$ restricted to $x^0=0$ vanish. Solution eq. (\[general\_sol\]) contains both frequency types when the Cauchy data $\varphi_0$ and $\dot{\varphi}_0$ have compact support on the hyperplane defined by $x^0=0$. In analogy to eq. (\[general\_sol\]) one may construct ’causal’ Klein-Gordon waves $$\varphi^{ret}(x)= - \int \limits_{x'^0=0} d^3 x' \, \Delta^{ret} (x-x') \, \overset{\leftrightarrow}{\partial'_0} \, \varphi(x')$$ which, however, still contain particle and anti-particle frequencies. Singling out one frequency type in eq. (\[general\_sol\]) according to $$\varphi^\mp(x)=- \int \limits_{x'^0=0} d^3 x' \, \Delta^\pm (x-x') \, \overset{\leftrightarrow}{\partial'_0} \, \varphi(x')$$ leads to solutions which do not respect Einstein causality in the sense that the waves $\varphi^\pm$ do not propagate in the causal future of $\mbox{supp} \, \varphi_0 \cup \mbox{supp} \, \dot{\varphi}_0$ when these supports are compact sets in the hyperplane $x^0=0$. This is due to the acausal support properties of the $\Delta^{\pm}$-distributions, which lead to a further astonishing observation.\
From $$\langle 0 | T ( \varphi(x) \varphi(0) ) | 0 \rangle = \Theta(x^0) [\varphi(x),\varphi(0)] +
\langle 0 | \varphi(0) \varphi(x) | 0 \rangle$$ follows $${\Delta}_F(x)={\Delta}^{ret}(x)-{\Delta}^-(x)$$ or $${\Delta}^-(x)={\Delta}^{ret}(x)-{\Delta}_F(x) \, .$$ It follows that the negative-frequency Pauli-Jordan distribution $$\Delta^{-}_0 (x)=-\frac{1}{2\pi}\Theta(x^0) \delta(x^2) - \frac{i}{4 \pi^2} \frac{1}{x^2-i0}$$ does not vanish for space-like arguments $$\Delta^{-}_0 (x)= - \frac{i}{4 \pi^2} \frac{1}{x^2} \, , \quad x^2<0 \, ,$$ i.e., $\Delta^- (x)$ has no causal support. Since by definition $$\langle 0 | \varphi(0) \varphi(x) | 0 \rangle = \langle 0 | \varphi^- (0) \varphi^+ (x) | 0 \rangle
= - i \Delta^{-}_0 (x)$$ or $$\langle 0 | \varphi(x_1) \varphi(x_2) | 0 \rangle = - \frac{1}{4 \pi^2} \frac{1}{(x_1-x_2)^2}$$ for $(x_1-x_2)^2 <0$, a stunning observation can be made when one considers two wave functions $\psi_1(x)$ and $\psi_2(x)$ with two disjoint compact, causally separated supports $$(x_1-x_2)^2 < 0 \, \, \mbox{for all} \, \, x_1 \in \mbox{supp} \, \psi_1 \, , \, \,
x_2 \in \mbox{supp} \, \psi_2 \, .$$ Calculating the overlap of the single particle states $$| \Psi_1 \rangle = \int d^4 x_1 \, \psi_1 (x_1) \varphi(x_1) | 0 \rangle = \int d^4 x_1 \, \psi_1 (x_1) \varphi^+ (x_1) | 0 \rangle\, ,$$ $$| \Psi_2 \rangle = \int d^4 x_2 \, \psi_2 (x_2) \varphi(x_2) | 0 \rangle = \int d^4 x_2 \, \psi_2 (x_2) \varphi^+ (x_2) | 0 \rangle \, ,$$ the result $$\langle \Psi_1 | \Psi_2 \rangle = - \frac{1}{(2 \pi)^2} \int d^4 x_1 \int d^4 x_2 \,
\frac{\psi_1 (x_1)^* \psi_2(x_2)}{ (x_1-x_2)^2} \neq 0 \,$$ turns out to be non-vanishing in general although the particles are created in causally disconnected spacetime regions. This observation is intimately related with the famous Reeh-Schlieder theorem [@Reeh].\
To conclude this paper, a rigorous discussion of the conflict between the single-particle locality and causality shall be presented following the lines given in [@Hegerfeldt]. To this end, one considers a single-particle state represented by a single-frequency Klein-Gordon wave function $\varphi(x)$ which is supposed to be localized in a compact three-dimensional space region $V(0)$ at the initial time $x^0=ct=0$. Given the initial data in configuration or momentum space $$\varphi(x^0=0, \vec{x}) = \int \frac{d^3 k}{(2 \pi)^3 2 k^0} \, \hat{\varphi} (\vec{k}) e^{i \vec{k} \vec{x}} \, ,$$ the wave function evolves according to $$\varphi(x) = \int \frac{d^3 k}{(2 \pi)^3 2 k^0} \,
\hat{\varphi}(\vec{k}) e^{i \vec{k} \vec{x} - i k^0 x^0} = U(t) \varphi(0, \vec{x}) \, .$$ with $k^0=\sqrt{\vec{k}^2 + m^2}$ and particle mass $m \ge 0$, defining implicitly the propagator $U(t)$. As observed above, the Klein-Gordon density $j^0$ cannot serve as a probability density. In order to give a precise meaning to the term ’localization’, the assumption is made that some operator $P_{V(0)}$ exists such that the expectation value $\langle \psi | P_{V(0)} | \psi \rangle$ represents the probability to find the particle in the region $V(0)$ for any particle state represented by an arbitrary Klein-Gordon wave function $\psi$. For the following, it indeed suffices to consider one single region $V(0)$ only. As a quantum mechanical probability operator, $P_{V(0)}$ should be hermitian and fulfill $$0 \le \langle \psi | P_{V(0)} | \psi \rangle \le 1 \, .$$ If $\varphi(x^0=0,\vec{x})$ is localized in $V(0)$, it is an eigenstate of $P_{V(0)}$ with $$\langle \varphi(0) | P_{V(0)} | \varphi(0) \rangle =1 \, , \quad
P_{V(0)} | \varphi(0) \rangle = | \varphi(0) \rangle \, .$$
![3-dimensional spacelike localization volumes at two different times $x^0=ct$.[]{data-label="loca_vol"}](loca_vol.png){width="8.5cm"}
In order to invoke causality in the sense that no signal can propagate faster than the speed of light, one observes that the probability to find a particle which was localized at $x^0=0$ in $V(0)$ should vanish at a later time $x^0 >0$ outside the bounded region ($\vec{x} \sim (0, \vec{x})$) $$V(x^0) = \{ \vec{x} \mid \mbox{dist} (\vec{x}, V(0)) \le x^0=ct \}$$ where $$\mbox{dist} (\vec{x}, V(0)) = \mbox{inf} \, \{ \mbox{dist} (\vec{x}, \vec{y}) \mid \vec{y} \in V(0) \} \, ,$$ with the Euclidean distance $$\mbox{dist} (\vec{x}, \vec{y})=\sqrt{(x_1-y_1)^2+(x_2-y_2)^2+(x_3-y_3)^2}= || \vec{x} - \vec{y} || \, ,$$ as depicted in Figure \[loca\_vol\]. On the other side, considering a translated wave function $$U(\vec{a}) \varphi(x^0, \vec{x}) = \varphi(x^0, \vec{x}+\vec{a})$$ for some $\vec{a}$ with $|| \vec{a}|| \ge r(ct)$ for a sufficiently large constant $r(x^0)$ at the time $x^0>0$, one must have $$\langle U(\vec{a}) U(t) \varphi(0) | P(V) | U(\vec{a}) U(t) \varphi(0) \rangle = 0 \, ,
\label{ueberlapp}$$ since a sufficiently dislocated wave function at $t=0$ cannot reach the region $V(x^0)$ at $t=x^0/c$. It is well-known that $P_{V(0)}$ possesses a self-adjoint square root, so eq. (\[ueberlapp\]) implies $$P_{V(0)}^{1/2} U(\vec{a}) U(t) |\varphi(0) \rangle = 0 \, \, \rightarrow \, \,
P_{V(0)} U(\vec{a}) U(t) |\varphi(0) \rangle = 0 \, .$$ The scalar product $$\langle \varphi(0) | P_{V(0)} U(\vec{a}) U(t) | \varphi(0) \rangle = 0$$ vanishes therefore and consequently for $|| \vec{a} || \ge r(x^0)$ $$\int \frac{d^3 k}{\sqrt{\vec{k}^2+ m^2}} | \hat{\varphi} (\vec{k}) |^2 e^{-i \sqrt{\vec{k}^2 + m^2} x^0}
e^{+i \vec{k} \vec{a}} = 0 \label{paley}$$ vanishes also. According to Schwartz’s Paley-Wiener theorem, the Fourier transform of a distribution with compact support is an *entire* function [@Constantinescu], and since the expression in eq. (\[paley\]) is quite well-behaved, one may conclude that $$s(\vec{k},x^0)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\vec{k}^2+ m^2}} | \hat{\varphi} (\vec{k}) |^2 e^{-i \sqrt{\vec{k}^2 + m^2} x^0}$$ is a holomorphic function in $\mathds{C}^3$ for, e.g., $x^0=0$, since the Fourier transform of $s(\vec{k},0)$ has a compact support, but this is true also for arbitrary times $x^0>0$. However, due to the square root in the exponent containing the time, $s(\vec{k},x^0)$ cannot be entire for two distinct times.\
Of course, subtle questions which already bothered Pauli [@Pauli] persist in interacting quantum field theory when one realizes that measuring local quantities like quantum field strength expectation values requires [*test particles*]{} which are not strictly localizable.
Appendix: Massive Newton-Wigner distribution
============================================
The Newton-Wigner integral kernel is given in the massive case by $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{NW}^m (\vec{x}) & = \int \dfrac{\mathrm{d}^{3} k}{(2 \pi)^{3}} \dfrac{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot
\vec{x}}}{\sqrt{2 \omega(\vec{k})}}
\\
& = \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2} (2 \pi)^{3}} \int \mathrm{d}^{3} k \, \dfrac{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \vec{k}
\cdot \vec{x}}}{(k^{2} + m^{2})^{1/4}}
\\
& = \dfrac{2 \pi}{\sqrt{2} (2 \pi)^{3}} \int_{0}^{\infty} \mathrm{d} k \, \dfrac{k^{2}}{(k^{2} + m^{2})^{1/4}}
\int_{-1}^{+1} \mathrm{d}(\cos \theta) \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} k x \cos \theta}\end{aligned}$$ with $k = \vert \vec{k} \vert$, $x = \vert \vec{x} \vert$ and $\omega(\vec{k}) = \sqrt{ \vec{k}^{2} + m^{2} }$). From $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{-1}^{+1} \mathrm{d}(\cos \theta) \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} k x \cos \theta} & =
\dfrac{1}{\mathrm{i} k x} \left( \mathrm{e}^{i k x} - \mathrm{e}^{- i k x} \right)
= \dfrac{2 \sin(k x)}{k x}\end{aligned}$$ one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{NW}^m (\vec{x}) & = \dfrac{4 \pi}{\sqrt{2} (2 \pi)^{3}} \dfrac{1}{x} \int_{0}^{\infty}
\mathrm{d} k \, \dfrac{k \sin(k x)}{(k^{2} + m^{2})^{1/4}}
\\
& = - \dfrac{4 \pi}{\sqrt{2} (2 \pi)^{3}} \dfrac{1}{x} \dfrac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} x}
\int_{0}^{\infty} \mathrm{d} k \, \dfrac{\cos(k x)}{(k^{2} + m^{2})^{1/4}} \, .\end{aligned}$$
Besset’s integral (8.432 eq. (5) in [@Gradshteyn]), $$\label{Basset}
K_{\nu}(x z) = \dfrac{\Gamma(\nu + \frac{1}{2}) (2 z)^{\nu}}{\sqrt{\pi} x^{\nu}} \int_{0}^{\infty}
\mathrm{d}t \, \dfrac{\cos(x t)}{(t^{2} + z^{2})^{\nu + \frac{1}{2}}} \, ,
\quad \mathrm{Re} \, \nu
> - \dfrac{1}{2}, x> 0 \, , \quad \vert \mathrm{arg} \, z \vert < \dfrac{\pi}{2}$$ with $\nu = -1/4$ and $z = m$ leads to
$$\int_{0}^{\infty} \mathrm{d} k \, \dfrac{\cos(k x)}{(k^{2} + m^{2})^{1/4}} =
\dfrac{\sqrt{\pi} x^{-1/4}}{\Gamma(1/4) (2 m)^{-1/4}} K_{-1/4}(m x) \, ,$$
so one can write $$\sigma_{NW}^m (\vec{x}) = - \dfrac{4 \pi \sqrt{\pi} (2 m)^{1/4}}{\sqrt{2} (2 \pi)^{3}
\Gamma(1/4)} \dfrac{1}{x} \dfrac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} x}\left( x^{-1/4} K_{-1/4}(m x) \right).$$
$ $\
From the derivative relation 8.486 eq. (14) in [@Gradshteyn] follows $$\dfrac{1}{z} \dfrac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} z} \left( z^{\nu} K_{\nu}(z) \right) = - z^{\nu -1} K_{\nu - 1}(z) \, ,
\label{Bessel_diff}$$ hence $$\dfrac{1}{x} \dfrac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} x} \left( x^{\nu} K_{\nu}(m x) \right) = - m x^{\nu -1} K_{\nu - 1}(m x),$$ and therefore, with $\nu = -1/4$ and $\nu - 1 = -5/4$ $$\sigma_{NW}^m (\vec{x}) = \dfrac{4 \pi \sqrt{\pi} m (2 m)^{1/4}}{\sqrt{2} (2 \pi)^{3} \Gamma(1/4)}
\dfrac{1}{x^{5/4}} K_{-5/4}(m x) \, .$$
$ $\
Finally, from the connection formula for order index $\nu$ (8.486 eq. (16) in [@Gradshteyn]) $$\label{Bessel_index}
K_{- \nu}(z) = K_{\nu}(z)$$ and the corresponding relation $K_{-5/4}(m x) = K_{5/4}(m x)$ the desired result follows $$\sigma_{NW}^m (\vec{x}) = \dfrac{1}{(2 \pi)^{2} \Gamma(1/4)} \sqrt{\dfrac{\pi}{2}}
\left( \dfrac{2 m}{x} \right)^{5/4} K_{5/4}(m x) \, ,$$ which can be expressed in terms of the reduced Compton wave length ${{\mkern0.75mu\mathchar '26\mkern -9.75mu\lambda}}_{c} = 1/m$ ($\hbar = c = 1$) $$\sigma_{NW}^m (\vec{x}) = \dfrac{1}{(2 \pi)^{2} \Gamma(1/4)} \sqrt{\dfrac{\pi}{2}}
\left( \dfrac{2}{{{\mkern0.75mu\mathchar '26\mkern -9.75mu\lambda}}_{c} x} \right)^{5/4} K_{5/4}(m x) \, .$$
The small argument limit (eq. (9.6.9) in [@Abramovitz]) $$\label{Bessel_lim}
K_{\nu}(z) \overset{z \to 0}{\sim} \dfrac{1}{2} \Gamma(\nu) \left( \dfrac{1}{2} z \right)^{-\nu},
\quad \mathrm{Re} \, \nu > 0$$ leads to $$K_{5/4}(m x) \overset{m \to 0}{\sim} \dfrac{1}{2} \Gamma(5/4) \left( \dfrac{1}{2} m x \right)^{-5/4} \, ,$$ and together with the functional equation $$\Gamma(x+1) = x \Gamma(x)$$ the massless kernel is recovered from the massive case $$\sigma_{NW} (\vec{x}) = \dfrac{1}{8 \sqrt{\pi^{3}}}\dfrac{1}{x^{5/2}} \, .$$
[99]{}
O. Klein, [*Quantentheorie und fünfdimensionale Relativitätstheorie*]{}, Z. Phys. [**[37]{}**]{} (1926) 895-906.
W. Gordon, [*Der Comptoneffekt nach der Schrödingerschen Theorie*]{}, Z. Phys. [**[40]{}**]{} (1926-1927) 117-133.
W. Pauli, V. Weisskopf, *Über die Quantisierung der skalaren relativistischen Wellengleichung*, Helv. Phys. Acta [**[7]{}**]{} (1934) 709-731.
D. Glavan, T. Prokopec, V. Prymidis, *Backreaction of a Massless Minimally Coupled Scalar Field from Inflationary Quantum Fluctuations*, Phys. Rev. D [**[89]{}**]{} (2014) 2, 024024.
S. Coleman, E. Weinberg, [*Radiative Corrections as the Origin of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**[7]{}**]{} (1973) 1888-1910.
S. Schweber, [*An Introduction to Relativistic Quantum Field Theory*]{}, Row, Peterson and Company, Evanston, Illinois, 1961; 2nd printing, Harper & Row, New York, 1962.
B. Gerlach, D. Gromes, J. Petzold, [*Eine kritische Analyse der Ladungsdichte des Klein-Gordon-Feldes*]{}, Z. Phys. [**[202]{}**]{} (1967) 401-411.
B. Gerlach, D. Gromes, J. Petzold, [*Konstruktion definiter Ausdrücke für die Teilchendichte des Klein-Gordon-Feldes*]{}, Z. Phys. [**[204]{}**]{} (1967) 1-11.
B. Gerlach, D. Gromes, J. Petzold, [*Energie und Kausalität*]{}, Z. Phys. [**[221]{}**]{} (1969) 141-157.
A. S. Wightman, [*Aspects of Quantum Theory*]{}, A.Salam and E. P. Wigner (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1972.
T. D. Newton, E. P. Wigner, *Localized States for Elementary Systems*, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**[21]{}**]{} (1949) 400-406.
R. F. Streater, A. S. Wightman, *PCT, Spin and Statistics, and All That*, Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Company, 1964.
E. Wigner, *On the Unitary Representations of the Inhomogeneous Lorentz Group*, Ann. Math. [**[40]{}**]{} (1939) 149-204.
A. Aste, C. von Arx, G. Scharf, *Regularization in quantum field theory from the causal point of view*, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**[64]{}**]{} (2010) 61-119.
H. Reeh, S. Schlieder, *Bemerkungen zur Unitäräquivalenz von Lorentzinvarianten Feldern*, Nuovo Cimento [**[22]{}**]{} (1961) 1051-1068.
G. Hegerfeldt, *Remark on causality and particle localization*, Phys. Rev. D [**[10]{}**]{} (1974) 3320-3321.
F. Constantinescu, *Distributions and Their Applications in Physics*, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1980.
Armin Thellung, [*private communication*]{}.
I. S. Gradshteyn, I. M. Ryzhik, *Table of Integrals, Series, and Products*, 7th ed., Elsevier/Academic Press, Amsterdam, 2007.
M. Abramovitz, I. Stegun, *Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs and Mathematical Tables*, 10th printing, 1972.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We prove a comparison theorem between locally analytic group cohomology and Lie algebra cohomology for locally analytic representations of a Lie group over a nonarchimedean field of characteristic 0. The proof is similar to that of van-Est’s isomorphism and uses only a minimum of functional analysis.'
address: 'Fakultät für Mathematik, Universität Regensburg, 93040 Regensburg, Germany'
author:
- Georg Tamme
bibliography:
- 'Lazard.bib'
title: 'On an analytic version of Lazard’s isomorphism'
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
In his seminal paper [@Lazard] Lazard established two basic theorems concerning the cohomology of a compact ${\mathbf{Q}}_{p}$-analytic Lie group $G$ with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}$. Firstly, if $V$ is a finite dimensional ${\mathbf{Q}}_{p}$-vector space with continuous $G$-action, the natural map from locally analytic group cohomology $H^{*}_{{\mathrm{an}}}(G,V)$, defined in terms of locally analytic cochains, to continuous group cohomology $H^{*}_{\mathrm{cont}}(G,V)$ is an isomorphism. Secondly, there is a natural isomorphism between the direct limit $\operatorname*{colim}_{G'\subset G} H^{*}_{\mathrm{cont}}(G', V)$, where $G'$ runs through the system of open subgroups of $G$, and the Lie algebra cohomology $H^{*}({\mathfrak{g}},V)$. Hence, combining both, there is a natural isomorphism $$\label{eq:lazard}
\operatorname*{colim}_{G'\subset G \text{ open}} H^*_{{\mathrm{an}}}(G',V) \cong H^*({\mathfrak{g}},V).$$
These results play an important role in arithmetic geometry, in particular in the theory of Galois representations, or in the study of $p$-adic regulators [@Huber-Kings].
At least for certain Lie groups, integral and $K$-analytic versions have been obtained by Huber, Kings, and Naumann [@HKN], when $K$ is a finite extension of ${\mathbf{Q}}_p$. The proofs are based on Lazard’s original argument via continuous group cohomology, and are not easily accessible. A somewhat simplified proof has been given by Lechner [@Lechner] using formal group cohomology.
On the other hand, the situation for a real Lie group $G$ is much more transparent. The analogous result is van Est’s isomorphism $H^{*}_{d}(G,V) \cong
H^{*}({\mathfrak{g}},K;V)$, which relates differentiable group cohomology with relative Lie algebra cohomology for a maximal compact subgroup $K \subseteq G$. Its proof is based on the following observations: The quotient $G/K$ is contractible, hence the de Rham complex $\Omega^{*}(G/K,V)$ with coefficients in a $G$-representation $V$ is a resolution of $V$. Moreover, for any $k$, the space $\Omega^{k}(G/K,V)$ is $G$-acyclic. Hence, $H^{*}_{d}(G,V)$ is computed by the $G$-invariants of the complex $\Omega^{*}(G/K,V)$, which is precisely the Chevalley-Eilenberg complex computing relative Lie algebra cohomology $H^{*}({\mathfrak{g}},K;V)$.
It is a natural question whether a similar argument works in the nonarchimedean situation. In this note, we show that this is indeed the case. This gives a direct proof of the isomorphism and generalizes it with respect to the ground field and the coefficients:
Let $K$ be a nonarchimedean field of characteristic $0$. Let $G$ be a locally $K$-analytic Lie group and $G\to \operatorname{Aut}(V)$ a locally analytic representation on a barrelled locally convex $K$-vector space. Denote by ${\mathfrak{g}}$ the $K$-Lie algebra of $G$. Then there are natural isomorphisms $$\operatorname*{colim}_{G'\subset G \text{ open}} H^{*}_{{\mathrm{an}}}(G',V) \cong H^{*}({\mathfrak{g}}, V),$$ where the colimit is taken over the system of open subgroups of $G$.
The rough argument is as follows: The de Rham complex $\Omega^*(G,V)$ is a resolution of the locally constant $V$-valued functions on $G$. As in the real case, each $\Omega^k(G,V)$ is $G$-acyclic, hence the cohomology of the locally constant $V$-valued functions on $G$ is isomorphic to the Lie algebra cohomology $H^*({\mathfrak{g}}, V)$ (see Sections \[sec:DifferentialFormsAndLiaAlgebraCohomology\] and \[sec:proof\] for precise results). The Theorem then follows by taking the direct limit over the open subgroups of $G$.
The proof also shows that, for compact $G$, one can recover the locally analytic group cohomology from the Lie algebra cohomology as the invariants under the natural $G$-action: $H^{*}_{{\mathrm{an}}}(G,V) \cong H^{*}({\mathfrak{g}}, V)^{G}$ (see Corollary \[cor:LieAlgcohomforcompactG\]).
Moreover, we describe the comparison map between locally analytic group cohomology and Lie algebra cohomology explicitly on the level of complexes: It is given by differentiating locally analytic cocycles at $1$ (see Section \[sec:explicit\]). As pointed out by the referee, one can use the methods of [@Huber-Kings] to show that, on cohomology groups, this comparison map agrees with the one studied by Lazard in the case that $K$ is ${\mathbf{Q}}_{p}$ and $V$ is finite dimensional.
In order to apply usual arguments from homological algebra, we show, following Flach [@Flach], that the locally analytic cochain cohomology groups can be interpreted as derived functors of the global section functor on a topos $BG$ (Sections \[sec:1\] and \[sec:2\]). The nice feature of this is that it gives a quick proof of the main results which requires only a minimum of functional analysis.
An alternative approach to the cohomology of locally analytic representations of Lie groups over finite extensions of ${\mathbf{Q}}_{p}$ is due to Kohlhaase [@Kohlhaase]. It is based on relative homological algebra. He obtains similar results under an additional assumption on the group, which, as he proves, is fulfilled in many cases. The cohomology groups he defines are finer than ours in the sense that they themselves carry a locally convex topology. In contrast to the groups we use, they do not always coincide with the cohomology groups defined in terms of locally analytic cochains.
I would like to thank the referee for useful remarks, in particular concerning the comparison of our isomorphism with Lazard’s original one.
Notations and conventions {#notations-and-conventions .unnumbered}
-------------------------
For the whole paper, we let $K$ be a nonarchimedean field of characteristic $0$, i.e., $K$ is equipped with a nontrivial nonarchimedean absolute value $|\,.\,|$ such that $K$ is complete for the topology defined by $|\,.\,|$. By a manifold we will always mean a paracompact, finite dimensional locally $K$-analytic manifold. Note that, by [@Schneider Cor. 18.8], any locally $K$-analytic Lie group is paracompact. For manifolds $X,Y$, we denote by $C^{{\mathrm{an}}}(X,Y)$ the set of locally $K$-analytic maps from $X$ to $Y$. We will refer to them simply as analytic maps.
Locally analytic group cohomology {#sec:1}
=================================
In this section, we describe the topos-theoretic approach to locally analytic group cohomology. We refer to [@Flach] for the case of continuous cohomology.
Denote by ${{\mathrm{La}}}$ the category of manifolds. We let ${{\mathrm{Sh}}}({{\mathrm{La}}})$ be the category of sheaves on ${{\mathrm{La}}}$ with respect to the topology generated by open coverings. For this topology, every representable presheaf is a sheaf, hence we have the Yoneda embedding $y\colon {{\mathrm{La}}}\to {{\mathrm{Sh}}}({{\mathrm{La}}})$.
Let $G$ be a Lie group. Then $y(G)$ is a group object in ${{\mathrm{Sh}}}({{\mathrm{La}}})$. The category of sheaves with a $y(G)$-action is a topos [@SGA41 Exp. IV, 2.4], called the classifying topos of $y(G)$. It will be denoted by $BG$.[^1] We denote its global section functor by $\Gamma\colon BG \to {{\mathrm{Set}}}, \Gamma({\mathcal{F}})= \operatorname{Hom}_{BG}(*,{\mathcal{F}}) = {\mathcal{F}}(*)^G$. Similarly, if $X$ is an object of $BG$, we denote by $\Gamma(X,-)=\operatorname{Hom}_{BG}(X,-)$ the functor of sections over $X$. As usual, we define cohomology groups via the derived functors of the global section functor:
\[def:general-def-of-cohom\] Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be an abelian group object of $BG$. Then we define $$H^i(G,{\mathcal{A}}) := (R^i\Gamma)({\mathcal{A}}).$$
\[ex:examples-of-sheaves\] Let $V$ be a finite dimensional $K$-vector space with a linear $G$-action such that the map $G\times V \to V$ defining the action is analytic. This induces an action $y(G)\times y(V) \to y(V)$, and hence $y(V)$ can naturally be considered as an element of $BG$. We have $\Gamma(y(V)) = V^{G}$. In the next section, we will show that the higher cohomology groups $H^{i}(G,y(V))$ coincide with the cohomology groups defined in terms of locally analytic cochains with coefficients in $V$.
As another example, let $M$ be a continuous $G$-module, i.e., a topological abelian group equipped with a linear $G$-action such that $G \times M \to M$ is continuous. Then we have the sheaf of continuous $M$-valued functions $C(-,M)$ on ${{\mathrm{La}}}$. It also carries a natural action by $y(G)$. It follows from Proposition \[prop:cochains-neu\] below that the groups $H^{i}(G, C(-,M))$ can be identified with the continuous cochain cohomology groups of $M$.
We want to describe the cohomology groups defined in Definition \[def:general-def-of-cohom\] in terms of a concrete complex. We begin with some general considerations.
Let ${\mathcal{T}}$ be a topos, and let ${\mathcal{G}}$ be a group object in ${\mathcal{T}}$. For objects ${\mathcal{A}}, {\mathcal{B}}$ of $B{\mathcal{G}}$ the internal hom $\operatorname{\mathcal{H}\mathit{om}}_{B{\mathcal{G}}}({\mathcal{A}},{\mathcal{B}})$ is given as follows: The underlying object of ${\mathcal{T}}$ is $\operatorname{\mathcal{H}\mathit{om}}_{{\mathcal{T}}}({\mathcal{A}},{\mathcal{B}})$ and the action of ${\mathcal{G}}$ is given by the formula $(g\phi)(a)=g(\phi(g^{-1}a))$.
Denote by $i\colon *\to {\mathcal{G}}$ the morphism from the trivial group in ${\mathcal{T}}$ to ${\mathcal{G}}$. It induces a geometric morphism of topoi (see [@SGA41 Exp. IV, 4.5]) $$i\colon {\mathcal{T}}\cong B* \to B{\mathcal{G}}.$$ The left adjoint $i^*$ simply forgets the ${\mathcal{G}}$-action. The right adjoint is given by $i_*({\mathcal{F}}) = \operatorname{\mathcal{H}\mathit{om}}_{B{\mathcal{G}}}({ \begingroup \mathtoolsset{
prescript-sup-format=\mathit, } \prescript{}{l}{{\mathcal{G}}} \endgroup }, {\mathcal{F}})$ where ${ \begingroup \mathtoolsset{
prescript-sup-format=\mathit, } \prescript{}{l}{{\mathcal{G}}} \endgroup }$ is ${\mathcal{G}}$ with its natural left action, viewed as an object ob $B{\mathcal{G}}$, and ${\mathcal{F}}$ is viewed as object of $B{\mathcal{G}}$ with trivial ${\mathcal{G}}$-action. The functor $i^{*}$ also has a left adjoint $i_{!}$ given by ${\mathcal{F}}\mapsto { \begingroup \mathtoolsset{
prescript-sup-format=\mathit, } \prescript{}{l}{{\mathcal{G}}} \endgroup }\times {\mathcal{F}}$ with ${\mathcal{G}}$-action via the first factor.
For an object ${\mathcal{A}}\in B{\mathcal{G}}$, we denote by ${\mathcal{A}}^{\natural}$ the object of $B{\mathcal{G}}$ with the same underlying object in ${\mathcal{T}}$ and trivial ${\mathcal{G}}$-action.
\[lem:iHom\] For ${\mathcal{A}}, {\mathcal{B}}\in B{\mathcal{G}}$ we have $$\operatorname{\mathcal{H}\mathit{om}}_{B{\mathcal{G}}}({ \begingroup \mathtoolsset{
prescript-sup-format=\mathit, } \prescript{}{l}{{\mathcal{G}}} \endgroup }\times {\mathcal{A}}, {\mathcal{B}}) \cong i_*\operatorname{\mathcal{H}\mathit{om}}_{\mathcal{T}}(i^*{\mathcal{A}}, i^*{\mathcal{B}}).$$
Let ${\mathcal{X}}$ be an object of $B{\mathcal{G}}$. Then we have natural isomorphisms $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{Hom}_{B{\mathcal{G}}}({\mathcal{X}}, i_{*}\operatorname{\mathcal{H}\mathit{om}}_{\mathcal{T}}(i^*{\mathcal{A}}, i^*{\mathcal{B}})) &\cong \operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{T}}}(i^{*}{\mathcal{X}}, \operatorname{\mathcal{H}\mathit{om}}_{\mathcal{T}}(i^*{\mathcal{A}}, i^*{\mathcal{B}})) \\
&\cong \operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{T}}}(i^{*}({\mathcal{X}}\times {\mathcal{A}}), i^{*}{\mathcal{B}}) \\
&\cong \operatorname{Hom}_{B{\mathcal{G}}}(i_{!}i^{*}({\mathcal{X}}\times{\mathcal{A}}), {\mathcal{B}}) \\
&\cong \operatorname{Hom}_{B{\mathcal{G}}}({ \begingroup \mathtoolsset{
prescript-sup-format=\mathit, } \prescript{}{l}{{\mathcal{G}}} \endgroup }\times ({\mathcal{X}}\times {\mathcal{A}})^{\natural}, {\mathcal{B}}) \\
&\cong \operatorname{Hom}_{B{\mathcal{G}}}({ \begingroup \mathtoolsset{
prescript-sup-format=\mathit, } \prescript{}{l}{{\mathcal{G}}} \endgroup }\times {\mathcal{X}}\times {\mathcal{A}}, {\mathcal{B}}) \\
&\cong \operatorname{Hom}_{B{\mathcal{G}}}({\mathcal{X}}, \operatorname{\mathcal{H}\mathit{om}}_{B{\mathcal{G}}}({ \begingroup \mathtoolsset{
prescript-sup-format=\mathit, } \prescript{}{l}{{\mathcal{G}}} \endgroup }\times {\mathcal{A}}, {\mathcal{B}}))\end{aligned}$$ where we used the isomorphism ${ \begingroup \mathtoolsset{
prescript-sup-format=\mathit, } \prescript{}{l}{{\mathcal{G}}} \endgroup }\times ({\mathcal{X}}\times {\mathcal{A}})^{\natural} \cong { \begingroup \mathtoolsset{
prescript-sup-format=\mathit, } \prescript{}{l}{{\mathcal{G}}} \endgroup }\times {\mathcal{X}}\times {\mathcal{A}}$ given by $(\operatorname{pr}_1,
\text{action})$. This implies the lemma.
We now consider the case ${\mathcal{T}}={{\mathrm{Sh}}}({{\mathrm{La}}}), {\mathcal{G}}=y(G)$. For a sheaf ${\mathcal{F}}$ on ${{\mathrm{La}}}$, the sheaf underlying $i_{*}{\mathcal{F}}$ is, by the above, given by $X\mapsto \operatorname{\mathcal{H}\mathit{om}}_{{{\mathrm{Sh}}}({{\mathrm{La}}})}(y(G),{\mathcal{F}})(X) \cong {\mathcal{F}}(G\times X)$ (Yoneda lemma).
\[rem:strictly-paracompact\] By our general assumption, every manifold $X$ in ${{\mathrm{La}}}$ is paracompact. By [@Schneider Prop. 8.7], it is even *strictly paracompact*, i.e., every open covering of $X$ can be refined by a covering by pairwise disjoint open subsets. This implies in particular that the functor of sections over $X$ is exact on the category of abelian sheaves on ${{\mathrm{La}}}$.
The functor $i_*$ from abelian sheaves on ${{\mathrm{La}}}$ to abelian group objects in $BG$ is exact.
Since $i_*$ is a right adjoint, it is left exact. Consider an epimorphism ${\mathcal{A}}\to \mathcal B$ of abelian sheaves on ${{\mathrm{La}}}$. By the above remark, the functor of sections over $G\times X$ is exact, and hence ${\mathcal{A}}(G\times X) \to \mathcal B(G\times X)$ is an epimorphism of abelian groups. From this we deduce that $i_*{\mathcal{A}}\to i_*\mathcal{B}$ is an epimorphism.
\[cor:i\*acy\] For any abelian sheaf ${\mathcal{A}}$ on ${{\mathrm{La}}}$, we have $$H^i(G, i_*{\mathcal{A}}) \cong
\begin{cases}
{\mathcal{A}}(*) &\text{if } i=0,\\
0 & \text{else.}
\end{cases}$$
Since the left adjoint $i^*$ is exact, $i_*$ sends injectives to injectives. Since $i_*$ is exact and $\Gamma \circ i_*(-) = \operatorname{Hom}_{BG}(*, i_*(-)) \cong \operatorname{Hom}_{{{\mathrm{Sh}}}({{\mathrm{La}}})}(*, -)$ we see that $$H^i(G, i_*{\mathcal{A}}) \cong
H^i_{{{\mathrm{Sh}}}({{\mathrm{La}}})}(*, {\mathcal{A}}) \cong
\begin{cases}
{\mathcal{A}}(*) &\text{if } i=0,\\
0 & \text{else.} \end{cases} \qedhere$$
We let $E_{{\bullet}}G$ be the simplicial manifold given in degree $p$ by $E_{p}G:=G^{p+1}$, and $\phi^{*}\colon E_{q}G \to E_{p}G$, for $\phi\colon \{0<\dots<p\} \to \{0<\dots<q\}$, given by $(g_{0}, \dots, g_{q}) \mapsto (g_{\phi(0)}, \dots, g_{\phi(p)}).$ The group $G$ acts on $E_{{\bullet}}G$ via diagonal left multiplication. We denote the simplicial object of $BG$ given by $y(E_{{\bullet}}G)$ equipped with diagonal $y(G)$-action by ${ \begingroup \mathtoolsset{
prescript-sup-format=\mathit, } \prescript{}{l}{E} \endgroup }_{{\bullet}}G$. For an abelian group object ${\mathcal{A}}$ in $BG$, the degree-wise sections over ${ \begingroup \mathtoolsset{
prescript-sup-format=\mathit, } \prescript{}{l}{E_{{\bullet}}G} \endgroup }$ form a cosimplicial abelian group $\Gamma({ \begingroup \mathtoolsset{
prescript-sup-format=\mathit, } \prescript{}{l}{E_{{\bullet}}G} \endgroup }, {\mathcal{A}})$.
\[prop:cochains-neu\] Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be an abelian group object of $BG$. Then $$H^{*}(G,{\mathcal{A}}) \cong H^{*}(\Gamma({ \begingroup \mathtoolsset{
prescript-sup-format=\mathit, } \prescript{}{l}{E_{{\bullet}}G} \endgroup }, {\mathcal{A}})) .$$
The projection ${ \begingroup \mathtoolsset{
prescript-sup-format=\mathit, } \prescript{}{l}{y} \endgroup }(G) \to *$ is an epimorphism in $BG$. The Čech nerve of this morphism is precisely ${ \begingroup \mathtoolsset{
prescript-sup-format=\mathit, } \prescript{}{l}{E_{{\bullet}}G} \endgroup }$. We thus have a quasi-isomorphism $${\mathcal{A}}\cong \operatorname{\mathcal{H}\mathit{om}}_{BG}(*,{\mathcal{A}}) \xrightarrow{\simeq} \operatorname{\mathcal{H}\mathit{om}}_{BG}({ \begingroup \mathtoolsset{
prescript-sup-format=\mathit, } \prescript{}{l}{E_{{\bullet}}G} \endgroup }, {\mathcal{A}}).$$ Using Lemma \[lem:iHom\] and Corollary \[cor:i\*acy\] we see that the complex on the right hand side consists of $\Gamma$-acyclic objects. We conclude using $\Gamma(\operatorname{\mathcal{H}\mathit{om}}_{BG}({ \begingroup \mathtoolsset{
prescript-sup-format=\mathit, } \prescript{}{l}{E_{{\bullet}}G} \endgroup }, {\mathcal{A}})) = \operatorname{Hom}_{BG}(*, \operatorname{\mathcal{H}\mathit{om}}_{BG}({ \begingroup \mathtoolsset{
prescript-sup-format=\mathit, } \prescript{}{l}{E_{{\bullet}}G} \endgroup }, {\mathcal{A}})) \cong \operatorname{Hom}_{BG}({ \begingroup \mathtoolsset{
prescript-sup-format=\mathit, } \prescript{}{l}{E_{{\bullet}}G} \endgroup }, {\mathcal{A}}) = \Gamma({ \begingroup \mathtoolsset{
prescript-sup-format=\mathit, } \prescript{}{l}{E_{{\bullet}}G} \endgroup }, {\mathcal{A}})$.
Locally analytic representations {#sec:2}
================================
In Example \[ex:examples-of-sheaves\], we saw how to associate an abelian group object of $BG$ to any finite dimensional locally analytic representation of $G$. The goal of this section is to extend this to arbitrary locally analytic representations in the sense of Schneider and Teitelbaum [@ST], and to relate the cohomology groups thus defined to the cohomology groups defined in terms of analytic cochains (Proposition \[prop:lacochains\]).
We begin by recalling some basic notions about analytic functions and locally analytic representations. References are [@Feaux] or [@ST §§2,3].
If $W$ is a Banach space, a function $f\colon X \to W$ from a manifold $X$ to $W$ is called analytic, if, in local charts, it is given by convergent power series with coefficients in $W$. The reader who is only interested in representations on Banach spaces can skip the following general definition and also all “admissibility” considerations later on. Let $V$ be a locally convex separated $K$-vector space. A *BH-space* [^2] for $V$ is a continuous inclusion of a separated Banach space $W \hookrightarrow V$ [@Feaux §1.2]. Let $X$ be a manifold. A function $f\colon
X \to V$ is called *analytic*, if every $x\in X$ admits a neighborhood $U$, and a BH-space $W\hookrightarrow V$ such that $f|_{U}$ factors through an analytic map $U \to W$. We denote the set of all analytic functions $X\to V$ by $C^{{\mathrm{an}}}(X,V)$. By [@Feaux Kor. 2.4.4], $C^{{\mathrm{an}}}(X,V)$ is a module over the algebra of analytic functions $C^{{\mathrm{an}}}(X,K)$ . For varying $X$, this is a sheaf on ${{\mathrm{La}}}$ denoted by $C^{{\mathrm{an}}}(-,V)$.
A *topological representation* of the Lie group $G$ on $V$ is an action of $G$ on $V$ by continuous automorphisms, i.e., a homomorphism $G \to \operatorname{Aut}(V)$ to the abstract group of continuous automorphisms $\operatorname{Aut}(V)$ of $V$. The topological representation is called *locally analytic* if all orbit maps $G\to V, g\mapsto gv$, are analytic (this is called a weakly analytic representation in [@Feaux Def. 3.1.5]).
\[ex:Banach-space-reps\] Let $W$ be a Banach space. Then $\operatorname{Aut}(W)$ is an open subset of the Banach space of continuous endomorphisms $\operatorname{End}(W)$. Féaux de Lacroix shows in [@Feaux Kor. 3.1.9] that a topological representation of $G$ on $W$ is locally analytic if and only if the corresponding homomorphism $r\colon G \to \operatorname{Aut}(W) \subset \operatorname{End}(W)$ is analytic. Assume that this is the case. Let $X$ be a manifold, and let $\rho\colon X \to G$ and $f\colon X \to W$ be analytic maps. Then the point-wise product $\rho f\colon X \to W, x\mapsto \rho(x)f(x),$ is again analytic. Indeed, $\rho f$ equals the composition $$X \xrightarrow{(\rho,\operatorname{id}_{X})} G\times X \xrightarrow{r\times f} \operatorname{Aut}(W) \times W \subseteq \operatorname{End}(W) \times W \xrightarrow{\mathrm{ev}} W,$$ where the first two maps are analytic by assumption, and the evaluation map $\mathrm{ev}$ is continuous and bilinear. It follows, that we get an action of $y(G)$ on the sheaf $C^{{\mathrm{an}}}(-,W)$, and $C^{{\mathrm{an}}}(-,W)$ can naturally be viewed as an object of $BG$. This generalizes Example \[ex:examples-of-sheaves\].
For a general locally analytic representation of $G$ on $V$, this need no longer be true. Instead, we have to consider the subsheaf of $C^{{\mathrm{an}}}(-,V)$ of admissible functions as we explain in the next paragraph. The example above shows that for representations on Banach spaces, every analytic function is admissible.
Let $G\to \operatorname{Aut}(V)$ be a topological representation. We call an analytic function $f\colon X \to V$ *admissible*, if the map $\hat f\colon G\times X \to V, (g,x)\mapsto gf(x)$, is analytic. Note that $\hat f$ is analytic iff its restriction $\hat f|_{U\times X}$ for some open subset $U\subset G$ is analytic. Indeed, if this is the case, then for any $h\in G$ the restriction $\hat f|_{hU\times X}$ is equal to the composition $$(hU \times X) \xrightarrow{(g,x)\mapsto (h^{-1}g,x)} U \times X \xrightarrow{\hat f|_{U\times X}} V \xrightarrow{h\cdot} V,$$ where the first two maps are analytic, and the last one is continuous and linear. We define $${\underline{V}}(X) := C^{{\mathrm{ad}}}(X,V) := \{f \in C^{{\mathrm{an}}}(X,V)\,|\, f \text{ is admissible}\}.$$ This is a $C^{{\mathrm{an}}}(X,K)$-submodule of $C^{{\mathrm{an}}}(X,V)$. We claim that ${\underline{V}}$ is a subsheaf of $C^{{\mathrm{an}}}(-,V)$ and that the point-wise multiplication by $G$-valued analytic maps defines an action of $y(G)$ on ${\underline{V}}$. We will henceforth view ${\underline{V}}$ as an abelian group object of $BG$.
If $f\in {\underline{V}}(X)$ and $\phi\colon Y \to X$ is an analytic map between manifolds, then $f\circ\phi$ is analytic. Moreover, $\widehat{f\circ\phi} = \hat f \circ (\operatorname{id}_{G}\times \phi)$ is analytic as well, hence $f\circ \phi$ is admissible. Thus ${\underline{V}}$ is a presheaf. Since admissibility is a local property, ${\underline{V}}$ is a sheaf.
Now let $\rho\colon X \to G$ be an analytic map. We define $\rho f$ by $(\rho f)(x) := \rho(x)f(x)$. We have to show that $\rho f$ is analytic and admissible. But this is clear since $\rho f$ equals the composition $X \xrightarrow{(\rho,\operatorname{id}_{X})} G \times X \xrightarrow{\hat f} V$ and $\widehat{\rho f}$ equals the composition $G\times X \xrightarrow{(g,x) \mapsto (g\rho(x), x)} G \times X \xrightarrow{\hat f} V$.
A topological representation of $G$ on $V$ is locally analytic if and only if ${\underline{V}}(*) = V$.
For a locally analytic representation of $G$ on $V$ and $i\geq 0$ we define the locally analytic group cohomology of $G$ with coefficients in $V$ as $$H^{i}_{{\mathrm{an}}}(G,V) := H^{i}(G, {\underline{V}}).$$
Recall that a homogeneous analytic $p$-cochain of $G$ with coefficients in $V$ is an analytic function $f\colon E_pG\to V$ which is $G$-equivariant, i.e., satisfies $f(gg_0, \dots, gg_p) = gf(g_0, \dots g_p)$. We denote the complex of homogeneous analytic cochains by $C^{{\mathrm{an}}}_{G}(E_{{\bullet}}G, V)$. Its differential is induced by the simplicial structure of $E_{{\bullet}}G$.
\[prop:lacochains\] The cohomology $H^*_{{\mathrm{an}}}(G, V)$ is isomorphic to the cohomology of the complex of homogeneous analytic cochains $C^{{\mathrm{an}}}_{G}(E_{\bullet}G, V)$.
By Proposition \[prop:cochains-neu\] we have $H^*(G,{\underline{V}}) \cong H^*(\Gamma({ \begingroup \mathtoolsset{
prescript-sup-format=\mathit, } \prescript{}{l}{E_{{\bullet}}G} \endgroup },{\underline{V}}))$. Using the Yoneda lemma we see that a section in $\Gamma({ \begingroup \mathtoolsset{
prescript-sup-format=\mathit, } \prescript{}{l}{E_pG} \endgroup }, {\underline{V}})=\operatorname{Hom}_{BG}({ \begingroup \mathtoolsset{
prescript-sup-format=\mathit, } \prescript{}{l}{E_pG} \endgroup }, {\underline{V}})$ is just an admissible function $f\colon E_pG \to V$ such that $$\xymatrix{
G\times E_pG \ar[r]^-{\operatorname{id}\times f} \ar[d]_{\text{diagonal multiplication}} & G\times V \ar[d]^{\text{action}} \\
E_pG \ar[r]^f & V
}$$ commutes, i.e., a $G$-equivariant admissible function $E_pG\to V$.
To prove the claim, it suffices to show that, vice versa, every $G$-equivariant analytic function $f\colon E_pG \to V$ is admissible. But, by the $G$-equivariance, $\hat f$ is equal to the composition $G \times E_{p}G \xrightarrow{(g,(g_0,\dots, g_p))\mapsto (gg_0, \dots, gg_p)} E_{p}G \xrightarrow{f} V$ and thus analytic. Thus $f$ is admissible.
Differential forms and Lie algebra cohomology {#sec:DifferentialFormsAndLiaAlgebraCohomology}
=============================================
In this section, we introduce sheaves of differential forms with coefficients in a locally analytic representation $V$ of $G$ as objects of $BG$. Again, unless $V$ is a Banach space, we have to restrict to admissible forms. We show that the Lie algebra cohomology of the $K$-Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}$ of $G$ with coefficients in $V$ can be computed as the cohomology in $BG$ of the complex of forms on $G$ with coefficients in $V$.
Let $V$ be a separated locally convex $K$-vector space. For a submersion $Y \to X$ we denote by $\Omega^k(Y/X,V)$ the vector space of relative analytic $k$-forms with values in $V$. Here, a $k$-form $\omega$ is called analytic if, for any $k$-tuple $\phi_1,\dots, \phi_k$ of local sections of the vertical tangent bundle $T(Y/X)$, the function $Y\to V, y\mapsto \omega(y)(\phi_1(y), \dots, \phi_k(y))$ is analytic. It suffices to check this for the local sections given by a local frame of $T(Y/X)$. In particular, every $y\in Y$ admits a neighborhood $U$ and a BH-space $W \hookrightarrow V$ such that $\omega|_{U}$ is in the image of $\Omega^{k}(U/X,W) \hookrightarrow \Omega^{k}(U/X, V)$. It follows that the exterior derivative $d\omega$ is a well-defined form in $\Omega^{k+1}(Y/X,V)$. If $V$ is finite dimensional, this is the usual notion of analytic forms.
For a fixed manifold $Y$, we have a complex of sheaves ${\underline{\Omega}}^{*}(Y,V)$ on ${{\mathrm{La}}}$ defined by $${\underline{\Omega}}^{*}(Y,V)(X) := \Omega^{*}(X\times Y/X,V).$$ Let $V$ be a locally analytic representation of $G$. We would like to equip this complex with a $y(G)$-action. As for functions, we have to restrict to a subcomplex of admissible forms in order to do this. Again, one can ignore this, if one is only interested in the case that $V$ is a Banach space.
A form $\omega \in \Omega^k(Y/X,V)$ is called *admissible*, if the form $\hat\omega$ on $G\times Y/G\times X$ given by $$\hat\omega(g,y)({\mathsf{x}}_{1}, \dots, {\mathsf{x}}_k) := g\cdot(\omega(y)({\mathsf{x}}_1,\dots, {\mathsf{x}}_k)),$$ where $g\in G, y\in Y, {\mathsf{x}}_i\in T_{(g,y)}(G\times Y/G\times X)\cong T_y(Y/X)$, is analytic. Equivalently, $\omega$ is admissible iff for any $k$-tuple of local sections $\phi_1, \dots, \phi_k$ of $T(Y/K)$ as above the function $\omega(\phi_1,\dots, \phi_k)$ is admissible. As in the case of functions, this is the case iff $\hat\omega|_{U\times Y}$ is analytic for some open subset $U \subseteq G$. The admissible $k$-forms form a $C^{{\mathrm{an}}}(Y,K)$-submodule of $\Omega^k(Y/X,V)$, which we denote by $\Omega^k_{{\mathrm{ad}}}(Y/X,V)$. They are also stable under the exterior derivative: Let $\omega$ be an admissible form. Since $G$ acts on $V$ by continuous linear automorphisms we have $\widehat{d\omega} = d\hat\omega$, and this form is analytic. Thus, the admissible forms $\Omega^{*}_{{\mathrm{ad}}}(Y/X,V)$ form a subcomplex of the de Rham complex $\Omega^{*}(Y/X,V)$.
If $V$ is a Banach space, it follows from Example \[ex:Banach-space-reps\] that any $V$-valued analytic $k$-form is admissible.
We now fix a manifold $Y$. For an analytic map between manifolds $X' \to X$ the pull-back map $\Omega^{k}(X\times Y/X) \to \Omega^{k}(X'\times Y/X')$ preserves admissible forms. Since admissibility is a local condition, ${\underline{\Omega}}^{k}_{{\mathrm{ad}}}(Y,V)$, defined by $${\underline{\Omega}}^k_{\mathrm{ad}}(Y,V)(X) := \Omega^k_{\mathrm{ad}}(X\times Y/X,V),$$ is a subsheaf of ${\underline{\Omega}}^{k}(Y,V)$, and ${\underline{\Omega}}^{*}_{{\mathrm{ad}}}(Y,V) \subseteq {\underline{\Omega}}^{*}(Y,V)$ is a subcomplex.
We define an action of $y(G)$ on ${\underline{\Omega}}^k_{\mathrm{ad}}(G,V)$ as follows: Let $\rho\colon X \to G$ be an analytic map and $\omega\in \Omega^k_{\mathrm{ad}}(X \times G / X, V)$ an admissible form. For any $h \in G$, left translation by $h^{-1}$ induces a map $T_{(x,g)}(X\times G/X) \to T_{(x,h^{-1}g)}(X\times G/X)$ written ${\mathsf{x}}\mapsto h^{-1}{\mathsf{x}}$. Using this notation we define $\rho\omega$ by the formula $$(\rho\omega)(x,g)({\mathsf{x}}_1,\dots, {\mathsf{x}}_k) := \rho(x)\cdot \left(\omega(x, \rho(x)^{-1}g)(\rho(x)^{-1}{\mathsf{x}}_1, \dots, \rho(x)^{-1}{\mathsf{x}}_k)\right).$$
This is a well-defined $y(G)$-action.
We have to show that $\rho\omega$ is analytic and admissible. Consider the analytic maps $\hat\rho\colon G\times X \times G \to G \times X \times G, (h,x,g) \mapsto (h\rho(x), x, \rho(x)^{-1}g)$ and $i_{1}\colon X \times G \hookrightarrow G\times X \times G, (x,g)\mapsto (1,x,g)$. Then $\rho\omega = i_{1}^{*}\hat\rho^{*}\hat\omega$, hence $\rho\omega$ is analytic. Similarly, we have $\widehat{\rho\omega}=\hat\rho^{*}\hat\omega$, hence $\rho\omega$ is admissible.
We thus consider ${\underline{\Omega}}^k_{\mathrm{ad}}(G,V)$ as an abelian group object in $BG$. We want to show that it is acyclic. Write $\widetilde V := \operatorname{Hom}(\bigwedge\nolimits^k{\mathfrak{g}}, V)$. The adjoint action of $G$ on ${\mathfrak{g}}$ and the given action of $G$ on $V$ induce a natural $G$-action on $\widetilde V$.
\[lem:Omega-induced\] This representation of $G$ on $\widetilde{V}$ is locally analytic. We have an isomorphism $${\underline{\Omega}}^k_{\mathrm{ad}}(G,V) \cong \operatorname{\mathcal{H}\mathit{om}}_{BG}({ \begingroup \mathtoolsset{
prescript-sup-format=\mathit, } \prescript{}{l}{y} \endgroup }(G), {\underline{\widetilde V}}) \cong i_*i^*{\underline{\widetilde V}}.$$
Let $Y$ be a manifold. We claim that a function $f\colon Y \to \widetilde{V}$ is admissible if and only if the function $f_{{\mathsf{x}}}\colon Y\to V, y \mapsto f(y)({\mathsf{x}}),$ is admissible for every ${\mathsf{x}}\in \bigwedge^k{\mathfrak{g}}$. Taking $Y$ to be a point this implies the first assertion of the lemma.
To prove the claim, assume first that $f$ is admissible. We have $\widehat{f_{{\mathsf{x}}}}(g,y) = g(f(y)({\mathsf{x}})) = (gf(y))(g{\mathsf{x}}) = \hat f(g,y)(g{\mathsf{x}})$. The function $\hat f$ is analytic by assumption and so is $g\mapsto g{\mathsf{x}}$. Since the evaluation $\widetilde{V} \times \bigwedge^k{\mathfrak{g}}\to V$ is continuous and bilinear, and since $\bigwedge^k{\mathfrak{g}}$ is finite dimensional, [@Feaux Satz 2.4.3] implies that $\widehat{f_{{\mathsf{x}}}}$ is analytic.
To see the converse, let ${\mathsf{x}}_1, \dots, {\mathsf{x}}_N$ be a basis of $\bigwedge^k{\mathfrak{g}}$ and ${\mathsf{x}}_1^*, \dots, {\mathsf{x}}_N^*$ the dual basis of $(\bigwedge^k{\mathfrak{g}})^\vee$. We can write $f$ as a sum $f = \sum_{i=1}^N f_{{\mathsf{x}}_i}{\mathsf{x}}_i^*$ with $f_{{\mathsf{x}}_i}$ admissible. Then $\hat f(g,y) = \sum_i \widehat{f_{{\mathsf{x}}_i}}(g,y) g({\mathsf{x}}_i^*)$ and by [*loc. cit. *]{}again, $\hat f$ is analytic.
We now prove the second assertion of the lemma. For any manifold $X$, right translations by elements of $G$ induce a trivialization of the vertical tangent bundle $T(X\times G/X) \cong (X\times G)\times {\mathfrak{g}}$. This gives a natural isomorphism of vector spaces $$\label{mar25neu}
\Omega^k(X\times G/X,V) \cong C^{{\mathrm{an}}}(X\times G, \widetilde V).$$ Using the above claim one sees that this isomorphism restricts to an isomorphism $$\Omega^k_{{\mathrm{ad}}}(X\times G/X,V) \cong C^{{\mathrm{ad}}}(X\times G, \widetilde{V}).$$ Under this isomorphism, the $y(G)(X)$-action on the left-hand side corresponds to the action on the right-hand side induced by left translations on $X\times G$ and the action on $\widetilde{V}$ mentioned above. Using the isomorphism $C^{{\mathrm{ad}}}(X\times G,\widetilde{V}) \cong \operatorname{\mathcal{H}\mathit{om}}_{BG}({ \begingroup \mathtoolsset{
prescript-sup-format=\mathit, } \prescript{}{l}{y} \endgroup }(G), {\underline{\widetilde V}})(X)$, this gives the first isomorphism stated in the Lemma. The second follows immediately from Lemma \[lem:iHom\].
\[cor:CohomForms\] We have $$H^i(G,{\underline{\Omega}}^k_{\mathrm{ad}}(G,V)) \cong
\begin{cases}
\operatorname{Hom}_{K}(\bigwedge^k{\mathfrak{g}}, V) & \text{ if } i=0,\\
0 & \text{ else.}
\end{cases}$$
By Lemma \[lem:Omega-induced\] and Corollary \[cor:i\*acy\] the higher cohomology groups vanish, and $$\label{eq:IdentificationInvariantForms}
H^0(G, {\underline{\Omega}}^k_{{\mathrm{ad}}}(G,V))\cong {\underline{\widetilde V}}(*) = \operatorname{Hom}_{K}(\bigwedge\nolimits^k{\mathfrak{g}}, V). \qedhere$$
Explicitly, this isomorphism is given by evaluating a form at $1\in G$.
The differential $d$ of the complex ${\underline{\Omega}}^*_{\mathrm{ad}}(G,V)$ is compatible with the $y(G)$-action. Hence we can view ${\underline{\Omega}}^*_{\mathrm{ad}}(G,V)$ as a complex in $BG$ and we can compute its hypercohomology.
We now assume that $V$ is barrelled, i.e., that every closed convex absorbing subset is open (see [@Schneider-NFA §6]). For example, any complete metrizable locally convex space, in particular any Banach space, is barrelled. Differentiating the orbit maps $g\mapsto gv$ then induces an action of the Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}$ on $V$ [@Feaux Sätze 3.1.3, 3.1.7].
\[cor:deRhamLie\] We have natural isomorphisms $$H^i(G, {\underline{\Omega}}^*_{\mathrm{ad}}(G,V)) \cong H^{i}({\mathfrak{g}}, V)$$ where the right-hand side is Lie algebra cohomology.
Corollary \[cor:CohomForms\] gives an isomorphism $$H^i(G, {\underline{\Omega}}_{{\mathrm{ad}}}^*(G,V)) \cong H^{i}\left( \operatorname{Hom}_{K}(\bigwedge\nolimits^{*}{\mathfrak{g}},V)\right),$$ where the differential on $\operatorname{Hom}_{K}(\bigwedge\nolimits^{*}{\mathfrak{g}},V)$ is induced from the de Rham differential via . This is precisely the Chevalley-Eilenberg complex computing Lie algebra cohomology.
Differential forms and locally analytic group cohomology {#sec:proof}
========================================================
As before, we fix a locally analytic representation $G\to \operatorname{Aut}(V)$. In this section we use the Poincaré lemma to compare the hypercohomology of the complex of $V$-valued admissible forms with locally analytic group cohomology, and we give the proof of the Theorem announced in the Introduction.
Fix a manifold $Y$. A function $f\colon Y\times X \to V$ will be called locally constant along $Y$, if, for every $(y,x)\in Y\times X$, there exist open neighborhoods $Y' \subseteq Y$ of $y$ and $X'\subseteq X$ of $x$ such that $f|_{Y'\times X'}$ factors through the projection $Y'\times X'\to X'$. We define $${\underline{C}}^{{\mathrm{lc}}}_{{\mathrm{ad}}}(Y,V)(X) := \{f\in C^{{\mathrm{ad}}}(X\times Y,V)\,|\, f \text{ is locally constant along $Y$}\}.$$ It is easy to see that $X\mapsto {\underline{C}}^{{\mathrm{lc}}}_{{\mathrm{ad}}}(Y,V)(X)$ defines a sheaf on ${{\mathrm{La}}}$.
\[prop:DeRhamResolution\] The inclusion in degree 0 $${\underline{C}}^{{\mathrm{lc}}}_{{\mathrm{ad}}}(Y,V) \to {\underline{\Omega}}^{*}_{{\mathrm{ad}}}(Y,V)$$ is a quasi-isomorpism.
If $V$ is a Banach space, this is just the Poincaré lemma, and its usual proof works. For general locally convex $V$, it is a little bit more complicated, since we have to prove admissibility of primitives.
The map clearly induces an isomorphism on $H^0$, and it remains to show that $H^k({\underline{\Omega}}_{{\mathrm{ad}}}^*(Y,V))=0$ for $k>0$.
Let $X$ be a manifold, and let $\omega$ be a closed form in $\Omega^k_{\mathrm{ad}}(X\times Y/X, V)$. We will show that there is an $\eta\in \Omega^{k-1}_{\mathrm{ad}}(X\times Y/X,V)$ such that $d\eta=\omega$. Since all manifolds are strictly paracompact, it is enough to construct such an $\eta$ locally on $X$ and $Y$ (see Remark \[rem:strictly-paracompact\]).
The rest of the proof uses some results and notations from the Appendix. It can be skipped on first reading. Since $d\hat\omega = \widehat{d\omega} = 0$, the form $\hat\omega\in\Omega^k(G \times X \times Y/G\times X,V)$ is closed. Replacing $G$ be a small open neighborhood of 1 and using local charts, we may assume that there are multiradii $\delta\in {\mathbf{R}}^m_+, \epsilon\in {\mathbf{R}}^n_+$ such that $G\times X \cong B_\delta(0) \subset K^m, Y\cong B_\epsilon(0) \subset K^n$, and a BH-space $W\hookrightarrow V$ such that $\hat\omega$ is given by a power series in $F_\delta(\Omega^k_\epsilon(W))$ (cf. ). Choose a multiradius $\epsilon' < \epsilon$. The homotopy operator $h\colon \Omega^k_\epsilon(W) \to \Omega^{k-1}_{\epsilon'}(W)$ given by lemma \[lem:Poincare\] induces an operator $h\colon F_\delta(\Omega^k_\epsilon(W)) \to F_\delta(\Omega^{k-1}_{\epsilon'}(W))$. We define $\widetilde{\eta}:=h(\hat\omega)$. Hence $\widetilde{\eta}$ represents a relative analytic $k-1$-form on $G\times X \times Y'/G\times X$ with an open subset $Y'\subset Y$. Since $\hat\omega$ is closed, we have $d\widetilde{\eta}=\hat\omega|_{G\times X\times Y'}$.
For $g\in G$, let $i_g\colon X\times Y \to G\times X \times Y$ (and similarly with $Y$ replaced by $Y'$) be the inclusion $(x,y)\mapsto (g,x,y)$. We set $\eta:= i_1^*\widetilde{\eta}$. Clearly, $d\eta = i_1^*d\widetilde{\eta} = i_1^*\hat\omega = \omega$. To prove that $\eta$ is admissible, we show that $\hat\eta=\widetilde{\eta}$. Let $\Phi_g\colon V\to V$ be the continuous automorphism given by the action of $g$. We have to check that $i_g^*\widetilde{\eta} = \Phi_g\circ\eta$. By restriction, $\Phi_{g}$ induces a continuous isomorphism of BH-spaces $W \to g(W)$ (more precisely, we view $W$ as a linear subspace of $V$ and let $g(W)$ be its image under the action of $g\in G$ with Banach space structure induced from $W$ via the linear isomorphism $\Phi_{g}|_{W}\colon W \xrightarrow{\cong} g(W)$). We have $$\begin{aligned}
i_g^*\widetilde{\eta} &= i_g^*(h(\hat\omega)) &&\text{(by definition)} \\
&= h(i_g^*\hat\omega) &&\text{(using \eqref{diag:PhiEval} with $\Phi=h\colon \Omega^{q}_{\epsilon}(W) \to \Omega^{q-1}_{\epsilon'}(W)$)} \\
&= h(\Phi_g\circ \omega) &&\text{(definition of $\hat\omega$)} \\
&= \Phi_g\circ h(\omega) &&\text{(Lemma \ref{lem:NaturalityIntegration} for $\Phi=\Phi_g\colon W \to g(W)$)} \\
&= \Phi_g\circ \eta &&\text{(since $h(\omega)=h(i_{1}^{*}\hat\omega)=i_{1}^{*}h(\hat\omega) = i_{1}^{*}\hat\eta=\eta$).} \qedhere\end{aligned}$$
The sheaf ${\underline{C}}^{{\mathrm{lc}}}_{{\mathrm{ad}}}(G,V)$ carries a natural $y(G)$-action induced by left translations on $G$ and the given action on $V$. By Proposition \[prop:DeRhamResolution\] and Corollary \[cor:deRhamLie\] we have isomorphisms $$\label{eq:CohomIsos}
H^{*}(G,{\underline{C}}^{{\mathrm{lc}}}_{{\mathrm{ad}}}(G,V)) \cong H^{*}(G, {\underline{\Omega}}^{*}_{{\mathrm{ad}}}(G,V)) \cong H^{*}({\mathfrak{g}}, V).$$ As in the proof of Proposition \[prop:lacochains\], Proposition \[prop:cochains-neu\] implies that $H^{*}(G,{\underline{C}}^{{\mathrm{lc}}}_{{\mathrm{ad}}}(G,V))$ is the cohomology of the complex $C^{{\mathrm{lc}}}_{G}(G\times E_{{\bullet}}G,V)$ of $G$-equivariant analytic functions $G\times E_{p}G\to V$ that are locally constant along the first factor.
Since the open subgroups $G' \subseteq G$ form a fundamental system of neighborhoods of $1\in G$ (see [@Schneider Lemma 18.7]), we have an isomorphism $$\operatorname*{colim}_{G'\subset G \text{ open}} C^{{\mathrm{an}}}_{G'}(E_{{\bullet}}G', V) \cong
\operatorname*{colim}_{G'\subset G \text{ open}} C^{{\mathrm{lc}}}_{G'}(G'\times E_{{\bullet}}G', V).$$ Because taking the colimit over a directed system is exact, we see that $$\operatorname*{colim}_{G'\subset G} H^*_{{\mathrm{an}}}(G', V) \to \operatorname*{colim}_{G'\subset G} H^*(G', {\underline{C}}^{{\mathrm{lc}}}(G',V))$$ is an isomorphism. Since the isomorphisms are compatible with the restriction to open subgroups, the claim follows.
There is an additional action of $G$ on ${\underline{C}}^{{\mathrm{lc}}}_{{\mathrm{ad}}}(G,V)$ and on ${\underline{\Omega}}^*_{{\mathrm{ad}}}(G,V)$ induced by right translations on $G$. This action is compatible with the given $y(G)$-action. It induces a $G$-action on the cohomology groups. Via the isomorphism this corresponds to the $G$-action on $H^*({\mathfrak{g}},V)$ induced by the adjoint action on ${\mathfrak{g}}$ and left multiplication on $V$.
\[cor:LieAlgcohomforcompactG\] If $G$ is compact, there is a natural isomorphism $$H^*_{{\mathrm{an}}}(G,V) \cong H^*({\mathfrak{g}}, V)^G.$$
Since $G$ is compact, every open subgroup is of finite index and contains an open normal subgroup. If $X$ is a compact manifold, every function in ${\underline{C}}^{{\mathrm{lc}}}_{{\mathrm{ad}}}(G,V)(X)$ factors through $G/H\times X$ for some open normal subgroup $H \unlhd G$. Thus – using the notation from the previous proof – $${\underline{C}}^{{\mathrm{lc}}}_{G}(G\times E_{\bullet}G, V) = \operatorname*{colim}_{H\unlhd G \text{ open}} C^{{\mathrm{an}}}_{G}(G/H \times E_{\bullet}G, V).$$ Since the colimit over a directed system is exact, this induces an isomorphism $H^*({\mathfrak{g}}, V) \cong \operatorname*{colim}_{H\unlhd G} H^*\left(C^{{\mathrm{an}}}_{G}(G/H \times E_{\bullet}G, V)\right)$. Since each quotient $G/H$ is finite, and taking invariants under a finite group is an exact functor on $K$-vector spaces with an action by that group, we get $$\begin{aligned}
H^*({\mathfrak{g}},V)^G &\cong \operatorname*{colim}_{H\unlhd G} H^*\left(C^{{\mathrm{an}}}_{G}(G/H\times E_{\bullet}G,V)\right)^{G/H} \\
&\cong \operatorname*{colim}_{H\unlhd G} H^*(C^{{\mathrm{an}}}_{G}(G/H\times E_{\bullet}G,V)^{G/H}) \\
&\cong \operatorname*{colim}_{H\unlhd G} H^*(C^{{\mathrm{an}}}_{G}(E_{\bullet}G,V)) \cong H^*_{{\mathrm{an}}}(G,V). \qedhere\end{aligned}$$
Explicit description of the comparison map {#sec:explicit}
==========================================
We want to describe an explicit map of complexes which induces the comparison map $H^{*}_{{\mathrm{an}}}(G,V) \to H^{*}({\mathfrak{g}},V)$. Recall that $H^{*}_{{\mathrm{an}}}(G,V)$ is computed by the complex of homogeneous locally analytic cochains $C^{{\mathrm{an}}}_{G}(E_{{\bullet}}G,V)$, and that $H^{*}({\mathfrak{g}},V)$ is computed by the complex of $G$-invariant admissible differential forms $\Omega^{*}_{{\mathrm{ad}}}(G,V)^{G}$.
For integers $p\geq 0$ and $0 \leq i \leq p$, we denote by $d_{i}$ the partial exterior derivative in the direction of the $(i+1)$-th factor of the product $E_{p}G= G^{p+1}$. We denote by $\Delta_{p}\colon G \to E_{p}G$ the diagonal map. For $f\in C^{{\mathrm{an}}}(E_{p}G,V)$ we set $$\Psi(f) := \Delta_{p}^{*}(d_{1}d_{2}\dots d_{p}f) \in \Omega^{p}(G,V).$$
The map $\Psi$ induces a morphism of complexes $C^{{\mathrm{an}}}_{G}(E_{{\bullet}}G,V)\to \Omega^{*}_{{\mathrm{ad}}}(G;V)^{G}$, which on cohomology groups agrees with the comparison map $H^{*}_{{\mathrm{an}}}(G,V) \to H^{*}({\mathfrak{g}}, V)$.
Let us consider the special case that $K$ is ${\mathbf{Q}}_{p}$ and $V$ is finite dimensional. We want to indicate how the method of [@Huber-Kings] allows one to compare our map with Lazard’s one. The space of functions $C^{{\mathrm{an}}}(E_{p}G,V)$ has topological generators of the form $f_{0}\otimes \dots \otimes f_{p} \otimes v$ with $f_{i}\in C^{{\mathrm{an}}}(G,K)$ and $v\in V$. For such a function we have $$\Psi(f_{0}\otimes \dots \otimes f_{p}\otimes v)= f_{0}df_{1}\wedge \dots\wedge df_{p} \otimes v,$$ and its image in $\operatorname{Hom}(\bigwedge^{p}{\mathfrak{g}}, V)$ is given by $f_{0}(1)df_{1}(1)\wedge \dots \wedge df_{p}(1) \otimes v$.
There is another simplicial model $\tilde E_{{\bullet}}G$ for the universal $G$-bundle (cf. [@Huber-Kings §4.4]), given by $\tilde E_{p}G = E_{p}G$, but with face maps $$\tilde\partial_{i}(g_{0}, \dots, g_{n}) =
\begin{cases}
(g_{0}, \dots, g_{i-1}, g_{i}g_{i+1}, g_{i+2}, \dots, g_{p}) & \text{if } i=0, \dots p-1, \\
(g_{0}, \dots, g_{p-1}) &\text{if } i=p.
\end{cases}$$ The $G$-action on $\tilde E_{{\bullet}}G$ is given by left multiplication on the first factor. There is a natural $G$-equivariant isomorphism $\tilde E_{{\bullet}}G\cong E_{{\bullet}}G$. Huber and Kings show that Lazard’s isomorphisms (for $G$ small enough) is induced by the map $$\Phi\colon C^{{\mathrm{an}}}_{G}(\tilde E_{{\bullet}}G,V) \to \operatorname{Hom}(\bigwedge^{{\bullet}}{\mathfrak{g}}, V),$$ $\Phi(f_{0}\otimes \dots \otimes f_{p}\otimes v) = f_{0}(1)df_{1}(1)\wedge \dots \wedge df_{p}(1) \otimes v$ (see [@Huber-Kings Prop. 4.6.1]; this is formulated in the case of trivial coefficients, but can easily be adapted to our setting). The argument of [@Huber-Kings Thm. 4.7.1] shows that the composition of $\Phi$ with the isomorphism $C^{{\mathrm{an}}}_{G}(E_{{\bullet}}G,V) \cong C^{{\mathrm{an}}}_{G}(E_{{\bullet}}G,V)$ is homotopic to $\Psi$, hence both maps agree on cohomology groups.
From the proof of Proposition \[prop:cochains-neu\] we have the acyclic resolution ${\underline{V}} \xrightarrow{\simeq} \operatorname{\mathcal{H}\mathit{om}}_{BG}({ \begingroup \mathtoolsset{
prescript-sup-format=\mathit, } \prescript{}{l}{E_{{\bullet}}G} \endgroup }, {\underline{V}})$. For a manifold $X$ we have $$\operatorname{\mathcal{H}\mathit{om}}_{BG}({ \begingroup \mathtoolsset{
prescript-sup-format=\mathit, } \prescript{}{l}{E_{{\bullet}}G} \endgroup }, {\underline{V}})(X) = C^{{\mathrm{ad}}}(X\times E_{{\bullet}}G, V)$$ with $y(G)$-action induced from left translations on $E_{{\bullet}}G$ and the action on $V$. We define $\Psi\colon C^{{\mathrm{ad}}}(X \times E_{p}G, V) \to \Omega^{p}_{{\mathrm{ad}}}(X\times G/X,V)$ by the same formula as above. We claim that this gives a morphism of complexes $\Psi\colon \operatorname{\mathcal{H}\mathit{om}}_{BG}({ \begingroup \mathtoolsset{
prescript-sup-format=\mathit, } \prescript{}{l}{E_{{\bullet}}G} \endgroup }, {\underline{V}})\to {\underline{\Omega}}^{*}_{{\mathrm{ad}}}(G,V)$ in $BG$.
One checks without difficulty that $\Psi$ is equivariant for the $y(G)$-action. Now consider $f\in C^{{\mathrm{ad}}}(E_{p}G\times X,V)$. Recall the face maps ${\partial}_{i}\colon E_{p+1}G\to E_{p}G, (g_{0}, \dots, g_{p+1}) \mapsto (g_{0}, \dots, \widehat{g_{i}}, \dots, g_{p+1})$. The differential of the complex $C^{{\mathrm{ad}}}(E_{{\bullet}}G\times X, V)$ maps $f$ to $$\sum_{i=0}^{p+1} (-1)^{i}{\partial}_{i}^{*}f.$$ Since ${\partial}_{i}^{*}f$ is constant along the $(i+1)$-th factor $G$, we have $d_{i}({\partial}_{i}^{*}f)=0$. Since the partial derivatives commute up to sign, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi(\sum_{i=0}^{p+1} (-1)^{i}{\partial}_{i}^{*}f) &= \Psi({\partial}_{0}^{*}f) \\
&= \Delta_{p+1}^{*}(d_{1}\dots d_{p+1}({\partial}_{0}^{*}f)) \\
&= \Delta_{p+1}^{*}({\partial}_{0}^{*}(d_{0}\dots d_{p}f)) \\
&= \Delta_{p}^{*}(d_{0}\dots d_{p}f) \\
&= \Delta_{p}^{*}(d (d_{1}\dots d_{p}f)) \\
&= d(\Delta_{p}^{*}(d_{1}\dots d_{p}f)) \\
&= d(\Psi(f)). \qedhere\end{aligned}$$
We thus have a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
{\underline{V}} \ar[dr] \ar[r]^-{\simeq} & \operatorname{\mathcal{H}\mathit{om}}_{BG}({ \begingroup \mathtoolsset{
prescript-sup-format=\mathit, } \prescript{}{l}{E_{{\bullet}}G} \endgroup }, {\underline{V}}) \ar[d]^{\Psi} \\
& {\underline{\Omega}}^{*}_{{\mathrm{ad}}}(G,V)
}$$ where the complexes on the right-hand side consist of acyclic sheaves. The proposition now follows by taking global sections.
Appendix: The Poincaré lemma {#appendix-the-poincaré-lemma .unnumbered}
============================
Let $W$ be a $K$-Banach space with norm $\|\,.\,\|$. For a multiradius $\epsilon=(\epsilon_1,\dots, \epsilon_n) \in {\mathbf{R}}_+^n$ we denote the space of $\epsilon$-convergent power series in $n$ variables $x=(x_1,\dots, x_n)$ with coefficients in $W$ by $F_\epsilon(W)$: $$F_\epsilon(W) := \left\{ \sum_{I\in {\mathbf{N}}_0^n} a_Ix^I\,|\, a_I\in W, \|a_I\|\epsilon^I \xrightarrow{I\to\infty} 0 \right\}$$ Equipped with the norm $\|\sum_I a_Ix^I\|_\epsilon := \max_I \|a_I\|\epsilon^I$, this is again a Banach space.
Let $\Phi\colon W \to W'$ be a continuous linear map between Banach spaces. It induces a continuous linear map $F_\epsilon(W) \to F_\epsilon(W')$. Let $B_\epsilon(0) \subset K^n$ be the closed ball of radius $\epsilon$ around $0$. For any $x\in B_\epsilon(0)$ we have the evaluation at $x$, written $i_x^*\colon F_\epsilon(W) \to W$ and similarly for $W'$. Since $\Phi$ is continuous the diagram $$\begin{split}\label{diag:PhiEval}
\xymatrix{
F_\epsilon(W) \ar[r]^-\Phi \ar[d]_{i_x^*} & F_\epsilon(W') \ar[d]^{i_x^*} \\
W \ar[r]^-\Phi & W'
}
\end{split}$$ commutes.
For $q\geq 0$ we denote by $\Omega^q_\epsilon(W)$ the space of $\epsilon$-convergent $W$-valued $q$-forms in $n$ variables: $$\Omega^q_\epsilon(W) := \bigwedge\nolimits_K^q(K^n)^\vee \otimes_K F_\epsilon(W).$$ Since $\bigwedge\nolimits_K^q(K^n)^\vee$ is a finite dimensional $K$-vector space, this is again a Banach space. The usual differential defines a continuous linear map $d\colon \Omega^q_\epsilon(W) \to \Omega^{q+1}_\epsilon(W)$.
There is natural injection $\Omega_{\epsilon}^{q}(W) \hookrightarrow \Omega^{q}(B_{\epsilon}(0), W)$ into the space of locally analytic $W$-valued $q$-forms. It is compatible with the differential. More generally, if $\delta\in {\mathbf{R}}^{m}_{+}$ is a second multiradius, we can identify $\delta$-convergent power series with coefficients in $\Omega^{q}_{\epsilon}(W)$ with relative $W$-valued forms: $$\label{eq:ConvergentRelativeForms}
F_{\delta}(\Omega^{q}_{\epsilon}(W)) \hookrightarrow \Omega^{q}\left(B_{\delta}(0) \times B_{\epsilon}(0)/B_{\delta}(0), W\right).$$ On the other hand, every relative $q$-form is in the image of after shrinking $\delta$ and $\epsilon$ appropriately.
Let $\epsilon'\in{\mathbf{R}}^n_+$ be a multiradius which is component-wise strictly smaller than $\epsilon$, written $\epsilon' < \epsilon$. There is a continuous inclusion $i\colon \Omega^q_\epsilon(W) \hookrightarrow \Omega^q_{\epsilon'}(W)$.
\[lem:Poincare\] Let $\epsilon' <\epsilon$ and $q>0$. Then there exists a bounded linear map $$h\colon \Omega^q_\epsilon(W) \to \Omega^{q-1}_{\epsilon'}(W)$$ such that $d\circ h + h\circ d=i$.
We have $$\Omega^q_\epsilon(W) = \bigoplus_{1\leq k_{1}< \dots < k_{q}\leq n} F_\epsilon(W) dx_{k_1}\dots dx_{k_q}.$$ Set $C:= \max_i ({\epsilon_i}/{\epsilon_i'})$. By assumption we have $C>1$. Hence, for integers $N \gg 0$, we have $|1/(N+q)| \leq C^N$. We define $$h(x^I dx_{k_1}\dots dx_{k_q}) := \frac{1}{|I|+q}\sum_{\alpha=1}^q
(-1)^{\alpha-1}x^{I+e_{k_\alpha}} dx_{k_1}\dots \widehat{dx_{k_\alpha}} \dots dx_{k_q}.$$ and $$h\left(\sum a_{I}x^Idx_{k_1}\dots dx_{k_q}\right) := \sum a_{I} h(x^I dx_{k_1}\dots dx_{k_q}).$$ Since $$\left\|\frac{a_{I}}{|I|+q}\right\| \epsilon'^I
\leq \|a_{I}\|C^{|I|} \epsilon'^I
\leq \|a_{I}\|\epsilon^I \text{ for }|I| \gg 0$$ it follows that the power series $\sum_{I}\frac{a_{I}}{|I|+q}x^{I+e_{k_{\alpha}}}$ is $\epsilon'$-convergent, whence that $h$ is well defined, and also that $h$ is a bounded linear operator.
By continuity, it is now enough to check the equality $dh+hd=i$ on monomials $x^I
dx_{k_1}\dots dx_{k_q}$. Relabeling the coordinates, we may moreover assume that $(k_1, \dots, k_q)
= (1, \dots, q)$. We have $$\begin{gathered}
dh(x^I dx_{1}\dots dx_{q}) = d\left(\frac{1}{|I|+q}\sum_{\alpha=1}^q
(-1)^{\alpha-1}x^{I+e_\alpha} dx_{1}\dots \widehat{dx_{\alpha}} \dots dx_{q}\right) \\
= \left(\frac{1}{|I|+q} \sum_{\alpha=1}^{q} (i_{\alpha}+1)x^{I}dx_{1}\dots dx_{q}\right) + \\
\frac{1}{|I|+q}\sum_{\alpha=1}^{q}\sum_{\beta=q+1}^{n}(-1)^{\alpha-1}(-1)^{q-1}i_{\beta}x^{I+e_{\alpha}-e_{\beta}}
dx_{1}\dots \widehat{dx_{\alpha}} \dots dx_{q} dx_{\beta}\\
= \frac{(\sum_{\alpha=1}^{q}i_{\alpha})+q}{|I|+q} x^I dx_{1}\dots dx_{q} + \\
\frac{1}{|I|+q}\sum_{\alpha=1}^{q}\sum_{\beta=q+1}^{n}(-1)^{\alpha+q}i_{\beta}x^{I+e_{\alpha}-e_{\beta}}
dx_{1}\dots \widehat{dx_{\alpha}} \dots dx_{q} dx_{\beta} \end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
hd(x^{I}dx_{1}\dots dx_{q}) = h\left((-1)^{q}\sum_{\beta=q+1}^{n} i_{\beta}x^{I-e_{\beta}}dx_{1}\dots dx_{q}dx_{\beta}\right) \\
= \frac{(-1)^{q}}{|I|+q}\sum_{\alpha=1}^{q} \sum_{\beta=q+1}^{n} (-1)^{\alpha-1} i_{\beta}x^{I+e_{\alpha}-e_{\beta}} dx_{1}\dots \widehat{dx_{\alpha}} \dots dx_{q} dx_{\beta} + \\
\frac{(-1)^{q}}{|I|+q} \sum_{\beta=q+1}^{n} (-1)^{q}i_{\beta}x^{I}dx_{1}\dots dx_{q} \\
= \frac{1}{|I|+q}\sum_{\alpha=1}^{q}\sum_{\beta=q+1}^{n}(-1)^{\alpha+q-1}i_{\beta}x^{I+e_{\alpha}-e_{\beta}}
dx_{1}\dots \widehat{dx_{\alpha}} \dots dx_{q} dx_{\beta} + \\
\frac{(\sum_{\beta=q+1}^{n}i_{\beta})}{|I|+q} x^I dx_{1}\dots dx_{q} \\\end{gathered}$$ Thus, $(dh+hd)(x^{I}dx_{1}\dots dx_{k}) = x^{I}dx_{1}\dots dx_{k}$. This finishes the proof of the lemma.
\[lem:NaturalityIntegration\] Let $\Phi\colon W \to W'$ be a bounded linear map between Banach spaces. It induces a map $\Omega^q_\epsilon(W) \to \Omega^q_\epsilon(W')$, denoted by the same symbol. For $q>0$ and $\epsilon' < \epsilon$, the diagram $$\xymatrix{
\Omega^q_\epsilon(W) \ar[r]^-h \ar[d]_\Phi & \Omega^{q-1}_{\epsilon'}(W) \ar[d]^\Phi \\
\Omega^q_\epsilon(W') \ar[r]^-h & \Omega^{q-1}_{\epsilon'}(W')
}$$ commutes.
This follows directly from the definitions.
[^1]: More precisely, we assume the existence of universes and only consider manifolds which are elements of a given universe $\mathcal{U}$. Then ${{\mathrm{Sh}}}({{\mathrm{La}}})$ and $BG$ are $\mathcal{V}$-topoi for a universe $\mathcal{V}$ with $\mathcal{U} \in \mathcal{V}$.
[^2]: *B*anach-*H*ausdorff
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Linear Hamiltonian systems with time-dependent coefficients are of importance to nonlinear Hamiltonian systems, accelerator physics, plasma physics, and quantum physics. It is shown that the solution map of a linear Hamiltonian system with time-dependent coefficients can be parameterized by an envelope matrix $w(t)$, which has a clear physical meaning and satisfies a nonlinear envelope matrix equation. It is proved that a linear Hamiltonian system with periodic coefficients is stable iff the envelope matrix equation admits a solution with periodic $\sqrt{w^{\dagger}w}$ and a suitable initial condition. The mathematical devices utilized in this theoretical development with significant physical implications are time-dependent canonical transformations, normal forms for stable symplectic matrices, and horizontal polar decomposition of symplectic matrices. These tools systematically decompose the dynamics of linear Hamiltonian systems with time-dependent coefficients, and are expected to be effective in other studies as well, such as those on quantum algorithms for classical Hamiltonian systems.'
author:
- Hong Qin
bibliography:
- 'lh.bib'
title: A necessary and sufficient condition for the stability of linear Hamiltonian systems with periodic coefficients
---
Introduction and main results \[sec:Introduction\]
==================================================
We consider the following $2n$-dimensional linear Hamiltonian system with periodic time-dependent coefficients, $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{z} & =J\nabla H\thinspace,\label{zdot}\\
J & =\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & I_{n}\\
-I_{n} & 0
\end{array}\right)\,,\label{J}\\
H & =\frac{1}{2}z^{\dagger}Az\,,\,\,\,A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\kappa\left(t\right) & R\left(t\right)\\
R\left(t\right)^{\dagger} & m^{-1}\left(t\right)
\end{array}\right)\,.\label{H}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $z=\left(x_{1},...,x_{n,}\,p_{1},...,p_{n}\right)^{\dagger}$ are the phase space coordinates, $J$ is the $2n\times2n$ standard symplectic matrix, and $\kappa(t),$ $R\left(t\right),$ and $m^{-1}\left(t\right)$ are periodic time-dependent $n\times n$ matrices with periodicity $T$. The matrices $\kappa(t)$ and $m^{-1}\left(t\right)$ are symmetric, and $m(t)$ is also invertible. Supper script “$\dagger$” denotes matrix transpose.
We are interested in the stability of the dynamics of system at $t\rightarrow\infty$. The system is called stable if $\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}z(t)$ is bounded for all initial conditions $z_{0}=z(t=0).$ The solution of system can be specified by a solution map, $$z(t)=M(t)z_{0}\,.\label{zmz0}$$ A matrix $M$ is called stable if $\lim_{l\rightarrow\infty}M^{l}$ is bounded, which is equivalent to the condition that $M$ is diagonalizable with all eigenvalues on the unit circle of the complex plane. In terms of the one-period solution map $M(T)$, system is stable iff $M(T)$ is stable.
The main results of the paper are summarized in the following two theorems.
\[thm:sol\] The solution map of linear Hamiltonian system (\[zdot\]) can be written as $$M(t)=S^{-1}P^{-1}S_{0},\label{M}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
S & \equiv\left(\begin{array}{cc}
w^{\dagger-1} & 0\\
(wR-\dot{w})m & w
\end{array}\right)\,,\label{s}\\
S_{0} & \equiv S(t=0)\,,\end{aligned}$$ $w(t)$ is a time-dependent $n\times n$ matrix satisfying the envelope equation $$\begin{aligned}
{1}
\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{dw}{dt}m-wRm\right) & +\frac{dw}{dt}mR^{\dagger}+w\left(\kappa-RmR^{\dagger}\right)-\left(w^{\dagger}wmw^{\dagger}\right)^{-1}=0\,,\label{w}\end{aligned}$$ and $P(t)\in Sp(2n,\mathbb{R})\cap O(2n,\mathbb{R})$ is determined by $$\begin{aligned}
{1}
\dot{P}=P\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & -\mu\\
\mu & 0
\end{array}\right)\,,\label{P}\\
\mu=\left(wmw^{\dagger}\right)^{-1}\,.\end{aligned}$$
\[thm:stable\] The linear Hamiltonian system is stable iff the envelope equation (\[w\]) admits a solution $w(t)$ such that $S_{0}$ is symplectic and $|w|\equiv\sqrt{w^{\dagger}w}$ is periodic with periodicity $T.$
The solution map given in Theorem \[thm:sol\] is constructed using a time-dependent canonical transformation method. Note that Theorem \[thm:sol\] is valid regardless whether the coefficients of the Hamiltonian are periodic or not. Techniques of normal forms for stable symplectic matrices and horizontal polar decomposition for symplectic matrices are developed to prove Theorem \[thm:stable\]. The results and techniques leading to Theorem \[thm:sol\] have been reported previously in the context of charged particle dynamics in a general focusing lattice [@Qin09-NA; @Qin09PoP-NA; @Qin09-PRL; @Qin10PRL; @Chung10; @Qin11-056708; @Qin13PRL; @Qin13PRL2; @Chung13; @Qin14-044001; @Qin15-056702; @Chung15; @Chung16; @Chung16PRL; @Chung18]. These contents are included here for easy reference and self-consistency.
In Sec. \[sec:Significance\], we will discuss the significance of the main results and their applications in physics. Section \[sec:time-dep\] describes the method of time-dependent canonical transformation, and Sec. \[sec:Proofs\] is devoted to the construction of the solution map as given in Theorem \[thm:sol\]. The normal forms of stable symplectic matrices are presented in Sec. \[sec:Normal\], and the horizontal polar decomposition of symplectic matrices is introduced in Sec. \[sec:Horizontal\]. The proof of Theorem \[thm:stable\] is completed in Sec. \[sec:Proof 2\].
Significance and applications \[sec:Significance\]
==================================================
Linear Hamiltonian systems with time-dependent coefficients has many important applications in physics and mathematics. In accelerator physics, it describes charged particle dynamics in a periodic focusing lattice [@Davidson01-all]. The dynamic properties, especially the stability properties, of the system to a large degree dictate the designs of beam transport systems and storage rings for modern accelerators. In the canonical quantization approach for quantum field theory, Schrödinger’s equation in the interaction picture, which is the starting point of Dyson’s expansion, S-matrix and Feynman diagrams, assumes the form of a linear Hamiltonian system with time-dependent coefficients. For nonlinear Hamiltonian dynamics, nonlinear periodic orbit is an important topic. The stability of nonlinear periodic orbits are described by linear Hamiltonian systems with periodic coefficients.
To illustrate the significance of the main results of this paper, we look at the implications of Theorems \[thm:sol\] and \[thm:stable\] for the special case of one degree of freedom with $m=1$, for which Hamilton’s equation (\[zdot\]) reduces to the harmonic oscillator equation with a periodic spring constant, $$\ddot{x}+\kappa(t)x=0\,.\label{harmonic}$$ According to Theorem \[thm:sol\], the solution of Eq.(\[harmonic\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\begin{array}{c}
x\\
\dot{x}
\end{array}\right) & =M(t)\left(\begin{array}{c}
x\\
\dot{x}
\end{array}\right)_{0}\,.\\
M\left(t\right) & =S^{-1}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\cos\phi & \sin\phi\\
-\sin\phi & \cos\phi
\end{array}\right)S_{0}\,,\label{M1}\\
S & =\left(\begin{array}{cc}
w^{-1} & 0\\
-\dot{w} & w
\end{array}\right)\,,\\
\phi\left(t\right) & =\int_{0}^{t}\dfrac{dt}{w^{2}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the scalar envelope function $w\left(t\right)$ satisfies the nonlinear envelope equation $$\ddot{w}+\kappa\left(t\right)w=w^{-3}\,.\label{w1}$$
This solution for Eq.(\[harmonic\]) and the scalar envelope equation (\[w1\]) were discovered by Courant and Snyder [@Courant58] in the context of charged particle dynamics in one-dimensional periodic focusing lattices. The solution map given by Courant and Snyder [@Courant58] is
$$M\left(t\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\sqrt{\dfrac{\beta}{\beta_{0}}}\left[\cos\phi+\alpha_{0}\sin\phi\right] & \sqrt{\beta\beta_{0}}\sin\phi\\
-\dfrac{1+\alpha\alpha_{0}}{\sqrt{\beta\beta_{0}}}\sin\phi+\dfrac{\alpha_{0}-\alpha}{\sqrt{\beta\beta_{0}}}\cos\phi & \sqrt{\dfrac{\beta_{0}}{\beta}}\left[\cos\phi-\alpha\sin\phi\right]
\end{array}\right)\,,$$
where the $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are time-dependent functions defined as $\alpha\left(t\right)=-w\dot{w}$ and $\beta\left(t\right)=w^{2}\left(t\right),$ and $\alpha_{0}$ and $\beta_{0}$ are initial conditions at $t=0.$ It equals the $M$ in the three-way splitting form in Eq.(\[M1\]).
The scalar $w(t)$ is called the envelope because it encapsulates the slow dynamics of the envelope for the fast oscillation, when the variation time-scale of $\kappa(t)$ is slow compared with the period determined by $\kappa(t)$, i.e, $$\left|\frac{d\kappa}{\kappa dt}\right|\ll\sqrt{\left|k\right|}\,.$$ Since the solution map gives the solution of the dynamics in terms of $w$, invariants of the dynamics can also be constructed. For example, the Courant-Synder invariant [@Courant58] is $$I_{CS}=\dfrac{x^{2}}{w^{2}}+\left(w\dot{x}-\dot{w}x\right)^{2}\,,\label{csi}$$ which was re-discovered by Lewis in classical and quantum settings [@Lewis68; @Lewis69] . The envelope equation is also known as the Ermakov-Milne-Pinney equation [@Ermakov80; @Milne30; @Pinney50], which has been utilized to study 1D time-dependent quantum systems [@Lewis68; @Lewis69; @Morales88; @Monteoliva94] and associated non-adiabatic Berry phases [@Berry85]. Given that harmonic oscillator is the most important physics problem, it comes as no surprise that Eq.(\[harmonic\]) had been independently examined many times from the same or different angles over the history [@Qin06Sym].
When specialized to the system with one degree of freedom (\[harmonic\]), Theorem \[thm:stable\] asserts that the dynamics is stable iff the envelope equation (\[w1\]) admits a periodic solution with periodicity $T$. The theorem emphasizes again the crucial role of the envelope $w$ in determining the dynamic properties of the system. The sufficiency is straightforward to establish. If $w(t)$ is periodic with $w(T)=w(0),$ then the one-period solution map is $$\begin{aligned}
M\left(T\right) & =S_{0}^{-1}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\cos\phi & \sin\phi\\
-\sin\phi & \cos\phi
\end{array}\right)S_{0}\,.\label{M1m}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
M^{l}\left(T\right) & =S_{0}^{-1}R^{l}(\phi)S_{0}\,,\\
R(\phi) & =\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\cos\phi & \sin\phi\\
-\sin\phi & \cos\phi
\end{array}\right)\,,\end{aligned}$$ and $\lim_{l\rightarrow\infty}M^{l}(T)$ is bounded, since $R^{l}(\phi)=R(l\phi)$ is a rotation in $\mathbb{R}^{2}$. The proof of sufficiency makes use of the splitting of $M$ in the form Eq.(\[M1\]), which is the special case of Eq.(\[M\]) for one degree of freedom.
The necessity of Theorem \[thm:stable\] is difficult to establish, even for one degree of freedom. Actually, its proof for one degree of freedom is almost the same as that for higher dimensions, which is given in Sec. \[sec:Proof 2\]. For this purpose, two utilities are developed. The first pertains to the normal forms of stable symplectic matrices. It is given by Theorem \[thm:normal\], which states that a stable real symplectic matrix is similar to a direct sum of elements of $SO(2,\mathbb{R})$ by a real symplectic matrix. Given the fact that normal forms for symplectic matrices had been investigated by different authors [@Long02; @Williamson37; @Burgoyne74; @Laub74; @Wimmer91; @Hoermander95; @DragtBook], Theorem \[thm:normal\] might have been known previously. However, I have not been able to find it in the literature. A detailed proof of Theorem \[thm:normal\] is thus written out in Sec. \[sec:Normal\] for easy reference and completeness. The second utility developed is the horizontal polar decomposition of symplectic matrices, given by Theorem \[thm:horizontal\]. Akin to the situation of normal forms, Theorem \[thm:horizontal\] is built upon previous work, especially that by de Gosson [@deGosson06] and Wolf [@Wolf04-173]. The presentation in this paper clarifies some technical issues and confusions in terminology.
In the present study, Theorems \[thm:normal\] and \[thm:horizontal\] are presented as tools to prove Theorem \[thm:stable\]. However, we promote their status to theorems for the importance of their own. They can be applied to study other problems as well, such as quantum algorithms for classical physics.
Method of time-dependent canonical transformation \[sec:time-dep\]
==================================================================
In this section, we present the method of time-dependent canonical transformation in preparation for the proof of Theorem \[thm:sol\] in the next section. It is necessary to emphasize again that the results and techniques leading to Theorem \[thm:sol\] have been reported previously in the context of charged particle dynamics in a general focusing lattice [@Qin09-NA; @Qin09PoP-NA; @Qin09-PRL; @Qin10PRL; @Chung10; @Qin11-056708; @Qin13PRL; @Qin13PRL2; @Chung13; @Qin14-044001; @Qin15-056702; @Chung15; @Chung16; @Chung16PRL; @Chung18]. These contents are included here for easy reference and self-consistency.
We introduce a time-dependent linear canonical transformation [@Leach77] $$\tilde{z}=S\left(t\right)z\,,\label{zsz}$$ such that in the new coordinate $\tilde{z},$ the transformed Hamiltonian has the form $$\tilde{H}=\dfrac{1}{2}\tilde{z}^{\dagger}\tilde{A}\left(t\right)\tilde{z}\,,\label{Hbar}$$ where $\tilde{A}\left(t\right)$ is a targeted symmetric matrix. The transformation between $z$ and $\tilde{z}$ is canonical, $$\dfrac{\partial\tilde{z}_{j}}{\partial z_{k}}J_{kl}\dfrac{\partial\tilde{z}_{j}}{\partial z_{l}}=J_{ij}\,\,\,\textrm{or}\,\,\,SJS^{\dagger}=J\,.\label{zjzj}$$ The matrix $S\left(t\right)$ that renders the time-dependent canonical transformation needs to satisfy a differential equation derived as follows. With the quadratic form of the Hamiltonian in Eq., Hamilton’s equation becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{z}_{j} & =J_{ij}\dfrac{\partial H}{\partial z_{j}}=\dfrac{1}{2}J_{ij}\left(\delta_{lj}A_{lm}z_{m}+z_{l}A_{lk}\delta_{kj}\right)=J_{ij}A_{jm}z_{m}\,,\label{zdot-ind}\end{aligned}$$ or $$\dot{z}=JAz\,.\label{zd}$$ Because we require that in $\tilde{z}$ the transformed Hamiltonian is given by Eq.(\[Hbar\]), the following equation holds as well, $$\dot{\tilde{z}}=J\tilde{A}\tilde{z}.\label{zdja}$$ Using Eq., we rewrite Eq. as $$\dot{\tilde{z}}=J\tilde{A}\tilde{z}=J\tilde{A}Sz\,.\label{zbd}$$ Meanwhile, $\dot{\tilde{z}}$ can be directly calculated from Eq.(\[zsz\]) by taking a time-derivative, $$\dot{\tilde{z}}=\dot{S}z+S\dot{z}=\left(\dot{S}+SJA\right)z\,.\label{zbd2}$$ Combining Eqs.(\[zbd\]) and (\[zbd2\]) gives the differential equation for $S,$ $$\dot{S}=J\tilde{A}S-SJA\,.\label{S}$$
\[lem:Seq\]The solution $S$ of Eq. is always symplectic, if $S$ is symplectic at $t=0$.
We follow Leach [@Leach77] and consider the dynamics of the matrix $K\equiv SJS^{\dagger},$ $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{K} & =\dot{S}JS^{\dagger}+SJ\dot{S}^{\dagger}\nonumber \\
& =2\left[\left(J\tilde{A}S-SJA\right)JS^{\dagger}+SJ\left(-S\tilde{A}J+AJS^{\dagger}\right)\right]\nonumber \\
& =2\left[J\tilde{A}SJS^{\dagger}-SJS^{\dagger}\tilde{A}J\right]=2\left[J\tilde{A}K-K\tilde{A}J\right]\,.\label{Kdot}\end{aligned}$$ The dynamics of $K$ has a fixed point at $K=J.$ If $S(t=0)$ is symplectic, *i.e.*, $K\left(t=0\right)=J,$ then $K=J$ for all $t$, and thus $S$ is symplectic for all $t.$
A more geometric proof can be given from the viewpoint of the flow of $S$ (see Fig.\[Sp\]). Because $\tilde{A}$ is symmetric, $JJ\tilde{A}-\tilde{A}^{\dagger}JJ=0$ and $J\tilde{A}\in sp\left(2n,\mathbb{R}\right)$, the Lie algebra of $Sp\left(2n,\mathbb{R}\right).$ If $S\in Sp\left(2n,\mathbb{R}\right)$ at a given $t,$ then $J\tilde{A}S$ is in the tangent space of $Sp\left(2n,\mathbb{R}\right)$ at $S$, *i.e.*, $J\tilde{A}S\in T_{S}SP\left(2n,\mathbb{R}\right).$ This can be seen by examining the Lie group right action $$S:\,a\mapsto aS$$ for any $a$ in $Sp\left(2n,\mathbb{R}\right),$ and the associated tangent map $$T_{S}:\ T_{a}Sp\left(2n,\mathbb{R}\right)\rightarrow T_{aS}Sp\left(2n,\mathbb{R}\right).$$ It is evident that $J\tilde{A}S$ is the image of the Lie algebra element $J\tilde{A}$ under the tangential map $T_{S},$ which means that $J\tilde{A}S$ is a “vector” tangential to the space of $Sp\left(2n,\mathbb{R}\right)$ at $S.$ The same argument applies to $SJA$ as well. Consequently, the right hand side of Eq.(\[S\]) is a vector field on $Sp\left(2n,\mathbb{R}\right)$. The $S$ dynamics will stay on the space of $Sp\left(2n,\mathbb{R}\right)$, if it does at $t=0.$
![The space of the symplectic group $Sp\left(2n,\mathbb{R}\right)$ and the flow of $S$ on $Sp\left(2n,\mathbb{R}\right).$ At any given time, $J\tilde{A}S-SJA$ is tangential to $Sp\left(2n,\mathbb{R}\right),$ and the flow of $S$ according to Eq. is always on $Sp\left(2n,\mathbb{R}\right).$ []{data-label="Sp"}](Sp){width="3in"}
Proof of Theorem 1 \[sec:Proofs\]
=================================
We now apply the technique developed in Sec. \[sec:time-dep\] to prove Theorem \[thm:sol\]. Our goal is to find a new coordinate system where the transformed Hamiltonian vanishes. This idea is identical to that in Hamilton-Jacobi theory. The goal is accomplished in two steps. First, we seek a coordinate transformation $\tilde{z}=Sz$ such that, in the $\tilde{z}$ coordinates, the Hamiltonian assumes the form $$\bar{H}=\frac{1}{2}\tilde{z}^{\dagger}\tilde{A}\tilde{z}\,,\,\,\tilde{A}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\mu(t) & 0\\
0 & \mu(t)
\end{array}\right)\,,$$ where $\mu(t)$ is a $n\times n$ matrix to be determined. Let the $2\times2$ block form of $S$ is $$S=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
S_{1} & S_{2}\\
S_{3} & S_{4}
\end{array}\right),$$ and split Eq. into four $n\times n$ matrix equations, $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{S}_{1} & =\mu S_{3}-S_{1}R^{\dagger}+S_{2}\kappa\,\,,\label{eq:S1-1}\\
\dot{S}_{2} & =\mu S_{4}-S_{1}m^{-1}+S_{2}R\,,\label{eq:S2-1}\\
\dot{S}_{3} & =-\mu S_{1}-S_{3}R^{\dagger}+S_{4}\kappa\,,\\
\dot{S}_{4} & =-\mu S_{2}-S_{3}m^{-1}+S_{4}R\,.\label{eq:S4-1}\end{aligned}$$ Including $\mu(t),$ there are five $n\times n$ matrices unknown. The extra freedom is introduced by the to-be-determined $\mu(t)$. We choose $S_{2}\equiv0$ to remove the freedom, and rename $S_{4}$ to be $w,$ i.e., $w\equiv S_{4}$. Equations - become $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{S}_{1} & =\mu S_{3}-S_{1}R^{\dagger}\,,\label{S1}\\
S_{1} & =\mu wm\,,\label{S2}\\
\dot{S}_{3} & =-\mu S_{1}-S_{3}R^{\dagger}+w\kappa\,,\label{S3}\\
S_{3} & =-\dot{w}m+wRm,\label{S4}\end{aligned}$$ for matrices $S_{1}$, $S_{3}$, $w$ and $\mu$. Because $(S_{1},S_{2}=0,S_{3},S_{4}=w)$ describes a curve in $Sp\left(2n,\mathbb{R}\right),$ symplectic condition $S_{1}S_{4}^{\dagger}-S_{2}S_{3}^{\dagger}=I$ holds, which implies $$S_{1}=w^{\dagger-1}\,.\label{eq:S1}$$ From Eq., we have $$\mu=\left(wmw^{\dagger}\right)^{-1}.\label{mu}$$ Equation is equivalent to another symplectic condition $S_{3}S_{4}^{\dagger}=S_{4}S_{3}^{\dagger}.$ Substituting Eqs.- into Eq., we obtain the following matrix differential equation for the envelope matrix $w,$ $$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{dw}{dt}m-wRm\right)+\frac{dw}{dt}mR^{\dagger}+w\left(\kappa-RmR^{\dagger}\right)-\left(w^{\dagger}wmw^{\dagger}\right)^{-1}=0\,.\label{w-1}$$ This is the desired envelope equation in Theorem \[thm:sol\].
Once $w$ is solved for from the envelope equation, we can determine $S_{1}$ from Eq. and $S_{3}$ from Eq.. In terms of the envelope matrix $w,$ the symplectic transformation $S$ and its inverse are given by $$\begin{aligned}
S & =\left(\begin{array}{cc}
w^{\dagger-1} & 0\\
(wR-\dot{w})m & w
\end{array}\right)\,,\label{eq:S=00003D}\\
S^{-1} & =\left(\begin{array}{cc}
w^{\dagger} & 0\\
\left(w^{-1}\dot{w}-R\right)mw^{\dagger} & w^{-1}
\end{array}\right)\,.\label{eq:S-1=00003D}\end{aligned}$$
The second step is to use another coordinate transformation $\tilde{\tilde{z}}=P(t)\tilde{z}\,$ to transform $\tilde{H}$ into a vanishing Hamiltonian $\tilde{\tilde{H}}\equiv0$ at all time, thereby rendering the dynamics trivial in the new coordinates. The determining equation for the transformation $P(t)$ is $$\dot{P}=-PJ\tilde{A}=P\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & -\mu\\
\mu & 0
\end{array}\right)\,.\label{P-1}$$ According to Lemma \[lem:Seq\], the $P$ matrix satisfying Eq. is symplectic because $J\tilde{A}\in sp(2n,\mathbb{R}).$ From $\mu=\mu^{\dagger}$, we know that $J\tilde{A}$ is also antisymmetric, i.e., $J\tilde{A}\in so(2n,\mathbb{R})$. Thus $J\tilde{A}\in sp(2n,\mathbb{R})\cap o(2n,\mathbb{R})$, and $P(t)$ is a curve in the group of $2n$-dimensional symplectic rotations, i.e., $P(t)\in Sp(2n,\mathbb{R})\cap O(2n,\mathbb{R})\backsimeq U(n)$, provided $P(t)$ starts from the group at $t=0.$ We call $P(t)$ the phase advance, an appropriate descriptor in light of the fact that $P(t)$ is a symplectic rotation. The Lie algebra element (infinitesimal generator) $-J\tilde{A}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & -\mu\\
\mu & 0
\end{array}\right)$ is the phase advance rate, and it is determined by the envelope matrix through Eq.. As an element in $Sp(2n,\mathbb{R})\cap O(2n,\mathbb{R})\backsimeq U(n)$, $P$ and its inverse must have the forms $$\begin{aligned}
P & =\left(\begin{array}{cc}
P_{1} & P_{2}\\
-P_{2} & P_{1}
\end{array}\right)\,,\label{eq:P=00003D}\\
P^{-1} & =P^{\dagger}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
P_{1}^{\dagger} & -P_{2}^{\dagger}\\
P_{2}^{\dagger} & P_{1}^{\dagger}
\end{array}\right)\,.\,\,\label{eq:P-1=00003D}\end{aligned}$$
Combining the two time-dependent canonical transformations, we have $$\tilde{\tilde{z}}=G(t)z=P(t)S(t)z\,.\label{G}$$ In the $\tilde{\tilde{z}}$ coordinates, because $\tilde{\tilde{H}}\equiv0$, the dynamics is trivial, i.e., $\tilde{\tilde{z}}=const.$ This enables us to construct the solution map as $$M(t)=S^{-1}P^{-1}P_{0}S_{0}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
w^{\dagger} & 0\\
\left(w^{-1}\dot{w}-R\right)mw^{\dagger} & w^{-1}
\end{array}\right)P^{\dagger}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
w^{-\dagger} & 0\\
(wR-\dot{w})m & w
\end{array}\right)_{0},\label{Md}$$ where subscript “0” denotes initial conditions at $t=0$, and $P_{0}$ is taken to be $I$ without loss of generality.
This completes the proof of Theorem .
The time-dependent canonical transformation can also be used to construct invariants of the dynamics. For any constant $2n\times2n$ positive-definite matrix $\xi,$ the quantity $$I_{\xi}=z^{\dagger}S^{\dagger}P^{\dagger}\xi PSz\label{Ixi}$$ is a constant of motion, since $\tilde{\tilde{z}}=PSz$ is a constant of motion. For the special case of $\xi=I,$ the phase advance $P$ in Eq. drops out, and $$I_{CS}\equiv z^{\dagger}S^{\dagger}Sz=z^{\dagger}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\gamma & \alpha\\
\alpha^{T} & \beta
\end{array}\right)z\,,\label{eq:ICS2}$$ where $\alpha,$ $\beta,$ and $\gamma$ are $2\times2$ matrices defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha & \equiv w^{\dagger}S_{3}\,,\label{eq:alphag}\\
\beta & \equiv w^{\dagger}w\,,\label{eq:betag}\\
\gamma & \equiv S_{3}^{\dagger}S_{3}+w^{-1}w^{-\dagger}\,.\label{eq:gammag}\end{aligned}$$ Here, we use $I_{CS}$ to denote this special invariant because it is the invariant that generalizes the Courant-Snyder invariant [@Courant58] (or Lewis invariant [@Lewis68; @Lewis69]) for one degree of freedom in Eq..
Normal forms for stable symplectic matrices \[sec:Normal\]
==========================================================
In this section, normal forms for stable symplectic matrices are developed. We first list necessary definitions and facts related to the eigenvalues, eigenvector spaces, and root-vector spaces of symplectic matrices. Lemmas \[lem:Sspectrum\]-\[lem:Kpp\] are given without proofs, which can be found in the textbooks by Long [@Long02], Ekeland [@Ekeland90], and Yakubovich and Starzhinskii [@Yakubovich75].
The set of eigenvalues of a matrix $M$ is denoted by $$\sigma(M)=\left\{ \lambda|\det(I\lambda-M)=0\right\} ,$$ and the unit circle on the complex plane $\mathbb{C}$ is denoted by $U.$
\[lem:Sspectrum\] For a symplectic matrix $M\in Sp(2n,\mathbb{R}),$ its eigenvalue space $\sigma(M)$ is symmetric with respect to the real axis and the unit circle $U$, i.e., if $\lambda_{0}\in\sigma(M),$ then $\bar{\lambda}_{0},$$\lambda_{0}^{-1}\in\sigma(M).$
The symmetry of $\sigma(M)$ with respect to the real axis is not specific to symplectic matrices. It is true for all real matrices. For a $\lambda\in\sigma(M)$, denote the eigenvector space by $V_{\lambda}(M)$ and the root-vector space by $E_{\lambda}(M)$,
$$\begin{aligned}
V_{\lambda}(M) & \equiv\textrm{ker}(M-\lambda I)\subset\mathbb{C}^{2n},\\
E_{\lambda}(M) & \equiv\cup_{k\geq1}\textrm{ker}(M-\lambda I)^{k}\subset\mathbb{C}^{2n}.\end{aligned}$$
The dimension of $V_{\lambda}(M)$ is the geometric multiplicity of $\lambda,$ denoted by $Mult_{G\lambda}(M)$, and the dimension of $E_{\lambda}(M)$ is the algebraic multiplicity of $\lambda,$ denoted by $Mult_{A\lambda}(M)$. A subspace $V\subset\mathbb{C}^{2n}$ is an invariant subspace if $MV\subset\mathbb{C}^{2n}$. An invariant subspace is irreducible if it is not a direct sum of two non-trivial invariant subspaces. For every $\lambda$, the root-vector space $E_{\lambda}(M)$ is an invariant subspace, and a direct sum of irreducible subspaces. On the other hand, every irreducible subspace of $M$ is contained in one of the root-vector spaces. An eigenvalue $\lambda$ is simple if $Mult_{G\lambda}(M)=$$Mult_{A\lambda}(M)=1$. An eigenvalue $\lambda$ is semi-simple, if $E_{\lambda}(M)$ is a direct sum of one-dimensional irreducible invariant subspaces only, which is equivalent to that all elementary divisors of $\lambda$ are simple. When $\lambda$ is semi-simple, the eigenvector space $V_{\lambda}(M)$ is at its maximum dimension. It has fulfilled its obligation to provide enough eigenvectors for the purpose of diagonalizing $M$, even though $Mult_{G\lambda}(M)=$$Mult_{A\lambda}(M)$ could be larger than $1$. If $M$ is not diagonalizable, other eigenvalues have to be blamed.
For any two vectors $\psi$ and $\phi$ in $\mathbb{C}^{2n},$ the Krein product is $$\left\langle \psi,\phi\right\rangle _{G}\equiv\left\langle G\psi,\phi\right\rangle =-\phi^{*}iJ\psi,$$ where $G=-iJ$ and $\phi^{*}=\bar{\phi}^{\dagger}$ is the Hermitian transpose of $\phi.$ Obviously, $$\left\langle \psi,\phi\right\rangle _{G}=\overline{\left\langle \phi,\psi\right\rangle _{G}}\,.$$ For a vector $\psi$ in $\mathbb{C}^{2n},$ it Krein amplitude is defined to be $\left\langle \psi,\psi\right\rangle _{G}$, the sign of which is the Krein signature of $\psi.$
Two vectors $\psi$ and $\phi$ in $\mathbb{C}^{2n}$ are G-orthogonal if $\left\langle \psi,\phi\right\rangle _{G}=0.$ Two subspaces $V_{1}$ and $V_{1}$ are G-orthogonal if $\left\langle \psi_{1},\psi_{2}\right\rangle _{G}=0$ for any $\psi_{1}\in V_{1}$ and $\psi_{2}\in V_{2}.$ A subspace is G-isotropic if it is G-orthogonal to itself.
Krein amplitude has a clear physical meaning. The one-period solution map $M(T)$ according to Eq.(\[Md\]) can be expressed as $$M(T)=\exp(J\hat{A}T)\,,$$ where $\hat{A}$ is an effective matrix representing the averaged effect by $A$ in one period. In physics, an eigenvector $\psi\in V_{\lambda}(M)$ is known as an eigenmode, and the jargon of eigen-frequency $\omega$, defined by $\exp(-i\omega T)=\lambda$, is preferred. An eigenmode $\psi$ of $M(T)$ is also an eigenmode of $J\hat{A}$, $$J\hat{A}\psi=-i\omega\psi\,.$$ The Krein amplitude of $\psi$ is $$\left\langle \psi,\psi\right\rangle _{G}=-i\psi^{*}J\psi=-\frac{\psi^{*}\hat{A}\psi}{\omega}=-2\frac{\hat{H}}{\omega}\,,$$ which is proportional to the negative of the action of the eigenmode, i.e., the time integral of the effective energy over one period. Because the ratio between $\left\langle \psi,\psi\right\rangle _{G}$ and $\hat{H}/\omega$ is an unimportant constant, we can identify the Krein amplitude with the action of the eigenmode [@Zhang16GH; @Zhang1711; @Zhang18].
The following lemma gives a necessary condition for an eigenvalue on the unit circle to be non-semi-simple.
For a $\lambda\in\sigma(M)\cap U$ with at least one multiple elementary divisor, there exists $\psi\in E_{\lambda}(M)$ such that $\left\langle \psi,\psi\right\rangle _{G}=0$ .
\[lem:VGO\]For two eigenvalues $\lambda$ and $\mu$, the eigenvector spaces $V_{\lambda}$ and $V_{\mu}$ are G-orthogonal if $\lambda\bar{\mu}\neq1.$
It is remarkable that the G-orthogonality can be established for the root-vector spaces as well.
\[lem:EGO\]For two eigenvalues $\lambda$ and $\mu$, the root-vector spaces $E_{\lambda}$ and $E_{\mu}$ are G-orthogonal if $\lambda\bar{\mu}\neq1.$
Lemma \[lem:EGO\] implies for any $\lambda\in\sigma(M)\cap U,$ $E_{\lambda}$ is G-orthogonal to $E_{\mu}$ when $\mu\neq\lambda.$ As a consequence, $\mathbb{C}^{2n}$ has the following G-orthogonal decomposition [@Long02] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{C}^{2n} & =\left(\oplus_{\lambda\in\sigma(M)\cap U}E_{\lambda}(M)\right)\oplus F(M)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $$F(M)=\oplus_{\lambda\in\sigma(M)\backslash U}E_{\lambda}(M)\,$$ is the direct sum of the root-vector spaces for all eigenvalues off the unit circle. Note that root-vector spaces for different eigenvalues off the unit circle are not G-orthogonal in general.
\[lem:GE\] For a $\lambda\in\sigma(M)\cap U$, $E_{\lambda}(M)$ is an invariant subspace of $G=-iJ.$ Furthermore, the restriction of $G$ on $E_{\lambda}(M)$ is non-degenerate, i.e., for $x$ and $y$ in $E_{\lambda}(M)$, $\left\langle x,y\right\rangle _{G}=0$ for all $y$ implies that $x=0.$
As an operator on $\mathbb{C}^{2n}$, $G=-iJ$ is Hermitian, i.e., $\left(-iJ\right)^{*}=-iJ$. It is also non-degenerate because $\text{det}(G)\neq0$. Since a Hermitian matrix is diagonalizable and its eigenvalues are all real, there exists a G-orthogonal basis for $\mathbb{C}^{2n}$.
By Lemma \[lem:GE\], the restriction of $G$ on $E_{\lambda}(M)$ for $\lambda\in\sigma(M)\cap U$ is a non-degenerate Hermitian operator, which implies $G|_{E_{\lambda}(M)}$ is diagonalizable with non-zero eigenvalues. Similar to the situation for $\mathbb{C}^{2n}$, the space of $E_{\lambda}(M)$ admits a G-orthogonal base. Let the dimension of of $E_{\lambda}(M)$ is $m$, and $p$ and $q$ are the numbers of positive and negative eigenvalues of $G|_{E_{\lambda}(M)}$ respectively. The pair $(p,q)$ is known as the Krein type of $\lambda.$ Obviously, $p+q=m.$ If $q=0$, $\lambda$ is Krein-positive, and if $p=0$, $\lambda$ is Krein-negative. An eigenvalue $\lambda$ is Krein-definite, if it is either Krein-positive or Krein-negative. Otherwise, $\lambda$ is Krein-indefinite or of mixed type.
For a $\lambda\in\sigma(M)\cap U$ and any $P\in Sp(2n,\mathbb{R}),$ the geometric and algebraic multiplicities and Krein type of $\lambda$ are identical for $P^{-1}MP$ and $M.$
\[lem:Kpp\]
\(a) For any $x\in\mathbb{C}^{2n}$, $\left\langle Gx,x\right\rangle =-\left\langle G\bar{x},\bar{x}\right\rangle .$
\(b) If $\lambda\in\sigma(M)\cap U$ has Krein type $(p,q)$, then $\bar{\lambda}$ has Krein type $(q,p)$. In particular, if $1$ or $-1$ is an eigenvalue of $M$, its Krein type is $(p,p)$ for some $p\in\mathbb{N}$.
The $\diamond$-product of two square matrices introduced by Long [@Long02] is an indispensable tool in the manipulations of symplectic matrices. Let $M_{1}$ be a $2i\times2i$ matrix and $M_{2}$ a $2j\times2j$ matrix in the square block form, $$M_{1}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
A_{1} & B_{1}\\
C_{1} & D_{1}
\end{array}\right)\,,\,\,\,\,M_{2}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
A_{2} & B_{2}\\
C_{2} & D_{2}
\end{array}\right)\,.$$ The $\diamond$-product of $M_{1}$ and $M_{2}$ is defined to be a $2(i+j)\times2(i+j)$ matrix as $$M_{1}\diamond M_{2}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
A_{1} & 0 & B_{1} & 0\\
0 & A_{2} & 0 & B_{2}\\
C_{1} & 0 & D_{1} & 0\\
0 & C_{2} & 0 & D_{2}
\end{array}\right)\,.$$ The $\diamond$-product defined here is compatible with the standard symplectic matrix defined in Eq.(\[J\]). The $\diamond$-product of two symplectic matrices is symplectic [@Long02]. It can be viewed as a direct sum of two matrix vectors to form a matrix vector in higher dimension. The following theorem is the main result of this section, which establishes the normal form for a stable symplectic matrix.
\[thm:normal\]For a symplectic matrix $M\in Sp(2n,\mathbb{R})$, it is stable iff it is similar to a direct sum of elements in $SO(2,\mathbb{R})$ by a symplectic matrix, i.e., there exist a $N=R(\theta_{1})\diamond R(\theta_{2})...\diamond R(\theta_{n})$ and a $F\in Sp(2n,\mathbb{R})$ such that $$M=FNF^{-1},\label{eq:Mnormal}$$ where $\theta_{j}\in\mathbb{R}$ and $$R(\theta_{j})=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\cos\theta_{j} & \sin\theta_{j}\\
-\sin\theta_{j} & \cos\theta_{j}
\end{array}\right)\in SO(2,\mathbb{R}).$$
Recall that stability of $M$ means that $M$ is diagonalizable and all eigenvalues of $M$ locate on the unit circle $U$ of the complex plane. It is straightforward to verify that $N=R(\theta_{1})\diamond R(\theta_{2})...\diamond R(\theta_{n})\in Sp(2n,\mathbb{R})\cap O(2n,\mathbb{R})\backsimeq U(n).$ Since a unitary matrix is stable, the sufficiency is obvious.
For necessity, assume that $M\in Sp(2n,\mathbb{R})$ is stable. First, let’s construct a G-orthonormal basis $(\psi_{l},\psi_{-l})\,,\,l=1,2,...,n,$ for $\mathbb{C}^{2n}$, which by definition satisfies the following conditions for $1\leq l,m\leq n$, $$\begin{aligned}
M\psi_{l} & =\lambda_{l}\psi_{l}\,,\label{eq:base1}\\
\psi_{-l} & =\bar{\psi}_{l}\,,\\
\left\langle G\psi_{l},\psi_{m}\right\rangle & =\delta_{lm\,,}\label{eq:base3}\\
\left\langle G\psi_{-l},\psi_{-m}\right\rangle & =-\delta_{lm\,,}\\
\left\langle G\psi_{l},\psi_{-m}\right\rangle & =0\,,\label{eq:base5}\end{aligned}$$ where $\left(\lambda_{l},\psi_{l}\right)$ is a pair of eigenvalue and eigenvector, so is $\left(\bar{\lambda}_{l},\psi_{-l}\right)$. Thus this G-orthonormal basis $(\psi_{l},\psi_{-l})\,\,(l=1,2,...,n)$ for $\mathbb{C}^{2n}$ consists of eigenvectors of $M$, with appropriately chosen labels. There are in total $2n$ eigenvectors. Because $M$ is stable, every eigenvalue of $M$ is on the unit circle $U$ and is either simple or semi-simple, and for every $\lambda\in\sigma(M)$, the eigenvector space $V_{\lambda}(M)$ is identical to the root-vector space $E_{\lambda}(M).$ The simple and semi-simple cases need to be treated differently.
Case a). For a simple eigenvalue $\lambda$ on $U$, $V_{\lambda}(M)=E_{\lambda}(M)$ is one-dimensional. Denote the eigenvector by $\psi_{\lambda}$. According to Lemma \[lem:EGO\], $\psi_{\lambda}$ is G-orthogonal to any other eigenvector or root-vector of $M.$ By Lemma \[lem:GE\], $\left\langle \psi_{\lambda},\psi_{\lambda}\right\rangle _{G}\neq0.$ Without losing generality, we can let $\left\langle \psi_{\lambda},\psi_{\lambda}\right\rangle _{G}=1$ or $-1$. Now, for every simple $\lambda$ on $U$, $\bar{\lambda}$ is in $\sigma(M)\cap U$ and $\bar{\lambda}\neq\lambda$. Furthermore, $\bar{\lambda}$ is also simple with opposition Krein signature, and the corresponding eigenvector $\psi_{\bar{\lambda}}$ is G-orthogonal to all other eigenvectors or root-vectors. All the eigenvectors corresponding to simple eigenvalues pair up nicely in this manner. It is natural to denote them by $\left(\psi_{l},\psi_{-l}\right),\,1\leq l\leq n_{s}$, where $2n_{s}$ is the total number of simple eigenvalues and $l$ is the index for the simple eigenvalues. The pair of eigenvectors $\left(\psi_{l},\psi_{-l}\right)$ correspond to the pair of eigenvalues $(\lambda_{l},\bar{\lambda}_{l}),$ where $\psi_{l}$ is the eigenvector with positive Krein signature, and $\psi_{-l}$ with the negative Krein signature. Therefore, $\left(\psi_{l},\psi_{-l}\right),\,1\leq l\leq n_{s}$, form a G-orthonormal basis satisfying Eqs.(\[eq:base1\])-(\[eq:base5\]), for the subspace spanned by the eigenvectors of simple eigenvalues on the unit circle $U.$
Case b). For a semi-simple eigenvalue $\mu$ on $U$, the subspace $V_{\mu}(M)=E_{\mu}(M)$ is two-dimensional or higher. Since $G$ is Hermitian on $E_{\mu}(M),$ it can be diagonalized using a proper basis $\psi_{\mu}^{i},$ $i=1,...,m_{\mu}$, on $E_{\mu}(M),$ where $m_{\mu}$ is the multiplicity of $\mu.$ By Lemma \[lem:GE\], the restriction of $G$ on $E_{\mu}(M)$ is non-degenerate. The eigenvalues of $G$ is either positive or negative. Let the Krein type of $\mu$ is $(p,q)$ with $p+q=m_{\mu}.$ Lemma \[lem:Kpp\] asserts that the Krein type of $\bar{\mu}$ is $(q,p),$ with $\psi_{\bar{\mu}}^{i}=\bar{\psi}_{\mu}^{i}.$
Case b1). When $\mu\neq\pm1,$ $\mu\neq\bar{\mu}$ and $E_{\mu}(M)$ is G-orthogonal to $E_{\bar{\mu}}(M).$ We can thus pair up $\psi_{\mu}^{i}$ and $\psi_{\bar{\mu}}^{i}$ for $i=1,...,m_{\mu}$ to form a G-orthonormal basis satisfying Eqs.(\[eq:base1\])-(\[eq:base5\]) for the subspace $E_{\mu}(M)\oplus E_{\bar{\mu}}(M).$
Case b2). When $\mu=\pm1,$ $E_{\mu}(M)=E_{\bar{\mu}}(M)$ and $p=q=m_{\mu}/2$. In this case, we can construct a G-orthonormal base of $E_{\mu}(M)$ in the following way. Let $\psi_{\mu}^{i},$ $i=1,...,p,$ be eigenvectors with positive Krein signatures. Then according to Lemma \[lem:Kpp\], $\bar{\psi}_{\mu}^{i},$ $i=1,...,p,$ will have negative Krein signatures. Note also that $\left(\psi_{\mu}^{i},\bar{\psi}_{\mu}^{i}\right),$ $i=1,...,p$, diagonalize $G$ on $E_{\mu}(M).$ Thus, the pairs $\left(\psi_{\mu}^{i},\bar{\psi}_{\mu}^{i}\right),$ $i=1,...,p$, make up a G-orthonormal base satisfying Eqs.(\[eq:base1\])-(\[eq:base5\]) for the subspace $E_{\mu}(M)=E_{\bar{\mu}}(M)$.
Assembling the eigenvector pairs from Cases a), b1), b2) in the order presented, we obtain the G-orthonormal base $(\psi_{l},\psi_{-l}),\,l=1,2,...,n,$ for $\mathbb{C}^{2n}$ satisfying Eqs.(\[eq:base1\])-(\[eq:base5\]). Note that the eigenvalues $\lambda_{l}$ $(1\leq l\leq n_{s})$ are simple and distinct, whereas the eigenvalues $\lambda_{l}$ $(n_{s}+1\leq l\leq n)$ are semi-simple, and each eigenvalue may appear several times in the sequence.
Now, we explicitly build the normal form of Eq.(\[eq:Mnormal\]) using the G-orthonormal base $(\psi_{l},\psi_{-l}),\,l=1,2,...,n$. Let $$\psi_{l}=\xi_{l}+\sqrt{-1}\eta_{l}\,,\,\,\lambda_{l}=c_{l}+\sqrt{-1}s_{l}\,,$$ where $\xi_{l}$, $\eta_{l}\in\mathbb{R}^{2n}$, $c_{l}=\cos\theta_{l},$ $s_{l}=\sin\theta_{l},$ and $0\leq\theta_{l}<2\pi$. In terms of this set of real variables, $M\psi_{l}=\lambda_{l}\psi_{l}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
M\xi_{l} & =c_{l}\xi_{l}-s_{l}\eta_{l}\,,\label{eq:Mxi}\\
M\eta_{l} & =c_{l}\eta_{l}+s_{l}\xi_{l}\,.\label{eq:Met}\end{aligned}$$ The G-orthonormal conditions (\[eq:base3\])-(\[eq:base5\]) are equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle J\xi_{l},\xi_{m}\right\rangle & =0\,,\label{eq:jxi1}\\
\left\langle J\eta_{l},\eta_{m}\right\rangle & =0\,,\\
\left\langle J\xi_{l},\eta_{m}\right\rangle & =\eta_{m}^{\dagger}J\xi_{l}=-\delta_{lm}/2\,,\\
\left\langle J\eta_{l},\xi_{m}\right\rangle & =\xi_{m}^{\dagger}J\eta_{l}=\delta_{lm}/2\,.\label{eq:jet}\end{aligned}$$ We now prove that the matrix $F$ in Eq.(\[eq:Mnormal\]) in given by $$F=\sqrt{2}\left(\xi_{1},\xi_{2},...,\xi_{n},\eta_{1},\eta_{2},...,\eta_{n}\right)\,.$$ The fact that $F\in Sp(2n,\mathbb{R})$ is shown by direct calculation, $$\begin{aligned}
F^{\dagger}JF & =2\left(\begin{array}{c}
\xi_{1}^{\dagger}\\
\vdots\\
\xi_{n}^{\dagger}\\
\eta_{1}^{\dagger}\\
\vdots\\
\eta_{n}^{\dagger}
\end{array}\right)J\left(\xi_{1},\xi_{2},...,\xi_{n},\eta_{1},\eta_{2},...,\eta_{n}\right)\nonumber \\
& =2\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}
\xi_{1}^{\dagger}J\xi_{1} & \ldots & \xi_{1}^{\dagger}J\xi_{n} & \xi_{1}^{\dagger}J\eta_{1} & \cdots & \xi_{1}^{\dagger}J\eta_{n}\\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
\xi_{1}^{\dagger}J\xi_{1} & \ldots & \xi_{1}^{\dagger}J\xi_{n} & \xi_{1}^{\dagger}J\eta_{1} & \cdots & \xi_{1}^{\dagger}J\eta_{n}\\
\eta_{1}^{\dagger}J\xi_{1} & \ldots & \eta_{1}^{\dagger}J\xi_{n} & \eta_{1}^{\dagger}J\eta_{1} & \cdots & \eta_{1}^{\dagger}J\eta_{n}\\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
\eta_{n}^{\dagger}J\xi_{1} & \ldots & \eta_{n}^{\dagger}J\xi_{n} & \eta_{n}^{\dagger}J\eta_{1} & \cdots & \eta_{n}^{\dagger}J\eta_{n}
\end{array}\right)\nonumber \\
& =J\,,\end{aligned}$$ where Eqs.(\[eq:jxi1\])-(\[eq:jet\]) are used in the last equal sign. The last step is to show that $N=F^{-1}MF=-JF^{\dagger}JMF$ is of the form $R(\theta_{1})\diamond R(\theta_{2})...\diamond R(\theta_{n})$, again by direct calculation. From Eqs.(\[eq:Mxi\]) and (\[eq:Met\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
MF & =\sqrt{2}\left(M\xi_{1},...,M\xi_{n},M\eta_{1},...,M\eta_{n}\right)\nonumber \\
& =\sqrt{2}\left(c_{1}\xi_{1}-s_{1}\eta_{1},...,c_{n}\xi_{n}-s_{n}\eta_{n},s_{1}\xi_{1}+c_{1}\eta_{1},...,s_{n}\xi_{n}+c_{n}\eta_{n}\right)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Then, $$\begin{aligned}
N & =-JF^{\dagger}JMF\nonumber \\
& =-2J\left(\begin{array}{c}
\xi_{1}^{\dagger}\\
\vdots\\
\xi_{n}^{\dagger}\\
\eta_{1}^{\dagger}\\
\vdots\\
\eta_{n}^{\dagger}
\end{array}\right)J\left(c_{1}\xi_{1}-s_{1}\eta_{1},...,c_{n}\xi_{n}-s_{n}\eta_{n},s_{1}\xi_{1}+c_{1}\eta_{1},...,s_{n}\xi_{n}+c_{n}\eta_{n}\right)\nonumber \\
& =-2J\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}
\xi_{1}^{\dagger}J\left(\xi_{1}c_{1}-\eta_{1}s_{1}\right) & \ldots & \xi_{1}^{\dagger}J\left(\xi_{n}c_{n}-\eta_{n}s_{n}\right) & \xi_{1}^{\dagger}J\left(\xi_{1}s_{1}+\eta_{1}c_{1}\right) & \ldots & \xi_{1}^{\dagger}J\left(\xi_{n}s_{n}+\eta_{n}c_{n}\right)\\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
\xi_{n}^{\dagger}J\left(\xi_{1}c_{1}-\eta_{1}s_{1}\right) & \ldots & \xi_{n}^{\dagger}J\left(\xi_{n}c_{n}-\eta_{n}s_{n}\right) & \xi_{n}^{\dagger}J\left(\xi_{1}s_{1}+\eta_{1}c_{1}\right) & \ldots & \xi_{n}^{\dagger}J\left(\xi_{n}s_{n}+\eta_{n}c_{n}\right)\\
\eta_{1}^{\dagger}J\left(\xi_{1}c_{1}-\eta_{1}s_{1}\right) & \ldots & \eta_{1}^{\dagger}J\left(\xi_{n}c_{n}-\eta_{n}s_{n}\right) & \eta_{1}^{\dagger}J\left(\xi_{1}s_{1}+\eta_{1}c_{1}\right) & \ldots & \eta_{1}^{\dagger}J\left(\xi_{n}s_{n}+\eta_{n}c_{n}\right)\\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
\eta_{n}^{\dagger}J\left(\xi_{1}c_{1}-\eta_{1}s_{1}\right) & \ldots & \eta_{n}^{\dagger}J\left(\xi_{n}c_{n}-\eta_{n}s_{n}\right) & \eta_{n}^{\dagger}J\left(\xi_{1}s_{1}+\eta_{1}c_{1}\right) & \ldots & \eta_{n}^{\dagger}J\left(\xi_{n}s_{n}+\eta_{n}c_{n}\right)
\end{array}\right)\nonumber \\
& =-J\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}
-s_{1} & 0 & 0 & c_{1} & 0 & 0\\
0 & \ddots & 0 & 0 & \ddots & 0\\
0 & 0 & -s_{n} & 0 & 0 & c_{n}\\
-c_{1} & 0 & 0 & -s_{1} & 0 & 0\\
0 & \ddots & & 0 & \ddots & 0\\
0 & 0 & -c_{n} & 0 & 0 & -s_{n}
\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}
c_{1} & 0 & 0 & s_{1} & 0 & 0\\
0 & \ddots & 0 & 0 & \ddots & 0\\
0 & 0 & c_{n} & 0 & 0 & s_{n}\\
-s_{1} & 0 & 0 & c_{1} & 0 & 0\\
0 & \ddots & 0 & 0 & \ddots & 0\\
0 & 0 & -s_{n} & 0 & 0 & c_{n}
\end{array}\right)\nonumber \\
& =R(\theta_{1})\diamond...\diamond R(\theta_{n})\,,\end{aligned}$$ where Eqs.(\[eq:jxi1\])-(\[eq:jet\]) are used again in the 4th equal sign.
Horizontal polar decomposition of symplectic matrices \[sec:Horizontal\]
========================================================================
In this section, we develop the second tool, horizontal polar decomposition of symplectic matrices, for the purpose of proving Theorem \[thm:stable\]. Judging from its name, horizontal polar decomposition bears some resemblance to the familiar matrix polar decomposition. The adjective “horizontal” is of course related to the natures of even-dimensional symplectic vector spaces. To understand its construction, we start from Lagrangian subspaces [@deGosson06].
The standard symplectic matrix $J$ given by Eq.(\[J\]) defines a 2-form on $\mathbb{R}^{2n}$, $$\sigma(z_{1},z_{2})=z_{2}^{\dagger}Jz_{1}\,.$$ The space $\mathbb{R}^{2n}$ equipped with $\sigma$ is called the standard symplectic space $\left(\mathbb{R}^{2n},\sigma\right).$
Recall that a subspace $l\subset$$\left(\mathbb{R}^{2n},\sigma\right)$ is called a Lagrangian plane or Lagrangian subspace if it has dimension $n$ and $\sigma(z_{1},z_{2})=0$ for all $z_{1},z_{2}\in l.$ The space of all Lagrangian planes is the Lagrangian Grassmannian denoted by $Lag(2n).$ Two special Lagrangian planes are the horizontal plan $l_{x}=\mathbb{R}^{n}\times0$ and the vertical plane $l_{p}=0\times\mathbb{R}^{n}$. Symplectic matrices act on $Lag(2n)$, i.e., for $M\in Sp(2n,\mathbb{R})$ and $l\in Lag(2n),$ $Ml\in Lag(2n).$ The following lemma highlights the role of the subgroup $Sp(2n,\mathbb{R})\cap O(2n,\mathbb{R})\backsimeq U(n)$ in the action of symplectic group on the Lagrangian Grassmannian.
\[lem:ulag\]The action of $Sp(2n,\mathbb{R})\cap O(2n,\mathbb{R})\backsimeq U(n)$ on $Lag(2n)$ is transitive, i.e., for every pairs of $\left\{ l_{1},l_{2}\right\} \subset Lag(2n),$ there exists a $u\in Sp(2n,\mathbb{R})\cap O(2n,\mathbb{R})\backsimeq U(n)$ such that $l_{2}=ul_{1}.$
The lemma can be proved by establishing othor-symplectic bases for $\left(\mathbb{R}^{2n},\sigma\right)$ over $l_{1}$ and $l_{2}$. See Ref. [@deGosson06] for details. For a given $l\in Lag(2n),$ all $S\in Sp(2n,\mathbb{R})$ that satisfy $Sl=l$ form a subgroup. It is called the stabilizer or isotropy subgroup of $l,$ and is denoted by $St(l).$ For the vertical Lagrangian subsapce $l_{p}=0\times\mathbb{R}^{n},$ its stabilizer must be of the form $$S=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
L & 0\\
Q & D
\end{array}\right)\,.$$ Furthermore, the symplectic condition requires that $L^{\dagger}Q$ is symmetric and $D=L^{\dagger-1}$, which reduce $S$ to $$S=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
L & 0\\
Q & L^{\dagger-1}
\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
I & 0\\
P & I
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}
L & 0\\
0 & L^{\dagger-1}
\end{array}\right)\,,\label{eq:Mst}$$ where $P=QL^{-1}$ is symmetric. For any $M\in Sp(2n,\mathbb{R})$, let’s consider the Lagrangian subspaces $M^{-1}l_{p}$ and $l_{p}$. By Lemma \[lem:ulag\], there must exit a $u\in Sp(2n,\mathbb{R})\cap O(2n,\mathbb{R})\backsimeq U(n)$ such that $M^{-1}l_{p}=ul_{p},$ which implies $u^{-1}M^{-1}\in St(l_{p}),$ or, there must exist a $S\in St(l_{p})$ such that $M^{-1}=uS.$ Equivalently, there must exist a $u^{\prime}\in Sp(2n,\mathbb{R})\cap O(2n,\mathbb{R})\backsimeq U(n)$ and a $S^{\prime}\in St(l_{p})$ such that $M=u^{\prime}S^{\prime}.$ Since $S^{\prime}$ must have the form in Eq.(\[eq:Mst\]), we conclude that $M$ can always be decomposed as $$M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
X & Y\\
-Y & X
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}
L & 0\\
Q & L^{\dagger-1}
\end{array}\right)\,,\label{eq:preIw}$$ where $L^{\dagger}Q$ is symmetric. Following de Gosson [@deGosson06], this decomposition is called pre-Iwasawa decomposition. The justification of this terminology will be given shortly. One important fact to realize is that the pre-Iwasawa decomposition of a symplectic matrix by $Sp(2n,\mathbb{R})\cap O(2n,\mathbb{R})\backsimeq U(n)$ and $St(l_{p})$ is not unique. For any given pre-Iwasawa decomposition $M=uS$ with $u\in U(n)$ and $S\in St(l_{p}),$ a family of decompositions can be constructed using $O(n,\mathbb{R})$ as $M=u^{\prime}S^{\prime},$ where $$\begin{aligned}
u^{\prime} & =ug^{-1}\in Sp(2n,\mathbb{R})\cap O(2n,\mathbb{R})\backsimeq U(n)\,,\\
S^{\prime} & =gS\in St(l_{p})\,,\\
g & =\left(\begin{array}{cc}
c & 0\\
0 & c
\end{array}\right)\,,\,\,\,c\in O(n,\mathbb{R})\,.\end{aligned}$$ This family of pre-Iwasawa decompositions is generated by a $O(n,\mathbb{R})$ gauge freedom. One way to fix the gauge freedom is to demand $L$ to be positive-definite. Different choice of $c\in O(n,\mathbb{R})$ in the family of pre-Iwasawa decomposition corresponds to different $L$ in Eq.(\[eq:preIw\]). Since the polar decomposition of a matrix into a positive matrix and a rotation is unique, the pre-Iwasawa decomposition is unique when the $n\times n$ matrix $L$ is required to be positive-definite. Because $L$ corresponds to the horizontal components of $z$, such a requirement demands horizontal positive-definiteness. We call this special pre-Iwasawa decomposition horizontal polar decomposition of a symplectic matrix. Vertical polar decomposition can be defined similarly.
\[thm:horizontal\](Horizontal polar decomposition) A symplectic matrix $M\in Sp(2n,\mathbb{R})$ can be uniquely decomposed as $$M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
X & Y\\
-Y & X
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}
L & 0\\
Q & L^{-1}
\end{array}\right)\,,$$ where $\left(\begin{array}{cc}
X & Y\\
-Y & X
\end{array}\right)\in Sp(2n,\mathbb{R})\cap O(2n,\mathbb{R})\backsimeq U(n)$, $L$ is positive-definite, and $L^{\dagger}Q$ is symmetric.
The existence of the decomposition has been established by the pre-Iwasawa decomposition derived above. We only need to prove the uniqueness. Assume there are two horizontal polar decompositions, $M=uS=u^{\prime}S^{\prime}.$ We have $SS^{\prime-1}=u^{-1}u^{\prime}\in Sp(2n,\mathbb{R})\cap O(2n,\mathbb{R})\backsimeq U(n),$ or, $$\left(\begin{array}{cc}
L & 0\\
Q & L^{-1}
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}
L^{\prime-1} & 0\\
-Q^{\prime\dagger} & L^{\prime}
\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
LL^{\prime-1} & 0\\
QL^{\prime-1}-L^{-1}Q^{\prime\dagger} & L^{-1}L^{\prime}
\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
A & B\\
-B & A
\end{array}\right)\,.$$ Then, $LL^{\prime-1}=L^{-1}L^{\prime}$, or, $L^{2}=L^{\prime2}.$ Since $L$ and $L^{\prime}$ are positive-definite, $L=L^{\prime}.$ In addition, $QL^{\prime-1}=L^{-1}Q^{\prime\dagger},$ i.e., $LQ=Q^{\prime\dagger}L^{\prime},$ which gives $Q=Q^{\prime},$ considering the symplectic condition $Q^{\prime\dagger}L^{\prime}=L^{\prime}Q^{\prime}.$
Similar to the standard polar decomposition of an invertible square matrix, there is an explicit formula for the horizontal polar decomposition of a symplectic matrix in terms of its block components.
The horizontal polar decomposition of a symplectic matrix $$M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
A & B\\
C & D
\end{array}\right)$$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
M & =\left(\begin{array}{cc}
X & Y\\
-Y & X
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}
L & 0\\
Q & L^{-1}
\end{array}\right)\,,\label{eq:Shor}\\
X & =DL\,,\,\,\,Y=BL\,,\label{eq:ShorXY}\\
L & =\left(B^{\dagger}B+D^{\dagger}D\right)^{-1/2}\,,\label{eq:ShorL}\\
Q & =L(B^{\dagger}A+D^{\dagger}C)\,.\label{eq:ShorQ}\end{aligned}$$
Carrying out the matrix multiplication on the right-hand-side of Eq.(\[eq:Shor\]), we have, block by block, $$\begin{aligned}
A & =XL+YQ\,,\label{eq:ShorA}\\
C & =-YL+XQ\label{eq:ShorC}\\
B & =YL^{-1}\,,\,\,\,D=XL^{-1}\,.\label{eq:ShorBD}\end{aligned}$$ From Eq.(\[eq:ShorBD\]), we have Eq.(\[eq:ShorXY\]) and $$B^{\dagger}B+D^{\dagger}D=L^{-1}(X^{\dagger}X+Y^{\dagger}Y)L^{-1}=L^{-2},$$ where use is made of $X^{\dagger}X+Y^{\dagger}Y=I.$ Since $L$ is positive-definite, it’s square-root is unique, and Eq.(\[eq:ShorL\]) follows. Equations (\[eq:ShorXY\]) and (\[eq:ShorL\]) confirm that $\left(\begin{array}{cc}
X & Y\\
-Y & X
\end{array}\right)$ indeed belongs to $U(n).$ Summing $X^{\dagger}$Eq.(\[eq:ShorC\]) and $Y^{\dagger}$Eq.(\[eq:ShorA\]) gives $$X^{\dagger}C+Y^{\dagger}A=\left(Y^{\dagger}X-X^{\dagger}Y\right)L+\left(Y^{\dagger}Y+X^{\dagger}X\right)Q=Q\,,$$ which proves Eq.(\[eq:ShorQ\]). It is straightforward to verify that Eqs.(\[eq:ShorA\]) and (\[eq:ShorC\]) hold when $X$, $Y,$ $L,$ $Q$ are specified by Eqs.(\[eq:ShorXY\])-(\[eq:ShorQ\]) .
Horizontal polar decomposition is not the only choice to fix the $O(n,\mathbb{R})$ gauge freedom in the pre-Iwasawa decomposition. Another possibility is to require $L$ assume the form of $$L=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
e^{\alpha_{1}} & l_{12} & \ldots & l_{1n}\\
0 & e^{\alpha_{2}} & \ldots & l_{2n}\\
0 & 0 & \ddots & \vdots\\
0 & 0 & 0 & e^{\alpha_{n}}
\end{array}\right)\,.$$ Under this restriction, the decomposition is unique and this is the well-known Iwasawa decomposition for symplectic matrices. The Iwasawa decomposition is a general result for all Lie groups [@Iwasawa49]. However, it is not found relevant to the present study, except that it justify the terminology of pre-Iwasawa decomposition in the form of Eq.(\[eq:preIw\]) [@deGosson06].
Proof of Theorem 2 \[sec:Proof 2\]
==================================
We are now ready to prove Theorem \[thm:stable\], by invoking the normal forms for stable symplectic matrices and horizontal polar decomposition for symplectic matrices.
The sufficiency of Theorem \[thm:stable\] follows from the expression of the solution map given by Eq.(\[M\]) for system (\[zdot\]) in Theorem \[thm:sol\], and the associated gauge freedom. For the matrix $S$ at $t=0,$ consider the gauge transformation induced by a $c_{0}\in O(n,\mathbb{R}),$ $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{S}_{0} & =g_{0}S_{0}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\tilde{w}_{o}^{\dagger-1} & 0\\
(\tilde{w}_{0}R-\dot{\tilde{w}}_{0})m & \tilde{w}_{0}
\end{array}\right)\,,\\
g_{0} & =\left(\begin{array}{cc}
c_{0} & 0\\
0 & c_{0}
\end{array}\right)\in Sp(2n,\mathbb{R})\cap O(2n,\mathbb{R})\backsimeq U(n)\,,\\
\tilde{w}_{0} & =c_{0}w_{0}\,,\,\,\,w_{0}=w(t=0)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Specifically, we select $c_{0}=\sqrt{w_{0}^{\dagger}w_{0}}w_{0}^{-1}$ such that $\tilde{w}_{0}=\sqrt{w_{0}^{\dagger}w_{0}}$ is positive-definite. Clearly, the gauge transformation amounts to the polar decomposition of $w_{0}$ and makes $\tilde{S}_{0}$ horizontally positive-definite. A similar gauge transformation is applied at $t=T$ using $c_{T}=\sqrt{w_{T}^{\dagger}w_{T}}w_{T}^{-1}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{S}_{T} & =g_{T}S_{T}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\tilde{w}_{T}^{\dagger-1} & 0\\
(\tilde{w}_{T}R-\dot{\tilde{w}}_{T})m & \tilde{w}_{T}
\end{array}\right)\,,\label{eq:STt}\\
g_{T} & =\left(\begin{array}{cc}
c_{T} & 0\\
0 & c_{T}
\end{array}\right)\in Sp(2n,\mathbb{R})\cap O(2n,\mathbb{R})\backsimeq U(n)\,,\\
\tilde{w}_{T} & =c_{T}w_{T}\,,\,\,\,w_{T}=w(t=T)\,.\end{aligned}$$ With these two gauge transformations at $t=0$ and $T$, the one-period solution map for system (\[zdot\]) is $$M(T)=\tilde{S}_{T}^{-1}g_{T}P_{T}g_{0}^{-1}\tilde{S}_{0}\,.$$ If the envelope equation (\[w\]) admits a solution $w(t)$ such that $w_{T}^{\dagger}w_{T}=w_{0}^{\dagger}w_{0}$ and $S_{0}$ is symplectic, then $M(T)$ is stable because $$M^{l}(T)=\tilde{S}_{0}^{-1}\left(g_{T}P_{T}g_{0}^{-1}\right)^{l}\tilde{S}_{0}\,$$ and $g_{T}P_{T}g_{0}^{-1}\in Sp(2n,\mathbb{R})\cap O(2n,\mathbb{R})\backsimeq U(n).$ The sufficiency of Theorem \[thm:stable\] is proved.
For necessity, assume $M(T)$ is stable. By Theorem \[thm:normal\], $M(T)$ can be written as $$M(T)=F^{-1}NF\,,$$ where $N=R(\theta_{1})\diamond R(\theta_{2})...\diamond R(\theta_{n})\in Sp(2n,\mathbb{R})\cap O(2n,\mathbb{R})\backsimeq U(n)$ and $F\in Sp(2n,\mathbb{R})$. Let the horizontal polar decomposition of $F$ is $$F=P_{F}S_{F}\,.$$ Thus, $$M(T)=S_{F}^{-1}P_{F}^{-1}NP_{F}S_{F}\,.\label{eq:MTSP}$$ We choose initial conditions $w_{0}$ and $\dot{w}_{0}$ such that $$\tilde{S}_{0}=S_{0}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
w_{o}^{\dagger-1} & 0\\
(w_{0}R-\dot{w}_{0})m & w_{0}
\end{array}\right)=S_{F}\,,$$ which can always be accomplished as $m$ is invertible. Note that both $S_{F}$ and $S_{0}$ belong to $St(l_{p})$ and are horizontally positive-definite. This choice of initial conditions $w_{0}$ and $\dot{w}_{0}$ uniquely determines the dynamics of the envelope matrix $w(t)$ as well as the solution map, $$M(T)=\tilde{S}_{T}^{-1}g_{T}P_{T}S_{0}=\tilde{S}_{T}^{-1}g_{T}P_{T}S_{F}\,.\label{eq:MTSP2}$$ Equations (\[eq:MTSP\]) and (\[eq:MTSP2\]) show that $$\tilde{S}_{T}^{-1}g_{T}P_{T}=S_{F}^{-1}P_{F}^{-1}NP_{F}\,,$$ or $$(g_{T}P_{T})^{-1}\tilde{S}_{T}=(P_{F}^{-1}NP_{F})^{-1}S_{F}\,.$$ By construction in Eq.(\[eq:STt\]), $\tilde{S}_{T}$ belongs to $St(l_{p})$ and is horizontally positive-definite. In addition, both $(g_{T}P_{T})^{-1}$ and $(P_{F}^{-1}NP_{F})^{-1}$ are in $Sp(2n,\mathbb{R})\cap O(2n,\mathbb{R})\backsimeq U(n).$ By the uniqueness of horizontal polar decomposition, $$\tilde{S}_{T}=S_{F}=S_{0}=\tilde{S}_{0}\,.$$ Therefore, the envelope matrix $w(t)$ determined by the initial conditions $w_{0}$ and $\dot{w}_{0}$ satisfy the requirement that $\sqrt{w^{\dagger}w}$ is periodic with periodicity $T$ and $S_{0}$ is symplectic.
This completes the proof of Theorem \[thm:stable\].
Conclusions and future work \[sec:Conclusions\]
===============================================
Linear Hamiltonian systems with periodic coefficients have many important applications in physics and nonlinear Hamiltonian dynamics. One of the key issues is the stability of the systems. In this paper, we have established in Theorem \[thm:stable\] a necessary and sufficient condition for the stability of the systems, in terms of solutions of an associated matrix envelope equation. The envelope matrix governed by the envelope equation plays a central role in determining the dynamic properties of the linear Hamiltonian systems. Specifically, the envelope matrix is the most important building block of the solution map given by Theorem \[thm:sol\]; it encapsulates the slow dynamics of the envelope of the fast oscillation, when the dynamics has a time-scale separation; it also controls how the fast dynamics evolves.
Three tools are utilized in the study. The method of time-dependent canonical transformation is used to construct the solution map and derive the envelope equation. The normal forms for stable symplectic matrices (Theorem \[thm:normal\]) and horizontal polar decomposition for symplectic matrices (Theorem \[thm:horizontal\]) are developed to prove the necessary and sufficient condition for stability. These tools systematically decompose the dynamics of linear Hamiltonian systems with time-dependent coefficients, and are expected to be effective in other studies as well, such as those on quantum algorithms for classical Hamiltonian systems. Relevant results will be reported in future publications.
I would like to acknowledge fruitful discussions on the subject studied in this paper with collaborators, colleagues, and friends, including Joshua Burby, Moses Chung, Robert Dewar, Nathaniel Fisch, Vasily Gelfreich, Alexander Glasser, Maurice de Gosson, Oleg Kirillov, Melvin Leok, Yiming Long, Robert MacKay, Richard Montgomery, Philip Morrison, Yuan Shi, Jianyuan Xiao, Ruili Zhang, and Chaofeng Zhu. Especially, I would like to thank Profs. Yiming Long, Chaofeng Zhu, and Richard Montgomery for detailed discussions on normal forms for symplectic matrices, and Prof. Maurice de Gosson for detailed discussion on pre-Iwasawa decomposition and horizontal polar decomposition. This paper was presented in a Lunch with Hamilton Seminar on September 12, 2018 at the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute, as a part of the Program on Hamiltonian systems, from topology to applications through analysis. I would like to thank Prof. Philip Morrison for the invitation and Prof. Amitava Bhattacharjee for the support to participate in the Program. This research was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DE-AC02-09CH11466).
Finally, I would like to dedicate this paper to the late Prof. Ronald C. Davidson.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We quantify the different ways in which an arbitrary $n$ qubit state can be split among a set of $k$ participants using a $N$ qubit entangled channel, such that the original information can be completely reconstructed only if all the participants cooperate. After proving that the first party needs to possess atleast $n$ qubits for this purpose , we show that the maximum number of protocols that one can construct for the splitting of an arbitrary $n$ qubit state among two parties using an $N$ qubit entangled channel is $(N-2n)$. Then we generalize this result to $k$ parties and illustrate its usefulness by providing an explicit physical example for the same.'
author:
- Sreraman Muralidharan
- Siddharth Karumanchi
- 'R. Srikanth'
- 'Prasanta K. Panigrahi'
title: 'In how many ways can quantum information be split ?'
---
Introduction
============
Splitting and sharing of secret information among a group of parties such that none of them can completely reconstruct the secret information by themselves is a common requirement in financial and defence sectors. Classical information theory, offers a solution to this problem through “secret sharing” [@Bruce], where the secret message is encrypted and split among various parties. However, the security of all these classical schemes are conditional and undeterministic.
The laws of quantum mechanics [@EPR] enables one to carry out a number of tasks which would otherwise be impossible in classical world [@BB84]. For instance, the no cloning theorem [@NCT] protects the quantum information from being copied. The amalgamation of principles of quantum mechanics and classical secret sharing has given rise to “quantum secret sharing” [@Hillery] which provides unconditional security for the splitting and sharing of secret information. Infact, quantum secret sharing can be used for protecting both classical and quantum information [@Gotit].
Sharing of quantum information among a group of parties such that none of them can reconstruct the unknown information completely by operating on their own share is usually referred to as “Quantum Information Splitting” (QIS). In a landmark paper, Hillery *et al.* [@Hillery], proposed the first scheme for the QIS of an arbitrary single qubit state $|\psi_1\rangle = \alpha|0\rangle + \beta|1\rangle$ $(\alpha, \beta \in C \ \text{and} \ |\alpha|^2 + |\beta|^2 = 1)$ using a three qubit $GHZ$ state, given by $$|GHZ\rangle_3 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|000\rangle+|111\rangle)_{ABC},$$ as a shared entangled resource using controlled teleportation [@Ben]. In their scheme, three parties namely, Alice, Bob and Charlie possess one qubit each from the $|GHZ\rangle_3$. Alice possesses $|\psi_1\rangle$ which she wants Bob and Charlie to share, such that neither of them should be able to reconstruct $|\psi_1\rangle$ by operating on their own qubits. To achieve this, Alice performs a Bell measurement on her qubits so that the Bob-Charlie system collapses to an entangled state given by, $$(U_x \otimes I)(\alpha|00\rangle+\beta|11\rangle) _{BC},$$ where $U_x \in ({I, \sigma_x, i\sigma_y, \sigma_z})$. At this point, both the subsystems of Bob and Charlie are maximally mixed. Alice can designate any one of them (Bob or Charlie) to retrieve the final state and convey the outcome of her measurement to the other using two classical bits. After, Alice conveys the outcome of her measurement to Bob or Charlie, the reduced density matrices of Bob and Charlie have amplitude, but no phase information about the initial state $|\psi_1\rangle$.
Hence, neither Bob nor Charlie can reconstruct the information by themselves by operating on their own qubits. Now, one of the parties (say Bob) needs to perform a Hadamard measurement in the basis $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0\rangle \pm |1\rangle)$ and convey the outcome of his measurement to Charlie via one classical bit. Having known the outcomes of both their measurements, Charlie can obtain the unknown qubit state $|\psi_1\rangle$ by local unitary operations. This completes the protocol for QIS of $|\psi_1\rangle$ using $|GHZ\rangle_3$ as a shared entangled resource. This protocol has also been experimentally realized [@Expqis].
As is evident, in a realistic situation, for the splitting of an arbitrary multiqubit state, many parties need to be in an entangled quantum network. Keeping in mind the complexity of the multipartite entangled system, there will arise more than one way of carrying out QIS in a quantum network, given a fixed number of parties. This needs to be quantified for the fundamental understanding of QIS.
This point can be more clearly seen through the following example : For instance, the QIS of $|\psi_1\rangle$ can be achieved using a four qubit entangled channel in two distinct ways. Let Alice, Bob and Charlie share a four qubit GHZ state : $$|GHZ\rangle_4 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (|0000\rangle + |1111\rangle)_{1234}.$$ In the first protocol, Alice possesses qubits 1, Bob 2, 3 and Charlie 4. In this scenario, Alice **performs a Bell measurement on qubits $|\psi_1\rangle$ and 1. Now the Bob-Charlie system collapses into an entangled state given by $$(U_x \otimes I \otimes I)(\alpha|000\rangle+\beta|111\rangle)_{234}.$$ Subsequently, Bob performs Bell measurement on his qubits 2 and 3, so that Charlie’s system collapses into $U_{x} |\psi\rangle_1$. Charlie then applies a suitable unitary operator ${U_{x} ^{\dagger}}$ and obtains $|\psi_1\rangle$.\
\
Another protocol for the QIS of $|\psi_1\rangle$ using $|GHZ\rangle_4$ can be constructed by redistributing the qubits of the entangled channel among the parties. Suppose Alice possesses qubit 1, 2, Bob 3, and Charlie 4. Then, Alice can perform a three particle measurement in the GHZ basis and convey the outcome of her measurement to Charlie via two classical bits. Now, the Bob-Charlie system collapses into $(U_x \otimes I) (\alpha|00\rangle + \beta|11\rangle)$. Bob performs a measurement in Hadamard basis and conveys the outcome of his measurement to Charlie via one classical bit. Having known the outcomes of both their measurements, Charlie can obtain $|\psi_1\rangle$ by LOCC. This completes the second protocol for QIS of $|\psi_1\rangle$ using $|GHZ\rangle_4$ as an entangled channel. Though, the classical communication and the entanglement cost remains the same in both these protocols, one protocol might be preferred over the other in terms of feasibility and security. In a generalized scenario, involving $N$ parties, one would think of many combinations for distributing the qubits, however all such combinations will not work out for QIS.
QIS of $|\psi_1\rangle$ has also been carried out using an asymmetric W state [@Zheng] and multipartite cluster states [@Sreramanc]. It has been found that while the five qubit Brown [@Sreramanb] and the cluster states [@Sreramanc] are useful for QIS of $|\psi_2\rangle = \sum_{0} ^{1} \alpha_{i_{1}i_{2}} |i_{1} i_{2}\rangle$ among two parties, a four qubit cluster state cannot be used for the same in the scenario where they need not meet. It has also been shown that it is possible to devise two protocols for the QIS of an arbitrary two qubit state $|\psi_2\rangle$ using six qubit cluster [@Sreramanc6] and the Borras et al. [@Sreramanbo] states as entangled resources. Further, it was conjectured recently that one can devise $(N-2n)$ protocols for the QIS of an arbitrary $n$ qubit state $\sum_{0} ^{1} \alpha_{i_{1}i_{2}...i_{n}} |i_{1} i_{2}...i_{n}\rangle$ among two parties in the case where they need not meet up [@Sreramanc] . These points naturally lead to questions regarding the number of ways in which quantum information can be split among many parties. However, to the best of authors’ knowledge, the general quantification of the different ways in which an arbitrary $n$ qubit state can be split among a set of $k$ participants using a general $N$ qubit entangled channel, has not been established. In this paper, we hope to answer this question by proving two theorems which throws light on the structure of global entanglement that is required for the study of QIS.
Theorems
========
**Theorem 1 : If Alice, Bob and Charlie share an $N$ qubit entangled state and Alice has a arbitrary $n$ qubit state that she wants Bob and Charlie to share, then Alice needs to possess a minimum of $n$ qubits for this purpose.\
**Proof :\
If we let Alice possesses $m$ qubits in the entangled quantum network then it can be proved that $m \geq n$ from a quantum encryption perspective as follows: After Alice’s joint measurement in ${\cal H}_x \otimes
{\cal H}_A$, but before her classical communication to Bob, the no-signaling theorem demands that Bob’s density operator should not have changed, i.e., it must remain maximally mixed. Here, ${\cal H}_x$ and ${\cal H}_A$ refer to the respective Hilbert spaces of the unknown secret information and Alice’s part of the entangled network respectively. On the other hand, we know by the way teleportation works that Bob’s state has become: $${\bf T}: |\psi\rangle \longrightarrow \sum_{j=1}^{P} U_j
|\psi\rangle\langle \psi| U^\dag_j
\label{eq:encrypt}$$****
Alice’s classical communication will be the number $j$ which will allow Bob to apply operation $U_j$ that restores his object’s state to $|\psi\rangle$. We require the minimal number $P$ in Eq. (\[eq:encrypt\]) such that for an arbitrary input state $|\psi\rangle$, we obtain ${\bf T}(|\psi\rangle) = {\bf I}/D$, where ${\bf I}$ is the unit matrix and $D=2^n$ is dim(${\cal
H}_B$). According to Ref. [@mosca], which provides a protocol for classically encrypting a quantum state, $P = D^2$. This in turn means that Alice’s classical communication must be $\log(D^2) = 2n$ bits long. In turn this means that the classical outcome of Alice’s Bell state measurement, which is $(m+n)$ qubits, must satisfy $m+n \ge 2n$, or, $m \ge n$, as required. $\blacksquare$\
\
**Lemma 1 : The maximum number of protocols one can construct for this purpose is $(N-2n)$.\
**Proof :\
We let the third person (say Charlie) have the last $n$ qubits, on which he will apply a suitable local unitary transformation and reconstruct the unknown $n$ qubit information. Therefore Charlie will possess, $(N - n + 1)^{\rm th}$ qubit to the $N^{\rm th}$ qubit. Now, the first $(N - n)$ qubits need to be distributed among Alice and Bob. This would correspond to $(N - n + 1)$ protocols. However, from the above theorem, all the protocols, in which Alice possesses less than $n$ qubits fail. Hence, the total number of protocols that one can construct is $(N - 2n)$. $\blacksquare$\
\
\
**Corollary :\
By substituting $N = 4$ and $n = 2$ in this formula, we can deduce that four qubit states cannot be used for the QIS of $|\psi_2\rangle$. This shall be illustrated below as follows. We let Alice possess the unknown arbitrary two qubit state $|\psi_2\rangle$ and qubit 1, Bob possess qubit 2 and Charlie 3,4 in the four qubit cluster state [@one], $$\begin{aligned}
|C_4\rangle = \frac{1}{2}(|0000\rangle + |0110\rangle + |1001\rangle - |1111\rangle)_{1234}.\end{aligned}$$ respectively. Alice can perform a three partite measurement on $|\psi_2\rangle$ as in the above protocol. For instance, if Alice performs a measurement in the basis $$\frac{1}{2} ( |000\rangle+|100\rangle+|011\rangle-|111\rangle),$$ then, the Bob-Charlie system collapses to $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha(|000\rangle+|110\rangle)+\mu(|000\rangle+|110\rangle)+\\ \nonumber \gamma(|001\rangle-|111\rangle)+\beta(|001\rangle-|111\rangle).\end{aligned}$$ However, from the above state one cannot obtain $|\psi_2\rangle$, by performing another measurement nor one can transform the above state into another state through LOCC and perform a measurement to get $|\psi\rangle_2$. Hence, this protocol fails illustrating the usefulness of the theorem.\
\
**Theorem 2 : If $k$ $(k\geq 3)$ parties share an $N$ qubit entangled state and the first party has an arbitrary $n$ qubit state that he/she wants the remaining members to share, then the maximum number of protocols he/she can construct for this purpose is $^{N-2n} C _ {k-2}$\
**Proof :\
The number of ways of distributing $n$ qubits among $k$ participants such that each participant gets at least one qubit is $^{n-1} C_{k-1}$. In the first case, when the first and the last participants possesses $n$ qubits each, the remaining $(N-2n)$ qubits can be distributed among $(k-2)$ parties in $^{N-2n-2} C_{k-3}$ ways. The process of redistribution can continue until all the $(k-2)$ participants have exactly one qubit each. Therefore, from the case, where the first participant possess $(n+p)$, qubits we obtain $(N-2n-p) = k-2$ or $p=(N-2n-k+2)$. Since all the protocols are mutually exclusive of each other, explicit calculations on all different arrangements and their summation yields $^{N-2n} C _ {k-2}$ assuming $^{y} C_{0} = 1$ for any positive integer $y$. Hence, the theorem is proved. it is worth noting that this yields Lemma 1, when k=3. $\blacksquare$**********
Conclusion
==========
In conclusion, we have proved two theorems which is important for the study of QIS. We initially proved that the number of qubits possessed by Alice should be greater than the dimension of the quantum secret in order for QIS to be possible. We showed that this implies that the maximum number of protocols that one can construct for the splitting of an arbitrary $n$ qubit state among two parties using an $N$ qubit entangled channel is $(N-2n)$. We illustrated this point by taking the example of a four qubit cluster state. We later, considered a general scenario and showed that one can construct a maximum of $^{N-2n} C _ {k-2}$ protocols when there are $k$ parties involved in QIS. These theorems illustrate why certain entangled channels cannot be used for QIS of certain quantum states. These will also help in deciding the threshold number of qubits that an entangled channel should possess for the QIS of certain unknown composite quantum systems. The study of the different possible protocols that one can construct for QIS of certain quantum systems is important because certain protocols may be preferred over the other in terms of security and feasibility. For instance, only one protocol for the QIS of $|\psi_1\rangle$ using the four qubit cluster state was found to be secure [@Sreramanc]. All theorems are considered in the scenario where the participants need not meet. We hope that these theorems will shed light into the future research on QIS as the feasibility and security of different protocols needs to be considered for the practical implementation of QIS.
[26]{}
Bruce Schneier, *[Applied Cryptography]{} (Wiley, New York)[1996]{} A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, [Phys. Rev. [**47**]{}, 777 (1935)]{}. C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, *[Cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing”, in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems, and Signal Processing,]{} . W.K. Wootters and W.H. Zurek, [Nature [**299**]{}, 802 (1982)]{}. M. Hillery, V. Buzek, and A. Berthiaume, [Phys. Rev. A [**59**]{}, 1829 (1999)]{}. R. Cleve, D. Gottesman, and H. K. Lo, [Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 648 (1999)]{}. C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crepeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, [Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 1895 (1993)]{}. Y. A. Chen, A. N. Zhang, Z. Zhao, X. Q. Zhou, C. Y. Lu, C. Z. Peng, T. Yang, and J. W. Pan, [Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 200502 (2005)]{}. S. B. Zheng, [Phys. Rev. A [**74**]{}, 054303 (2006)]{}. S. Muralidharan and P. K. Panigrahi, [Phys. Rev. A [**78**]{}, 062333 (2008)]{}. S. Muralidharan and P. K. Panigrahi, [Phys. Rev. A [**77**]{}, 032321 (2008)]{}. J. K. Menon, N. Paul, S. Karumanchi and P. K. Panigrahi, quant-ph/0906.3874v1. S. Choudhury, S. Muralidharan and P. K. Panigrahi, [J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**42**]{}, 115303 (2009)]{}. H. J. Briegel and R. Raussendorf, [Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 910 (2001)]{}. M. Mosca, A. Tapp and R. de Wolf, quant-ph/0003101.**
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
This paper presents a study of the *metaphorism* pattern of relational specification, showing how it can be refined into recursive programs.
Metaphorisms express input-output relationships which preserve relevant information while at the same time some intended optimization takes place. Text processing, sorting, representation changers, etc., are examples of metaphorisms.
The kind of metaphorism refinement studied in this paper is a strategy known as *change of virtual data structure*. By framing metaphorisms in the class of (inductive) *regular* relations, sufficient conditions are given for such implementations to be calculated using relation algebra.
The strategy is illustrated with examples including the derivation of the *quicksort* and *mergesort* algorithms, showing what they have in common and what makes them different from the very start of development.
address: |
High Assurance Software Laboratory\
(http://haslab.uminho.pt)\
INESC TEC and University of Minho\
Braga, Portugal
author:
- José Nuno Oliveira
title: Programming from Metaphorisms
---
Programming from specifications , Algebra of programming , Weakest precondition calculus.
2em
*Politicians and diapers should be changed often and for the same reason.1.5ex *(attributed to Mark Twain)**
Context
=======
The witty quote by 19th century author Mark Twain that provided inspiration for the title of this paper embodies a *metaphor* which the reader will surely appreciate. But, what do [metaphors]{} of this kind have to do with computer programming?
A synergy between metaphors in cognitive linguistics and some relational patterns common in the field of formal specification, termed *metaphorisms*, was suggested in our earlier conference paper [@Ol15a], which the current paper extends by framing the approach into the study of the wider class of inductive *regular relations* [@JMBD91]. In particular, an algebra useful for reasoning about such specification patterns is developed, whose ubiquity is already observed by @JMBD91:
> *\#1[\[...\]]{} We have found regular relations to be very general; in particular, most specifications we encounter in practice are regular.*
Metaphorisms are regular relations represented by symmetric divisions of inductive functions (aka. *folds* or *catamorphisms*) restricted by other regular relations expressing some kind of optimization. After introducing the metaphor and metaphorism concepts and their underlying algebra, this paper presents a generic process of implementing metaphorisms towards *divide & conquer* program strategies based on implicit, *virtual* data structures.
#### Related work
This paper follows our previous line of research [@MO12a] in investigating relational specification patterns which involve the *shrinking* combinator for controlling vagueness and non-determinism. It also relates to the work on representation changers [@HM93b] and on the relational algebra of programming in general [@BM97; @MDM94]. Our calculation of sufficient conditions for implementing metaphorisms via change of virtual data-structure, illustrated with the *quicksort* and *mergesort* algorithms, can be regarded as a generalization and expansion of the derivation of *quicksort* by @BM97, where it is given in a rather brief and terse style.
Interest in so-called *regular* relations dates back to at least the work by Riguet in the late 1940’s [@Ri48]. Their use as specification devices was pioneered by @JMBD91 and @MDM94 in the early 1990’s. Shortly afterwards, Hutton’s PhD thesis [@Hu92] presents a number of program derivations in which such relations are in evidence. Rectangular relations, a special case of regular relations, have also been studied in [@Ri48; @Sc08]. Interestingly, @JMBD91 already acknowledge that *it is common for specifications to be written as the intersection of an equivalence relation with a rectangular relation*, which is precisely the specification pattern at focus in the current paper.
Metaphorisms can also be regarded as relational generalizations of so-called *metamorphisms* [@Er98; @Gi07]. *Virtual data structures* have been studied mainly from the perspective of *deforestation* [@SM93; @TM95]. Their role in structuring *divide and conquer* algorithms is commonly accepted but less worked out in a formal context.[^1] Sorting is addressed from this perspective in Bird & de Moor’s textbook [@BM97], which also stresses algorithm classification through synthesis in the spirit of [@Da78]. In the same vein, the role of intermediate, virtual types in classifying and cataloguing specifications in software repositories has also been emphasized [@Ol02].
Introduction
============
Programming theory has been structured around concepts such as *syntax*, *semantics*, *generative grammar* and so on, that have been imported from Chomskian linguistics. The basis is that syntax provides the *shape* of information and that semantics express information *contents* in a syntax-driven way (e.g. the meaning of the whole dependent on the meaning of the parts).
Cognitive linguistics breaks with such a *generative* tradition in its belief that semantics are conveyed in a different way, just by juxtaposing concepts in the form of *metaphors* which let meanings permeate each other by an innate capacity of our brain to function metaphor-wise. Thus we are led to the [*metaphors we live by*]{}, quoting the classic textbook by Lakoff and Johnson [@LJ80]. If in a public discussion one of the opponents is said to have *counterattacked* with a *winning* argument, the underlying metaphor is *argument is war*; metaphor *time is money* underlies everyday phrases such as *wasting time*, *investing time* and so on; Twain’s quote lives in the metaphor *politics is dirty*, the same that would enable one to say that somebody might need to *clean his/her reputation*, for instance.
In his *Philosophy of Rhetoric* [@Ri36], Richards finds three kernel ingredients in a metaphor, namely a *tenor* (e.g. *politicians*), a *vehicle* (e.g. *diapers*) and a shared *attribute* (e.g. soiling). The *flow of meaning* is from vehicle to tenor, through the (as a rule left unspecified) common attribute. A sketchy characterization of this construction in the form of a “cospan” $$\begin{aligned}
\xymatrix{
\ensuremath{\fun T }
\ar[dr]_{g}
&&
\ensuremath{\mathsf{V}}
\ar[dl]^{f}
\\
&
A
}
\label{eq:150328a}\end{aligned}$$ is given in [@Ol13c]. Functions ${\mathit{f}}\mathbin{:}\mathsf{V}\to {\mathit{A}}$ and ${\mathit{g}}\mathbin{:}\fun T \to {\mathit{A}}$, the “witnesses” of the metaphor, extract a common attribute (${\mathit{A}}$) from both tenor ($\fun T $) and vehicle ($\mathsf{V}$). The cognitive, æsthetic, or witty power of a metaphor is obtained by *hiding* ${\mathit{A}}$, thereby establishing a *composite*, binary relationship[^2] $\larrow{\mathsf{V}}{\conv{{\mathit{g}}} \comp {\mathit{f}}}{\fun T }$ between tenor and vehicle — the “$\fun T $ is $\mathsf{V}$” metaphor — which leaves ${\mathit{A}}$ implicit.
It turns out that, in the field of program specification, many problem statements are *metaphorical* in the same (formal) sense: they are characterized as input-output relationships in which the *preservation* of some kernel information is kept implicit, possibly subject to some form of optimization.
A wide class of optimization criteria can be characterized by so called *regular*, or *rational* relations.[^3] First, some intuition about what *regularity* means in this context: a regular relation is such that, wherever two inputs have a common image, then they have *exactly the same* set of images. In other words, the image sets of two different inputs are either disjoint or the same. As a counterexample, take following relation, represented as matrix with inputs taken from set $\{\mskip1.5mu a_1 ,\mathinner{\ldotp\ldotp},a_5 \mskip1.5mu\}$ and outputs delivered into set $\{\mskip1.5mu b_1,\mathinner{\ldotp\ldotp},b_5 \mskip1.5mu\}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{tabular}{r|p{1mm}p{1mm}p{1mm}p{1mm}p{1mm}}\ensuremath{{\mathit{R}}}&\ensuremath{a_1 }&\ensuremath{a_2 }&\ensuremath{a_3 }&\ensuremath{a_4 }&\ensuremath{a_5 }
\\\hline
\ensuremath{b_1}&0&0&{\cellcolor{gray!20}1}&0&{\cellcolor{gray!20}1}\\ \ensuremath{b_2}&0&0&0&0&0
\\ \ensuremath{b_3 }&0&{{\cellcolor{gray!20}1}}&0&0&0
\\ \ensuremath{b_4 }&0&{{\cellcolor{gray!20}1}}&0&{{\cellcolor{gray!20}1}}&0
\\ \ensuremath{b_5 }&0&0&0&{{\cellcolor{gray!20}1}}&0
\\ \end{tabular}
\label{eq:170813a}\end{aligned}$$ Concerning inputs $a_3 $ and $a_5 $, regularity holds; but sets $\{\mskip1.5mu b_3 ,b_4 \mskip1.5mu\}$ and $\{\mskip1.5mu b_4 ,b_5 \mskip1.5mu\}$ — the images of $a_2 $ and $a_4 $, respectively — are neither disjoint nor the same: so ${\mathit{R}}$ isn’t regular. (It will become so if e.g. $b_4 $ is dropped from both image sets or one of $b_3 $ or $b_5 $ is replaced for the other in the corresponding image set.)
These relations are also called *rational* because they can be represented by “fractions” of the form $\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}$, where ${\mathit{f}}$ and ${\mathit{g}}$ are functions and notation $\frac{{\mathit{R}}}{{\mathit{S}}}$ expresses the so-called *symmetric division* [@BSZ89; @FS90] of two relations ${\mathit{R}}$ and ${\mathit{S}}$. As detailed in the sequel, it can be easily shown that $\conv{{\mathit{g}}} \comp {\mathit{f}}\mathrel{=}\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}$, meaning that metaphors (\[eq:150328a\]) are rational relations.
This paper is organized in two main parts. In the first part we develop an *algebra of metaphors* expressed as rational relations and address the combination of metaphors with another class of rational relations (called *rectangular*) used to express requirements on the “tenor” (“output”) side of metaphors. The second part focusses on metaphors $\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}$ where $\mathsf{V}$ and $\fun T $ are inductive (recursive) types and ${\mathit{f}}$ and ${\mathit{g}}$ are morphisms which extract a common view of such types. That is, ${\mathit{f}}$ and ${\mathit{g}}$ become *catamorphisms* [@BM97], also known as *folds* [@Gi16].
We use the word *metaphorism* [@Ol15a] to refer to the specification pattern just described. An example of this is *text formatting*, a relationship between formatted and unformatted text whose metaphor consists in preserving the sequence of words of both, while the output text is optimized wrt. some visual criteria.[^4] Other examples could have been given:
- Change of base of numeric representation — the number represented in the source is the same represented by the result, cf. the ‘representation changers’ studied by @HM93b.
- Source code refactoring — the meaning of the source program is preserved, the target code being better styled wrt. coding conventions and best practices.
- Gaussian elimination — it transforms a system of linear equations into a triangular system that has the same set of roots.
- Sorting — the bag (multiset) of elements of the source list is preserved, the optimization consisting in obtaining an ordered output.
The *optimization* implicit in all these examples can be expressed by reducing the *vagueness* of relation $\conv{{\mathit{g}}} \comp {\mathit{f}}$ in (\[eq:150328a\]) according to some criterion telling which outputs are better than others. This can be achieved by adding such criteria in the form of a relation ${\mathit{R}}$ that “shrinks” $\conv{{\mathit{g}}} \comp {\mathit{f}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{M}}\mathrel{=}{(\conv{{\mathit{g}}} \comp {\mathit{f}})}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}}
& \rule{20ex}{0pt}&
\myxym{
&
\ensuremath{\fun T }
\\
\ensuremath{\fun T }
\ar[dr]_{g}
\ar[ur]^{\ensuremath{{\mathit{R}}}}
&&
\ensuremath{\mathsf{V}}
\ar[dl]^{f}
\ar[ul]_{\ensuremath{{\mathit{M}}}}
\ar[ll]_{\ensuremath{\conv{{\mathit{g}}} \comp {\mathit{f}}}}
\\
&
A
}
\label{eq:150205e}\end{aligned}$$ using the “shrinking” operator proposed by @MO12a for reducing non-determinism. By unfolding the meaning of this relational operator, the relationship (\[eq:150205e\]) established by ${\mathit{M}}$ is the following: $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{t}}\;{\mathit{M}}\;{\mathit{v}}} &\equiv& \ensuremath{({\mathit{g}}\;{\mathit{t}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{f}}\;{\mathit{v}})\mathrel{\wedge}\rcb{\forall}{{\mathit{t'}}}{{\mathit{g}}\;{\mathit{t'}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{f}}\;{\mathit{v}}}{{\mathit{t}}\;{\mathit{R}}\;{\mathit{t'}}}}\end{aligned}$$ In words: for each vehicle ${\mathit{v}}$, choose among all tenors ${\mathit{t'}}$ with the same (hidden) attribute of ${\mathit{v}}$ those that are better than any other with respect to ${\mathit{R}}$, if any.
A *metaphorism* ${\mathit{M}}\mathrel{=}{(\conv{{\mathit{g}}} \comp {\mathit{f}})}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}$ therefore involves two functions and an optimization criterion. In the text formatting metaphorism, for instance, $$\begin{aligned}
\myxym{
\ensuremath{[\mskip1.5mu {\mathit{String}}\mskip1.5mu]}
\ar[dr]_{\ensuremath{({\mathbin{>\!\!\!>\mkern-6.7mu=}}{\mathit{words}})}~~~~~}
&&
\ensuremath{{\mathit{String}}}
\ar[dl]^{\ensuremath{{\mathit{words}}}}
\ar[ll]_{\ensuremath{{\mathit{Format}}}}
\\
&
\ensuremath{[\mskip1.5mu {\mathit{String}}\mskip1.5mu]}
}\end{aligned}$$ arrow ${\mathit{Format}}$ relates a string (source text) to a list of strings (output text lines) such that the original sequence of words is preserved when white space is discarded. (Monadic function ${\mathbin{>\!\!\!>\mkern-6.7mu=}}{\mathit{words}}$ promotes ${\mathit{words}}$ from strings to lists of strings.[^5]) Formatting consists in (re)introducing white space evenly throughout the output text lines. For economy of presentation, the diagram omits the optimization part in $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{Format}}} = \ensuremath{{(\conv{({\mathbin{>\!\!\!>\mkern-6.7mu=}}{\mathit{words}})} \comp {\mathit{words}})}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}}
\label{eq:150318z}\end{aligned}$$ where relation ${\mathit{R}}\mathbin{:}[\mskip1.5mu {\mathit{String}}\mskip1.5mu]\leftarrow [\mskip1.5mu {\mathit{String}}\mskip1.5mu]$ should capture the intended formatting criterion on lines of text, e.g.evenly spaced lines better than unevenly spaced ones, and so on.
Formally, nothing precludes ${\mathit{f}}$ and ${\mathit{g}}$ from being the same attribute function, in which case types $\mathsf{V}$ and $\fun T $ are also the same. Although less interesting from a strictly (cognitive) metaphorical perspective, metaphorisms of this instance of (\[eq:150205e\]) are very common in programming — take *sorting* as example, where $\mathsf{V}$ and $\fun T $ are inhabited by finite sequences of the same (ordered) type. Interestingly, some sorting algorithms actually involve *another* data-type, but this is hidden and kept implicit in the whole algorithmic process. Quicksort, for instance, unfolds recursively in a binary fashion which makes its use of the run-time heap look like a binary search tree.[^6] Because such a tree is not visible from outside, some authors refer to it as a *virtual* data structure [@SM93].
#### Contribution
This paper addresses a generic process of implementing metaphorisms that introduces *divide & conquer* strategies through implicit, virtual data structures. In particular, it
- introduces the relational notions of *metaphor* and *metaphorism* and develops their algebra based on rational relations, including *divide & conquer* factorization laws (Sections \[sec:160110a\] and \[sec:160125c\]);
- gives results for implementing metaphorisms as hylomorphisms [@BM97] (Sections \[sec:160125e\] and \[sec:150406g\]), of which two examples are given: *quicksort* () and *mergesort* ().
The paper also includes Sections \[sec:150406h\] and \[sec:160122b\], which conclude and discuss future work, respectively. Proofs of some auxiliary results are given in \[sec:150329b\].
Relation algebra preliminaries {#sec:170319a}
==============================
#### Functions
A function ${\mathit{f}}\mathbin{:}{\mathit{X}}\to {\mathit{Y}}$ is a special case of a relation, such that ${\mathit{y}}\;{\mathit{f}}\;{\mathit{x}}~\Leftrightarrow~{\mathit{y}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{f}}\;{\mathit{x}}$. [^7] The equality sign forces ${\mathit{f}}$ to be totally defined and deterministic. (We read ${\mathit{y}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{f}}\;{\mathit{x}}$ saying .) This makes (total) functions quite rich in relational algebra. For instance, any function ${\mathit{f}}$ satisfies not only the *shunting rules* $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{f}} \comp {\mathit{R}}} \subseteq S & \equiv & R \subseteq \ensuremath{\conv{{\mathit{f}}} \comp {\mathit{S}}}
\label{eq:020617e}
\\
\ensuremath{{\mathit{R}} \comp \conv{{\mathit{f}}}} \subseteq S & \equiv & R \subseteq \ensuremath{{\mathit{S}} \comp {\mathit{f}}}
\label{eq:020617f}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathit{R}}$, ${\mathit{S}}$ are arbitrary (suitably typed) binary relations, but also $$\begin{aligned}
b(\conv g\comp R\comp f)a
&
\wider\equiv
&
(g\ b) R (f\ a)
\label{eq:040120c}\end{aligned}$$ a rule which helps moving variables outwards in expressions. For ${\mathit{R}}$ the identity function ${id}\;{\mathit{x}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{x}}$, (\[eq:040120c\]) instantiates to $b(\conv g\comp f)a \wider\equiv \ensuremath{{\mathit{g}}\;{\mathit{b}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{f}}\;{\mathit{a}}}$, that is, to metaphor (\[eq:150328a\]).
Given ${\mathit{k}}\;{\in}\;{\mathit{K}}$, $\kons{{\mathit{k}}}\mathbin{:}{\mathit{X}}\to {\mathit{K}}$ denotes the polymorphic *constant* function which always yields ${\mathit{k}}$ as result: $\kons{{\mathit{k}}} \comp {\mathit{f}}\mathrel{=}\kons{{\mathit{k}}}$, for every ${\mathit{f}}$. Predicates are functions of type ${\mathit{X}}\to \B$, where $\B\mathrel{=}\{\mskip1.5mu \textsc{t},\textsc{f}\mskip1.5mu\}$ is the set of truth values. The constant predicates $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{true}}\mathrel{=}\kons{\textsc{t}}} & ~,~ & \ensuremath{{\mathit{false}}\mathrel{=}\kons{\textsc{f}}}
\label{eq:170519a}\end{aligned}$$ are used in the sequel. Notation $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{\mathop{!}\mathbin{:}{\mathit{X}}\to \mathrm{1}}
\label{eq:170519c}\end{aligned}$$ is chosen to describe the unique (constant) function of its type, where $\mathrm{1}$ denotes the singleton type.
#### Symmetric division
Given two arbitrary relations ${\mathit{R}}$ and ${\mathit{S}}$ typed as in the diagram below, define the *symmetric division* $\frac{{\mathit{S}}}{{\mathit{R}}}$ [@FS90] of ${\mathit{S}}$ by ${\mathit{R}}$ by: $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{b}}\;\frac{{\mathit{S}}}{{\mathit{R}}}\;{\mathit{c}}} \wider\equiv
\ensuremath{\rcb{\forall}{{\mathit{a}}}{}{{\mathit{a}}\;{\mathit{R}}\;{\mathit{b}}~\Leftrightarrow~{\mathit{a}}\;{\mathit{S}}\;{\mathit{c}}}}
&&
\xymatrix@R=1.2em{
B
\ar[dr]_R
&
&
C
\ar[dl]^S
\ar[ll]_{\mbox{\large\ensuremath{\frac{{\mathit{S}}}{{\mathit{R}}}}}}
\\
&
A
}
\label{eq:160107a}
$$ That is, ${\mathit{b}}\;\frac{{\mathit{S}}}{{\mathit{R}}}\;{\mathit{c}}$ means that ${\mathit{b}}$ and ${\mathit{c}}$ are related to exactly the same outputs (in ${\mathit{A}}$) by ${\mathit{R}}$ and by ${\mathit{S}}$. Another way of writing (\[eq:160107a\]) is $
\ensuremath{{\mathit{b}}\;\frac{{\mathit{S}}}{{\mathit{R}}}\;{\mathit{c}}} \equiv
\ensuremath{\{\mskip1.5mu {\mathit{a}}\mid {\mathit{a}}\;{\mathit{R}}\;{\mathit{b}}\mskip1.5mu\}\mathrel{=}\{\mskip1.5mu {\mathit{a}}\mid {\mathit{a}}\;{\mathit{S}}\;{\mathit{c}}\mskip1.5mu\}}
$ which is the same as $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{b}}\;\frac{{\mathit{S}}}{{\mathit{R}}}\;{\mathit{c}}} & \wider\equiv &
\ensuremath{\Lambda{{\mathit{R}}}\;{\mathit{b}}\mathrel{=}\Lambda{{\mathit{S}}}\;{\mathit{c}}}
\label{eq:160110b}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Lambda $ is the *power transpose* [@BM97] operator which maps a relation ${\mathit{Q}}\mathbin{:}{\mathit{Y}}\leftarrow {\mathit{X}}$ to the set valued function $\Lambda{{\mathit{Q}}}\mathbin{:}{\mathit{X}}\to \fun P \;{\mathit{Y}}$ such that $\Lambda{{\mathit{Q}}}\;{\mathit{x}}\mathrel{=}\{\mskip1.5mu {\mathit{y}}\mid {\mathit{y}}\;{\mathit{Q}}\;{\mathit{x}}\mskip1.5mu\}$. Another way to define $\frac{{\mathit{S}}}{{\mathit{R}}}$ is [@FS90] $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{\frac{{\mathit{S}}}{{\mathit{R}}}} & = & \ensuremath{{{\mathit{R}}\rdiv {\mathit{S}}}\mathbin\cap{\conv{{\mathit{R}}}\mathbin{/}\conv{{\mathit{S}}}}}
\label{eq:160122a}\end{aligned}$$ which factors symmetric division into the two asymmetric divisions ${\mathit{R}}\setminus {\mathit{S}}$ and ${\mathit{R}}\mathbin{/}{\mathit{S}}$ which can be defined by Galois connections: $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{{\mathit{R}} \comp {\mathit{X}}}\subseteq{{\mathit{S}}}~\Leftrightarrow~{{\mathit{X}}}\subseteq{{\mathit{R}}\setminus {\mathit{S}}}}
\label{eq:020614b}
\\
\ensuremath{{{\mathit{X}} \comp {\mathit{R}}}\subseteq{{\mathit{S}}}~\Leftrightarrow~{{\mathit{X}}}\subseteq{{\mathit{S}}\mathbin{/}{\mathit{R}}}}
\label{eq:100707a}\end{aligned}$$ Pointwise, ${\mathit{b}}\;({\mathit{P}}\mathbin{/}{\mathit{Q}})\;{\mathit{a}}$ means $\rcbnb{\forall}{{\mathit{x}}}{{\mathit{a}}\;{\mathit{Q}}\;{\mathit{x}}}{{\mathit{b}}\;{\mathit{P}}\;{\mathit{x}}}$ (right division) and ${\mathit{b}}\;({\mathit{P}}\rdiv {\mathit{Q}})\;{\mathit{a}}$ means $\rcbnb{\forall}{{\mathit{x}}}{{\mathit{x}}\;{\mathit{P}}\;{\mathit{b}}}{{\mathit{x}}\;{\mathit{Q}}\;{\mathit{a}}}$ (left division). Note that, by (\[eq:020614b\], \[eq:100707a\]), (\[eq:160122a\]) is equivalent to the universal property: $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{{\mathit{X}}}\subseteq{\frac{{\mathit{S}}}{{\mathit{R}}}}} & \equiv & \ensuremath{{{\mathit{R}} \comp {\mathit{X}}}\subseteq{{\mathit{S}}}\mathrel{\wedge}{{\mathit{S}} \comp \conv{{\mathit{X}}}}\subseteq{{\mathit{R}}}}
\label{eq:151118b}\end{aligned}$$ From the definitions above a number of standard properties arise [@FS90]: $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{\left(\frac{{\mathit{S}}}{{\mathit{R}}}\right)^{\hskip-3pt\circ}} &=& \ensuremath{\frac{{\mathit{R}}}{{\mathit{S}}}}
\label{eq:151119a}
\\
\ensuremath{\frac{{\mathit{S}}}{{\mathit{R}}} \comp \frac{{\mathit{Q}}}{{\mathit{S}}}} &\ensuremath{ \subseteq }& \ensuremath{\frac{{\mathit{Q}}}{{\mathit{R}}}}
\label{eq:151118d}
\\
\ensuremath{\conv{{\mathit{f}}} \comp \frac{{\mathit{S}}}{{\mathit{R}}} \comp {\mathit{g}}} & = & \ensuremath{\frac{{\mathit{S}} \comp {\mathit{g}}}{{\mathit{R}} \comp {\mathit{f}}}}
\label{eq:151118c}
\\
\ensuremath{{id}} &\ensuremath{ \subseteq }& \ensuremath{\frac{{\mathit{R}}}{{\mathit{R}}}}
\label{eq:170104a}\end{aligned}$$ Thus $\frac{{\mathit{R}}}{{\mathit{R}}}$ is always an *equivalence relation*, for any given ${\mathit{R}}$. Furthermore, $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{R}}\mathrel{=}\frac{{\mathit{R}}}{{\mathit{R}}}} & \equiv & \mbox{\ensuremath{{\mathit{R}}} is an equivalence relation}
\label{eq:160115b}\end{aligned}$$ holds.[^8] Finally note that, even in the case of functions, (\[eq:151118d\]) remains an inclusion: $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}} \comp \frac{{\mathit{h}}}{{\mathit{f}}}}\subseteq{\frac{{\mathit{h}}}{{\mathit{g}}}}}
\label{eq:160112d}\end{aligned}$$
#### Relation shrinking [@MO12a]
Given relations $S : A \from B$ and $R : A \from A$, define $S \shrunkby R : A \from B$, pronounced “$S$ shrunk by $R$”, by $$\begin{aligned}
X \sse S \shrunkby R ~~\equiv~~ X \sse S ~\wedge~ X \comp \conv{S} \sse R
&
\mbox{cf.\ diagram: }
&
\myxym{
&
B
\ar[d]^-{S}
\ar[dl]_-{S \shrunkby R}
\\
A
&
A
\ar[l]^-{R}
}
\label{eq:100116d}\end{aligned}$$ This states that $S \shrunkby R$ is the largest part of ${\mathit{S}}$ such that, if it yields an output for an input $x$, it must be a maximum, with respect to $R$, among all possible outputs of $x$ by $S$. By indirect equality, (\[eq:100116d\]) is equivalent to the closed definition: $$\begin{aligned}
S \shrunkby R ~=~ S \cap R/\conv{S}
\label{eq:100211c}\end{aligned}$$ Among the properties of shrinking [@MO12a] we single out two *fusion* rules $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{({\mathit{S}} \comp {\mathit{f}})}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}} & = & \ensuremath{({{\mathit{S}}}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}) \comp {\mathit{f}}}
\label{eq:fn-shrink-r}
\\
(f\comp S)\shrunkby R &=& f\comp (S\shrunkby (\conv{f}\comp R \comp f))
\label{eq:fn-shrink-l}\end{aligned}$$ that will prove useful in the sequel. Putting universal properties (\[eq:151118b\],\[eq:100116d\]) together we get, by indirect equality, $$\begin{aligned}
\start
\ensuremath{\frac{{\mathit{R}}}{{\mathit{g}}}\mathrel{=}\conv{{\mathit{g}}} \comp ({{\mathit{R}}}\shrunkby{{id}})}
\label{eq:170413a}
\more
\ensuremath{\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{R}}}\mathrel{=}\conv{({{\mathit{R}}}\shrunkby{{id}})} \comp {\mathit{f}}}
\label{eq:170413b}\end{aligned}$$ capturing a relationship between shrinking and symmetric division: knowing that ${{\mathit{R}}}\shrunkby{{id}}$ is nothing but the deterministic fragment of ${\mathit{R}}$, we see how the *vagueness* of arbitrary ${\mathit{R}}$ replacing either ${\mathit{f}}$ or ${\mathit{g}}$ in $\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}$ is forced to shrink.
#### Recursive relations
Later in the paper we shall need a number of standard constructions in relation algebra that are briefly introduced next. (For the many details omitted please see e.g. the textbook by @BM97.)
Let $\fun F $ be a *relator* [@R*92], that is, a mathematical construction such as, for any type ${\mathit{A}}$, type $\fun F \;{\mathit{A}}$ is defined and for any relation ${\mathit{R}}\mathbin{:}{\mathit{B}}\leftarrow {\mathit{A}}$, relation $\fun F \;{\mathit{R}}\mathbin{:}\fun F \;{\mathit{B}}\leftarrow \fun F \;{\mathit{A}}$ is defined such that $\fun F \;{id}\mathrel{=}{id}$, $\fun F \;\conv{{\mathit{R}}}\mathrel{=}\conv{(\fun F \;{\mathit{R}})}$ and $\fun F \;({\mathit{R}} \comp {\mathit{S}})\mathrel{=}(\fun F \;{\mathit{R}}) \comp (\fun F \;{\mathit{S}})$.
Any relation ${\mathit{R}}\mathbin{:}{\mathit{A}}\leftarrow \fun F \;{\mathit{A}}$ is said to be a (relational) *$\fun F $-algebra*. Special cases include functional $\fun F $-algebras and, among these, those that are isomorphisms. Within these, the so-called *initial* $\fun F $-algebras, say $\mathsf{in}_{\fun F}\mathbin{:}\fun T \leftarrow \fun F \;\fun T $, are such that, given any other $\fun F $-algebra ${\mathit{R}}\mathbin{:}{\mathit{A}}\leftarrow \fun F \;{\mathit{A}}$, there is a unique relation of type ${\mathit{A}}\leftarrow \fun T $, usually written $\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{R}}\mathclose{|\!)}$, such that $\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{R}}\mathclose{|\!)} \comp \mathsf{in}_{\fun F}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{R}} \comp \fun F \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{R}}\mathclose{|\!)}$ holds. Type $\fun T $ (often denoted by $\muF $ to express its relationship with the base relator $\fun F $) is also referred to as *initial*. The meaning of such relations $\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{R}}\mathclose{|\!)}$, usually referred to as *catamorphisms*, or *folds*, is captured by the *universal property*: $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{X}}\mathrel{=}\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{R}}\mathclose{|\!)}} & \wider\equiv & \ensuremath{{\mathit{X}} \comp \mathsf{in}_{\fun F}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{R}} \comp (\fun F \;{\mathit{X}})}
\label{eq:cataUniv-rel}\end{aligned}$$ The base $\fun F $ captures the recursive pattern of type $\fun T $ (which we write as $\muF $). For instance, for $\fun T $ the datatype of finite lists over a given type ${\mathit{A}}$ one has $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{\begin{lcbr}\fun F \;{\mathit{X}}\mathrel{=}\mathrm{1}\mathbin{+}{\mathit{A}} \times {\mathit{X}}\\\fun F \;{\mathit{f}}\mathrel{=}{id}\mathbin{+}{id} \times {\mathit{f}}\end{lcbr}}
\label{eq:170518a}\end{aligned}$$ This instance is relevant for the examples that come later in this paper.
Given $\fun F $-algebras ${\mathit{R}}\mathbin{:}{\mathit{A}}\leftarrow \fun F \;{\mathit{A}}$ and ${\mathit{S}}\mathbin{:}{\mathit{B}}\leftarrow \fun F \;{\mathit{B}}$, the composition ${\mathit{H}}\mathrel{=}\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{R}}\mathclose{|\!)} \comp \conv{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{S}}\mathclose{|\!)}}$, of type ${\mathit{A}}\leftarrow {\mathit{B}}$, is usually referred to as a *hylomorphism* [@BM97]. ${\mathit{H}}$ is the least fixpoint of the relational equation ${\mathit{X}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{R}} \comp (\fun F \;{\mathit{X}}) \comp \conv{{\mathit{S}}}$. The intermediate type $\muF $ generated by $\conv{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{S}}\mathclose{|\!)}}$ and consumed by $\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{R}}\mathclose{|\!)}$ is known as the *virtual data structure* [@SM93] of the hylomorphism. The opposite composition $\conv{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{S}}\mathclose{|\!)}} \comp \mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{R}}\mathclose{|\!)}$, for suitably typed ${\mathit{S}}$ and ${\mathit{R}}$, is sometimes termed a *metamorphism* [@Gi07].
Two properties stem from (\[eq:cataUniv-rel\]) that prove particularly useful in calculations about $\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{R}}\mathclose{|\!)}$, namely *fusion* $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{S}} \comp \mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{R}}\mathclose{|\!)}\mathrel{=}\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{Q}}\mathclose{|\!)}} & \wider\implied & \ensuremath{{\mathit{S}} \comp {\mathit{R}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{Q}} \comp \fun F \;{\mathit{S}}}
\label{eq:150402a}\end{aligned}$$ and *cancellation* (cf. above): $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{R}}\mathclose{|\!)} \comp \mathsf{in}_{\fun F}} &=& \ensuremath{{\mathit{R}} \comp \fun F \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{R}}\mathclose{|\!)}}
\label{eq:150402b}\end{aligned}$$ Fusion is particularly helpful in the sense of finding a sufficient condition on ${\mathit{S}}$, ${\mathit{R}}$ and ${\mathit{Q}}$ for merging ${\mathit{S}} \comp \mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{R}}\mathclose{|\!)}$ into $\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{Q}}\mathclose{|\!)}$. In the words of @BM97, law (\[eq:150402a\]) *is probably the most useful tool in the arsenal of techniques for program derivation*. The remainder of this paper will give further evidence of this statement.
On the algebra of metaphors {#sec:160110a}
===========================
#### Metaphors as symmetric divisions
Substituting ${\mathit{S}},{\mathit{R}}\mathbin{:=}{\mathit{f}},{\mathit{g}}$ in (\[eq:151118b\]) and using the shunting rules (\[eq:020617e\],\[eq:020617f\]) we obtain, by indirect equality: $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}}& =&\ensuremath{\conv{{\mathit{g}}} \comp {\mathit{f}}}
\label{eq:160117a}\end{aligned}$$ So, a metaphor $\conv{{\mathit{g}}} \comp {\mathit{f}}$ (\[eq:150205e\]) can be expressed as a symmetric division. On the other hand, moving the variables of (\[eq:160110b\]) outwards by use of (\[eq:040120c\]), we obtain the following *power transpose cancellation* rule:[^9] $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{\frac{\Lambda{{\mathit{S}}}}{\Lambda{{\mathit{R}}}}} &=& \ensuremath{\frac{{\mathit{S}}}{{\mathit{R}}}}
\label{eq:160108a}\end{aligned}$$ Read from right to left, this shows a way of converting arbitrary symmetric divisions into metaphors. Hereafter we will adopt $\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}$ as our canonical notation for metaphors. This has the advantage of suggesting an analogy with *rational numbers* [^10] which makes calculation rules easy to understand and memorize. From (\[eq:151119a\]) we immediately get that *converses of metaphors* are metaphors:[^11] $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{\left(\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}\right)^{\hskip-3pt\circ}\mathrel{=}\frac{{\mathit{g}}}{{\mathit{f}}}}
\label{eq:160112c}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{id}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{f}}$ and $\conv{{\mathit{g}}}\mathrel{=}\frac{{id}}{{\mathit{g}}}$, consistent with ${id}$ being the unit of composition, ${\mathit{R}} \comp {id}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{R}}\mathrel{=}{id} \comp {\mathit{R}}$. As expected, $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{\frac{{id}}{{\mathit{g}}} \comp \frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{id}}\mathrel{=}\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}}\end{aligned}$$ holds, a corollary of the more general:[^12] $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{\frac{{id}}{{\mathit{g}}} \comp \frac{{\mathit{h}}}{{\mathit{k}}} \comp \frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{id}}\mathrel{=}\frac{{\mathit{h}} \comp {\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{k}} \comp {\mathit{g}}}}
\label{eq:160112b}\end{aligned}$$
If ${id}$ plays the role of the multiplicative identity $\mathrm{1}$ in the rational number analogy, what is the counterpart of number $\mathrm{0}$? It is the empty relation $\bot $, which is represented by any $\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}$ such that $\conv{{\mathit{g}}} \comp {\mathit{f}}$ is empty, that is, ${\mathit{g}}\;{\mathit{y}}\not={\mathit{f}}\;{\mathit{x}}$ for any choice of ${\mathit{x}}$ and ${\mathit{y}}$. (Any two relations ${\mathit{R}}$ and ${\mathit{S}}$ such that $\conv{{\mathit{R}}} \comp {\mathit{S}}\; \subseteq \;\bot $ are said to be *range disjoint*.) For instance, $\frac{{\mathit{true}}}{{\mathit{false}}}\mathrel{=}\bot $, where ${\mathit{true}}$ and ${\mathit{false}}$ are the constant functions yielding the corresponding truth values (\[eq:170519a\]). In general, $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{a}}\not={\mathit{b}}} \wider\equiv \ensuremath{\frac{\wider{\kons{{\mathit{a}}}}}{\kons{{\mathit{b}}}}\mathrel{=}\bot }\end{aligned}$$ where $\kons{{\mathit{a}}}$ and $\kons{{\mathit{b}}}$ denote constant functions. The opposite situation of ${\mathit{a}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{b}}$ above leads to $\frac{\wider{\kons{{\mathit{a}}}}}{\kons{{\mathit{a}}}}\mathrel{=}\top $, where ${\mathit{y}}\;\top \;{\mathit{x}}$ holds for all ${\mathit{y}},{\mathit{x}}$. The canonical presentation of this largest possible metaphor is $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{\frac{\mathop{!}_{{\mathit{A}}}}{\mathop{!}_{{\mathit{B}}}}\mathrel{=}\top _{{\mathit{B}}\leftarrow {\mathit{A}}}}
\label{eq:060124a}\end{aligned}$$ recall (\[eq:170519c\]).
#### Intersecting metaphors
In the words of C.S. Peirce, ${\mathit{y}}\;\top \;{\mathit{x}}$ simply means that “${\mathit{y}}$ is coexistent with ${\mathit{x}}$” [@Mad91]. Suggestively, the symbol chosen by Peirce to denote $\top $ is $\infty$. Although semantically poor, this metaphor surely holds about any ${\mathit{x}}$ and ${\mathit{y}}$ related by any other metaphor. In a sense, it can be regarded as the starting point for any metaphorical relationship, obtained by some form of refinement. Metaphor conjunction is one way of doing such refinement, $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}}\mathbin\cap{\frac{{\mathit{h}}}{{\mathit{k}}}}\mathrel{=}\frac{{{\mathit{f}}}\kr{{\mathit{h}}}}{{{\mathit{g}}}\kr{{\mathit{k}}}}}
\label{eq:160111a}\end{aligned}$$ where the *pairing* of two functions, say ${{\mathit{f}}}\kr{{\mathit{h}}}$, is defined by $({{\mathit{f}}}\kr{{\mathit{h}}})\;{\mathit{x}}\mathrel{=}({\mathit{f}}\;{\mathit{x}},{\mathit{h}}\;{\mathit{x}})$.[^13] As an example of the intersection rule consider $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\frac{{\mathit{true}}}{{\mathit{q}}}}\mathbin\cap{\frac{{\mathit{p}}}{{\mathit{true}}}}} = \ensuremath{\frac{{{\mathit{true}}}\kr{{\mathit{p}}}}{{{\mathit{q}}}\kr{{\mathit{true}}}}}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathit{p}}$ and ${\mathit{q}}$ are predicates and ${\mathit{true}}$ is the everywhere true predicate already introduced. It is easy to show that ${\mathit{y}}\;\frac{{\mathit{true}}}{{\mathit{q}}}\;{\mathit{x}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{q}}\;{\mathit{y}}$ and ${\mathit{y}}\;\frac{{\mathit{p}}}{{\mathit{true}}}\;{\mathit{x}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{p}}\;{\mathit{x}}$ hold; so the intersection should mean ${\mathit{q}}\;{\mathit{y}}\mathrel{\wedge}{\mathit{p}}\;{\mathit{x}}$. In fact: $$\begin{aligned}
\start
\ensuremath{{\mathit{y}}\;\frac{{{\mathit{true}}}\kr{{\mathit{p}}}}{{{\mathit{q}}}\kr{{\mathit{true}}}}\;{\mathit{x}}}
\just\equiv{ pointwise meaning of \ensuremath{\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}} and \ensuremath{{{\mathit{f}}}\kr{{\mathit{g}}}} }
\ensuremath{({\mathit{q}}\;{\mathit{y}},\textsc{t})\mathrel{=}(\textsc{t},{\mathit{p}}\;{\mathit{x}})}
\just\equiv{ equality of pairs ; predicate logic }
\ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\;{\mathit{y}}\mathrel{\wedge}{\mathit{p}}\;{\mathit{x}}}
\qed\end{aligned}$$ We will focus on the particular metaphoric pattern ${\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}}\mathbin\cap{\frac{{\mathit{true}}}{{\mathit{p}}}}\mathrel{=}\frac{{{\mathit{f}}}\kr{{\mathit{true}}}}{{{\mathit{g}}}\kr{{\mathit{p}}}}$ later in this paper: $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{y}}\;({\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}}\mathbin\cap{\frac{{\mathit{true}}}{{\mathit{p}}}})\;{\mathit{x}}} \hskip1ex\ensuremath{~\Leftrightarrow~}\hskip1ex \ensuremath{({\mathit{g}}\;{\mathit{y}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{f}}\;{\mathit{x}})} \hskip1ex\ensuremath{\mathrel{\wedge}}\hskip1ex \ensuremath{{\mathit{p}}\;{\mathit{y}}}\end{aligned}$$ In this relational specification pattern, outputs ${\mathit{y}}$ preserve some common information wrt. inputs ${\mathit{x}}$ with the additional ingredient of satisfying post-condition ${\mathit{p}}$.
#### Rectangular metaphors
A relation ${\mathit{R}}$ is said to be *rectangular* iff ${\mathit{R}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{R}} \comp \top \comp {\mathit{R}}$ holds [@Ri48; @Sc08]. Note that ${{\mathit{R}}}\subseteq{{\mathit{R}} \comp \top \comp {\mathit{R}}}$ always holds: ${\mathit{b}}\;{\mathit{R}}\;{\mathit{a}}$ implies that there exist ${\mathit{a'}},{\mathit{b'}}$ such that ${\mathit{b}}\;{\mathit{R}}\;{\mathit{a'}}$ and ${\mathit{b'}}\;{\mathit{R}}\;{\mathit{a}}$. Metaphors of the form $\frac{\wider{\kons{{\mathit{a}}}}}{{\mathit{f}}}$ (meaning ${\mathit{f}}\;{\mathit{x}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{a}}$ for some given ${\mathit{a}}$) are rectangular, as the following calculation shows: $$\begin{aligned}
\start
\ensuremath{\frac{\wider{\kons{{\mathit{a}}}}}{{\mathit{f}}} \comp \top \comp \frac{\wider{\kons{{\mathit{a}}}}}{{\mathit{f}}}\mathrel{=}\frac{\wider{\kons{{\mathit{a}}}}}{{\mathit{f}}}}
\just\equiv{ since \ensuremath{{{\mathit{R}}}\subseteq{{\mathit{R}} \comp \top \comp {\mathit{R}}}} always holds }
\ensuremath{{\frac{\wider{\kons{{\mathit{a}}}}}{{\mathit{f}}} \comp \top \comp \frac{\wider{\kons{{\mathit{a}}}}}{{\mathit{f}}}}\subseteq{\frac{\wider{\kons{{\mathit{a}}}}}{{\mathit{f}}}}}
\just\implied{ monotonicity of composition (by \ensuremath{\conv{{\mathit{f}}}}) }
\ensuremath{{\kons{{\mathit{a}}} \comp \top \comp \frac{\kons{{\mathit{a}}}}{{\mathit{f}}}}\subseteq{\kons{{\mathit{a}}}}}
\just\equiv{ shunting (\ref{eq:020617e}) ; \ensuremath{\frac{\kons{{\mathit{a}}}}{\kons{{\mathit{a}}}}\mathrel{=}\top } }
\ensuremath{{\top \comp \frac{\kons{{\mathit{a}}}}{{\mathit{f}}}}\subseteq{\top }}
\just\equiv{ any relation is at most \ensuremath{\top } }
\ensuremath{{\mathit{true}}}
\qed\end{aligned}$$ As rectangularity is preserved by converse, $\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{\wider{\kons{{\mathit{a}}}}}$ is also rectangular.
#### Kernel metaphors
In keeping with the analogy between fractions of integers and *fractions of functions* one might wish the equality $\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{f}}}\mathrel{=}{id}$ to hold, but this only happens for ${\mathit{f}}$ injective. [^14] As seen in , metaphor $\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{f}}}$ is an *equivalence relation* and therefore reflexive: $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{{id}}\subseteq{\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{f}}}}}
\label{eq:160112e}\end{aligned}$$ It is known as the *kernel* of ${\mathit{f}}$ and it “measures” the injectivity of ${\mathit{f}}$, as defined by the preorder $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{f}}{\leqslant}{\mathit{g}}} \wider\equiv \ensuremath{{\frac{{\mathit{g}}}{{\mathit{g}}}}\subseteq{\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{f}}}}}
\label{eq:160112f}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathit{f}}{\leqslant}{\mathit{g}}$ means that ${\mathit{f}}$ is *less injective* than ${\mathit{g}}$.[^15] Clearly, $\mathop{!}{\leqslant}{\mathit{f}}{\leqslant}{id}$ for any ${\mathit{f}}$ (\[eq:060124a\],\[eq:160112e\]). The following alternative way of stating (\[eq:160112f\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{f}}{\leqslant}{\mathit{g}}} & \ensuremath{~\Leftrightarrow~} & \ensuremath{\rcb{\exists }{{\mathit{k}}}{}{{\mathit{f}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{k}} \comp {\mathit{g}}}}
\label{eq:160118f}\end{aligned}$$ is given by Gibbons [@Gi16].
Every equivalence relation $\larrow{{\mathit{A}}}{{\mathit{R}}}{{\mathit{A}}}$ is representable by a kernel metaphor, and canonically by $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{R}}\mathrel{=}\frac{\Lambda{{\mathit{R}}}}{\Lambda{{\mathit{R}}}}}
\label{eq:160115a}\end{aligned}$$ where the power transpose $\Lambda{{\mathit{R}}}$ maps each element of ${\mathit{A}}$ into its *equivalence class*. (\[eq:160115a\]) follows immediately from (\[eq:160115b\]) and (\[eq:160108a\]).
#### Weakest preconditions
Given a predicate ${\mathit{p}}$, we define the metaphor ${\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}{{id}}\mathbin\cap{\frac{{\mathit{true}}}{{\mathit{p}}}}}
\label{eq:160121c}\end{aligned}$$ This is called the *partial identity*[^16] for ${\mathit{p}}$ in the sense that
> ${\mathit{y}}\;({\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?})\;{\mathit{x}}~\Leftrightarrow~({\mathit{p}}\;{\mathit{y}})\mathrel{\wedge}{\mathit{y}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{x}}$
holds. That is, ${\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}$ is the fragment of ${id}$ where ${\mathit{p}}$ holds. Note that ${\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}{{id}}\mathbin\cap{\frac{{\mathit{p}}}{{\mathit{true}}}}$ by converses. The rectangular metaphor $\frac{{\mathit{true}}}{{\mathit{p}}}$ can be recovered from ${\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \top \mathrel{=}\frac{{\mathit{true}}}{{\mathit{p}}}}\end{aligned}$$ (Conversely, $\top \comp {\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}\frac{{\mathit{p}}}{{\mathit{true}}}$.) It is easy to show that $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{{\mathit{f}}}\mathbin\cap{\frac{{\mathit{true}}}{{\mathit{q}}}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {\mathit{f}}}
\\
\ensuremath{{{\mathit{f}}}\mathbin\cap{\frac{{\mathit{p}}}{{\mathit{true}}}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{f}} \comp {\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}}\end{aligned}$$ hold.[^17] Thus, ${\mathit{q}}$ (resp. ${\mathit{p}}$) work as *post* (resp. *pre*) conditions for function ${\mathit{f}}$. The particular situation in which ${\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {\mathit{f}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{f}} \comp {\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}$ holds captures a *weakest/strongest* pre/post-condition relationship expressed by the following universal property: $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{f}} \comp {\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}} = \ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {\mathit{f}}} & \wider\equiv & \ensuremath{{\mathit{p}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{q}} \comp {\mathit{f}}}
\label{eq:150406c}\end{aligned}$$ Condition ${\mathit{p}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{q}} \comp {\mathit{f}}$ is equivalent to ${\mathit{p}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{wp}}\;({\mathit{f}},{\mathit{q}})$, the weakest precondition (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">wp</span>) for the outputs of ${\mathit{f}}$ to fall within ${\mathit{q}}$. Property (\[eq:150406c\]) enables a “logic-free” calculation of weakest preconditions, as we shall soon see: given ${\mathit{f}}$ and post-condition ${\mathit{q}}$, there exists a unique (weakest) precondition ${\mathit{p}}$ such that ${\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {\mathit{f}}$ can be replaced by ${\mathit{f}} \comp {\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}$. Moreover: $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{f}}} \comp {\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}} = \ensuremath{{\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{f}}}} & \wider\implied & \ensuremath{{\mathit{p}}{\leqslant}{\mathit{f}}} \label{eq:150407a-modified}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\leqslant}$ denotes the injectivity preorder on functions (\[eq:160112f\],\[eq:160118f\]). Relational proofs for (\[eq:150406c\]) and (\[eq:150407a-modified\]) are given in \[sec:150329b\].
#### Products of metaphors
Metaphors can also be combined pairwise, leading to metaphors on pairs. [^18] This situation is captured by the *product rule*, $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}} \times \frac{{\mathit{h}}}{{\mathit{k}}}} = \ensuremath{\frac{{\mathit{f}} \times {\mathit{h}}}{{\mathit{g}} \times {\mathit{k}}}}
\label{eq:160112a}\end{aligned}$$ telling that the product of two metaphors is a metaphor. Relational (Kronecker) product is defined as expected, $({\mathit{x}},{\mathit{y}})\;({\mathit{R}} \times {\mathit{S}})\;({\mathit{a}},{\mathit{b}})~\Leftrightarrow~{\mathit{x}}\;{\mathit{R}}\;{\mathit{a}}\mathrel{\wedge}{\mathit{y}}\;{\mathit{S}}\;{\mathit{b}}$, which, in the case of functions, becomes $({\mathit{f}} \times {\mathit{g}})\;({\mathit{a}},{\mathit{b}})\mathrel{=}({\mathit{f}}\;{\mathit{a}},{\mathit{g}}\;{\mathit{b}})$. Both pairing and product can be written pointfree, $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{R}} \times {\mathit{S}}\mathrel{=}{{\mathit{R}} \comp \p1}\kr{{\mathit{S}} \comp \p2}}
\label{eq:960923c-rel}
\\
\ensuremath{{{\mathit{R}}}\kr{{\mathit{S}}}\mathrel{=}{\conv{\p1} \comp {\mathit{R}}}\mathbin\cap{\conv{\p2} \comp {\mathit{S}}}}
\label{eq:030418a}\end{aligned}$$ where $\p1\;({\mathit{a}},{\mathit{b}})\mathrel{=}{\mathit{a}}$ and $\p2\;({\mathit{a}},{\mathit{b}})\mathrel{=}{\mathit{b}}$ are the standard projections. The proof of (\[eq:160112a\]) follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\start
\ensuremath{\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}} \times \frac{{\mathit{h}}}{{\mathit{k}}}}
\just={ (\ref{eq:960923c-rel}) ; (\ref{eq:160112b}) }
\ensuremath{{\frac{{\mathit{f}} \comp \p1}{{\mathit{g}}}}\kr{\frac{{\mathit{h}} \comp \p2}{{\mathit{k}}}}}
\just={ (\ref{eq:030418a}) ; (\ref{eq:160112b}) }
\ensuremath{{\frac{{\mathit{f}} \comp \p1}{{\mathit{g}} \comp \p1}}\mathbin\cap{\frac{{\mathit{h}} \comp \p2}{{\mathit{k}} \comp \p2}}}
\just={ (\ref{eq:160111a}) }
\ensuremath{\frac{{{\mathit{f}} \comp \p1}\kr{{\mathit{g}} \comp \p1}}{{{\mathit{h}} \comp \p2}\kr{{\mathit{k}} \comp \p2}}}
\eqnnewpage
\just={ (\ref{eq:960923c-rel}) twice }
\ensuremath{\frac{{\mathit{f}} \times {\mathit{g}}}{{\mathit{h}} \times {\mathit{k}}}}
\qed\end{aligned}$$
#### Functorial metaphors
Metaphor product rule (\[eq:160112a\]) can be regarded as an instance of a more general result: any relator $\fun F $ [^19] distributes over a metaphor $\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{\fun F \;\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}\mathrel{=}\frac{\fun F \;{\mathit{f}}}{\fun F \;{\mathit{g}}}}
\label{eq:160118d}\end{aligned}$$ This result follows immediately from standard properties of relators, $\fun F \;({\mathit{R}} \comp {\mathit{S}})\mathrel{=}(\fun F \;{\mathit{R}}) \comp (\fun F \;{\mathit{S}})$ and $\fun F \;(\conv{{\mathit{R}}})\mathrel{=}\conv{(\fun F \;{\mathit{R}})}$. Rule (\[eq:160112a\]) corresponds to $\fun F \;({\mathit{R}},{\mathit{S}})\mathrel{=}{\mathit{R}} \times {\mathit{S}}$, where $\fun F $ is binary. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}\mathbin{+}\frac{{\mathit{h}}}{{\mathit{k}}}} = \ensuremath{\frac{{\mathit{f}}\mathbin{+}{\mathit{h}}}{{\mathit{g}}\mathbin{+}{\mathit{k}}}}
\label{eq:160118e}\end{aligned}$$ also holds, where direct sum ${\mathit{R}}\mathbin{+}{\mathit{S}}$ is the same as $\alt{i_1 \comp {\mathit{R}}}{i_2 \comp {\mathit{S}}}$, where $i_1$ and $i_2$ are the standard *injections* associated to a datatype sum, $\myxym{
\ensuremath{{\mathit{A}}}
\ar[r]^-{\ensuremath{i_1}}
&
\ensuremath{{\mathit{A}}\mathbin{+}{\mathit{B}}}
&
\ensuremath{{\mathit{B}}}
\ar[l]_-{\ensuremath{i_2}}
}
$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{\larrow{{\mathit{A}}\mathbin{+}{\mathit{B}}}{\alt{{\mathit{R}}}{{\mathit{S}}}}{{\mathit{C}}}}\end{aligned}$$ denotes the junction ${{\mathit{R}} \comp \conv{i_1}}\cup{{\mathit{R}} \comp \conv{i_2}}$ of relations $\larrow{{\mathit{A}}}{{\mathit{R}}}{{\mathit{C}}}$ and $\larrow{{\mathit{B}}}{{\mathit{S}}}{{\mathit{C}}}$. By (\[eq:160118f\]), one has $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{\alt{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}} {\leqslant}\ensuremath{{\mathit{f}}+{\mathit{g}}}
\label{eq:150401a-fun}\end{aligned}$$ since $\alt{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}\mathrel{=}\alt{{id}}{{id}} \comp ({\mathit{f}}\mathbin{+}{\mathit{g}})$ by coproduct laws. Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{f}}+{\mathit{g}}} {\leqslant}\ensuremath{{\mathit{h}}+{\mathit{k}}} \wider\equiv \ensuremath{{\mathit{f}}{\leqslant}{\mathit{h}}} \land \ensuremath{{\mathit{g}}{\leqslant}{\mathit{k}}}
\label{eq:150406j-fun}\end{aligned}$$ holds by coproduct laws too, since ${\frac{{\mathit{h}}\mathbin{+}{\mathit{k}}}{{\mathit{h}}\mathbin{+}{\mathit{k}}}}\subseteq{\frac{{\mathit{f}}\mathbin{+}{\mathit{g}}}{{\mathit{f}}\mathbin{+}{\mathit{g}}}}$ is equivalent to ${\frac{{\mathit{h}}}{{\mathit{h}}}\mathbin{+}\frac{{\mathit{k}}}{{\mathit{k}}}}\subseteq{\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{f}}}\mathbin{+}\frac{{\mathit{g}}}{{\mathit{g}}}}$ by (\[eq:160118e\]).
#### Difunctionality and uniformity
A relation ${\mathit{R}}$ is said to be *difunctional* [@Ri48; @Sc08] or *regular* [@JMBD91] wherever ${\mathit{R}} \comp \conv{{\mathit{R}}} \comp {\mathit{R}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{R}}$ holds, which amounts to ${\mathit{R}} \comp \conv{{\mathit{R}}} \comp {\mathit{R}}\; \subseteq \;{\mathit{R}}$ since the converse inclusion always holds.
Metaphors are difunctional because every symmetric division is so, as is easy to check by application of laws (\[eq:151118d\]) and (\[eq:151119a\]). The fact that every function ${\mathit{f}}$ is difunctional can be expressed by ${\mathit{f}} \comp \frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{f}}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{f}}$.
A relation ${\mathit{R}}$ is said to be *uniform* [@JMBD91] if and only if $\Lambda{{\mathit{R}}}{\leqslant}{\mathit{R}}$, where preorder (\[eq:160112f\]) is extended to arbitrary relations $$\begin{aligned}
R {\leqslant}S & \wider\equiv & \ensuremath{\conv{{\mathit{S}}} \comp {\mathit{S}}} \subseteq \ensuremath{\conv{{\mathit{R}}} \comp {\mathit{R}}}
\label{eq:041217a}\end{aligned}$$ as in [@Ol14a]. Metaphors are uniform relations, because a relation is uniform iff it is difunctional (regular), as the following calculation shows: $$\begin{aligned}
\start
\mbox{\ensuremath{{\mathit{R}}} is uniform}
\just\equiv{ definition above }
\ensuremath{\Lambda{{\mathit{R}}}{\leqslant}{\mathit{R}}}
\just\equiv{ (\ref{eq:041217a}) ; (\ref{eq:160117a}) }
\ensuremath{{\conv{{\mathit{R}}} \comp {\mathit{R}}}\subseteq{\frac{\Lambda{{\mathit{R}}}}{\Lambda{{\mathit{R}}}}}}
\just\equiv{ \ensuremath{\Lambda } cancellation (\ref{eq:160108a}) }
\ensuremath{{\conv{{\mathit{R}}} \comp {\mathit{R}}}\subseteq{\frac{{\mathit{R}}}{{\mathit{R}}}}}
\just\equiv{ universal property (\ref{eq:151118b}) of symmetric division }
\ensuremath{{{\mathit{R}} \comp \conv{{\mathit{R}}} \comp {\mathit{R}}}\subseteq{{\mathit{R}}}}
\just\equiv{ definition above }
\mbox{\ensuremath{{\mathit{R}}} is difunctional}
\qed\end{aligned}$$ Note how step ${\conv{{\mathit{R}}} \comp {\mathit{R}}}\subseteq{\frac{{\mathit{R}}}{{\mathit{R}}}}$ above captures the intuition about a regular (i.e. uniform, difunctional) relation ${\mathit{R}}$, as given in the introduction, recall (\[eq:170813a\]): $a_1 \;(\conv{{\mathit{R}}} \comp {\mathit{R}})\;a_2 $ tells that $a_1 $ and $a_2 $ have *some* common image; $a_1 \;\frac{{\mathit{R}}}{{\mathit{R}}}\;a_2 $ tells that they have *exactly the same* image sets.
#### Functional metaphors
When is a metaphor $\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}$ a function? Shunting rules (\[eq:020617e\],\[eq:020617f\]) are equivalent to saying that ${\mathit{f}}$ is total (or *entire*) — ${{id}}\subseteq{\conv{{\mathit{f}}}\;{\mathit{f}}}$, which we have already seen in fraction notation (\[eq:160112e\]) — and deterministic (or *simple*) — ${{\mathit{f}} \comp \conv{{\mathit{f}}}}\subseteq{{id}}$. We shall use notation $\ap{\rho}{\mathit{f}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{f}} \comp \conv{{\mathit{f}}}$ for the *range* (of output values) of ${\mathit{f}}$.
By (\[eq:020617e\],\[eq:020617f\]), checking the totality of $\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}$ — ${{id}}\subseteq{\frac{{\mathit{g}}}{{\mathit{f}}}} \comp \frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}$ — amounts to ${\ap{\rho}{\mathit{f}}}\subseteq{\ap{\rho}{\mathit{g}}}$: the attribute value of any given vehicle is the attribute value of some tenor. In case ${\mathit{g}}$ is surjective ($\ap{\rho}{\mathit{g}}\mathrel{=}{id}$), $\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}$ is total for any ${\mathit{f}}$. For determinism to hold, $\ap{\rho}\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}\mathrel{=}\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}} \comp \frac{{\mathit{g}}}{{\mathit{f}}}\; \subseteq \;{id}$, rule (\[eq:160112d\]) offers the sufficient condition $\frac{{\mathit{g}}}{{\mathit{g}}}\mathrel{=}{id}$, that is, ${\mathit{g}}$ injective suffices.
For total metaphors, the inclusion ${{\mathit{h}}}\subseteq{\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}}$ has at least a functional solution ${\mathit{h}}$, which can be calculated using the rule $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{{\mathit{h}}}\subseteq{\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}}~\Leftrightarrow~{\mathit{g}} \comp {\mathit{h}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{f}}}
\label{eq:160114a}\end{aligned}$$ that relies on the useful law of *function equality* $$\begin{aligned}
f \subseteq g \equiv f = g \equiv f \supseteq g
\label{eq:020617g}\end{aligned}$$ itself a follow-up of shunting rules (\[eq:020617e\],\[eq:020617f\]).
Divide & conquer metaphors {#sec:160125c}
==========================
#### “Shrinking" metaphors
Thus far we have not taken into account the *shrinking* part of (\[eq:150205e\]), which we now write using fraction notation: $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{M}}\mathrel{=}{\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}}
\label{eq:160123a}\end{aligned}$$ By law (\[eq:fn-shrink-r\]) one gets: $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}} = \ensuremath{({\frac{{id}}{{\mathit{g}}}}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}) \comp {\mathit{f}}}\end{aligned}$$ Below we will show that this equality is an instance of a more general result that underlies more elaborate metaphor transformations that prove useful in the sequel. The main idea of such transformations is to split a $\larrow{\mathsf{V}}{}{\fun T }$ metaphor in two parts mediated by an intermediate type, say $\fun W $ in $$\xymatrix{\ensuremath{\fun T }&\ensuremath{\fun W }\ar[l]&\ensuremath{\mathsf{V}}\ar[l]}$$ which is intended to gain control of the “pipeline”. This can be done in two ways. Suppose there is a surjection ${\mathit{h}}$ : $\fun W \to \fun T $ onto the tenor side, that is, $\ap{\rho}{\mathit{h}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{h}} \comp \conv{{\mathit{h}}}\mathrel{=}{id}$. Then the splitting can be expressed as in the following diagram $$\begin{aligned}
\vcenter{\xymatrix@C=2.5ex@R=1ex{
\ensuremath{\fun T }
&&&
\ensuremath{\fun W }
\ar[lll]_{\ensuremath{{\mathit{h}}}}
\ar[rd]_{\ensuremath{{\mathit{h}}}}
&
&
&
\ensuremath{\mathsf{V}}
\ar[ldd]^{\ensuremath{{\mathit{f}}}}
\ar[lll]_{\ensuremath{{\mathit{X}}}}
\ar@{.>}@/_1.8pc/[llllll]_(.45){\ensuremath{{\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}}}
\\
&
&
&
&
\ensuremath{\fun T }
\ar[rd]_{\ensuremath{{\mathit{g}}}}
\\
&
&
&
&
&
\ensuremath{{\mathit{A}}}
}}
\label{eq:160124a}\end{aligned}$$ provided one can find a relation ${\mathit{X}}$ such that ${\mathit{h}} \comp {\mathit{X}}\mathrel{=}{\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}$. Alternatively, we can imagine *surjection* ${\mathit{h}}$ onto the vehicle side, say ${\mathit{h}}$ : $\fun W \to \mathsf{V}$ in $$\begin{aligned}
\vcenter{\xymatrix@C=2.3ex@R=1.4ex{
\ensuremath{\fun T }
\ar[rdd]_{\ensuremath{{\mathit{g}}}}
&
&
&
\ensuremath{\fun W }
\ar[lll]_{\ensuremath{{\mathit{Y}}}}
\ar[ld]^{\ensuremath{{\mathit{h}}}}
&
&
\ensuremath{\mathsf{V}}
\ar[ll]_{\ensuremath{\conv{{\mathit{h}}}}}
\ar@{.>}@/_1.8pc/[lllll]_(.45){\ensuremath{{\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}}}
\\
&
&
\ensuremath{\mathsf{V}}
\ar[ld]^{\ensuremath{{\mathit{f}}}}
\\
&
\ensuremath{{\mathit{A}}}
&
}}
\label{eq:160124b}\end{aligned}$$ and try and find relation ${\mathit{Y}}$ such that ${\mathit{Y}} \comp \conv{{\mathit{h}}}\mathrel{=}{\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}$.
Note how intermediate type $\fun W $ is a *representation* of $\fun T $ or $\mathsf{V}$ in, respectively, (\[eq:160124a\]) and (\[eq:160124b\]), ${\mathit{h}}$ acting as a typical data refinement *abstraction* function.[^20] Anticipating that the two-stage schemas of (\[eq:160124a\]) and (\[eq:160124b\]) are intended to specify *divide & conquer* implementations of the original metaphor, let us calculate *conquer* step ${\mathit{Y}}$ in the first place: $$\begin{aligned}
\start
\ensuremath{{\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}}
\just={ identity of composition }
\ensuremath{({\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}) \comp {id}}
\just={ \ensuremath{{\mathit{h}}} assumed to be a surjection, \ensuremath{\ap{\rho}{\mathit{h}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{h}} \comp \conv{{\mathit{h}}}\mathrel{=}{id}} }
\ensuremath{({\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}) \comp {\mathit{h}} \comp \conv{{\mathit{h}}}}
\just={ law (\ref{eq:fn-shrink-r}) }
\ensuremath{\underbrace{({\frac{{\mathit{f}} \comp {\mathit{h}}}{{\mathit{g}}}}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}})}_{{\mathit{Y}}} \comp \conv{{\mathit{h}}}}
$$ Clearly, in this refinement strategy, the optimization of the starting metaphor goes into the *conquer* stage, where it optimizes a richer metaphor between tenor $\fun T $ and $\fun W $, the new vehicle. *Divide* step $\conv{{\mathit{h}}}$ is just a representation of the original vehicle $\mathsf{V}$ into the new vehicle $\fun W $ (\[eq:160124b\]). Altogether: $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}} &=& \ensuremath{({\frac{{\mathit{f}} \comp {\mathit{h}}}{{\mathit{g}}}}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}) \comp \conv{{\mathit{h}}}} ~~~~~~~~~ \mbox{for \ensuremath{{\mathit{h}}} surjective }
\label{eq:160124f}\end{aligned}$$ In a diagram, completing (\[eq:160124b\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\xymatrix@C=2.3ex@R=1.4ex{
&
\ensuremath{\fun T }
\\
\\
\ensuremath{\fun T }
\ar@/^0.5pc/[ruu]^(.5){\ensuremath{{\mathit{R}}}}
\ar[rdd]_{\ensuremath{{\mathit{g}}}}
&
&
&
\ensuremath{\fun W }
\ar[lll]_{\ensuremath{\frac{{\mathit{f}} \comp {\mathit{h}}}{{\mathit{g}}}}}
\ar[lluu]_{\ensuremath{{\frac{{\mathit{f}} \comp {\mathit{h}}}{{\mathit{g}}}}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}}}
\ar[ld]^{\ensuremath{{\mathit{h}}}}
&
&
\ensuremath{\mathsf{V}}
\ar[ll]_{\ensuremath{\conv{{\mathit{h}}}}}
\ar@{.>}@/_1.8pc/[lllluu]_(.45){\ensuremath{{\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}}}
\\
&
&
\ensuremath{\mathsf{V}}
\ar[ld]^{\ensuremath{{\mathit{f}}}}
\\
&
\ensuremath{{\mathit{A}}}
&
}\end{aligned}$$
Dually, it is to be expected that the derivation of ${\mathit{X}}$ in (\[eq:160124a\]) will yield an optimized *divide* step where most of the work goes, running ${\mathit{h}}$ as *conquer* step to abstract from $\fun W $, the new tenor, to $\fun T $, the old tenor. Due to the asymmetry of *shrinking*, the inference of ${\mathit{X}}$ is less immediate, calling for definition (\[eq:100211c\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\start
\ensuremath{{\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}}
\just={ (\ref{eq:100211c}) ; converse of a metaphor (\ref{eq:160112c}) }
\ensuremath{{\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}}\mathbin\cap{{\mathit{R}}\mathbin{/}\frac{{\mathit{g}}}{{\mathit{f}}}}}
\just={ \ensuremath{{\mathit{h}}} assumed to be a surjection, \ensuremath{\ap{\rho}{\mathit{h}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{h}} \comp \conv{{\mathit{h}}}\mathrel{=}{id}} }
\ensuremath{{\mathit{h}} \comp \conv{{\mathit{h}}} \comp ({\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}}\mathbin\cap{{\mathit{R}}\mathbin{/}\frac{{\mathit{g}}}{{\mathit{f}}}})}
\just={ injective \ensuremath{\conv{{\mathit{h}}}} distributes over \ensuremath{\cap } ; (\ref{eq:151118c}) }
\ensuremath{{\mathit{h}} \comp ({\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}} \comp {\mathit{h}}}}\mathbin\cap{\conv{{\mathit{h}}} \comp {\mathit{R}}\mathbin{/}\frac{{\mathit{g}}}{{\mathit{f}}}})}
\just={ (\ref{eq:100707a}) ; shunting (\ref{eq:020617f}) }
\ensuremath{{\mathit{h}} \comp \underbrace{({\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}} \comp {\mathit{h}}}}\mathbin\cap{\conv{{\mathit{h}}} \comp ({\mathit{R}}\mathbin{/}{\mathit{g}}) \comp {\mathit{f}}})}_{{\mathit{X}}}}
$$ Clearly, the choice of some intermediate ${\mathit{w}}$ by ${\mathit{X}}$ tells where the optimization has moved to, as detailed below by rendering ${\mathit{X}}$ in pointwise notation:
\
\
(())
In words:
> *Given vehicle ${\mathit{v}}$, ${\mathit{X}}$ will select those ${\mathit{w}}$ that represent tenors (${\mathit{h}}\;{\mathit{w}}$) with the same attribute (${\mathit{a}}$) as vehicle ${\mathit{v}}$, and that are best among all other tenors ${\mathit{t}}$ exhibiting the same attribute ${\mathit{a}}$.*
Altogether: $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}} &=&
\ensuremath{{\mathit{h}} \comp ({\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}} \comp {\mathit{h}}}}\mathbin\cap{\conv{{\mathit{h}}} \comp ({\mathit{R}}\mathbin{/}{\mathit{g}}) \comp {\mathit{f}}})}
~~~~~~~~~ \mbox{for \ensuremath{{\mathit{h}}} surjective }
\label{eq:160124e}\end{aligned}$$ A calculation similar to that showing $\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}$ difunctional above, will show that ${\mathit{R}}\mathbin{/}{\mathit{g}}$ being difunctional is sufficient for factor $\conv{{\mathit{h}}} \comp ({\mathit{R}}\mathbin{/}{\mathit{g}}) \comp {\mathit{f}}$ in (\[eq:160124e\]) to be so.
#### Post-conditioned metaphors
Let us finally consider the following pattern of metaphor shrinking $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}}\shrunkby{\frac{{\mathit{true}}}{{\mathit{q}}}}}
\label{eq:160124c}\end{aligned}$$ indicating that only the outputs satisfying ${\mathit{q}}$ are regarded as good enough. That is, ${\mathit{q}}$ acts as a *post-condition* on $\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}$. An example of (\[eq:160124c\]) is the metaphor $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{Sort}}\mathrel{=}{\frac{{\mathit{bag}}}{{\mathit{bag}}}}\shrunkby{\frac{{\mathit{true}}}{{\mathit{ordered}}}}}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathit{bag}}$ is the function that extracts the bag (multiset) of elements of a finite list and ${\mathit{ordered}}$ the predicate that checks whether a finite list is ordered according to some predefined criterion. Clearly, $\mathsf{V}\mathrel{=}\fun T $ in this example.
The laws developed above for metaphor shrinking can be instantiated for this pattern and reasoned about. Alternatively, it can easily be shown that (\[eq:160124c\]) reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}}\mathbin\cap{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \top }}
\label{eq:160124d}\end{aligned}$$ provided $\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}$ is entire (total), which is surely the case wherever ${\mathit{f}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{g}}$, as we have seen. This follows from this law of the shrinking operator proved in \[sec:150329b\]: $$\begin{aligned}
S \shrunkby (\ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}} \comp \top) = \ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}}\comp S ~~~ \implied ~~~~ \mbox{$S$ is entire }
\label{eq:150214b}\end{aligned}$$
Specifications of the form ${\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{f}}}}\mathbin\cap{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \top }$ are intersections of an *equivalence relation with a rectangular relation*, a common specification pattern already identified by @JMBD91. As intersections of rational relations are rational (regular) relations, pattern ${\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{f}}}}\mathbin\cap{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \top }$ is rational. By (\[eq:081025a\]), (\[eq:160124d\]) further reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}}\end{aligned}$$ a pattern to be referred to as a *postconditioned metaphor*. Sorting thus is one such metaphor, $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{Sort}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{ordered}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {\mathit{Perm}}} ~~~\ensuremath{\mathbf{where}} ~~~~ \ensuremath{{\mathit{Perm}}\mathrel{=}\frac{{\mathit{bag}}}{{\mathit{bag}}}}
\label{eq:160118b}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathit{y}}\;{\mathit{Perm}}\;{\mathit{x}}$ means that ${\mathit{y}}$ is a *permutation* of ${\mathit{x}}$.
Understandably, the *divide & conquer* versions of a postconditioned metaphor are easier to calculate than in the generic cases above, because one can take advantage of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">wp</span> laws such as e.g. (\[eq:150406c\]). Corresponding to (\[eq:160124e\]), one gets $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{h}} \comp {\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}} \comp {\mathit{h}}}}
~~~~~~~~~ \mbox{for \ensuremath{{\mathit{h}}} surjective and \ensuremath{{\mathit{p}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{q}} \comp {\mathit{h}}}}
\label{eq:160125a}\end{aligned}$$ since: $$\begin{aligned}
\start
\ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {id} \comp \frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}}
\just={ \ensuremath{{\mathit{h}}} assumed surjective }
\eqnnewpage
\ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {\mathit{h}} \comp \conv{{\mathit{h}}} \comp \frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}}
\just={ switch to \textsc{wp} \ensuremath{{\mathit{p}}} (\ref{eq:150406c}), cf.\ \ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {\mathit{h}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{h}} \comp {\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}} }
\ensuremath{{\mathit{h}} \comp \underbrace{{\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}} \comp {\mathit{h}}}}_{{\mathit{X}}}}
$$ The counterpart of (\[eq:160124f\]) is even more immediate: $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}\mathrel{=}\underbrace{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \frac{{\mathit{f}} \comp {\mathit{h}}}{{\mathit{g}}}}_{{\mathit{Y}}} \comp \conv{{\mathit{h}}}}
~~~~~~~~~ \mbox{for \ensuremath{{\mathit{h}}} surjective}
\label{eq:160125d}\end{aligned}$$
Metaphorisms {#sec:160125e}
============
Thus far, types $\fun T $, $\mathsf{V}$ and $\fun W $ have been left uninterpreted. We want now to address metaphors in which these are inductive (tree-like) types specified by initial algebras, say $\larrow{\fun F \;\fun T }{\mathsf{in}_{\fun F}}{\fun T }$, $\larrow{\fun G \;\fun W }{\mathsf{in}_{\fun G}}{\fun W }$ and $\larrow{\fun H \;\mathsf{V}}{\mathsf{in}_{\fun H}}{\mathsf{V}}$, assuming such algebras exist for functors $\fun F $, $\fun G $ and $\fun H $, respectively. Moreover, ${\mathit{f}}$, ${\mathit{g}}$ and ${\mathit{h}}$ become folds (catamorphisms) over such initial types, recall . We shall refer to such metaphors involving catamorphisms over inductive types as *metaphorisms* [@Ol15a].
To facilitate linking each type with its functor, we shall adopt the familiar notation $\muF $ instead of $\fun T $, $\muG $ instead of $\fun W $ and $\muH $ instead of $\mathsf{V}$. The popular notation $\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{R}}\mathclose{|\!)}$ will be used to express folds over such types, recall (\[eq:cataUniv-rel\]). Also useful in the sequel is the fact that inductive predicates can be expressed by folds too, in the form of partial identities:[^21] $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{R}}\mathclose{|\!)}\; \subseteq \;{id}} & \implied & \ensuremath{{\mathit{R}}\; \subseteq \;\mathsf{in}_{\fun F}}
\label{eq:170409b}\end{aligned}$$
Our first example of metaphorism calculation by fusion (\[eq:150402a\]) is the derivation of a simple (functional) *representation changer* [@HM93b]:
> *A representation changer is a function that converts a concrete representation of an abstract value into a different concrete representation of that value.*
Metaphorisms of the form $\frac{{\mathit{k}} \comp \mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{y}}\mathclose{|\!)}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{y}}\mathclose{|\!)}}$ are representation changers, in which the change of representation consists in picking an attribute of the vehicle, extracted by $\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{y}}\mathclose{|\!)}$, changing its value by applying ${\mathit{k}}$ and then mapping the new attribute value back to the tenor, which in this case is of the same type as the vehicle.
Representation changer $\frac{{\mathit{k}} \comp \mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{y}}\mathclose{|\!)}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{y}}\mathclose{|\!)}}$ is refined by a functional implementation $\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{x}}\mathclose{|\!)}$ provided, for some ${\mathit{z}}$ such that ${\mathit{k}} \comp {\mathit{y}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{z}} \comp \fun F \;{\mathit{k}}$ holds, ${\mathit{x}}\; \subseteq \;\frac{{\mathit{z}} \comp \fun F \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{y}}\mathclose{|\!)}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{y}}\mathclose{|\!)}}$ also holds. Proof: the proof relies on (double) fusion (\[eq:150402a\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\start
\ensuremath{{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{x}}\mathclose{|\!)}}\subseteq{\frac{{\mathit{k}} \comp \mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{y}}\mathclose{|\!)}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{y}}\mathclose{|\!)}}}}
\just\equiv{ (\ref{eq:160114a}) }
\ensuremath{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{y}}\mathclose{|\!)} \comp \mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{x}}\mathclose{|\!)}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{k}} \comp \mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{y}}\mathclose{|\!)}}
\just\equiv{ fuse \ensuremath{{\mathit{k}} \comp \mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{y}}\mathclose{|\!)}} into \ensuremath{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{z}}\mathclose{|\!)}} assuming \ensuremath{{\mathit{k}} \comp {\mathit{y}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{z}} \comp \fun F \;{\mathit{k}}} (\ref{eq:150402a}) }
\ensuremath{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{y}}\mathclose{|\!)} \comp \mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{x}}\mathclose{|\!)}\mathrel{=}\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{z}}\mathclose{|\!)}}
\just\implied{ fusion (\ref{eq:150402a}) again }
\ensuremath{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{y}}\mathclose{|\!)} \comp {\mathit{x}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{z}} \comp \fun F \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{y}}\mathclose{|\!)}}
\just\equiv{ metaphors (\ref{eq:160114a}) }
\ensuremath{{\mathit{x}}\; \subseteq \;\frac{{\mathit{z}} \comp \fun F \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{y}}\mathclose{|\!)}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{y}}\mathclose{|\!)}}}
$$ $\ensuremath{\Box}$
Comparing the top and bottom lines of the calculation above we see that the “banana brackets” of $\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{x}}\mathclose{|\!)}$ have disappeared. This condition, together with the intermediate assumption ${\mathit{k}} \comp {\mathit{y}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{z}} \comp \fun F \;{\mathit{k}}$, are sufficient for the refinement to take place.
The example of application of this theorem given below is a quite simple one, its purpose being mainly to illustrate the calculational style which will be followed in the rest of the paper to derive programs from metaphorisms. Let the initial algebra for finite lists be denoted by the familiar $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{\mathsf{in}_{\fun F}\mathrel{=}\alt{\mathsf{nil}}{\mathsf{cons}}}
\label{eq:160118a}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathsf{nil}\;{\kern0.06em \vbox{\hrule\@width.5em}}\mathrel{=}[\mskip1.5mu \mskip1.5mu]$ is the constant function which yields the empty list and $\mathsf{cons}\;({\mathit{a}},{\mathit{s}})\mathrel{=}{\mathit{a}}\mathbin{:}{\mathit{s}}$ adds ${\mathit{a}}$ to the front of ${\mathit{s}}$. The underlying functor is $\fun F \;{\mathit{f}}\mathrel{=}{id}\mathbin{+}{id} \times {\mathit{f}}$, recall (\[eq:170518a\]). Let $\mathsf{add}\;({\mathit{x}},{\mathit{y}})\mathrel{=}{\mathit{x}}\mathbin{+}{\mathit{y}}$ denote natural number addition and ${\mathit{k}}\mathrel{=}({\mathit{b}}\mathbin{+})$ be the unary function that adds ${\mathit{b}}$ to its argument. Define ${\mathit{y}}\mathrel{=}\alt{\mathsf{zero}}{\mathsf{add}}$ where $\mathsf{zero}$ is the everywhere-$\mathrm{0}$ constant function. So $\mathsf{sum}\mathrel{=}\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{y}}\mathclose{|\!)}$ is the function which sums all elements of a list.
The intended change of representation between a vehicle ${\mathit{v}}$ and tenor ${\mathit{t}}$ is specified by $\mathsf{sum}\;{\mathit{t}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{b}}\mathbin{+}\mathsf{sum}\;{\mathit{v}}$. Clearly, $({\mathit{b}}\mathbin{+}) \comp \alt{\mathsf{zero}}{\mathsf{add}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{z}} \comp ({id}\mathbin{+}{id} \times ({\mathit{b}}\mathbin{+}))$ has solution ${\mathit{z}}\mathrel{=}\alt{\kons{{\mathit{b}}}}{\mathsf{add}}$, since ${\mathit{b}}\mathbin{+}\mathrm{0}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{b}}$ and ${\mathit{b}}\mathbin{+}({\mathit{h}}\mathbin{+}{\mathit{t}})\mathrel{=}{\mathit{h}}\mathbin{+}({\mathit{b}}\mathbin{+}{\mathit{t}})$. Knowing ${\mathit{z}}$, our aim is to solve ${\mathit{x}}\; \subseteq \;\frac{{\mathit{z}} \comp \fun F \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{y}}\mathclose{|\!)}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{y}}\mathclose{|\!)}}$ for ${\mathit{x}}\mathrel{=}\alt{x_1}{x_2}$, helped by the following law $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{\alt{{\mathit{x}}}{{\mathit{y}}}\; \subseteq \;\frac{\alt{{\mathit{g}}}{{\mathit{h}}}}{{\mathit{f}}}} \ensuremath{~\Leftrightarrow~} \ensuremath{{\mathit{x}}\; \subseteq \;\frac{{\mathit{g}}}{{\mathit{f}}}\mathrel{\wedge}{\mathit{y}}\; \subseteq \;\frac{{\mathit{h}}}{{\mathit{f}}}}
$$ easy to infer by coproduct and metaphor algebra.
Applied to our example, this yields $x_1\; \subseteq \;\frac{\kons{{\mathit{b}}}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{y}}\mathclose{|\!)}}$ and $x_2\; \subseteq \;\frac{\mathsf{add} \comp ({id} \times \mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{y}}\mathclose{|\!)})}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{y}}\mathclose{|\!)}}$, the latter equivalent to $\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{y}}\mathclose{|\!)} \comp x_2\mathrel{=}\mathsf{add} \comp ({id} \times \mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{y}}\mathclose{|\!)})$. From this we get $x_2\mathrel{=}\mathsf{cons}$ by cancellation (\[eq:150402b\]). On the other hand, $x_1$ is necessarily a constant function $\kons{{\mathit{w}}}$ such that $\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{y}}\mathclose{|\!)}\;{\mathit{w}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{b}}$. The simplest choice for ${\mathit{w}}$ is the singleton list $[\mskip1.5mu {\mathit{b}}\mskip1.5mu]$. We therefore obtain the following functional solution for the given metaphor, unfolding ${\mathit{r}}\mathrel{=}\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{x}}\mathclose{|\!)}$ to pointwise notation: $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{r}}\;[\mskip1.5mu \mskip1.5mu]} & = & \ensuremath{[\mskip1.5mu {\mathit{b}}\mskip1.5mu]}
\\
\ensuremath{{\mathit{r}}\;({\mathit{a}}\mathbin{:}{\mathit{t}})} & = & \ensuremath{{\mathit{a}}\mathbin{+}{\mathit{r}}\;{\mathit{t}}}\end{aligned}$$
Shrinking metaphorisms into hylomorphisms {#sec:150406g}
=========================================
This section focusses on metaphorisms that are equivalence relations over inductive data types. Let $\larrow{\fun F \;\muF }{\mathsf{in}_{\fun F}}{\muF }$, and let $\larrow{\fun F \;{\mathit{A}}}{{\mathit{k}}}{{\mathit{A}}}$ be given, so that $\larrow{\muF }{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)}}{{\mathit{A}}}$. It turns out that not only is ${\mathit{R}}\mathrel{=}\frac{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)}}$ itself a relational fold $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{R}}\mathrel{=}\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{R}} \comp \mathsf{in}_{\fun F}\mathclose{|\!)}}\end{aligned}$$ of type $\larrow{\muF }{}{\muF }$, but also it is a *congruence* for the algebra $\mathsf{in}_{\fun F}$.[^22] This follows from the following theorem.
\[th:150327a\] Let ${\mathit{R}}$ be a congruence for an algebra ${\mathit{h}}\mathbin{:}\fun F \;{\mathit{A}}\to {\mathit{A}}$ of functor $\fun F $, that is $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{h}} \comp (\fun F \;{\mathit{R}})\; \subseteq \;{\mathit{R}} \comp {\mathit{h}}} & ~~ i.e. ~~ &
\ensuremath{{\mathit{y}}\;(\fun F \;{\mathit{R}})\;{\mathit{x}}\Rightarrow ({\mathit{h}}\;{\mathit{y}})\;{\mathit{R}}\;({\mathit{h}}\;{\mathit{x}})}
\label{eq:150326a}\end{aligned}$$ hold and ${\mathit{R}}$ is an equivalence relation. Then (\[eq:150326a\]) is equivalent to: $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{R}} \comp {\mathit{h}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{R}} \comp {\mathit{h}} \comp (\fun F \;{\mathit{R}})}
\label{eq:150326b}\end{aligned}$$ For the particular case ${\mathit{h}}\mathrel{=}\mathsf{in}_{\fun F}$, (\[eq:150326b\]) is equivalent to: $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{R}}\mathrel{=}\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{R}} \comp \mathsf{in}_{\fun F}\mathclose{|\!)}}
\label{eq:160118c}\end{aligned}$$ For ${\mathit{R}}$ presented as a kernel metaphor ${\mathit{R}}\mathrel{=}\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{f}}}$, (\[eq:150326a\]) is also equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{f}} \comp {\mathit{h}}{\leqslant}\fun F \;{\mathit{f}}}
\label{eq:160120c}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\leqslant}$ is the injectivity preorder (\[eq:160112f\]). (Proof: see \[sec:150329b\].)\
$\Box$
A standard result in algebraic specification states that if a function ${\mathit{f}}$ defined on an initial algebra is a fold then $\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{f}}}$ is a congruence [@EM85; @Gi16]. Although not strictly necessary, we give below a proof that frames this result in Theorem \[th:150327a\] by making ${\mathit{R}}\mathrel{=}\frac{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)}}$ in (\[eq:160118c\]) and calculating: $$\begin{aligned}
\start
\ensuremath{\frac{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)}}\mathrel{=}\mathopen{(\!|}\frac{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)}} \comp \mathsf{in}_{\fun F}\mathclose{|\!)}}
\just\equiv{ universal property (\ref{eq:cataUniv-rel}) ; metaphor algebra (\ref{eq:160118d}) }
\ensuremath{\frac{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)} \comp \mathsf{in}_{\fun F}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)}}\mathrel{=}\frac{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)} \comp \mathsf{in}_{\fun F}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)}} \comp \frac{\fun F \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)}}{\fun F \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)}}}
\just\equiv{ cancellation (\ref{eq:150402b}) ; \ensuremath{{\mathit{f}} \comp \frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{f}}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{f}}}}
\ensuremath{\frac{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)} \comp \mathsf{in}_{\fun F}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)}}\mathrel{=}\frac{{\mathit{k}} \comp \fun F \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)}}}
\just\implied{ Leibniz }
\ensuremath{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)} \comp \mathsf{in}_{\fun F}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{k}} \comp \fun F \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)}}
\just\equiv{ universal property (\ref{eq:cataUniv-rel}) }
\ensuremath{{\mathit{true}}}
\qed\end{aligned}$$ For example, in the case ${\mathit{R}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{Perm}}$ (\[eq:160118b\]), (\[eq:160118c\]) instantiates to $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{Perm}} \comp \mathsf{in}_{\fun F}} = \ensuremath{{\mathit{Perm}} \comp \mathsf{in}_{\fun F} \comp (\ff {\mathit{Perm}})}
$$ whose useful part is $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{Perm}} \comp \mathsf{cons}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{Perm}} \comp \mathsf{cons} \comp ({id} \times {\mathit{Perm}})}
$$ In words, this means that permuting a sequence with at least one element is the same as adding it to the front of a permutation of the tail and permuting again.
The main usefulness of (\[eq:150326b\],\[eq:160118c\]) is that the inductive definition of a kernel equivalence relation generated by a fold is such that the recursive branch (the $\fun F $ term) can be added or removed where convenient, as shown in the sequel.
To appreciate relational fold fusion (\[eq:150402a\]) and Theorem \[th:150327a\] at work in metaphorism refinement let us consider metaphorisms of the postconditioned form ${\mathit{M}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \frac{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)}}$ instantiating diagram (\[eq:160124a\]) for inductive types $\muF $ and $\muG $:[^23] $$\begin{aligned}
\vcenter{\xymatrix@C=2.5ex@R=1ex{
\ensuremath{\muF }
&&&
\ensuremath{\muG }
\ar[lll]_{\ensuremath{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}}}
\ar[rd]_{\ensuremath{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}}}
&
&
&
\ensuremath{\muF }
\ar[ldd]^{\ensuremath{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}}
\ar[lll]_{\ensuremath{{\mathit{X}}}}
\ar@{.>}@/_1.8pc/[llllll]_(.45){\ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \frac{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}}}
\\
&
&
&
&
\ensuremath{\muF }
\ar[rd]_{\ensuremath{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}}
\\
&
&
&
&
&
\ensuremath{{\mathit{A}}}
}}\end{aligned}$$ As before, this assumes a (surjective) abstraction function $\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}\mathbin{:}\muG \to \muF $ ensuring that every inhabitant of $\muF $ can be represented by at least one inhabitant of the intermediate type $\muG $. By direct application of (\[eq:160125a\]) we obtain the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \frac{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}\mathrel{=}\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}} \comp \underbrace{{\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \frac{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}} \comp \mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}}}_{{\mathit{X}}}}
\label{eq:151103a}\end{aligned}$$ provided ${\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}\mathrel{=}\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}} \comp {\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}$ — recall (\[eq:150406c\]). Our main goals are, therefore:
- to find ${\mathit{p}}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}} \comp {\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}}
\label{eq:150408a}\end{aligned}$$ holds, where ${\mathit{q}}$ is given;
- to convert ${\mathit{X}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \frac{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}} \comp \mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}}$, of type $\muG \leftarrow \muF $ (\[eq:151103a\]), into the converse of a fold, ${\mathit{X}}\mathrel{=}\conv{\mathopen{(\!|}\conv{{\mathit{Z}}}\mathclose{|\!)}}$, for some ${\mathit{Z}}\mathbin{:}\fun G \;\muF \leftarrow \muF $.
In general, we shall use notation $\mathopen{[\!(}{\mathit{R}}\mathclose{)\!]}$ to abbreviate the expression $\conv{\mathopen{(\!|}\conv{{\mathit{R}}}\mathclose{|\!)}}$. In case ${\mathit{Z}}$ above happens to be a function ${\mathit{g}}$, the original metaphorism (whose recursion is $\fun F $-shaped) will be converted into a so-called *hylomorphism* [@BM97]
> $\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}} \comp \mathopen{[\!(}{\mathit{g}}\mathclose{)\!]_{\fun G}}$
whose recursion is $\fun G $-shaped, thus carrying a “change of virtual data-structure”.
#### Shifting the metaphor
For the purposes of our calculations in this paper it is enough to consider the partial identities (coreflexives) ${\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}$ (resp. ${\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}$) in (\[eq:150408a\]) on inductive type $\muG $ (resp. $\muF $) generated by constraining the initial algebra $\mathsf{in}_{\fun G}$ (resp. $\mathsf{in}_{\fun F}$), $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}} &=& \scata{\xymatrix{\ensuremath{\muG } & \ensuremath{\fun G \;\muG }\ar[l]_{\ensuremath{\mathsf{in}_{\fun G}}} & \ensuremath{\fun G \;\muG }\ar[l]_{\ensuremath{{\mathit{w}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}}}}}
\\
\ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}} &=& \scata{\xymatrix{\ensuremath{\muF } & \ensuremath{\fun F \;\muF }\ar[l]_{\ensuremath{\mathsf{in}_{\fun F}}} & \ensuremath{\fun F \;\muF }\ar[l]_{\ensuremath{{\mathit{t}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}}}}}\end{aligned}$$ for suitable pre-conditions ${\mathit{w}}$ and ${\mathit{t}}$ — recall (\[eq:170409b\]).
The calculation of (\[eq:150408a\]) proceeds by fusion (\[eq:150402a\]), aiming to reduce both $\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}} \comp {\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}$ and ${\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}$ to some relational fold $\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{R}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}$ over $\muG $. On the right hand side, fusion yields $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}\mathrel{=}\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{R}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}} &\implied& \ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {\mathit{h}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{R}} \comp (\fun G \;{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?})}
\label{eq:150329f}\end{aligned}$$ On the other side: $$\begin{aligned}
\start
\ensuremath{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}} \comp {\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{R}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}}
\just\equiv{inline \ensuremath{{\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}\mathopen{(\!|}\mathsf{in}_{\fun G} \comp {\mathit{w}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}}}
\eqnnewpage
\ensuremath{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}} \comp \mathopen{(\!|}\mathsf{in}_{\fun G} \comp {\mathit{w}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}\mathrel{=}\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{R}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}}
\just\implied{fusion (\ref{eq:150402a})}
\ensuremath{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}} \comp \mathsf{in}_{\fun G} \comp {\mathit{w}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{R}} \comp \fun G \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}}
\just\equiv{cancellation: \ensuremath{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}} \comp \mathsf{in}_{\fun G}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{h}} \comp \fun G \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}} (\ref{eq:150402b})}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{h}} \comp \fun G \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}} \comp {\mathit{w}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{R}} \comp \fun G \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}}
\just\equiv{ switch to \ensuremath{{\mathit{r}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}} such that \ensuremath{\fun G \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}} \comp {\mathit{w}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{r}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \fun G \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}} holds (\ref{eq:150406c}) }
\ensuremath{{\mathit{h}} \comp {\mathit{r}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \fun G \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{R}} \comp \fun G \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}}
\just\implied{Leibniz}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{h}} \comp {\mathit{r}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{R}}}
$$ Thus ${\mathit{R}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{h}} \comp {\mathit{r}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}$ ensures proviso (\[eq:150408a\]). By replacing ${\mathit{R}}$ in the other proviso — the side condition of fusion step (\[eq:150329f\]) — one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {\mathit{h}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{h}} \comp {\mathit{r}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \fun G \;{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}}
&&
\myxym{
\ensuremath{\muF }
\ar[d]_{\ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}}}
&
~
&
\ensuremath{\fun G \;\muF }
\ar[d]^{\ensuremath{\fun G \;{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}}}
\ar[ll]_{\ensuremath{{\mathit{h}}}}
\\
\ensuremath{\muF }
&
\ensuremath{\fun G \;\muF }
\ar[l]^{\ensuremath{{\mathit{h}}}}
&
\ensuremath{\fun G \;\muF }
\ar[l]^{\ensuremath{{\mathit{r}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}}}
}
\label{eq:150328b}\end{aligned}$$ that has to be ensured together with the other assumption above: $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{\fun G \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}} \comp {\mathit{w}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{r}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \fun G \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}}
&&
\myxym{
\ensuremath{\fun G \;\muG }
\ar[d]_{\ensuremath{\fun G \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}}}
&
\ensuremath{\fun G \;\muG }
\ar[d]^{\ensuremath{\fun G \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}}}
\ar[l]_{\ensuremath{{\mathit{w}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}}}
\\
\ensuremath{\fun G \;\muF }
&
\ensuremath{\fun G \;\muF }
\ar[l]^{\ensuremath{{\mathit{r}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}}}
}
\label{eq:150330a}\end{aligned}$$ Let us summarize these calculations in the form of a theorem.
\[th:150327b\] Let $\rarrow{\muG }{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}}{\muF }$ be an abstraction of inductive type $\larrow{\fun F \;\muF }{\mathsf{in}_{\fun F}}{\muF }$ by another inductive type $\larrow{\fun G \;\muG }{\mathsf{in}_{\fun G}}{\muG }$, and ${\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}\mathopen{(\!|}\mathsf{in}_{\fun F} \comp {\mathit{t}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}$ be a partial identity representing an inductive predicate over $\muF $.
To calculate the weakest precondition ${\mathit{p}}$ for $\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}$ to ensure ${\mathit{q}}$ on its output, say ${\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}\mathopen{(\!|}\mathsf{in}_{\fun G} \comp {\mathit{w}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}$, it suffices to find a predicate ${\mathit{r}}$ on $\fun G \;\muF $ such that (\[eq:150328b\]) and (\[eq:150330a\]) hold.\
$\Box$
Note how condition ${\mathit{r}}$ on $\fun G \;\muF $ in proviso (\[eq:150328b\]) is the weakest precondition for algebra $h$ to maintain ${\mathit{q}}$, while (\[eq:150330a\]) establishes ${\mathit{w}}$ as the [weakest precondition]{} for the recursive branch $\fun G \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}$ to ensure ${\mathit{r}}$ on its output.
#### Calculating the “divide" step
Armed with side conditions (\[eq:150328b\]) and (\[eq:150330a\]), our final aim is to calculate ${\mathit{X}}\mathrel{=}\mathopen{[\!(}{\mathit{Z}}\mathclose{)\!]}$ in (\[eq:151103a\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\start
\ensuremath{\underbrace{{\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \frac{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}} \comp \mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}}}_{{\mathit{X}}}\mathrel{=}\mathopen{[\!(}{\mathit{Z}}\mathclose{)\!]}}
\nonumber
\just\equiv{ converses ; \ensuremath{\mathopen{[\!(}{\mathit{Z}}\mathclose{)\!]}\mathrel{=}\conv{\mathopen{(\!|}\conv{{\mathit{Z}}}\mathclose{|\!)}}} }
\ensuremath{\frac{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}} \comp \mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}} \comp {\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}\mathopen{(\!|}\conv{{\mathit{Z}}}\mathclose{|\!)}}
\nonumber
\just\equiv{ \ensuremath{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}} \comp {\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}} assumed --- cf.\ (\ref{eq:150408a}) } \ensuremath{\frac{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}} \comp {\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}\mathrel{=}\mathopen{(\!|}\conv{{\mathit{Z}}}\mathclose{|\!)}}
\nonumber
\just\implied{ fusion (\ref{eq:150402a}) ; functor \ensuremath{\fun G } }
\ensuremath{\frac{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}} \comp {\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {\mathit{h}}\mathrel{=}\conv{{\mathit{Z}}} \comp \fun G \;\frac{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}} \comp \fun G \;{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}}
\nonumber
\just\equiv{ proviso (\ref{eq:150328b}): \ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {\mathit{h}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{h}} \comp {\mathit{r}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \fun G \;{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}} }
\ensuremath{\frac{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}} \comp {\mathit{h}} \comp {\mathit{r}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \fun G \;{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}\conv{{\mathit{Z}}} \comp \fun G \;\frac{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}} \comp \fun G \;{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}}
\nonumber
\just\implied{Leibniz}
\ensuremath{\frac{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}} \comp {\mathit{h}} \comp {\mathit{r}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}\conv{{\mathit{Z}}} \comp \fun G \;\frac{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}}
\label{eq:160125b}
$$
We are still far from having a closed formula for ${\mathit{Z}}$. Can we get rid of term $\fun G \;\frac{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}$ from the right hand side? This is where Theorem \[th:150327a\] plays a role, enabling such a cancellation provided we ensure that equivalence $\frac{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}$ is a *congruence* for algebra $h$, which (by virtue of Theorem \[th:150327a\]) amounts to ensuring $\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}} \comp {\mathit{h}}{\leqslant}\fun G \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}$. In words: $\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}} \comp {\mathit{h}}$ should be *no more injective* (\[eq:041217a\]) than the recursive branch $\fun G \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}$. It turns out that we shall need yet another similar injectivity clause involving ${\mathit{r}}$ in the sequel. Altogether: $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}} \comp {\mathit{h}}} &{\leqslant}& \ensuremath{\fun G \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}
\label{eq:150331a}
\\
\ensuremath{{\mathit{r}}} &{\leqslant}& \ensuremath{\fun G \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}
\label{eq:170625a}\end{aligned}$$ Below we resume the calculation of (\[eq:160125b\]) assuming (\[eq:150331a\]) and (\[eq:170625a\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\start
\ensuremath{\frac{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}} \comp {\mathit{h}} \comp {\mathit{r}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}\conv{{\mathit{Z}}} \comp \fun G \;\frac{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}}
\nonumber
\just\equiv{ (\ref{eq:150326b}) }
\ensuremath{\frac{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}} \comp {\mathit{h}} \comp \fun G \;\frac{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}} \comp {\mathit{r}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}\conv{{\mathit{Z}}} \comp \fun G \;\frac{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}}
\nonumber
\eqnnewpagex
\just\equiv{ (\ref{eq:160118d}) first, then (\ref{eq:150407a-modified}) thanks to (\ref{eq:170625a}) } \ensuremath{\frac{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}} \comp {\mathit{h}} \comp {\mathit{r}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \frac{\fun G \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}{\fun G \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}\mathrel{=}\conv{{\mathit{Z}}} \comp \frac{\fun G \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}{\fun G \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}}
\nonumber
\just\implied{ drop \ensuremath{\frac{\fun G \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}{\fun G \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}} (Leibniz) }
\ensuremath{\frac{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}} \comp {\mathit{h}} \comp {\mathit{r}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}\conv{{\mathit{Z}}}}
\label{eq:160119a}
$$ Taking converses, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{Z}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{r}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \frac{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}} \comp {\mathit{h}}}}
\label{eq:150709a}\end{aligned}$$ from (\[eq:160119a\]) — another metaphorism, of the expected type $\larrow{\muF }{}{\fun G \;\muF }$. Summing up, note how the original metaphorism ${\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \frac{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}}$ gets converted into a hylomorphism whose *divide* step is another metaphorism (\[eq:150709a\]). Recall that ${\mathit{r}}$ acts as <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">wp</span> for algebra $h$ to maintain ${\mathit{q}}$ and that ${\mathit{w}}$ is the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">wp</span> for the recursive branch $\fun G \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}$ to ensure ${\mathit{r}}$.
Altogether, the “outer” metaphor which we started from (involving only $\muF $) disappears and gives place to an “inner” metaphor between inductive types $\muG $ and $\muF $ (the divide step), whereby the optimization is internalized. This “inner” metaphor is more interesting, as we can see by looking at an example of all this reasoning. Before this, we close this section with the checklist of all provisos that have to be verified for ${\mathit{Z}}$ (\[eq:150709a\]) to exist:
- (\[eq:150328b\]) — establishes ${\mathit{r}}$ as the weakest precondition for $\fun G $-algebra ${\mathit{h}}$ to *maintain* ${\mathit{q}}$ as an invariant.
- (\[eq:150330a\]) — establishes ${\mathit{w}}$ as the [weakest precondition]{} for the recursive branch $\fun G \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}$ to ensure ${\mathit{r}}$ as post-condition.
- (\[eq:150331a\]) — $\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}} \comp {\mathit{h}}$ should be [no more injective]{} than the recursive branch $\fun G \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}$.
- (\[eq:170625a\]) — inputs undistinguishable by $\fun G \;\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}$ should also be undistinguishable by predicate ${\mathit{r}}$.
Example: Quicksort {#sec:150406i}
==================
This section shows how the derivation of *quicksort* as given e.g. by @BM97 corresponds to the implementation strategy for metaphorisms given above, under the following instantiations:
- The starting metaphorism is (\[eq:160118b\]) where ${\mathit{Perm}}$ is the list permutation relationship.
- $\muF $ is the usual finite list datatype with constructors (say) $\mathsf{nil}$ and $\mathsf{cons}$, that is, $\mathsf{in}_{\fun F}\mathrel{=}\alt{\mathsf{nil}}{\mathsf{cons}}$ with base $\fun F \;{\mathit{f}}\mathrel{=}{id}\mathbin{+}{id} \times {\mathit{f}}$ (\[eq:170518a\]).
- $\muG $ is the binary tree data type whose base is $\fun G \;{\mathit{f}}\mathrel{=}{id}\mathbin{+}{id} \times {{\mathit{f}}}^{\mathrm{2}}$ and whose initial algebra is (say) $\mathsf{in}_{\fun G}\mathrel{=}\alt{\mathsf{empty}}{\mathsf{node}}$. (We use abbreviation ${{\mathit{f}}}^{\mathrm{2}}$ for ${\mathit{f}} \times {\mathit{f}}$.)
- $\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{k}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun F}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{bag}}$, the function which converts a list into the bag (multiset) of its elements.
- $\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{h}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{flatten}}$, for ${\mathit{h}}\mathrel{=}\alt{\mathsf{nil}}{{\mathit{inord}}}$ where ${\mathit{inord}}\;({\mathit{a}},({\mathit{x}},{\mathit{y}}))\mathrel{=}{\mathit{x}}\mathbin{+\!\!+}[\mskip1.5mu {\mathit{a}}\mskip1.5mu]\mathbin{+\!\!+}{\mathit{y}}$; that is, ${\mathit{flatten}}$ is the binary tree into finite list (inorder) traversal surjection.
- ${\mathit{q}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{ordered}}$ (\[eq:160118b\]), that is, ${\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}\mathopen{(\!|}\alt{\mathsf{nil}}{\mathsf{cons}} \comp ({id}\mathbin{+}{\mathit{mn}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?})\mathclose{|\!)}$, for ${\mathit{mn}}\;({\mathit{x}},{\mathit{xs}})\mathrel{=}\rcb{\forall}{{\mathit{x'}}}{{\mathit{x'}}\;\epsilon_{\muF}\;{\mathit{xs}}}{{\mathit{x'}}{\geqslant}{\mathit{x}}}$ where $\epsilon_{\muF}$ denotes list membership; that is, predicate ${\mathit{mn}}\;({\mathit{x}},{\mathit{xs}})$ ensures that list ${\mathit{x}}\mathbin{:}{\mathit{xs}}$ is such that ${\mathit{x}}$ is at most the minimum of ${\mathit{xs}}$, if it exists.
As seen in Sect. \[sec:150406g\], we first have to search for some predicate ${\mathit{r}}$ that, following (\[eq:150328b\]), should be the weakest precondition for $\alt{\mathsf{nil}}{{\mathit{inord}}}$ to preserve ordered lists (${\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}$). We calculate: $$\begin{aligned}
\start
\ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \alt{\mathsf{nil}}{{\mathit{inord}}}\mathrel{=}\alt{\mathsf{nil}}{{\mathit{inord}}} \comp {\mathit{r}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp ({id}\mathbin{+}{id} \times ({\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \times {\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}))}
\just\equiv{ switch to \ensuremath{{\mathit{s}}} such that \ensuremath{{\mathit{r}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}{id}\mathbin{+}{\mathit{s}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}}; coproducts }
\ensuremath{\alt{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \mathsf{nil}}{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {\mathit{inord}}}\mathrel{=}\alt{\mathsf{nil}}{{\mathit{inord}} \comp {\mathit{s}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp ({id} \times ({\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \times {\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}))}}
\just\equiv{the empty list is trivially ordered}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {\mathit{inord}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{inord}} \comp {\mathit{s}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp ({id} \times ({\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \times {\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}))}
\just\equiv{ universal property (\ref{eq:150406c}) }
\ensuremath{{\mathit{s}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp ({id} \times ({\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \times {\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}))} = \ensuremath{({\mathit{q}} \comp {\mathit{inord}})\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}}
$$ Knowing the definitions of ${\mathit{q}}$ and ${\mathit{inord}}$, we easily infer ${\mathit{s}}$ by going pointwise: $$\begin{aligned}
\start
\ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\;({\mathit{x}}\mathbin{+\!\!+}[\mskip1.5mu {\mathit{a}}\mskip1.5mu]\mathbin{+\!\!+}{\mathit{y}})}
\nonumber
\just\equiv{ pointwise definition of ordered lists }
\ensuremath{\begin{lcbr}({\mathit{q}}\;{\mathit{x}})\mathrel{\wedge}({\mathit{q}}\;{\mathit{y}})\\\underbrace{\rcb{\forall}{{\mathit{b}}}{{\mathit{b}}\;\epsilon_{\muF}\;{\mathit{x}}}{{\mathit{b}}{\leqslant}{\mathit{a}}}\mathrel{\wedge}\rcb{\forall}{{\mathit{b}}}{{\mathit{b}}\;\epsilon_{\muF}\;{\mathit{y}}}{{\mathit{a}}{\leqslant}{\mathit{b}}}}_{{\mathit{s}}\;({\mathit{a}},({\mathit{x}},{\mathit{y}}))}\end{lcbr}}
\label{eq:160120a}\end{aligned}$$ Knowing ${\mathit{s}}$ and thus ${\mathit{r}}$, we go back to (\[eq:150709a\]) to calculate the (relational) [coalgebra]{} that shall control the *divide* part, still letting ${\mathit{r}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}{id}\mathbin{+}{\mathit{s}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\arrayin{
&&\ensuremath{{\mathit{Z}}\mathbin{:}\mathrm{1}\mathbin{+}\muF \times (\muF \times \muF )\leftarrow \muF }
\\
&&\ensuremath{{\mathit{Z}}\mathrel{=}({id}\mathbin{+}{\mathit{s}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}) \comp \frac{{\mathit{bag}}}{{\mathit{bag}} \comp \alt{\mathsf{nil}}{{\mathit{inord}}}}}
}
\label{eq:150408b}\end{aligned}$$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\start
\ensuremath{{\mathit{Z}}\mathrel{=}({id}\mathbin{+}{\mathit{s}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}) \comp \frac{{\mathit{bag}}}{{\mathit{bag}} \comp \alt{\mathsf{nil}}{{\mathit{inord}}}}}
\just\equiv{ let \ensuremath{\conv{{\mathit{Z}}}\mathrel{=}\alt{\conv{Z_1}}{\conv{Z_2}}}}
\ensuremath{\conv{\alt{\conv{Z_1}}{\conv{Z_2}}}\mathrel{=}({id}\mathbin{+}{\mathit{s}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}) \comp \frac{{\mathit{bag}}}{{\mathit{bag}} \comp \alt{\mathsf{nil}}{{\mathit{inord}}}}}
\just\equiv{ take converses }
\ensuremath{\alt{\conv{Z_1}}{\conv{Z_2}}} = \ensuremath{\frac{{\mathit{bag}} \comp \alt{\mathsf{nil}}{{\mathit{inord}}}}{{\mathit{bag}}} \comp ({id}\mathbin{+}{\mathit{s}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?})}
\just\equiv{ \ensuremath{{\mathit{Perm}}} (\ref{eq:160118b}) ; coproducts }
\ensuremath{\alt{\conv{Z_1}}{\conv{Z_2}}} = \ensuremath{\alt{{\mathit{Perm}} \comp \mathsf{nil}}{{\mathit{Perm}} \comp {\mathit{inord}} \comp {\mathit{s}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}}}
\just\equiv{ coproducts; \ensuremath{{\mathit{Perm}} \comp \mathsf{nil}\mathrel{=}\mathsf{nil}}; converses }
\ensuremath{\begin{lcbr}Z_1\mathrel{=}\conv{\mathsf{nil}}\\Z_2\mathrel{=}{\mathit{s}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \conv{{\mathit{inord}}} \comp {\mathit{Perm}}\end{lcbr}}
\just\equiv{go pointwise}
\begin{lcbr}
\ensuremath{{\kern0.06em \vbox{\hrule\@width.5em}}\;Z_1\;{\mathit{x}}} \equiv \ensuremath{{\mathit{x}}\mathrel{=}[\mskip1.5mu \mskip1.5mu]}
\\
\ensuremath{({\mathit{a}},({\mathit{y}},{\mathit{z}}))\;Z_2\;{\mathit{x}}} \equiv \ensuremath{({\mathit{a}},({\mathit{y}},{\mathit{z}}))\;({\mathit{s}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \conv{{\mathit{inord}}} \comp {\mathit{Perm}})\;{\mathit{x}}}
\end{lcbr}
$$ The second clause of the bottom line just above unfolds to: $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{({\mathit{a}},({\mathit{y}},{\mathit{z}}))\;Z_2\;{\mathit{x}}} \equiv \ensuremath{{\mathit{s}}\;({\mathit{a}},({\mathit{y}},{\mathit{z}}))\mathrel{\wedge}({\mathit{y}}\mathbin{+\!\!+}[\mskip1.5mu {\mathit{a}}\mskip1.5mu]\mathbin{+\!\!+}{\mathit{z}})\;{\mathit{Perm}}\;{\mathit{x}}}\end{aligned}$$
In words, ${\mathit{y}}\;{\mathit{Z}}\;{\mathit{x}}$ has the following meaning: either ${\mathit{x}}\mathrel{=}[\mskip1.5mu \mskip1.5mu]$ and ${\mathit{Z}}$ yields the unique inhabitant of singleton type $\mathrm{1}$ (cf. $Z_1$) or ${\mathit{x}}$ is non-empty and ${\mathit{Z}}$ splits a permutation of ${\mathit{x}}$ into two halves ${\mathit{y}}$ and ${\mathit{z}}$ separated by a “pivot" ${\mathit{a}}$, all subject to ${\mathit{s}}$ calculated above (\[eq:160120a\]). Note the free choice of “pivot” ${\mathit{a}}$ provided ${\mathit{s}}$ holds. In the standard version, ${\mathit{a}}$ is the head of ${\mathit{x}}$ and $Z_2$ is rendered deterministic as follows (Haskell notation):
x\_2()(,(\[1.5mu ,1.5mu\],\[1.5mu ,1.5mu\]))
It is easy to show that the particular partition chosen in this standard version meets predicate ${\mathit{s}}$. But there is, still, a check-list of proofs to discharge.
#### Ensuring bi-ordered (virtual) intermediate trees
This corresponds to (\[eq:150330a\]) of the check-list which, instantiated for this exercise, is: $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{\fun G \;{\mathit{flatten}} \comp ({id}\mathbin{+}{\mathit{x}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?})\mathrel{=}({id}\mathbin{+}{\mathit{s}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}) \comp \fun G \;{\mathit{flatten}}}\end{aligned}$$ Letting ${\mathit{w}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}{id}\mathbin{+}{\mathit{x}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}$, the goal is to find weakest precondition ${\mathit{x}}$ that is basically ${\mathit{s}}$ “passed along" $\fun G \;{\mathit{flatten}}$ from lists to trees:[^24] $$\begin{aligned}
\start
\ensuremath{({id} \times {{\mathit{flatten}}}^{\mathrm{2}}) \comp {\mathit{x}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{s}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp ({id} \times {{\mathit{flatten}}}^{\mathrm{2}})}
\just\equiv{ (\ref{eq:150406c}) }
\ensuremath{{\mathit{x}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{s}} \comp ({id} \times {{\mathit{flatten}}}^{\mathrm{2}})}
\just\equiv{ go pointwise }
\ensuremath{{\mathit{x}}\;({\mathit{a}},(t_1,t_2))\mathrel{=}{\mathit{s}}\;({\mathit{a}},({\mathit{flatten}}\;t_1,{\mathit{flatten}}\;t_2))}
\just\equiv{ definition of \ensuremath{{\mathit{s}}} }
\ensuremath{{\mathit{x}}\;({\mathit{a}},(t_1,t_2))\mathrel{=}\begin{lcbr}\rcb{\forall}{{\mathit{b}}}{{\mathit{b}}\;\epsilon_{\muF}\;({\mathit{flatten}}\;t_1)}{{\mathit{b}}{\leqslant}{\mathit{a}}}\\\rcb{\forall}{{\mathit{b}}}{{\mathit{b}}\;\epsilon_{\muF}\;({\mathit{flatten}}\;t_2)}{{\mathit{a}}{\leqslant}{\mathit{b}}}\end{lcbr}}
\just\equiv{ define \ensuremath{\epsilon_{\muG}\mathrel{=}\epsilon_{\muF} \comp {\mathit{flatten}}} }
\ensuremath{{\mathit{x}}\;({\mathit{a}},(t_1,t_2))\mathrel{=}\rcb{\forall}{{\mathit{b}}}{{\mathit{b}}\;\epsilon_{\muG}\;t_1}{{\mathit{b}}{\leqslant}{\mathit{a}}}\mathrel{\wedge}\rcb{\forall}{{\mathit{b}}}{{\mathit{b}}\;\epsilon_{\muG}\;t_2}{{\mathit{a}}{\leqslant}{\mathit{b}}})}\end{aligned}$$ In words, ${\mathit{x}}$ in ${\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}\mathopen{(\!|}\mathsf{in}_{\fun G} \comp {\mathit{w}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}$ = $\mathopen{(\!|}\mathsf{in}_{\fun G} \comp ({id}\mathbin{+}{\mathit{x}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?})\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun G}}$ ensures that the first part of the implementation, controlled by the *divide step* coalgebra ${\mathit{Z}}$ calculated above (\[eq:150408b\]) yields trees which are *bi-ordered*. Trees with this property are known as *binary search trees* [@Kn97].
#### Preserving the metaphor
Next we consider side condition (\[eq:150331a\]) of the check-list, which instantiates to: $$\begin{aligned}
\start
\ensuremath{{\mathit{bag}} \comp \alt{\mathsf{nil}}{{\mathit{inord}}}} {\leqslant}\ensuremath{{id}\mathbin{+}{id} \times {{\mathit{bag}}}^{\mathrm{2}}}
\just\implied{ coproducts; (\ref{eq:150401a-fun}) }
\ensuremath{{\mathit{bag}} \comp \mathsf{nil}\mathbin{+}{\mathit{bag}} \comp {\mathit{inord}}} {\leqslant}\ensuremath{{id}\mathbin{+}{id} \times {{\mathit{bag}}}^{\mathrm{2}}}
\just\equiv{ (\ref{eq:150406j-fun}) ; any \ensuremath{{\mathit{f}}{\leqslant}{id}} \cite{Ol14a} } \ensuremath{{\mathit{bag}} \comp {\mathit{inord}}} {\leqslant}\ensuremath{{id} \times {{\mathit{bag}}}^{\mathrm{2}}}
\just\equiv{ (\ref{eq:160118f}) }
\ensuremath{\rcb{\exists }{{\mathit{k}}}{}{{\mathit{bag}} \comp {\mathit{inord}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{k}} \comp ({id} \times {{\mathit{bag}}}^{\mathrm{2}})}}
$$ That ${\mathit{k}}$ exists arises from the fact that ${\mathit{bag}}$ is a homomorphism between the monoid of lists and that of bags: algebra ${\mathit{k}}$ will join two bags and a singleton bag in the same way as ${\mathit{inord}}\;({\mathit{a}},({\mathit{x}},{\mathit{y}}))$ yields ${\mathit{x}}\mathbin{+\!\!+}[\mskip1.5mu {\mathit{a}}\mskip1.5mu]\mathbin{+\!\!+}{\mathit{y}}$, at list level.
#### Down to the multiset level {#pg:170625b}
Finally, we have to check the last assumption (\[eq:170625a\]) of the ckeck-list. By (\[eq:160118f\]) and (\[eq:150406c\]), this amounts to finding ${\mathit{u}}$ such that $\fun G \;{\mathit{bag}} \comp {\mathit{r}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{u}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \fun G \;{\mathit{bag}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\start
\ensuremath{\fun G \;{\mathit{bag}} \comp {\mathit{r}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{u}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \fun G \;{\mathit{bag}}}
\just\equiv{\ensuremath{\fun G \;{\mathit{R}}\mathrel{=}{id}\mathbin{+}{id} \times {{\mathit{R}}}^{\mathrm{2}}} ; \ensuremath{{\mathit{r}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}{id}\mathbin{+}{\mathit{s}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}}; let \ensuremath{{\mathit{u}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}{id}\mathbin{+}{\mathit{v}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}}}
\ensuremath{({id}\mathbin{+}{id} \times {{\mathit{bag}}}^{\mathrm{2}}) \comp ({id}\mathbin{+}{\mathit{s}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?})\mathrel{=}({id}\mathbin{+}{\mathit{v}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}) \comp ({id}\mathbin{+}{id} \times {{\mathit{bag}}}^{\mathrm{2}})}
\just\equiv{ coproducts }
\ensuremath{({id} \times {{\mathit{bag}}}^{\mathrm{2}}) \comp {\mathit{s}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{v}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp ({id} \times {{\mathit{bag}}}^{\mathrm{2}})}
\just\equiv{ (\ref{eq:150406c}) }
\ensuremath{{\mathit{s}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{v}} \comp ({id} \times {{\mathit{bag}}}^{\mathrm{2}})}
\just\equiv{ go pointwise }
\ensuremath{{\mathit{s}}\;({\mathit{a}},({\mathit{x}},{\mathit{y}}))\mathrel{=}{\mathit{v}}\;({\mathit{a}},({\mathit{bag}}\;{\mathit{x}},{\mathit{bag}}\;{\mathit{y}}))}
\just\equiv{ unfold \ensuremath{{\mathit{s}}} }
\ensuremath{{\mathit{v}}\;({\mathit{a}},({\mathit{bag}}\;{\mathit{x}},{\mathit{bag}}\;{\mathit{y}}))\mathrel{=}\begin{lcbr}\rcb{\forall}{{\mathit{b}}}{{\mathit{b}}\;\epsilon_{\muF}\;{\mathit{x}}}{{\mathit{b}}{\leqslant}{\mathit{a}}}\\\rcb{\forall}{{\mathit{b}}}{{\mathit{b}}\;\epsilon_{\muF}\;{\mathit{y}}}{{\mathit{a}}{\leqslant}{\mathit{b}}}\end{lcbr}}
\just\equiv{ assume \ensuremath{\epsilon_{\fun B}} such that \ensuremath{\epsilon_{\muF}\mathrel{=}\epsilon_{\fun B} \comp {\mathit{bag}}}}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{v}}\;({\mathit{a}},({\mathit{bag}}\;{\mathit{x}},{\mathit{bag}}\;{\mathit{y}}))\mathrel{=}\begin{lcbr}\rcb{\forall}{{\mathit{b}}}{{\mathit{b}}\;\epsilon_{\fun B}\;({\mathit{bag}}\;{\mathit{x}})}{{\mathit{b}}{\leqslant}{\mathit{a}}}\\\rcb{\forall}{{\mathit{b}}}{{\mathit{b}}\;\epsilon_{\fun B}\;({\mathit{bag}}\;{\mathit{y}})}{{\mathit{a}}{\leqslant}{\mathit{b}}}\end{lcbr}}
\just\implied{ substitution }
\ensuremath{{\mathit{v}}\;({\mathit{a}},(b_1,b_2))\mathrel{=}\begin{lcbr}\rcb{\forall}{{\mathit{b}}}{{\mathit{b}}\;\epsilon_{\fun B}\;b_1}{{\mathit{b}}{\leqslant}{\mathit{a}}}\\\rcb{\forall}{{\mathit{b}}}{{\mathit{b}}\;\epsilon_{\fun B}\;b_2}{{\mathit{a}}{\leqslant}{\mathit{b}}}\end{lcbr}}
$$ Thus we have found post-condition ${\mathit{u}}$ ensured by ${id} \times {{\mathit{bag}}}^{\mathrm{2}}$ with ${\mathit{s}}$ as weakest-precondition.
Finally, multiset membership $\epsilon_{\fun B}\mathrel{=}{\in} \comp {\mathit{support}}$ can be obtained by taking multiset *supports*, whereby we land in standard set membership (${\in}$). Altogether, we have relied on a chain of memberships, from sets, to multisets, to finite lists and finally to binary (search) trees.
Note how this last proof of the check-list goes down to the very essence of *sorting as a metaphorism*: the attribute of a finite list which any sorting function is bound to preserve is the multiset (bag) of its elements — the *invariant* part of the sorting metaphor.
Example: Mergesort {#sec:160121b}
==================
In a landmark paper on algorithm classification and synthesis [@Da78], Darlington carries out a derivation of sorting algorithms that places *quicksort* and *mergesort* in different branches of a derivation tree. In this section we give a calculation of mergesort which shows precisely where they differ, given that both are *divide & conquer* algorithms.
The fact that mergesort relies on a different kind of tree, called *leaf tree* and based on a different base functor, say $\fun K \;{\mathit{f}}\mathrel{=}{id}\mathbin{+}{{\mathit{f}}}^{\mathrm{2}}$, is not the main difference. This resides chiefly in the division of work of *mergesort* which, contrary to *quicksort*, does almost everything in the *conquer* step. In our setting,
> while *quicksort* follows generic metaphorism refinement plan (\[eq:160124a\]), *mergesort* follows plan (\[eq:160124b\]), recall .
With no further detours we go back to (\[eq:160125d\]), the instance of (\[eq:160124b\]) which fits the sorting metaphorism, to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \frac{{\mathit{bag}}}{{\mathit{bag}}}\mathrel{=}\underbrace{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \frac{{\mathit{bag}} \comp {\mathit{tips}}}{{\mathit{bag}}}}_{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{X}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun K}}} \comp \conv{{\mathit{tips}}}}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathit{tips}}\mathrel{=}\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{t}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun K}}$ is the fold which converts a leaf tree into a sequence of leaves, in the obvious way: ${\mathit{t}}\mathrel{=}\alt{{\mathit{singl}}}{\mathit{conc}}$, where ${\mathit{singl}}\;{\mathit{a}}\mathrel{=}[\mskip1.5mu {\mathit{a}}\mskip1.5mu]$ and $\mathit{conc}\;({\mathit{x}},{\mathit{y}})\mathrel{=}{\mathit{x}}\mathbin{+\!\!+}{\mathit{y}}$.[^25]
*Divide* step $\conv{{\mathit{tips}}}$ can be refined into a function using standard “converse of a function" theorems, see e.g. [@BGM02; @MuB04]. Our aim is to calculate ${\mathit{X}}$, the $\fun K $-algebra that shall control the *conquer* step. We reason: $$\begin{aligned}
\start
\ensuremath{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{X}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun K}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \frac{{\mathit{bag}}}{{\mathit{bag}}} \comp \mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{t}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun K}}}
\just\implied{ fusion (\ref{eq:150402a}) ; functor \ensuremath{\fun K } }
\ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \frac{{\mathit{bag}}}{{\mathit{bag}}} \comp {\mathit{t}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{X}} \comp (\fun K \;{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}) \comp \fun K \;\frac{{\mathit{bag}}}{{\mathit{bag}}}}
\just\implied{ (\ref{eq:150326b}) assuming \ensuremath{\frac{{\mathit{bag}}}{{\mathit{bag}}}} is a \ensuremath{\fun K }-congruence for algebra \ensuremath{{\mathit{t}}} ; Leibniz }
\ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \frac{{\mathit{bag}}}{{\mathit{bag}}} \comp {\mathit{t}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{X}} \comp \fun K \;{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}}
$$ Next, we head for a functional implementation ${{\mathit{x}}}\subseteq{{\mathit{X}}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\start
\ensuremath{{{\mathit{x}} \comp \fun K \;{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}}\subseteq{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \frac{{\mathit{bag}}}{{\mathit{bag}}} \comp {\mathit{t}}}}
\just\implied{ cancel \ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}} assuming \ensuremath{{\mathit{x}} \comp \fun K \;{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {\mathit{x}}} (\ref{eq:150406c}) }
\ensuremath{{\mathit{x}}\; \subseteq \;\frac{{\mathit{bag}} \comp {\mathit{t}}}{{\mathit{bag}}}}
$$
Again we obtain solution ${\mathit{x}}\mathbin{:}\fun K \;\muF \to \muF $ as a metaphor implementation, essentially requiring that ${\mathit{x}}$ preserves the bag of elements of the lists involved, as in *quicksort*. Note that the surjectivity of ${\mathit{bag}}$ allows for a total solution ${\mathit{x}}$, whose standard implementation is the well-known *list merge* function that merges two ordered lists into an ordered list. This behaviour is in fact required by the last assumption above, ${\mathit{x}} \comp \fun K \;{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {\mathit{x}}$. The other assumption, that $\frac{{\mathit{bag}}}{{\mathit{bag}}}$ is a congruence for algebra ${\mathit{t}}$, amounts to (recall Theorem \[th:150327a\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\start
\ensuremath{{\mathit{bag}} \comp {\mathit{t}}} {\leqslant}\ensuremath{\fun K \;{\mathit{bag}}}
\just\implied{ \ensuremath{{\mathit{t}}\mathrel{=}\alt{{\mathit{singl}}}{\mathit{conc}}}; coproduct injectivity (\ref{eq:150401a-fun},\ref{eq:150406j-fun}) ; \ensuremath{\fun K \;{\mathit{f}}\mathrel{=}{id}\mathbin{+}{{\mathit{f}}}^{\mathrm{2}}} }
\ensuremath{\begin{lcbr}{\mathit{bag}} \comp {\mathit{singl}}{\leqslant}{id}\\{\mathit{bag}} \comp \mathit{conc}{\leqslant}{{\mathit{bag}}}^{\mathrm{2}}\end{lcbr}}
\just\equiv{ any \ensuremath{{\mathit{f}}{\leqslant}{id}} }
\ensuremath{{\mathit{bag}} \comp \mathit{conc}{\leqslant}{{\mathit{bag}}}^{\mathrm{2}}}
\just\equiv{ (\ref{eq:160118f}) }
\ensuremath{\rcb{\exists }{{\mathit{k}}}{}{{\mathit{bag}}\;({\mathit{x}}\mathbin{+\!\!+}{\mathit{y}})\mathrel{=}{\mathit{k}}\;({\mathit{bag}}\;{\mathit{x}},{\mathit{bag}}\;{\mathit{y}})}}
\just\equiv{ same argument as in quicksort }
\ensuremath{{\mathit{true}}}
\qed\end{aligned}$$
Summing up, the workload inversion in *mergesort*, compared to *quicksort*, can be felt right at the start of the derivation, by grafting the (range of the) virtual tree representation at the front rather than at the rear of the pipeline.
Example: minimum height trees {#sec:170322a}
=============================
Our last example addresses a metaphorism ${\frac{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{f}}\mathclose{|\!)}}{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{g}}\mathclose{|\!)}}}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}$ in which ${\mathit{R}}$ is an optimization preorder. It is adapted from [@BGM02] where it is labelled *tree with minimum height*. Rephrased in our setting, the problem to be addressed is that of *reshaping a binary tree so as to minimize its height*:[^26] $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\frac{{\mathit{tips}}}{{\mathit{tips}}}}\shrunkby{{\leqslant}_{{\mathit{height}}}}}
\label{eq:170322b}\end{aligned}$$ Recall that ${\mathit{tips}}\mathrel{=}\mathopen{(\!|}\alt{{\mathit{singl}}}{\mathit{conc}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun K}}$ converts a tree into the sequence of its leaves.[^27] Heights of trees are calculated by function ${\mathit{height}}\mathrel{=}\mathopen{(\!|}\alt{{id}}{{\mathit{ht}}}\mathclose{|\!)_{\fun K}}$ where ${\mathit{ht}}\;({\mathit{a}},{\mathit{b}})\mathrel{=}({\mathit{a}}\sqcup {\mathit{b}})\mathbin{+}\mathrm{1}$, for ${\mathit{a}}\sqcup {\mathit{b}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{b}}~\Leftrightarrow~{\mathit{a}}{\leqslant}{\mathit{b}}$. Finally, ${\leqslant}_{{\mathit{height}}}$ is a shorthand for $\conv{{\mathit{height}}} \comp ({\leqslant}) \comp {\mathit{height}}$, the preorder that ranks trees according to their height.
By rule (\[eq:fn-shrink-r\]), (\[eq:170322b\]) is the same as $({\conv{{\mathit{tips}}}}\shrunkby{{\leqslant}_{{\mathit{height}}}}) \comp {\mathit{tips}}$. @BGM02 show the advantage of handling $\conv{{\mathit{tips}}}$ using a different format for trees known as *left spine*.[^28] Let $\larrow{{\mathit{A}}\mathbin{+}{\muK }^{\mathrm{2}}}{\mathsf{in}_{\fun K}}{\muK }$ be our datatype of trees with leaves of type ${\mathit{A}}$. The corresponding left spine datatype is ${\mathit{S}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{A}} \times {\muK }^{*}$ and it is isomorphic to $\muK $. This isomorphism, termed ${\mathit{roll}}$ as in [@BGM02], is depicted below in the form of a diagram, where $\alpha $ is obvious and $\mathsf{in}_{sn}\mathrel{=}\alt{\mathsf{nil}}{\mathsf{snoc}}$ is the “snoc" variant of initial algebra of lists:[^29] $$\begin{aligned}
\myxym{
\ensuremath{{\mathit{A}} \times {\muK }^{*}}
\ar[d]_{\ensuremath{{\mathit{roll}}}}
&
\ensuremath{{\mathit{A}} \times (\mathrm{1}\mathbin{+}\muK \times {\muK }^{*})}
\ar[l]_-{\ensuremath{{id} \times \mathsf{in}_{sn}}}
&
\ensuremath{{\mathit{A}}\mathbin{+}({\mathit{A}} \times {\muK }^{*}) \times \muK }
\ar[l]_-{\ensuremath{\alpha }}
\ar[d]^{\ensuremath{{id}\mathbin{+}{\mathit{roll}} \times {id}}}
\\
\ensuremath{\muK }
&
&
\ensuremath{{\mathit{A}}\mathbin{+}\muK \times \muK }
\ar[ll]^{\ensuremath{\mathsf{in}_{\fun K}}}
}\end{aligned}$$ To obtain $\conv{{\mathit{roll}}}$ one just has to reverse all arrows in the diagram, since they are all isomorphisms.
The left spine representation is introduced as in the previous examples: $$\begin{aligned}
\start
\ensuremath{({\conv{{\mathit{tips}}}}\shrunkby{{\leqslant}_{{\mathit{height}}}}) \comp {\mathit{tips}}}
\just={\ensuremath{{\mathit{roll}} \comp \conv{{\mathit{roll}}}\mathrel{=}{id}}}
\ensuremath{({({\mathit{roll}} \comp \conv{{\mathit{roll}}} \comp \conv{{\mathit{tips}}})}\shrunkby{{\leqslant}_{{\mathit{height}}}}) \comp {\mathit{tips}}}
\just={ by (\ref{eq:fn-shrink-l}) abbreviating \ensuremath{{\preceq }^\prime\mathrel{=}({\leqslant})_{{\mathit{height}} \comp {\mathit{roll}}}} and \ensuremath{{\mathit{troll}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{tips}} \comp {\mathit{roll}}}}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{roll}} \comp ({\conv{{\mathit{troll}}}}\shrunkby{{\preceq }^\prime}) \comp {\mathit{tips}}}\end{aligned}$$ Altogether, we are lead to a metaphorism between binary trees and left spines, post processed by ${\mathit{roll}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\xymatrix@C=3.5ex@R=1.4ex{
&
&
\ensuremath{{\mathit{A}} \times {\muK }^{*}}
\\
\\
\ensuremath{\muK }
&
\ensuremath{{\mathit{A}} \times {\muK }^{*}}
\ar[l]^-{\ensuremath{{\mathit{roll}}}}
\ar[rd]_-{\ensuremath{{\mathit{roll}}}}
\ar@/^0.5pc/[ruu]^(.5){\ensuremath{{\preceq }^\prime}}
\ar@/_1.5pc/[ddrr]_(.5){\ensuremath{{\mathit{troll}}}}
&
&
&
\ensuremath{\muK }
\ar@{.>}@/_3.8pc/[llll]_(.45){\ensuremath{{\frac{{\mathit{tips}}}{{\mathit{tips}}}}\shrunkby{{\leqslant}_{{\mathit{height}}}}}}
\ar[ldd]^-{\ensuremath{{\mathit{tips}}}}
\ar[lll]_{\ensuremath{\frac{{\mathit{tips}}}{{\mathit{troll}}}}}
\ar[lluu]_{\ensuremath{{\frac{{\mathit{tips}}}{{\mathit{troll}}}}\shrunkby{{\preceq }^\prime}}}
&
&
\\
&
&
\ensuremath{\muK }
\ar[rd]_-{\ensuremath{{\mathit{tips}}}}
&
\\
&
&
&
\ensuremath{{{\mathit{A}}}^{+}}
}\end{aligned}$$ The hard bit above is ${\conv{{\mathit{troll}}}}\shrunkby{{\preceq }^\prime}$, to be addressed in two steps: first, we convert $\conv{{\mathit{troll}}}\mathrel{=}\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{S}}\mathclose{|\!)}$ for some ${\mathit{S}}$ using the *converse of a function* theorem by @BM97. Then we use the *greedy theorem* of shrinking [@MO12a] to refine ${\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{S}}\mathclose{|\!)}}\shrunkby{{\preceq }^\prime}$ into $\mathopen{(\!|}{{\mathit{S}}}\shrunkby{{\preceq }^\prime}\mathclose{|\!)}$. For easy reference, we quote both theorems below from their sources.
\[th:170322c\] Let $\rarrow{\fun F \;\fun T }{\mathsf{in}_{\fun T}}{\fun T }$ and $\rarrow{{\mathit{A}}}{{\mathit{f}}}{\fun T }$ be given. Then $\conv{{\mathit{f}}}\mathrel{=}\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{R}}\mathclose{|\!)}$ provided ${\mathit{R}}\mathbin{:}{\mathit{A}}\leftarrow \fun F \;{\mathit{A}}$ is surjective and such that ${\mathit{f}} \comp {\mathit{R}}\; \subseteq \;\mathsf{in}_{\fun T} \comp \fun F \;{\mathit{f}}$. (Proof: see theorem 6.4 in [@BM97].)\
$\ensuremath{\Box}$
\[th:170322d\] ${\mathopen{(\!|}{{\mathit{S}}}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}\mathclose{|\!)}}\subseteq{{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{S}}\mathclose{|\!)}}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}}$ provided ${\mathit{R}}$ is transitive and ${\mathit{S}}$ is monotonic with respect to $\conv{{\mathit{R}}}$, that is, ${\mathit{S}} \comp (\fun F \;\conv{{\mathit{R}}})\; \subseteq \;\conv{{\mathit{R}}} \comp {\mathit{S}}$. (Proof: see theorem 1 in [@MO12a].)\
$\ensuremath{\Box}$
In our case, $\mathsf{in}_{\fun T}\mathbin{:}\fun F \;{{\mathit{A}}}^{+}\to {{\mathit{A}}}^{+}$ (non-empty lists) where $\fun F \;{\mathit{X}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{A}}\mathbin{+}{\mathit{A}} \times {\mathit{X}}$, assuming ${\mathit{A}}$ fixed. (${\mathit{A}}\mathrel{=}\mathbb{Z}$ in [@BGM02].) We aim at $\conv{{\mathit{troll}}}\mathrel{=}\mathopen{(\!|}\alt{{\mathit{R}}}{{\mathit{Q}}}\mathclose{|\!)}$, where ${\mathit{R}}\mathbin{:}{\mathit{A}} \times {\muK }^{*}\leftarrow {\mathit{A}}$ and ${\mathit{Q}}\mathbin{:}{\mathit{A}} \times {\muK }^{*}\leftarrow {\mathit{A}} \times ({\mathit{A}} \times {\muK }^{*})$. While ${\mathit{R}}\mathrel{=}{{id}}\kr{\mathsf{nil}}$ is immediate, ${\mathit{Q}}$ is constrained by theorem \[th:170322c\] $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{Q}}\; \subseteq \;\frac{\mathsf{cons} \comp ({id} \times {\mathit{troll}})}{{\mathit{troll}}}}
\label{eq:170329a}\end{aligned}$$ and by theorem \[th:170322d\]: $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{Q}} \comp ({id} \times \conv{({\preceq }^\prime)})\; \subseteq \;\conv{({\preceq }^\prime)} \comp {\mathit{Q}}}
\label{eq:170326a}\end{aligned}$$ Solutions will be of the form $\mathopen{(\!|}\alt{{\mathsf{one}}\kr{\mathsf{nil}}}{{{\mathit{Q}}}\shrunkby{{\preceq }^\prime}}\mathclose{|\!)}$ by the following properties of shrinking [@MO12a]: $$\begin{aligned}
\start
\junc{S}{T}\shrunkby R = \junc{S\shrunkby R}{T\shrunkby R}
\more
\ensuremath{{{\mathit{f}}}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{f}}} ~ \implied ~ \mbox{\ensuremath{{\mathit{R}}} is reflexive}\end{aligned}$$ The following property of ${\mathit{troll}}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{troll}} \comp ({id} \times \mathsf{cons} \comp (\mathsf{leaf} \times {id}))\mathrel{=}\mathsf{cons} \comp ({id} \times {\mathit{troll}})}\end{aligned}$$ naively suggests solution ${\mathit{Q}}\mathrel{=}{id} \times \mathsf{cons} \comp (\mathsf{leaf} \times {id})$ which, however, does not work: for input tree
> =1.0em
>
> (15,5)(0,-2) (0,-0.7)[(0,0)\[c\][6]{}]{} (2,-0.7)[(0,0)\[c\][10]{}]{} (1,1)[(-1,-1)[1]{}]{} (1,1)[(1,-1)[1]{}]{} (4,-0.7)[(0,0)\[c\][9]{}]{} (6,-0.7)[(0,0)\[c\][1]{}]{} (5,1)[(-1,-1)[1]{}]{} (5,1)[(1,-1)[1]{}]{} (3,2)[(-2,-1)[2]{}]{} (3,2)[(2,-1)[2]{}]{} (8,-0.7)[(0,0)\[c\][12]{}]{} (10,-0.7)[(0,0)\[c\][7]{}]{} (9,1)[(-1,-1)[1]{}]{} (9,1)[(1,-1)[1]{}]{} (12,-0.7)[(0,0)\[c\][1]{}]{} (14,-0.7)[(0,0)\[c\][4]{}]{} (13,1)[(-1,-1)[1]{}]{} (13,1)[(1,-1)[1]{}]{} (11,2)[(-2,-1)[2]{}]{} (11,2)[(2,-1)[2]{}]{} (7,3)[(-4,-1)[4]{}]{} (7,3)[(4,-1)[4]{}]{}
with height $\mathrm{15}$, $\mathopen{(\!|}{id} \times \mathsf{cons} \comp (\mathsf{leaf} \times {id})\mathclose{|\!)} \comp {\mathit{tips}}$ would generate output tree
> =1.0em
>
> (15,9)(0,-2) (0,-0.7)[(0,0)\[c\][6]{}]{} (2,-0.7)[(0,0)\[c\][10]{}]{} (1,1)[(-1,-1)[1]{}]{} (1,1)[(1,-1)[1]{}]{} (4,0.3)[(0,0)\[c\][9]{}]{} (3,2)[(-2,-1)[2]{}]{} (3,2)[(1,-1)[1]{}]{} (6,1.3)[(0,0)\[c\][1]{}]{} (5,3)[(-2,-1)[2]{}]{} (5,3)[(1,-1)[1]{}]{} (8,2.3)[(0,0)\[c\][12]{}]{} (7,4)[(-2,-1)[2]{}]{} (7,4)[(1,-1)[1]{}]{} (10,3.3)[(0,0)\[c\][7]{}]{} (9,5)[(-2,-1)[2]{}]{} (9,5)[(1,-1)[1]{}]{} (12,4.3)[(0,0)\[c\][1]{}]{} (11,6)[(-2,-1)[2]{}]{} (11,6)[(1,-1)[1]{}]{} (14,5.3)[(0,0)\[c\][4]{}]{} (13,7)[(-2,-1)[2]{}]{} (13,7)[(1,-1)[1]{}]{}
with height $\mathrm{17}$, worsening the input rather than improving it. Still, because $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{\mathsf{head} \comp {\mathit{troll}}\mathrel{=}\p1}\end{aligned}$$ one may stick to the pattern ${\mathit{Q}}\mathrel{=}{\p1}\kr{{\mathit{U}} \comp ({id} \times (\mathsf{leaf} \times {id}))}$, for some ${\mathit{U}}\mathbin{:}{\muK }^{*}\leftarrow {\mathit{A}} \times (\muK \times {\muK }^{*})$.
It turns out that finding ${\mathit{U}}$ such that ${\mathit{Q}}$ satisfies (\[eq:170329a\],\[eq:170326a\]) is not easy [@BGM02]. The solution is a strategy allowed by the monotonicity of shrinking on the optimization relation: if ${\mathit{P}}\; \subseteq \;{\mathit{R}}$ then ${{{\mathit{S}}}\shrunkby{{\mathit{P}}}}\subseteq{{{\mathit{S}}}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}}$ and therefore ${\mathopen{(\!|}{{\mathit{S}}}\shrunkby{{\mathit{P}}}\mathclose{|\!)}}\subseteq{\mathopen{(\!|}{{\mathit{S}}}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}\mathclose{|\!)}}$.[^30] At this point we can pick the refinement ${\mathit{U}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{minsplit}}$ given in [@BGM02]:
(,(,\[1.5mu 1.5mu\]))\[1.5mu 1.5mu\]\
(,(,))\
()\
(,((,),))
For the input tree given above, this refinement will yield
> =1.0em
>
> (15,5)(0,-3) (0,-0.7)[(0,0)\[c\][6]{}]{} (2,-1.7)[(0,0)\[c\][10]{}]{} (4,-2.7)[(0,0)\[c\][9]{}]{} (6,-2.7)[(0,0)\[c\][1]{}]{} (5,-1)[(-1,-1)[1]{}]{} (5,-1)[(1,-1)[1]{}]{} (3,0)[(-1,-1)[1]{}]{} (3,0)[(2,-1)[2]{}]{} (1,1)[(-1,-1)[1]{}]{} (1,1)[(2,-1)[2]{}]{} (8,-0.7)[(0,0)\[c\][12]{}]{} (10,-1.7)[(0,0)\[c\][7]{}]{} (12,-2.7)[(0,0)\[c\][1]{}]{} (14,-2.7)[(0,0)\[c\][4]{}]{} (13,-1)[(-1,-1)[1]{}]{} (13,-1)[(1,-1)[1]{}]{} (11,0)[(-1,-1)[1]{}]{} (11,0)[(2,-1)[2]{}]{} (9,1)[(-1,-1)[1]{}]{} (9,1)[(2,-1)[2]{}]{} (7,2)[(-6,-1)[6]{}]{} (7,2)[(2,-1)[2]{}]{}
with (minimum) height $\mathrm{14}$.
To follow the reasoning by @BGM02 that leads to the above solution note that, although shrinking is not used there, it is in a sense implicit. Take ${{\mathit{S}}}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}$ and apply the power-transpose to ${\mathit{S}}$, obtaining ${({\in} \comp \Lambda{{\mathit{S}}})}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}$. Since $\Lambda{{\mathit{S}}}$ is a function we can use (\[eq:fn-shrink-r\]) to get $({{\in}}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}) \comp \Lambda{{\mathit{S}}}$. The relation ${{\in}}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}\mathbin{:}{\mathit{A}}\leftarrow \fun P \;{\mathit{A}}$, which picks minimal elements of a set according to criterion ${\mathit{R}}$ is written ${\mathit{min}}\;{\mathit{R}}$ in [@BGM02]. So expressions of the form (${\mathit{min}}\;{\mathit{R}} \comp \Lambda{{\mathit{S}}}$) in that paper express the same as ${{\mathit{S}}}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}$ in the current paper.
The ordering on left spines found in [@BGM02] to ensure the monotonicity of ${\mathit{Q}}$ is $\sqsubseteq _{{\mathit{lspinecosts}}}$ where ${\mathit{lspinecosts}}\;({\mathit{a}},{\mathit{ts}})\mathrel{=}[\mskip1.5mu ({\mathit{height}} \comp {\mathit{roll}})\;({\mathit{a}},{\mathit{x}})\mid {\mathit{x}}\leftarrow {\mathit{pref}}\;{\mathit{ts}}\mskip1.5mu]$, ${\mathit{pref}}\;{\mathit{ts}}$ lists the prefixes of ${\mathit{ts}}$ in length-decreasing order, and $[\mskip1.5mu {\mathit{a}}_{\mathrm{1}}\mathinner{\ldotp\ldotp}{\mathit{a}}_{{\mathit{m}}}\mskip1.5mu]\sqsubseteq [\mskip1.5mu {\mathit{b}}_{\mathrm{1}}\mathinner{\ldotp\ldotp}{\mathit{b}}_{{\mathit{n}}}\mskip1.5mu]~\Leftrightarrow~{\mathit{m}}{\leqslant}{\mathit{n}}\mathrel{\wedge}\rcb{\forall}{{\mathit{i}}}{{\mathit{i}}{\leqslant}{\mathit{m}}}{{\mathit{a}}_{{\mathit{i}}}{\leqslant}{\mathit{b}}_{{\mathit{i}}}}$. As examples, let ${\mathit{s}}$ be the left spine of the first, balanced tree given above as example, and ${\mathit{s'}}$ be that of the last, minimal-height one. We have ${\mathit{lspinecosts}}\;{\mathit{s}}\mathrel{=}[\mskip1.5mu \mathrm{15},\mathrm{12},\mathrm{11},\mathrm{6}\mskip1.5mu]$ while ${\mathit{lspinecosts}}\;{\mathit{s'}}\mathrel{=}[\mskip1.5mu \mathrm{14},\mathrm{12},\mathrm{6}\mskip1.5mu]$, meaning ${\mathit{s'}}\;\sqsubseteq _{{\mathit{lspinecosts}}}\;{\mathit{s}}$. That $\sqsubseteq _{{\mathit{lspinecosts}}}\; \subseteq \;{\preceq }^\prime\mathrel{=}{\leqslant}_{{\mathit{height}} \comp {\mathit{roll}}}$ holds follows immediately from $\mathsf{head} \comp {\mathit{lspinecosts}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{height}} \comp {\mathit{roll}}$.
Conclusions {#sec:150406h}
===========
This paper identifies a pattern of relational specification, termed *metaphorism*, in which some kernel information of the input is preserved at the same time some form of optimization takes place towards the output of an algorithmic process. Text processing, sorting and representation changers are given as examples of metaphorisms.
Metaphorisms expose the *variant*/*invariant* duality essential to program correctness in their own way: there are two main attributes in the game, one is to be preserved (the essence of the metaphor, cf. *invariant*) while the other is to be mini(maxi)mized (the essence of the optimization, cf. *variant*).
At the heart of relational specifications of this kind the paper identifies the occurrence of *metaphors* characterized as *symmetric divisions* [@FS90; @SS93] of functions. This makes it possible to regard them as *rational* (regular) relations [@JMBD91] and develop an algebra of metaphors that contains much of what is needed for refining [metaphorisms]{} into recursive programs.
In particular, the kind of metaphorism refinement studied in the paper is known as *changing the virtual data structure*, whereby algorithms are re-structured in a *divide & conquer* fashion. The paper gives sufficient conditions for such implementations to be calculated in general and gives the derivation of *quicksort* and *mergesort* as examples. The former can be regarded as a generalization of the reasoning about the same algorithm given by @BM97.
Altogether, the paper shows how such *divide & conquer* refinement strategies consist of replacing the “outer metaphor” of the starting specification (metaphorism) by a more implicit but more interesting “inner metaphor”, which governs the implementation. Where exactly this inner metaphor is located depends on the overall refinement plan.
The *quicksort* example shows how the outer metaphor, relating lists which permute each other, gives place to an inner metaphor located in the *divide* step that relates lists to binary search trees. This provides technical evidence for *quicksort* being usually classified as a “*Hard Split, Easy Join*” [@Ho94] algorithm: indeed, the “metaphor shift” calculated in shows the workload passing along the conquer layer towards the *divide* one, eventually landing into the *coalgebra* which governs the *“hard” divide* process. Conversely, the inner metaphor in the case of *mergesort* goes into the *algebra* of the *conquer* step, explaining why this is regarded as a “*Easy Split, Hard Join*” algorithm by @Ho94. As seen in the paper, this has to do with *where* the virtual data structure is placed, either at the front or at the rear of the starting metaphorism.
From the linguistics perspective, metaphorisms are *formal* metaphors and not exactly *cognitive* metaphors. But computer science is full of these as well, as its terminology (e.g. “stack”, “pipe", “memory", “driver") amply shows. If a picture is worth a thousand words, perhaps a good metaphor(ism) is worth a thousand axioms?
Future work {#sec:160122b}
===========
The research reported in this paper falls into the area of investigating how to manage or refine specification vagueness (non-determinism) by means of the “shrinking" combinator proposed elsewhere [@MO12a; @OF13]. The interplay between this combinator and metaphors (as symmetric divisions) has room for further research. Can $\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{g}}}$ be generalized to some $\frac{{\mathit{R}}}{{\mathit{S}}}$ and still retain metaphors’ ability to *equate objects of incompatible orders* [@Be81]? Facts (\[eq:170413a\]), (\[eq:170413b\]) and (\[eq:160108a\]) point towards such a generalization. This relates to another direction for possible genericity: metaphorisms as given in this paper call for a *division allegory* [@FS90] such as that of binary relations. Can this be generalized? @Gi16 asks a similar question and suggests *regular* categories as the right abstraction. It will be interesting to generalize metaphorisms in a similar, categorial way.
Another direction for future research is to generalize *shrinking* in metaphorisms to *thinning* [@BM97]. A notation similar to ${{\mathit{S}}}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}$ can be adopted for thinning, $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{{{\mathit{S}}}\thinnedby{{\mathit{R}}}\mathrel{=}{{\in}\setminus {\mathit{S}}}\mathbin\cap{(\conv{{\in}} \comp {\mathit{R}})\mathbin{/}\conv{{\mathit{S}}}}}\end{aligned}$$ where ${{\mathit{S}}}\thinnedby{{\mathit{R}}}$ is a set-valued relation: ${\mathit{x}}\;({{\mathit{S}}}\thinnedby{{\mathit{R}}})\;{\mathit{a}}$ holds for exactly those ${\mathit{x}}$ such that ${\mathit{x}}\; \subseteq \;\Lambda{{\mathit{S}}}\;{\mathit{a}}$ and ${\mathit{x}}$ is lower-bounded with respect to ${\mathit{R}}$. ${{\mathit{S}}}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}$ corresponds to that part of ${{\mathit{S}}}\thinnedby{{\mathit{R}}}$ whose outputs are singletons containing minima, $\eta \comp ({{\mathit{S}}}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}})\; \subseteq \;{{\mathit{S}}}\thinnedby{{\mathit{R}}}$ where $\eta \;{\mathit{b}}\mathrel{=}\{\mskip1.5mu {\mathit{b}}\mskip1.5mu\}$. For ${\mathit{R}}$ a preorder one has:
> ${{\mathit{S}}}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}\mathrel{=}({{\in}}\shrunkby{{\mathit{R}}}) \comp ({{\mathit{S}}}\thinnedby{{\mathit{R}}})$
So preorder shrinking can be expressed by thinning. Not surprisingly, shrinking and thinning share similar laws, namely (\[eq:fn-shrink-r\]), cf. ${({\mathit{S}} \comp {\mathit{f}})}\thinnedby{{\mathit{R}}}\mathrel{=}({{\mathit{S}}}\thinnedby{{\mathit{R}}}) \comp {\mathit{f}}$. Thus, refining metaphorisms under thinning can also follow the *converse of a function* strategy enabled by theorem \[th:170322c\]. Moreover, the thinning counterpart to the greedy theorem, $\mathopen{(\!|}{({\mathit{S}} \comp \fun F \;{\in})}\thinnedby{{\mathit{R}}}\mathclose{|\!)}\; \subseteq \;{\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{S}}\mathclose{|\!)}}\thinnedby{{\mathit{R}}}$ suggests similar refinement processes. Whether thinning offers genuinely new opportunities for metaphorism reasoning as compared to shrinking is a subject for future research.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The origin of this paper is not computer science. When reading Leonard Bernstein’s *The Unanswered Question* [@Be81] the author’s attention was driven by the *triangular formations* mentioned by the maestro in his metaphorical analysis of music:
> *(...) in music as in poetry, the A and B of a metaphor must both relate to some X-factor (...) such as rhythm or (...) harmonic progressions. You see there still that triangular formation of A, B and X to be reckoned with.*
Bernstein’s “triangles” inspired the “cospans” of [@Ol15a] and of this paper (\[eq:150328a\]), ventured earlier in [@Ol13c]. Music has to do with sequences of sound events and several of its stylistic features can be described by metaphorisms. It was the generalization of these to arbitrary finite sequences that suggested the sorting examples and then the theory behind this paper.
The author is indebted to his colleague and linguist [Álvaro Iriarte]{} for inviting him to contribute to the 2013 *Humanities and Sciences* colloquium where [@Ol13c] was presented. This was followed by several interesting coffee-time conversations in which Álvaro eventually pointed to Lakoff’s work [@LJ80]. Reading this classic changed the author’s perception of natural language for ever.
On the technical side, comments and suggestions by Ali Jaoua and Ali Mili are gratefully acknowledged. Last but not least, the author thanks the detailed suggestions and comments made by the anonymous referees which helped to improve the original manuscript.
This work is funded by ERDF - European Regional Development Fund through the COMPETE Programme (operational programme for competitiveness) and by National Funds through the *FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia* (Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology) within project <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Trust</span> (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-016826).
[40]{} \[1\][\#1]{} \[1\][`#1`]{} urlstyle \[1\][doi:\#1]{} \[1\][doi:]{}\[2\][\#2]{}
, , in: , vol. of **, , , .
, , , , , () () .
, , , () () .
, , , () () .
, , , Series in Computer Science, , .
, , , , , .
, , () .
, , Ph.D. thesis, , , .
, , in: , , (Eds.), , , ISBN , , .
, , in: , LNCS 1548, , .
, , () .
, , , in: , , (Eds.), , vol. of **, , ISBN , , .
, , , in: (Ed.), , , , .
, , () .
, , in: , , .
, , , , , ISBN , .
, , , .
, , , .
, , , , () () , ISSN .
, , , vol. of **, , .
, , () () .
, , () () .
, , , , , , , in: , , , .
, , () .
, , , , in: , vol. of **, , , .
, , () () .
, , () () .
, , , () () .
, , , , () () , ISSN .
, , () () .
, , in: , vol. of **, , , , .
, , , , , .
, , , edn., , .
, , , () () , ISSN .
, , , EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science, , .
, , , , .
, , , () () , .
, , , , .
, , vol. of **, , , .
, , , , <https://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/handle/1822/24648>, .
Auxiliary lemmas and proofs {#sec:150329b}
===========================
Given predicate ${\mathit{q}}$ and function ${\mathit{f}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{({\mathit{q}} \comp {\mathit{f}})\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}} = \ensuremath{\ap{\delta}({\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {\mathit{f}})}
\label{eq:150924a}\end{aligned}$$ holds, where $$\begin{aligned}
\ensuremath{\ap{\delta}{\mathit{R}}\mathrel{=}{{id}}\mathbin\cap{\conv{{\mathit{R}}} \comp {\mathit{R}}}}
\label{eq:020624j}\end{aligned}$$ is the *domain* of ${\mathit{R}}$.\
Proof: $$\begin{aligned}
\start
\ensuremath{({\mathit{q}} \comp {\mathit{f}})\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}}
\just={ (\ref{eq:160121c}) }
\ensuremath{{{id}}\mathbin\cap{\frac{{\mathit{true}}}{{\mathit{q}} \comp {\mathit{f}}}}}
\just={ since \ensuremath{\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{f}}}} is reflexive (\ref{eq:160112e}) }
\ensuremath{{{id}}\mathbin\cap{{\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{f}}}}\mathbin\cap{\frac{{\mathit{true}} \comp {\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{q}} \comp {\mathit{f}}}}}}
\just={ (\ref{eq:160111a}) ; products }
\ensuremath{{{id}}\mathbin\cap{\frac{({{id}}\kr{{\mathit{true}}}) \comp {\mathit{f}}}{({{id}}\kr{{\mathit{q}}}) \comp {\mathit{f}}}}}
\just={ (\ref{eq:160117a}) ; (\ref{eq:160111a}) }
\ensuremath{{{id}}\mathbin\cap{\conv{{\mathit{f}}} \comp ({{id}}\mathbin\cap{\frac{{\mathit{true}}}{{\mathit{q}}}}) \comp {\mathit{f}}}}
\just={ (\ref{eq:160121c}) }
\ensuremath{{{id}}\mathbin\cap{\conv{{\mathit{f}}} \comp {\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {\mathit{f}}}}
\just={ (\ref{eq:020624j}) }
\ensuremath{\ap{\delta}({\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {\mathit{f}})}
\qed\end{aligned}$$
The rest of this appendix provides proofs of results left pending in the main text.
#### Proof of property (\[eq:160115b\])
**Part ($\Rightarrow$)** — $\frac{{\mathit{R}}}{{\mathit{R}}}$ is always an equivalence relation, recall . **Part ($\Leftarrow$)** — assume that ${\mathit{R}}$ is an equivalence relation. Then: $$\begin{aligned}
\start
\ensuremath{{\mathit{R}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{R}}\setminus {\mathit{R}}}
\just\equiv{ since \ensuremath{{{\mathit{R}}}\subseteq{{\mathit{R}}\setminus {\mathit{R}}}} just states that \ensuremath{{\mathit{R}}} is transitive (\ref{eq:020614b}) }
\ensuremath{{{\mathit{R}}\setminus {\mathit{R}}}\subseteq{{\mathit{R}}}}
\just\implied{ since \ensuremath{{{\mathit{R}} \comp ({\mathit{R}}\setminus {\mathit{R}})}\subseteq{{\mathit{R}}}} by (\ref{eq:020614b}) }
\ensuremath{{{\mathit{R}}\setminus {\mathit{R}}}\subseteq{{\mathit{R}} \comp ({\mathit{R}}\setminus {\mathit{R}})}}
\eqnnewpage
\just\implied{ composition is monotone }
\ensuremath{{{id}}\subseteq{{\mathit{R}}}}
\just\equiv{ \ensuremath{{\mathit{R}}} is reflexive }
\ensuremath{{\mathit{true}}}
$$ Then: $$\begin{aligned}
\start
\ensuremath{{\mathit{R}}\mathrel{=}\frac{{\mathit{R}}}{{\mathit{R}}}}
\just\equiv{ (\ref{eq:160122a}) ; \ensuremath{\conv{{\mathit{R}}}\mathbin{/}\conv{{\mathit{R}}}\mathrel{=}\conv{({\mathit{R}}\setminus {\mathit{R}})}}}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{R}}\mathrel{=}{{\mathit{R}}\rdiv {\mathit{R}}}\mathbin\cap{\conv{({\mathit{R}}\setminus {\mathit{R}})}}}
\just\equiv{ \ensuremath{{\mathit{R}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{R}}\setminus {\mathit{R}}} above }
\ensuremath{{\mathit{R}}\mathrel{=}{{\mathit{R}}}\mathbin\cap{\conv{{\mathit{R}}}}}
\just\equiv{ since \ensuremath{{\mathit{R}}} is symmetric: \ensuremath{{\mathit{R}}\mathrel{=}\conv{{\mathit{R}}}} }
\ensuremath{{\mathit{true}}}
\qed\end{aligned}$$
#### Proof of property (\[eq:150406c\])
**Part ($\implies$)** — show that ${\mathit{p}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{q}} \comp {\mathit{f}}$ follows from ${\mathit{f}} \comp {\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {\mathit{f}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\start
\ensuremath{{\mathit{p}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{q}} \comp {\mathit{f}}}
\just\equiv{ bijection between predicates and partial identities }
\ensuremath{{\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}({\mathit{q}} \comp {\mathit{f}})\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}}
\just\equiv{ (\ref{eq:150924a}) ; \ensuremath{{\mathit{f}} \comp {\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {\mathit{f}}} assumed }
\ensuremath{{\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}\ap{\delta}({\mathit{f}} \comp {\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?})}
\just\equiv{ \ensuremath{\ap{\delta}({\mathit{R}} \comp {\mathit{S}})\mathrel{=}\ap{\delta}(\ap{\delta}{\mathit{R}} \comp {\mathit{S}})}}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}\ap{\delta}(\ap{\delta}{\mathit{f}} \comp {\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?})}
\just\equiv{ \ensuremath{\ap{\delta}{\mathit{f}}\mathrel{=}{id}}}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}\ap{\delta}({\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?})}
\just\equiv{ domain of a partial identity is itself }
\ensuremath{{\mathit{true}}}
\qed\end{aligned}$$ **Part ($\implied$)** — show that ${\mathit{f}} \comp {\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {\mathit{f}}$ holds assuming ${\mathit{p}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{q}} \comp {\mathit{f}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\start
\ensuremath{{\mathit{f}} \comp {\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}} = \ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {\mathit{f}}}
\just\equiv{ substitution \ensuremath{{\mathit{p}}\mathbin{:=}{\mathit{q}} \comp {\mathit{f}}}; (\ref{eq:150924a}) }
\ensuremath{{\mathit{f}} \comp \ap{\delta}({\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {\mathit{f}})} = \ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {\mathit{f}}}
\just\implied{ \ensuremath{ \subseteq }-antisymmetry, since \ensuremath{{\ap{\delta}({\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {\mathit{f}})}\subseteq{\conv{{\mathit{f}}} \comp {\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {\mathit{f}}}} and \ensuremath{{\mathit{f}} \comp \conv{{\mathit{f}}}\; \subseteq \;{id}}}
\ensuremath{{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {\mathit{f}}}\subseteq{{\mathit{f}} \comp \ap{\delta}({\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {\mathit{f}})}}
\just\equiv{ \ensuremath{{\mathit{R}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{R}} \comp \ap{\delta}{\mathit{R}}} }
\ensuremath{{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {\mathit{f}} \comp \ap{\delta}({\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {\mathit{f}})}\subseteq{{\mathit{f}} \comp \ap{\delta}({\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {\mathit{f}})}}
\just\implied{ monotonicity of composition }
\ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}} \wider\subseteq \ensuremath{{id}}
\just\equiv{\ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}} is a partial identity}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{true}}}
\qed\end{aligned}$$
#### Proof of property (\[eq:150407a-modified\])
By (\[eq:160112f\]), ${\mathit{p}}\;{{\leqslant}_{\cdot }}\;{\mathit{f}}$ is equivalent to the existence of some ${\mathit{q}}$ such that ${\mathit{p}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{q}} \comp {\mathit{f}}$ holds, which in turn is equivalent to ${\mathit{f}} \comp {\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}$ = ${\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {\mathit{f}}$ by (\[eq:150406c\]). Then: $$\begin{aligned}
\start
\ensuremath{\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{f}}} \comp {\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}}
\just={ metaphors (\ref{eq:160117a}) ; (\ref{eq:150406c}) }
\ensuremath{\conv{{\mathit{f}}} \comp {\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {\mathit{f}}}
\just={ converses ; partial identities }
\ensuremath{\conv{({\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {\mathit{f}})} \comp {\mathit{f}}}
\just={ again (\ref{eq:150406c}) and (\ref{eq:160117a}) }
\ensuremath{{\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{f}}}}
\qed\end{aligned}$$
#### Proof of property (\[eq:150214b\])
Our strategy is indirect equality carried over the universal property of the shrinking operator (\[eq:100116d\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\start
X \subseteq S \shrunkby (\ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}} \comp \top)
\just\equiv{ (\ref{eq:100116d}) ; (\ref{eq:060124a}) }
X \subseteq S \land X\comp\conv S \subseteq \ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}} \comp \ensuremath{\frac{\mathop{!}}{\mathop{!}}}
\eqnnewpage
\just\equiv{ shunting (\ref{eq:020617f}) ; converses }
X \subseteq S \land X\comp\conv{(\bang\comp S)} \subseteq \ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}} \comp \conv\bang
\just\equiv{ assume \ensuremath{{\mathit{S}}} entire, so \ensuremath{\mathop{!} \comp {\mathit{S}}\mathrel{=}\mathop{!}} }
X \subseteq S \land X\comp\conv\bang \subseteq \ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}} \comp \conv\bang
\just\equiv{ shunting (\ref{eq:020617f}) ; (\ref{eq:060124a}) }
X \subseteq S \land X \subseteq \ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \top }
\just\equiv{ (\ref{eq:071215a}) below }
X \subseteq \ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}}\comp S
\just{::}{ indirect equality}
\ensuremath{{{\mathit{S}}}\shrunkby{({\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp \top )}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?} \comp {\mathit{S}}}
\qed\end{aligned}$$ The proof relies on a well-known property of partial identities, given below together with its converse version: $$\begin{aligned}
R\comp \ensuremath{{\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}} & = & R \cap \top\comp \ensuremath{{\mathit{p}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}}
\label{eq:081025a}
\\
\ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}}\comp R & = & R \cap \ensuremath{{\mathit{q}}\hskip-1pt\mathit{?}}\comp \top
\label{eq:071215a}\end{aligned}$$ see e.g. [@Ol08b].
#### Proof of Theorem \[th:150327a\]
Equality (\[eq:160118c\]) follows immediately from (\[eq:150326b\]) by fold-cancellation (\[eq:150402b\]). Next we show the equivalence between (\[eq:150326b\]) and (\[eq:150326a\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\start
\ensuremath{{\mathit{R}} \comp {\mathit{h}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{R}} \comp {\mathit{h}} \comp (\fun F \;{\mathit{R}})}
\just\equiv{\ensuremath{{\mathit{R}} \comp {\mathit{h}}\; \subseteq \;{\mathit{R}} \comp {\mathit{h}} \comp (\fun F \;{\mathit{R}})} holds by \ensuremath{{{id}}\subseteq{\fun F \;{\mathit{R}}}}, since \ensuremath{{{id}}\subseteq{{\mathit{R}}}}}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{R}} \comp {\mathit{h}} \comp (\fun F \;{\mathit{R}})\; \subseteq \;{\mathit{R}} \comp {\mathit{h}}}
\just\equiv{ \ensuremath{({\mathit{R}} \comp )} is a {closure} operation, see (\ref{eq:060613c-modified}) below}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{h}} \comp (\fun F \;{\mathit{R}})\; \subseteq \;{\mathit{R}} \comp {\mathit{h}}}
\qed\end{aligned}$$ The last step relies on the fact that composition with equivalence relations is a *closure* operation: $$\begin{aligned}
R \comp S \subseteq R \comp Q & \equiv & S \subseteq R \comp Q
\label{eq:060613c-modified}\end{aligned}$$ This fact is used elsewhere [@Ol11] to reason about functional dependencies in databases. Below we rephrase its proof using the power transpose $\Lambda{{\mathit{R}}}$ which maps objects to their ${\mathit{R}}$-equivalence classes (\[eq:160115a\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\start
\ensuremath{{\mathit{R}} \comp {\mathit{S}}\; \subseteq \;{\mathit{R}} \comp {\mathit{Q}}}
\just\equiv{ \ensuremath{{\mathit{R}}\mathrel{=}\frac{\Lambda{{\mathit{R}}}}{\Lambda{{\mathit{R}}}}} (\ref{eq:160115a}) }
\ensuremath{\frac{\Lambda{{\mathit{R}}}}{\Lambda{{\mathit{R}}}} \comp {\mathit{S}}\; \subseteq \;\frac{\Lambda{{\mathit{R}}}}{\Lambda{{\mathit{R}}}} \comp {\mathit{Q}}}
\just\equiv{ \ensuremath{\frac{\Lambda{{\mathit{R}}}}{\Lambda{{\mathit{R}}}}\mathrel{=}\conv{\Lambda{{\mathit{R}}}} \comp \Lambda{{\mathit{R}}}} (\ref{eq:160117a}) ; shunting (\ref{eq:020617e}) }
\ensuremath{\Lambda{{\mathit{R}}} \comp \conv{\Lambda{{\mathit{R}}}} \comp \Lambda{{\mathit{R}}} \comp {\mathit{S}}\; \subseteq \;\Lambda{{\mathit{R}}} \comp {\mathit{Q}}}
\just\equiv{\ensuremath{{\mathit{f}} \comp \conv{{\mathit{f}}} \comp {\mathit{f}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{f}}} (difunctionality)}
\ensuremath{\Lambda{{\mathit{R}}} \comp {\mathit{S}}\; \subseteq \;\Lambda{{\mathit{R}}} \comp {\mathit{Q}}}
\just\equiv{ shunting (\ref{eq:020617e}) ; \ensuremath{\conv{\Lambda{{\mathit{R}}}} \comp \Lambda{{\mathit{R}}}\mathrel{=}\frac{\Lambda{{\mathit{R}}}}{\Lambda{{\mathit{R}}}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{R}}} (\ref{eq:160115a})}
\ensuremath{{\mathit{S}}\; \subseteq \;{\mathit{R}} \comp {\mathit{Q}}}
\qed\end{aligned}$$ Finally, the proof that (\[eq:160120c\]) is equivalent to (\[eq:150326a\]) for the special case ${\mathit{R}}\mathrel{=}\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{f}}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\start
\ensuremath{{\mathit{h}} \comp (\fun F \;\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{f}}})\; \subseteq \;\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{f}}} \comp {\mathit{h}}}
\just\equiv{ metaphor algebra: (\ref{eq:160117a}) etc }
\ensuremath{\fun F \;\frac{{\mathit{f}}}{{\mathit{f}}}\; \subseteq \;\frac{{\mathit{f}} \comp {\mathit{h}}}{{\mathit{f}} \comp {\mathit{h}}}}
\just\equiv{ injectivity preorder (\ref{eq:160112f}) ; relator \ensuremath{\fun F } (\ref{eq:160118d}) }
\ensuremath{{\mathit{f}} \comp {\mathit{h}}{\leqslant}\fun F \;{\mathit{f}}}
\qed\end{aligned}$$
[^1]: \[fn:170701a\] In the words of @SM93 *“virtual data structures (...) play the role of a catalyst in the development of programs, in the sense that in the final program they have been transformed away"*.
[^2]: Given a binary relation ${\mathit{R}}$, writing ${\mathit{b}}\;{\mathit{R}}\;{\mathit{a}}$ (read: “${\mathit{b}}$ is related to ${\mathit{a}}$ by ${\mathit{R}}$”) means the same as ${\mathit{a}}\;\conv{{\mathit{R}}}\;{\mathit{b}}$, where $\conv{{\mathit{R}}}$ is said to be the *converse* of ${\mathit{R}}$. So $\conv{{\mathit{R}}}$ corresponds to the *passive voice*; compare e.g.${\mathit{John}}\;{\mathit{loves}}\;{\mathit{Mary}}$ with ${\mathit{Mary}}\;{\mathit{is}}\;{\mathit{loved}}\;{\mathit{by}}\;{\mathit{John}}$: $\conv{({\mathit{loves}})}$ = $({\mathit{is}}\;{\mathit{loved}}\;{\mathit{by}})$.
[^3]: Also called *difunctional* or *uniform* — see e.g. [@Ri48; @JMBD91; @Hu92; @BM97].
[^4]: It is the privilege of those who don’t work with <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">wysiwyg</span> text processors to feel the rewarding (if not æsthetic) contrast between the window where source text is edited and that showing the corresponding, nice-looking PDF output.
[^5]: Technically, $({\mathbin{>\!\!\!>\mkern-6.7mu=}}{\mathit{words}})$ is termed the *Kleisli lifting* (or *extension*) of function ${\mathit{words}}$ [@Mog91].
[^6]: Similar patterns can be found in other *divide & conquer* algorithms.
[^7]: Following a widespread convention, functions (i.e. total and deterministic relations) will be denoted by lowercase characters (e.g. $f$, $g$) or identifiers starting with a lowercase characters, while uppercase letters are reserved to arbitrary relations.
In order to save parentheses in relational expressions, we adopt the following precedence rules: (a) unary operators take precedence over binary ones ; (b) composition binds tighter than any other binary operator; (c) intersection binds tighter than union; (d) division binds tighter than intersection.
[^8]: \[fn:170320a\]This is proved by Riguet on page 134 of [@Ri48], where the symmetric division $\frac{{\mathit{R}}}{{\mathit{R}}}$ is denoted by $noy.(R)$, for “noyaux" of ${\mathit{R}}$ (“noyaux" means “kernel"). For those readers not wishing to delve into the notation of @Ri48 we give a simple proof of (\[eq:160115b\]) in \[sec:150329b\] based on the laws of relation division.
[^9]: This rule is nothing but another way of stating exercise 4.48 proposed by @BM97. Note that $\Lambda{{\mathit{R}}}$ is always a (total) function.
[^10]: This analogy was first noted by @JMBD91 where functions, rational relations and arbitrary relations are paralleled with integers, rationals and reals, respectively.
[^11]: As (the perception of) time predates money in human evolution, it is reasonable to guess that metaphor <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">time is money</span> might have started the other way around, by its *converse* <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">money is time</span>, although this is highly speculative of course.
[^12]: Equality (\[eq:160112b\]) can be regarded as a generalization of Proposition 4.5 given by @JMBD91.
[^13]: The fact that metaphors are preserved by intersection, captured by (\[eq:160111a\]), follows immediately from a more general law of relation algebra [@BM97]: $\conv{({{\mathit{R}}}\kr{{\mathit{S}}})} \comp ({{\mathit{P}}}\kr{{\mathit{Q}}})\mathrel{=}{\conv{{\mathit{R}}} \comp {\mathit{P}}}\mathbin\cap{\conv{{\mathit{S}}}\;{\mathit{Q}}}$, where pairing is extended to arbitrary relations in the expected way: $({\mathit{y}},{\mathit{z}})\;({{\mathit{R}}}\kr{{\mathit{S}}})\;{\mathit{x}}~\Leftrightarrow~({\mathit{y}}\;{\mathit{R}}\;{\mathit{x}})\mathrel{\wedge}({\mathit{z}}\;{\mathit{S}}\;{\mathit{x}})$. Note how these laws include what are normally regarded as the two key benefits of the calculus of relations: *converse functions as specifications and intersection of specifications* [@BGM02; @Na16] .
[^14]: Morphisms such that $\frac{{\mathit{S}}}{{\mathit{S}}}\mathrel{=}{id}$ are referred to as *straight* by @FS90 and generically underlie the proof strategy known as *indirect equality* [@BM97].
[^15]: See e.g. [@Ol14a; @Gi16]. This injectivity preorder is the converse of the *determination order* of [@BS81].
[^16]: *Partial identities* are also known as *coreflexives*, *monotypes* or *tests* [@DBW97; @FS90; @Ko97a].
[^17]: Check (\[eq:081025a\]) and (\[eq:071215a\]) in \[sec:150329b\].
[^18]: By referring to the *quixotic* plot of a couple of politicians in some particular situation, one might wish to suggest that one of them behaved like Don Quixote *and* the other like Sancho Panza.
[^19]: Recall from that a relator $\fun F $ is an (endo)functor $\fun F $ that preserves converses.
[^20]: \[fn:170517a\]Following the usual terminology [@Ol08a], by an *abstraction* we mean a *simple* (ie. functional) and *surjective* relation. In this paper all abstractions are total (entire), that is, they are functions. In symbols, $\alpha $ is an abstraction *function* iff ${id}\; \subseteq \;\conv{\alpha } \comp \alpha $ and ${id}\mathrel{=}\alpha \comp \conv{\alpha }$.
[^21]: \[fn:170409a\] Property (\[eq:cataUniv-rel\]) establishes $\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{R}}\mathclose{|\!)}$ as the unique fixpoint of the equation ${\mathit{X}}\mathrel{=}{\mathit{R}} \comp (\fun F \;{\mathit{X}}) \comp \conv{\mathsf{in}_{\fun F}}$, and therefore the *least prefix point* too: ${\mathopen{(\!|}{\mathit{R}}\mathclose{|\!)}}\subseteq{{\mathit{X}}}$ $\Leftarrow$ ${{\mathit{R}} \comp (\fun F \;{\mathit{X}}) \comp \conv{\mathsf{in}_{\fun F}}}\subseteq{{\mathit{X}}}$ [@BM97]. From this, one can easily infer (\[eq:170409b\]), that fold is a monotonic operator, etc.
[^22]: The ${\mathit{Perm}}$ equivalence relation is an example of this, recall (\[eq:160118b\]).
[^23]: Since there are folds over different types in the diagram we tag each of them with the corresponding functor.
[^24]: As before, we abbreviate ${\mathit{flatten}} \times {\mathit{flatten}}$ by ${{\mathit{flatten}}}^{\mathrm{2}}$ for economy of notation.
[^25]: Note that the trivial case of empty list is treated separately from this scheme.
[^26]: That is to say, leaves are numbers representing heights of subtrees, and the problem is to assemble the subtrees into a single tree of minimum height.
[^27]: Note that ${\mathit{tips}}$ is called ${\mathit{flatten}}$ in [@BGM02]. Recall $\fun K \;{\mathit{f}}\mathrel{=}{id}\mathbin{+}{{\mathit{f}}}^{\mathrm{2}}$ and $\mathsf{in}_{\fun K}\mathrel{=}\alt{\mathsf{leaf}}{\mathsf{fork}}$ from .
[^28]: In essence, left spines offer a bottom-up access to trees, in this case more convenient than the standard top-down traversal.
[^29]: Recall $\mathsf{snoc}\;({\mathit{x}},{\mathit{xs}})\mathrel{=}{\mathit{xs}}\mathbin{+\!\!+}[\mskip1.5mu {\mathit{x}}\mskip1.5mu]$ from [@BM97].
[^30]: The *refined greedy theorem* by @BGM02 corresponds to this use of theorem \[th:170322d\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- |
C. S. Garoufalis\
Department of Physics, University of Patras, GREECE, 26504, Patras
title: 'Structural, electronic and optical properties of tetrahedral $Si_xGe_{47-x}:H_{60}$ nanocrystals: A Density Functional study'
---
The structural, cohesive, electronic and optical properties of mixed SiGe:H quantum dots are studied by Density Functional Theory (DFT) calculations on a representative ensemble of medium size nanoparticles of the form $Si_xGe_{47-x}:H_{60}$. The calculations have been performed in the framework of the hybrid non-local exchange-correlation functional of Becke, Lee, Parr and Yang (B3LYP). Besides the ground state DFT/B3LYP values we provide reliable result for the lowest spin and symmetry allowed electronic transition based on Time Dependent DFT (TDDFT/B3LYP) calculations. Our results show that the optical gap depends not only on the relative concentrations of silicon, germanium and hydrogen, but also on the relative position of the silicon and germanium shells relative to the surface of the nanocrystal. This is also true for the structural, cohesive and electronic properties allowing for possible electronic and optical gap engineering. Moreover, it is found that for the cases of nanoparticles with pure Ge or Si core, the optical properties are mainly determined by the Ge part of the nanoparticle, while silicon seem to act as a passivant.
Introduction {#intro}
============
The possibility of tunable photoluminescence (PL) from silicon and silicon-like (e.g. germanium) quantum dots (and nanowires), has stimulated intensive research on this type of materials over the last decade [@1; @2; @3; @4; @5; @6; @7; @8; @9; @10; @11; @12]. Until recently, silicon nanocrystals have practically “monopolized” the interest of the researchers. A large portion of this type of work has been devoted to understanding the visible photoluminescence of these materials and its dependence on the diameter of the nanoparticles. It is widely accepted and well established by now (see for instance refs. 12-15) that the luminescence of oxygen-free Si nanocrystals (of well defined diameter) is mainly due to quantum confinement (QC) of the corresponding nanoparticles. This is also true for Ge nanoparticles[@7; @8]. It is known that the effect of quantum confinement is even more pronounced for the case of Ge nanoparticles. This can be easily understood by comparing the electron and hole effective masses and dielectric constants of Si and Ge. In particular, the smaller electron and hole effective masses of Ge along with the larger dielectric constant (compared to Si) result in a larger exciton Bohr radius for Ge. Consequently, it might be expected that the effect of QC on the optical properties of Ge nanoparticles will be more pronounced. The PL properties of such nanocrystals (Si or Ge) are mainly controlled by suitably regulating the size of the nanocrystals and in many cases, their surface passivation. The possibility of combining the advantages of Si (in the electronic properties) with those of Ge (especially structural and mechanical properties) appears to be a natural extension of scientific interest and an intriguing and potentially promising field for the development of optoelectronic nanodevices. It has been demonstrated by both experimental observation[@13] and theoretical calculations[@13; @14] that the lattice mismatch of Si and Ge has a significant effect on the electronic properties of $Si_{1-x}Ge_x$ alloys. The induced strain affects mainly the tail of the conduction band which results in an almost linear decrease of the indirect band gap. In this sense, it may be expected that a similar behavior may introduce interesting optical features in $Si_xGe_y:H_z$ nanocrystals. Several of these issues have been recently addressed by Ming Yu et. al.[@20] in the framework of Density Functional Theory. In particular, they have performed DFT/LDA molecular dynamics calculations on medium size $Si_xGe_y$ and $Si_xGe_y:H$ ($x+y=71$) mixed nanoparticles. Especially for the case of hydrogenated nanocrystals they found that the dependence of the single particle HOMO-LUMO gap on the relative composition of the clusters exhibits many similarities with the corresponding one of the bulk $Si_{1-x}Ge_x$ alloys. At this point it should be noted that the structure of the specific nanocrystals has been fully relaxed through a molecular dynamics procedure with an initial temperature of 1000 K. As a result a large portion of the strain induced by the Si/Ge mismatch (in the initial geometric configurations) has been largely relieved. However, it would be interesting to expand the investigation for the case of mixed Si/Ge nanocrystal which have not undergone such an annealing procedure. In this case, the aforementioned strain can not be fully relieved since the individual atoms are only allowed to a local relaxation around their original position (i.e they are not allowed to diffuse through the shells). With this in mind, we have examined the optical and electronic properties of mixed nanocrystals of the form $Si_xGe_{47-x}:H_{60}$. We have studied in detail the variation of the cohesive, electronic and optical properties as a function of $x$. Moreover, we have examined the dependence of these properties on the position of each atomic species relative to the nanocrystal’s surface.
Technical details of the calculations {#tech}
=====================================
All ground state calculations in this work are based on Density Functional Theory (DFT), while all excited state calculations are based on TDDFT. In both cases we employed the nonlocal exchange-correlation functional of Becke, Lee, Yang and Parr (B3LYP) [@18]. The accuracy of these calculations (TDDFT/B3LYP) for the optical gap has been tested before by by comparison with high level multireference second-order perturbation theory (MR-MP2) calculations for the case of Si nanocrystals[@5]. The size of the $Si_xGe_{47-x}:H_{60}$ nanocrystals considered here is approximately 10-12Å. The symmetry of the nanocrystals is $T_d$ and their geometries have been fully optimized within this symmetry constrain using the hybrid B3LYP functional. To preserve the $T_d$ symmetry, we substituted shells of silicon (rather than isolated atoms) by equivalent germanium shells. This choice introduces an additional restriction on the variation of Si concentration. This procedure imposes some constrains in the relaxation of the interatomic forces. In particular, although bond lengths an angles are allowed to relax, the atoms are not allowed to change their relative position in the nanoparticle. As a result, migration from the inner core to the surface (or vice versa) is not possible (such migrations were both allowed an observed in the MD calculations of Ming Yu et al[@20]). We have examined in detail most of the structural (bond length distribution), cohesive (binding energies), electronic (DOS, electronic gaps) and optical properties as a function of the concentration $x$. The optical gap is defined as the energy of the lowest spin and symmetry allowed excitation calculated by the TDDFT/B3LYP method. Moreover, for the same concentration $x$ we have considered alternative ways of substitution of the shells of silicon atoms by germanium. The bulk of our calculations were performed with the TURBOMOLE [@15] suite of programs using Gaussian atomic orbital basis sets of split valence \[SV(P)\]: \[4s3p1d\]/\[2s\] quality [@16]. Test calculations with the larger TZVP basis set revealed only marginal deviations from the corresponding SV(P) results.
Results and discussion {#res}
======================
Structural and cohesive properties
----------------------------------
Representative geometries of $Si_xGe_{47-x}:H_{60}$ nanoclusters are shown in figure 1 for various concentrations and substitutions. The bonding characteristics of the various structures can be easily visualized and described graphically in a synoptic way, through the bond-length distributions, which is presented if figure 2. All graphs in figure 2 correspond to nanocrystals with the silicon atoms concentrated in the inner core of the nanoparticle. As we can see the Si-Si distribution has a peak around 2.48 Å for the first shell of neighbors (connected to the central atom) and a second peak around the 2.37 Åfor the rest of the silicon atoms. This second peak, corresponding to shorter bond-lengths by 0.1 Å, is more or less constant, with a tendency to approach the bulk value of 2.36 Åfor larger nanocrystals. This is also true Ge-Ge bonds. Comparing figures 2(a) and 2(b) we can see that in both cases the bonds of the central atom with the first shell of neighbors are longer by 0.1 Å. We also observe in figs. 2(e) and 2(f) that there are no Ge-Ge bonds, although there is a significant amount of germanium atoms. Such bonding characteristics are found to be directly related to both the electronic and optical properties of the nanoparticles. As was explained earlier, with the same concentrations ($x$) more than one nanocrystals can be constructed. Moreover, since the Ge substitutions in the present work deal with spherical shells of neighbors rather than with individual atoms, we can distinguish two classes of nanocrystals with similar concentrations; Those with the Ge atoms in the inner core, and those with the Ge atoms in the outer shells (“surface”). The structural and cohesive characteristics are different in the two cases. As we can see in figure 3, we have two distinct curves depending on the exact location of the Ge layer relatively to the surface of the nanocrystals. It is clear from this plot that it is preferable to have the Ge atoms in the “inner” part of the nanocrystal. This tendency is directly related to the effect of surface hydrogen atoms and it can be quantified by considering the binding energy of the independent Si-H($BE_{Si-H}$) and Ge-H($BE_{Ge-H}$) bonds. This can be approximated by the formulae $$BE_{Si-H}=\frac{BE_{SiH_4}}{4} \ , \ BE_{Ge-H}=\frac{BE_{GeH_4}}{4}$$ ($BE_{SiH_4}$ and $BE_{GeH_4}$ are the corresponding binding energies of the $SiH_4$ and $GeH_4$ molecules). In this way we can define the surface energy of the nanoparticle as $$SE=N_{Si-H}\cdot BE_{Si-H}+N_{Ge-H}\cdot BE_{Ge-H}$$ (where $N_{Si-H}$ and $N_{Ge-H}$ are the number of Si-H and Ge-H bonds respectively). The dependence of surface energy on the composition of the nanocrystals and the position of Si and Ge atoms relative to the surface is shown in figure 3b. It becomes evident from this figure that the stability of the hydrogenated clusters is largely determined by their surface. Almost 63% of the total binding energy of the nanocrystals is attributed to the surface Si-H/Ge-H bonds. As a result,the large differences is surface energy between Ge(core) and Si(core) nanoparticles (fig.3b) is responsible for the shape and energetic ordering of the total binding energies shown in fig. 3a. However, it should be noted that without the hydrogen passivation of the dangling bonds, it would be natural (energetically favored) for the Ge atoms to segregate onto the surface in order to minimize the cost of the dangling bonds. Indeed, as was stated by Tarus et al [@19], for hydrogen-free SiGe nanoclusters, germanium tends to segregate onto the surface. The above conclusions, are in agreement with recent theoretical calculation (LDA) of Ramos et. al[@21] . Moreover, the observed trends, are consistent with a series of experimental data (ree ref,21-26 of Ramos et. al[@21])
Electronic and optical properties {#opt}
---------------------------------
In figure 4 we have plotted the total and the projected density of states (DOS and PDOS) for four typical nanocrystals. The DOS curves were generated from the eigenstates of the ground state calculations with a suitable gaussian broadening[@22]. The largest variation with the Ge concentration occurs in the valence band edges, while the conduction band edge is relatively less sensitive. From these diagrams it can be seen that the hydrogen contribution lies deep in the valence band (in the energy region between -10.5 eV to 9.0 eV) leaving Si and/or Ge to dominate the character of the band edges. For The cases of $Si_5Ge_{42}:H_{60}$ and $Si_{17}Ge_{30}:H_{60}$ nanoparticles (Si in the core and Ge in the surface) this hydrogen related peak appears to be slightly broadened. This is probably due to the looser binding of the hydrogen atoms with the surface Ge atoms (looser as compared with the corresponding Si-H binding). An interesting conclusion which can be drawn from the DOS diagrams is related to the character of the conduction band edges.It appears that when the core (Si or Ge) is adequately large (i.e. $\sim$ 30% of the nanoparticle) then the conduction band edge exhibits a Si or Ge character respectively. This indicates that excitations of valence electrons to the Lowest Unoccupied Molecular Orbital (LUMO) or even LUMO+1, tend to partially confine the excited electron to the nanoparticle core. Calculations of the HOMO-LUMO gap of mixed $Si_xGe_y:H_z$ nanocrystals have also been recently performed by Yu et al. [@20], specifically for nanocrystals with a total number of Si and Ge atoms of 71 (x+y=71). These calculations were based on density-functional theory (DFT) in the local-density approximation (LDA). The resulting HOMO-LUMO gaps range from 3.3 - 4.1 eV corresponding to the pure Ge and pure Si nanocrystals. In order to compare our calculation with the results of Yu et al.[@20] we performed similar DFT/B3LYP calculations for the pure $Si_{71}H_{84}$ $Ge_{71}H_{84}$ nanoparticles. Our values of 4.0 eV for the pure Ge nanocrystal and 4.6 eV for the pure Si nanocrystal are in very good agreement with the values of Yu et al. if one considers the inherent tendency of LDA[@5] to underestimate the single particle HOMO-LUMO gap by approximately 0.6-0.7 eV. A striking difference in the work of Yu et. al.[@20] is that instead of shells of atomic neighbors, used in the present work (strained nanocrystals), the Ge atoms in ref [@20] are distributed more homogeneously, and they are allowed to diffuse through the shells (complete relaxation of strain). As a result the gap dependence on Ge concentration appears to be practically linear. As a means to provide a more accurate and detailed account of the optical properties of these nanocrystals we employed the TDDFT/B3LYP combination in order to calculated their optical gap (i.e. lowest symmetry and spin allowed electronic excitation). The results are shown in table 1.The first comment that can be made by inspecting these values concerns the nature of the transitions.It is evident that for the nanoparticles in which the Ge atoms reside in the inner core, the lowest allowed transition is always between the HOMO- and LUMO orbitals. Moreover these transition appear to have relatively larger oscillator strengths. On the contrary, when there is a silicon inner core, the oscillator strengths are smaller, while the nature of the transitions becomes more complex. For example, we can see a non negligible degeneracy concerning the fundamental optical gap together with an increase on the multireference character of the transitions. In figure 5 we show a graphic representation of the variation of the optical gap as a function of the number of Si atoms ($x$) contained in the nanocrystal. Both types of nanoparticles(Si(core) and Ge(core)) are included. We can clearly distinguish two sets of points (disjoint curves) which correspond to the two different types of clusters (Si(core) and Ge(core)). An analogous variation is also observed for the HOMO-LUMO gap (i.e. we have an upper and a lower curve). Surprisingly enough, the larger optical (and HOMO-LUMO) gaps correspond to germanium atoms lying in the surface region, which as we have seen in figure 3 is not energetically as stable as the opposite case. Usually, the most stable structures are the ones which exhibit the largest gap. However, this rule of thumb seems not to be applicable in this case. It is interesting to point out that for the case Ge(core) nanoparticles the gap decreases as the size of the core increases.This is a common quantum confinement behavior (see for example ref [@4; @5; @7]). As a result, it may be alleged that the Ge(core) $Si_xGe_y:H_z$ behave as Ge nanoparticles which are passivated by a $Si:H$ layer. Comparing the optical gap of Ge(core) $Si_{42}Ge_5:H_{60}$ nanoparticle with the corresponding one of $Ge_{5}:H_{12}$ cluster we find that it is smaller by 2.47 eV ( the optical gaps are 3.73 eV for $Si_{42}Ge_5:H_{60}$ and 6.2 eV for $Si_{5}:H_{12}$). This large difference may originate from a less effective passivation of the Ge core by the Si passivants (less effective compared to $Ge_5$ passivation by H atoms). To check this hypothesis we followed a simple line of argument which goes as follows. By simple calculations on $SiH_4$, $GeH_4$, and $H_3Si-GeH_3$ molecules we can find the binding energies for the the $Ge-H$, and $Si-Ge$ bonds. In particular, we find (as expected) that $ BE_{Ge-H} > BE_{Si-Ge}$. Next, we modify the $Ge-H$ bond length in $GeH_4$ molecule in order to equate the resulting $BE_{Ge-H}^{*}$ to $BE_{Ge-Si}$. This is achieved when the $Ge-H$ bond in $GeH_4$ molecule is elongated to $\sim2.1$Å. We used this new $Ge^{*}-H$ bond distance for the passivation of the $Ge_5H_{12}$ cluster and calculated again its optical gap. The new value is now 3.7 eV and practically coincides with the 3.73 eV of the Ge(core) $Si_{42}Ge_5:H_{60}$ nanoparticle. This result, although it does not prove the aforementioned hypothesis, is highly suggestive of its validity. The only other $Si_{x}Ge_{47-x}:H_{60}$ nanoparticle with a Ge core fully capped (passivated) by Si atoms, suitable for extending the test of our hypothesis, is $Si_{30}Ge_{17}:H_{60}$ (which should be compared to $Ge_{17}H_{36}$). However, the $Ge-H$ bond elongation to $\sim2.1$Åfor the $Ge_{17}H_{36}$ cluster appears problematic since it brings the hydrogen passivants too close to each other inducing significant $H-H$ interactions.
On the other hand the variation of the optical gap for the case of Si(core) $Si_{x}Ge_{47-x}:H_{60}$ nanoparticles as a function of the Si core size (upper curve in fig.5) appears to be unexpected (as the Si core increases the gap also increases). This behavior suggest that the hypothesis of quantum confinement is not applicable here. In other words, the specific behavior can not be explained by considering that the Germanium atoms passivate the inner Si core. Surprisingly, an explanation can be obtained again by considering the Si atoms of the inner core to passivate internallythe outer shell of Ge atoms (see fig.6). In order to test this we performed additional calculation on modified versions of the $Si_1Ge_{46}:H_{60}$ and $Si_5Ge_{42}:H_{60}$ nanoparticles. In particular, we removed the inner Si atoms and we passivated the created internal Ge dangling bonds with hydrogen. The results indeed show an increase of the optical gap as we go from $H_1Ge_{46}:H_{60}$ to $H_5Ge_{42}:H_{60}$. At this point it should be noted that the internalhydrogen passivation is (again) more effective than the passivation by Si ($BE_{Ge-H} > BE_{Si-Ge}$). As a result these calculation could only reproduce the trend of gap increase and not the actual values. Unfortunately, the $Ge-H$ bond elongation to $\sim2.1$Åwhich was shown to reproduce the results of fig. 5 (lower curve) in a quantitative manner can not be used since it leads to close proximity of adjacent hydrogens in the interior of the nanoparticle. The conclusions of the last two paragraphs are summarized in a synoptic way in figure 6. In both cases (fig6a and fig6b), the optical properties are mainly determined by Ge part of the nanoparticle while silicon seem to act mainly as a passivant.
Conclusions {#conc}
===========
We have shown that, indeed, the mixed SiGe
nanocrystals have optical and electronic properties intermediate between those of pure Si and Ge nanocrystals. The large variety of optical and band gaps depends, not only on the size of the nanocrystals and the relative concentrations of Si and Ge, but also on the relative spatial distribution of the Ge atoms with respect to the surface of the nanocrystals. The stability of the structures is largely define by the hydrogen surface passivation. As a result, the most stable nanoparticle are those with the silicon atoms on the surface (mostly due to the larger binding energy of the Si-H bonds). The optical properties of Si(core) and Ge(core) nanoparticles are found to exhibit significant differences. For the Ge(core) nanocrystals the lowest spin and symmetry transition are always between the HOMO and LUMO orbitals, while for the Si(core) ones both HOMO-1 and LUMO+1 contributions are important (in this case the transitions exhibit a more pronounced multireference character). The variation of the optical gap as a function of the core size (Si or Ge) depends drastically on the nature of the core (Si or Ge). However, for both cases the optical gap variation can be rationalized by considering that the silicon atoms behave as simple passivants of the Ge cluster.
These additional degrees of freedom with regard to the properties of mixed SiGe:H nanoparticles may be important in the future design of such (and similar) systems, allowing for possible electronic and optical gap engineering.
Acknowledgments {#ack}
===============
We thank the European Social Fund (ESF), Operational Program for Educational and Vocational Training II (EPEAEK II), and particularly the Program PYTHAGORAS, for funding the above work
[99]{}
L. T. Canham, [*Appl. Phys. Lett.*]{}, 1990, [**57**]{}, 1046 Wilcoxon J P, Provencio P P and Samara G A, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{}, 2001, [**64**]{} 035417 M. V. Wolkin, J. Jorne and P. M. Fauchet G, Allan and C. Delerue, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, 1999, [**82**]{}, 197 I. Vasiliev, J. R. Chelikowsky and R. M. Martin [*Phys. Rev. B*]{}, 2002, [**65**]{}, 121302-1 Garoufalis C S, Zdetsis A D and Grimme S, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, 2001, [**87**]{}, 276402 C. S. Garoufalis and A. D. Zdetsis, [*Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.*]{}, 2006, [**8**]{}, 808–813 Weissker H Ch, Furthmuller J and Bechstedt F, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{}, 2002, [**65**]{} 155328 C S Garoufalis, M S Skaperda and A D Zdetsis, [*Journal of Physics: Conference Series*]{}, 2005, [**10**]{}, 97 Sundholm, D. [*Nano Letters*]{}, 2003, [**36**]{}, 847-849 Lehtonen O, Sundholm D., [*Phys. Rev. B*]{}, 2005, [**72**]{}, 085424 Moskalenko, A.S., Yassievich, I.N., [*Physics of the Solid State*]{}, 2004, [**46**]{}, 1508-1519 Chan T. L.; Ciobanu C. V.; Chuang F. C., Lu N.; Wang C. Z.; Ho K. M. [*Nano Lett.*]{}, 2006, [**6**]{}, 277 Rubin Braunsten, Arnold R. Moore, and Frank Herman, [*Phys. Rev.*]{}, 1958, [**109**]{}, 695 Robert W. Jansen and Otto F. Sankey, [*Phys. Rev.*]{}, 1987, B [**36**]{}, 6520 (1987) TURBOMOLE (Version 5.6), Universitat Karlsruhe, 2002 Schafer A, Horn H and Ahlrichs R, [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{}, 1992, [**97**]{}, 2571 M.E.Casida, in : Recent Advances in density function P. J. Stephens and F. J. Devlin and C. F. Chabalowski and M. J. Frisch, [*J. Phys. Chem.*]{}, 1994, [**98**]{}, 11623 J. Tarus, M. Tantarimaki, K. Nordlund, [*Nucl. Instr. Meth. B*]{}, 2005, [**228**]{}, 51-56 Ming Yu, Jayanthi C S, Drabold D A and Wu S Y, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{}, 2003, [**68**]{} 035404 L. E. Ramos, J. Furthmüller, and F. Bechstedt [*Phys. Rev. B*]{}, 2005, [**72**]{}, 045351 N. M. O’Boyle, GaussSum 2.0, 2006. Available at http://gausssum.sf.net
------------------------- ------ ------------- ------------ ----------------------------------------------------
nanoparticle core excitation Oscillator Dominant
energy (eV) Strength Contributions
$Si_{46}Ge_1:H_{60}$ Ge 3.80 0.086 H$\rightarrow$L (98%)
$Si_{42}Ge_5:H_{60}$ Ge 3.73 0.155 H$\rightarrow$L (98%)
$Si_{30}Ge_{17}:H_{60}$ Ge 3.69 0.261 H$\rightarrow$L (97%)
$Si_{18}Ge_{29}:H_{60}$ Ge 3.54 0.201 H$\rightarrow$L (98%)
$Si_{12}Ge_{35}:H_{60}$ Ge 3.52 0.177 H$\rightarrow$L (98%)
$Si_{0}Ge_{47}:H_{60}$ Ge 3.46 0.254 H$\rightarrow$L (98%)
$Si_{1}Ge_{46}:H_{60}$ Si 3.74 0.205 H$\rightarrow$L (97%)
$Si_{5}Ge_{42}:H_{60}$ Si 3.88 0.017 H$\rightarrow$L+1 (57%), H-1$\rightarrow$ L (35%)
3.92 0.110 H-1$\rightarrow$L (60%), H$\rightarrow$L+1 (38%)
$Si_{17}Ge_{30}:H_{60}$ Si 3.91 0.067 H-1$\rightarrow$L (93%)
4.0 0.036 H$\rightarrow$L+1 (81%), H-1$\rightarrow$L+1 (17%)
4.0 0.030 H-1$\rightarrow$L+1 (15%), H$\rightarrow$L+1 (79%)
$Si_{29}Ge_{18}:H_{60}$ Si 3.97 0.079 H$\rightarrow$L (96%)
4.03 0.083 H$\rightarrow$L+1 (97%)
$Si_{35}Ge_{12}:H_{60}$ Si 3.99 0.121 H$\rightarrow$L (88%), H$\rightarrow$L+1 (8%)
$Si_{47}Ge_0:H_{60}$ Si 4.02 0.116 H$\rightarrow$L (71%), H$\rightarrow$L+1 (26%)
------------------------- ------ ------------- ------------ ----------------------------------------------------
\
[ 1.5cm 0.5cm]{}
Typical $Si_xGe_{47-x}:H_{60}$ nanocrystal (a) $Si_{42}Ge_5:H_{60}$ (b)$Si_{30}Ge_{17}:H_{60}$, (c) $Si_{5}Ge_{42}:H_{60}$ (d) $Si_{17}Ge_{30}:H_{60}$). The Ge atoms are shown with green color, while Si atoms are blue.
Bond distribution in $Si_xGe_{47-x}:H_{60}$ for x=0, 1, 5, 17, 29, 35, 47. The Ge-Ge, Si-Ge and Si-Si bond distributions are shown separately. The constant number of the hydrogen atoms (60) is not shown in the graphs.
\(a) Total binding energy as a function of the number of silicon atoms (b) Surface energy
Projected and total Density density of states (PDOS and DOS) of 4 representative nanocrystals.
The variation of the optical gap as a function of the number of silicon atoms, for the two categories (Ge(core) and Si(core)) of $Si_xGe_{47-x};H_{60}$ nanocrystals
Schematic representation of (a) Ge)core nanoparticle, which behaves as a Ge nanoparticle passivated by silicon, and (b) Si(core) nanoparticle which behaves as a hollow Ge nanoparticle with surface hydrogen passivation and internal Si passivation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'In this letter, we provide the construction of repairable fountain codes (RFCs) for distributed storage systems that are information-theoretically secure against an eavesdropper that has access to the data stored in a subset of the storage nodes and the data downloaded to repair an additional subset of storage nodes. The security is achieved by adding random symbols to the message, which is then encoded by the concatenation of a Gabidulin code and an RFC. We compare the achievable code rates of the proposed codes with those of secure minimum storage regenerating codes and secure locally repairable codes.'
author:
- 'Siddhartha Kumar, , Eirik Rosnes, , and Alexandre Graell i Amat, [^1][^2][^3]'
bibliography:
- 'Bib\_SRFC.bib'
title: Secure Repairable Fountain Codes
---
Introduction
============
he design of information-theoretically secure distributed storage systems (DSSs) has attracted a significant interest in the last few years [@Sha11; @Raw14]. DSSs use erasure correcting codes (ECCs) to yield fault tolerance against storage node failures. The resiliency of the DSS against passive attacks is a good measure of its security. Passive attacks are those where the attacker (referred to as the eavesdropper) gains access to a subset of storage nodes and thereby to partial information on the data stored on the DSS. Information-theoretic security against such attacks involves mixing of information symbols (called the *message*) with random symbols, prior to encoding by an ECC, in a manner such that the eavesdropper does not gain any information about the original message even if he has access to some code symbols.
Using this idea, [@Sha11; @Raw14] provided explicit constructions of minimum storage regenerating (MSR) codes that achieve security for an $(\ell_1,\ell_2)$ eavesdropper model where the eavesdropper has access to the content of $\ell_1$ storage nodes and the data that needs to be downloaded to repair $\ell_2$ additional storage nodes. The design of secure locally repairable codes (LRCs) was also addressed in [@Raw14]. In particular, to achieve security, random symbols are appended to the message and the resulting vector of symbols is precoded by a Gabidulin code [@Gab85] prior to encoding by an LRC (or MSR code) in [@Raw14]. Achieving security comes at the expense of a lower code rate with respect to the original LRC (or MSR code), due to appending random symbols to the message [@Raw14]. For the LRC- and MSR-based secure codes, the authors in [@Raw14] derived the maximum message size (equivalently, the maximum code rate) that allows to achieve security. Moreover, the code constructions in [@Raw14] achieve this maximum. A sufficient condition for the information leakage to the eavesdropper to be zero was also given in [@Sha11; @Raw14].
LRCs [@Pap12] and MSR codes [@Dim10] are appealing code families because they are repair efficient. Repairable fountain codes (RFCs) are another class of repair-efficient ECCs [@Ast14]. Like LRCs, they yield a good locality, which implies that few storage nodes are involved in the repair of a failed node. In this letter, we present the construction of RFCs that are information-theoretically secure for the $(\ell_1,\ell_2)$ eavesdropper model. As in [@Raw14], we achieve security by appending random symbols to the message and precoding by a Gabidulin code. We prove that the proposed code construction is completely secure for the $(\ell_1,\ell_2)$ eavesdropper model. To prove security, we give a necessary condition for the information leakage to the eavesdropper to be zero, thus extending the sufficient condition in [@Sha11; @Raw14]. Our proof differs from the one in [@Sha11; @Raw14] and is based on simple information theory equalities. We compare the achievable code rates (the maximum code rate that allows to achieve security) of the proposed codes with those of secure MSR codes and LRCs in [@Raw14]. We show that, for a given rate of the underlying code (RFC, LRC, or MSR code), secure RFCs yield the same achievable code rates as those of secure LRCs and better than those of secure MSR codes when the rate of the underlying code is high enough.
System Model
============
We consider a DSS with $n$ storage nodes, each storing one symbol. A message ${\boldsymbol{m}}=(m_1,m_2,\ldots,m_k)$, of length $k$ symbols $m_i\in{\text{GF}(q^p)}$, $i=1,\ldots,k$, where $q$ is a prime and $p$ is a positive integer, is first encoded using an $(n,k)$ ECC of rate $R=k/n$ into a codeword $\bm c=(c_1,c_2,\ldots,c_{n})$ of length $n$. Each of the $n$ code symbols $c_i$, $i=1,\ldots,n$, is then stored into a different storage node. We assume that code symbol $c_i$ is stored in the $i$th storage node and, with a slight abuse of notation, we will refer to both code symbol and storage node $i$ by $c_i$.
The bipartite graph shown in Fig. \[Fig: eavesdropper example\](a) represents a message stored on a DSS with $n=6$ storage nodes using a $(6,4)$ ECC. Each code symbol $c_i$, $i=1,\ldots,6$, is a linear combination of its neighboring message symbols $m_i$, $i=1,\ldots,4$ (circles). Each code symbol (squares) is stored on a different storage node.
Security Model
--------------
We consider an $(\ell_1,\ell_2)$ eavesdropper model [@Raw14], where the eavesdropper can passively observe, but not modify, the content of $\ell=\ell_1+\ell_2<k$ storage nodes. Out of the $\ell$ nodes, the eavesdropper can observe the symbols stored in a subset of $\ell_1$ storage nodes, which we denote by ${\mathcal{S}}_1$ ($|{\mathcal{S}}_1|=\ell_1$). Furthermore, it can observe the data downloaded during the repair of a subset of $\ell_2$ storage nodes, denoted by ${\mathcal{S}}_2$ ($|{\mathcal{S}}_2|=\ell_2$), where ${\mathcal{S}}_1\cap{\mathcal{S}}_2=\emptyset$. This model is relevant in the scenario where nodes are located at different geographical locations. Peer-to-peer storage systems are examples of such DSSs [@Sha11]. We denote the subset of storage nodes from which data is downloaded to repair storage nodes in ${\mathcal{S}}_2$ by ${\mathcal{S}_{\mathrm{d}}}$. We will refer to the symbols the eavesdropper obtains as the *eavesdropped symbols*. We also assume that the eavesdropper has perfect knowledge of the ECC used for encoding.
Let $\bm e$ be the vector of eavesdropped symbols that the eavesdropper obtains from the storage nodes in ${\mathcal{S}}_1\cup{\mathcal{S}_{\mathrm{d}}}$. A DSS storing a message $\bm m$ (possibly encoded by an ECC) is said to be *completely secure* against an $(\ell_1,\ell_2)$ eavesdropper if the mutual information between the message and the eavesdropped symbols is zero, i.e., $I(\bm m;\bm e)=0$.
Fig. \[Fig: eavesdropper example\](b) shows an example of a $(1,1)$ eavesdropper where ${\mathcal{S}}_1=\{c_1\}$ and ${\mathcal{S}}_2=\{c_2\}$. Thus, the eavesdropper obtains $c_1=m_1$ and the downloaded data $c_5=m_2+m_4$ and $c_4 = m_4$, and thereby $m_2$, during the repair of ${\mathcal{S}}_2=\{c_2\}$. In all, the eavesdropper obtains the symbols $m_1,m_2,m_4$, and $c_5=m_2+m_4$, colored in gray in the figure.
[0.4]{}
[0.4]{}
Gabidulin and Repairable Fountain Codes
=======================================
We summarize Gabidulin codes and RFCs, which are the building blocks of the secure RFCs presented in Section \[sec:code\_construction\].
Gabidulin Codes {#sec:Gabidulin}
---------------
Gabidulin codes are a class of rank codes [@Gab85]. An $(N,K)$ Gabidulin code (over GF$(q^p)$) of length $N$, dimension $K$, and minimum rank distance ${D_{\rm{min}}}$, can correct up to ${D_{\rm{min}}}-1$ rank erasures. Gabidulin codes are maximum rank distance codes, i.e., they achieve the Singleton bound, $D_{\rm min}\leq N-K+1$, and are obtained by evaluations of polynomials. More specifically, Gabidulin codes use linearized polynomials.
\[def:fy\] A linearized polynomial $f(y)$ of degree $t>0$ over GF$(q^p)$ has the form $$\begin{aligned}
f(y)=\sum_{i=0}^{t}a_iy^{q^i}, \notag
\end{aligned}$$ where $a_i\in\text{GF}(q^p)$ and $a_t\neq0$. \[Def: linearPoly\]
A message $\bm m=(m_1, \ldots, m_K)$ is encoded using an $(N,K)$ Gabidulin code as follows.
1. Construct a polynomial $f(y)=\sum_{i=1}^{K}m_iy^{q^{i-1}}$.
2. Evaluate $f(y)$ at $N$ linearly independent (over ${\text{GF}(q)}$) points $\{y_1,\ldots, y_N\}\subset {\text{GF}(q^p)}$ to obtain a codeword $(f(y_1), \ldots, f(y_N))$.
Decoding proceeds as follows.
1. Obtain any $K$ evaluations at $K$ linearly independent (over ${\text{GF}(q)}$) points. Otherwise, decoding fails.
2. Perform polynomial interpolation on the $K$ evaluations and recover the original message ${\boldsymbol{m}}$ by solving a system of linear equations.
Repairable Fountain Codes {#sec:RFC}
-------------------------
An $(n,k)$ systematic RFC encodes a message $\bm m=(m_1, \ldots, m_k) \in {\rm GF}(q^p)^k$, $q > k$, into a codeword $\bm c=(c_1,\ldots,c_n)$, where $c_i=m_i$ for $i=1,\ldots,k$. The parity symbols $c_i$, $i=k+1,\ldots,n$, are constructed according to the following three-step procedure.
1. Successively select $\xi=O(\log k)$ message symbols independently and uniformly at random with replacement.
2. For each of the $\xi$ message symbols, a coefficient is drawn uniformly at random from ${\text{GF}(q)}\subset {\rm GF}(q^p)$.
3. The parity symbol is then obtained as the linear combination of the $\xi$ chosen message symbols, weighted by the corresponding coefficients.
Each of the $n$ code symbols is stored in a different storage node. From the code construction, each parity symbol is a weighted sum of at most $\xi$ message symbols. A parity symbol and the corresponding (at most) $\xi$ message symbols is referred to as a local group. The existence of local groups is a hallmark of any ECC having low locality. Unlike LRCs, which have only disjoint local groups, RFCs also have overlapping local groups [@Ast14]. Furthermore, for each systematic symbol there exist a number of disjoint local groups from which it can be reconstructed. This allows multiple parallel reads of the systematic symbol, accessing the disjoint local groups. When a storage node fails, it is repaired from one of its local groups. This requires the download of at most $\xi$ symbols (from the other at most $\xi$ nodes of the local group). Thus, RFCs have low locality, $\xi$, and their repair bandwidth is $\xi p \log q$. Also, RFCs are near maximum distance separable codes.
Secure Repairable Fountain Codes {#sec:code_construction}
================================
In this section, we present the construction of RFCs that are secure against the $(\ell_1,\ell_2)$ eavesdropper model. The proposed secure RFCs are obtained by concatenating a Gabidulin code and an RFC. More precisely, consider an $(n,\tilde{k})$ RFC such that each parity symbol is a random linear combination of up to $\xi$ randomly chosen input symbols. Let ${\boldsymbol{m}}$ denote the message of length $k=\tilde k-\ell_1-\xi\ell_2$ symbols. A codeword of the proposed secure RFC is constructed as follows.
1. Append to ${\boldsymbol{m}}$ a random vector ${\boldsymbol{r}}=(r_{1},\ldots,r_{u})$ of length $u=\ell_1+\xi\ell_2$ symbols, drawn independently and uniformly at random from GF$(q^p)$, thus obtaining the vector ${\tilde{\boldsymbol{m}}}=({\boldsymbol{m}},{\boldsymbol{r}})$.
2. *Outer code.* Encode $\tilde{\bm m}$ using a $(\tilde k,\tilde k)$ Gabidulin code to obtain the intermediate codeword $\tilde{\bm c}=(\tilde c_1, \ldots, \tilde c_{\tilde{k}})=(f(y_1), \ldots, f(y_{\tilde{k}}))$.
3. *Inner code.* Encode $\tilde{\bm c}$ using an $(n,\tilde k)$ RFC into the codeword $\bm c=(c_1, \ldots, c_n)$. The $n$ code symbols are then stored in $n$ storage nodes.
\[Fig: Secure repairable fountain code\]
\[rem:linear\_map\] A ${\text{GF}(q)}$-linear combination of evaluations of a linearized polynomial $f(y)=\sum_{i=0}^{t}a_iy^{q^i}$ of some degree $t$ over ${\text{GF}(q^p)}$ (see Definition \[def:fy\]) is itself an evaluation of the same linearized polynomial. In particular, $\sum_{j=1}^{\kappa} \gamma_j f(\beta_j) = f\left(\sum_{j=1}^{\kappa} \gamma_j \beta_j \right)$, where $\kappa$ is a positive integer, $\gamma_j \in {\text{GF}(q)}$, and $\beta_j \in {\text{GF}(q^p)}$, i.e., $f(\cdot)$ is a linear map over ${\text{GF}(q)}$ [@Raw14 Remark 8]. Thus, each code symbol $c_i$, $i=1,\ldots,n$, is an evaluation of a linearized polynomial $f(\cdot)$ of degree at most $\tilde{k}-1$ and with coefficients from $\tilde{\bm m}$ at some point $y_i \in {\text{GF}(q^p)}$, i.e., $c_i = f(y_i)=\sum_{j=1}^{\tilde{k}} \tilde{m}_j y_i^{q^{j-1}}$.
Fig. \[Fig: Secure repairable fountain code\] depicts a toy example of a $(20,10)$ secure RFC for a $(1,1)$ eavesdropper. Here, ${\tilde{\boldsymbol{m}}}$ comprises $k=\tilde k-\ell_1-\xi\ell_2=6$ message symbols and $u=\ell_1+\xi\ell_2=4$ random symbols. ${\tilde{\boldsymbol{m}}}$ is encoded using the concatenation of a $(10,10)$ Gabidulin code and a $(20,10)$ RFC. Due to the outer encoding by the Gabidulin code, each code symbol $c_i$, $i=1,\ldots,20$, is an evaluation of a linearized polynomial (see Remark \[rem:linear\_map\]). Another consequence is that the final code retains the repair properties of the inner code (the RFC). For this example, the code locality is $\xi=3$.
In the following, we show that the proposed secure RFCs achieve complete security for the $(\ell_1,\ell_2)$ eavesdropper model. We first prove a sufficient and necessary condition for $I({\boldsymbol{m}};{\boldsymbol{e}})=0$ using an alternative proof to the one in [@Sha11; @Raw14].
\[Lemma: Secrecy lemma\] Let ${\boldsymbol{m}}$ be a message which is stored in a DSS by first appending to it a vector ${\boldsymbol{r}}$ of random symbols and then encoding $({\boldsymbol{m}},{\boldsymbol{r}})$ by an ECC. Also, let $\bm e$ be the vector of code symbols the eavesdropper has access to. Then, the information leakage to the eavesdropper is zero, i.e., $I(\bm m;\bm e)=0$, if and only if $H(\bm r|\bm e,\bm m)=H(\bm r)- H(\bm e)$.
We prove the theorem using simple information theory equalities, $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
I(\bm m;\bm e)&=H(\bm m)-H(\bm m|\bm e)\\
&\overset{(a)}{=}H(\bm m)-H(\bm m|\bm e)+H(\bm e|\bm m,\bm r)\\
&=H(\bm m)-H(\bm m|\bm e)+H(\bm e|\bm m)-I(\bm r; \bm e|\bm m)\\
&\overset{(b)}{=}H(\bm e)-I(\bm r;\bm e|\bm m)\\
&=H(\bm e)-H(\bm r|\bm m)+H(\bm r|\bm e, \bm m)\\
&\overset{(c)}{=}H(\bm e)-H(\bm r)+H(\bm r|\bm e,\bm m),
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ where $(a)$ follows from the fact that $H(\bm e|\bm m,\bm r)=0$, since eavesdropped symbols are a function of $\bm m$ and $\bm r$, $(b)$ follows from $H(\bm e)-H(\bm e|\bm m)=H(\bm m)-H(\bm m|\bm e)$, and $(c)$ follows from the fact that $\bm r$ and $\bm m$ are stochastically independent of each other, i.e., $H(\bm r|\bm m)=H(\bm r)$. Thus, $$I(\bm m;\bm e)=0 \Leftrightarrow H(\bm r|\bm e,\bm m)=H(\bm r)- H(\bm e).
\label{Eq: lemma}$$
We remark that in [@Sha11] and [@Raw14 Lem. 4] a sufficient condition on $I({\boldsymbol{m}};{\boldsymbol{e}})=0$ was proved, whereas Theorem \[Lemma: Secrecy lemma\] gives a sufficient and necessary condition. ECCs for which Theorem \[Lemma: Secrecy lemma\] is satisfied do not leak any information, i.e., they are completely secure. In Theorem \[th:Security\] below, we use the following lemma to prove that our proposed code construction is completely secure for the $(\ell_1,\ell_2)$ eavesdropper model.
\[Lemma: entropy\] Consider the $(\ell_1,\ell_2)$ eavesdropper model. For the proposed code construction (with $u=\ell_1+\xi\ell_2$ random symbols $\bm r$), $H(\bm e)\leq H(\bm r)=(\ell_1+\xi\ell_2)p\log q$, where $\bm e$ is the vector of code symbols the eavesdropper has access to.
Consider the repair of a single storage node $c_i$ in $\mathcal S_2$, and let $\Gamma^{(i)}$ denote *the* local group (there are many) used for the repair of storage node $c_i$. Each local group contains one inner code parity symbol and at most $\xi$ inner code message symbols to which it is connected. Thus, $|\Gamma^{(i)}| \leq \xi+1$. Since the inner code parity symbol is a ${\rm GF}(q)$-weighted linear combination of the (at most) $\xi$ inner code message symbols from the local group, $\Gamma^{(i)}$ contains at most $\xi$ stochastically independent symbols. Considering the repair of all storage nodes in $\mathcal S_2$, it follows by the argument above that at most $\xi \ell_2$ stochastically independent inner code symbols are eavesdropped during the repair process. Also, since each storage node stores a single symbol, the eavesdropper has access to an additional $\ell_1$ inner code symbols from the storage nodes in $\mathcal S_1$. Hence, in total, the eavesdropper has access to at most $\ell_1+\xi\ell_2$ stochastically independent symbols from $\bm c$. Thus, $H(\bm e) \leq (\ell_1+\xi\ell_2) p \log q$. Furthermore, since $\bm r$ contains $u=\ell_1+\xi\ell_2$ uniform independent random symbols, $H(\bm r)=(\ell_1+\xi\ell_2)p\log q$, and the result follows.
\[th:Security\] The code comprising of a Gabidulin code as its outer code and an RFC as its inner code, which encodes a vector $\tilde{\bm m}=(\bm m,\bm r)$ that consists of a message $\bm m$ of length $k$ and a random vector $\bm r$ of length $u=\ell_1+\xi\ell_2$ is completely secure for the $(\ell_1,\ell_2)$ eavesdropper model.
To prove security, we show that $H(\bm r|\bm e,\bm m) = H(\bm r) - H(\bm e)$, which is *equivalent* to $I(\bm m;\bm e)=0$ according to Theorem \[Lemma: Secrecy lemma\]. Each eavesdropped symbol $e_i$, $i=1,\dots,w$, where $w = |\bm e|$, corresponds to a code symbol and therefore is an evaluation of $f(\cdot)$ at some point $z_i \in \{y_1,\ldots,y_n\} \subset {\text{GF}(q^p)}$, where $c_i = f(y_i)$ (see Remark \[rem:linear\_map\]). Thus, for $i=1,\ldots,w$, $$e_i = f(z_i)=\sum_{j=1}^{\tilde k}\tilde m_jz_i^{q^{j-1}}=\sum_{j=1}^{k}m_jz_i^{q^{j-1}}+\sum_{j=1}^{u}r_jz_i^{q^{k+j-1}}
\label{eq:fy}$$ since $\tilde{\bm m} = (\bm m,\bm r)$. In the following, $\bm r = (r_1,\ldots,r_u)$ is assumed to be the unknowns (the message $\bm m$ and the eavesdropper vector $\bm e$ are assumed to be known) in the linear system of equations defined in (\[eq:fy\]).
Let $1 \leq \nu \leq w$ (by definition) be the number of ${\text{GF}(q)}$-linear independent symbols of $\{e_1,\ldots,e_{w}\}$, denoted by $\tilde{\bm{e}} = (\tilde e_1,\ldots,\tilde e_{\nu})$. The corresponding vector of points from $\{z_1,\ldots,z_{w}\}$ is denoted by $\tilde{\bm{z}} = (\tilde z_1,\ldots,\tilde z_{\nu})$. From (\[eq:fy\]), $\tilde{\bm e} = \bm b(\tilde{\bm{z}},\bm m) + \bm{r} \cdot \bm{A}(\tilde{\bm{z}})$, where $\bm b(\tilde{\bm{z}},\bm m)$ is a length-$\nu$ row vector and $\bm{A}(\tilde{\bm{z}})$ is a $u \times \nu$ matrix. Since $\{\tilde e_1,\ldots,\tilde e_{\nu}\}$ are ${\text{GF}(q)}$-linear independent, the matrix $\bm{A}(\tilde{\bm{z}})$ is of full column-rank (i.e., its column space is a vector space over ${\text{GF}(q)}$ of dimension $\nu$), and since the $u$ random symbols in $\bm r$ are chosen independently and uniformly at random from ${\rm GF}(q^p)$, $\{\tilde e_1,\ldots,\tilde e_{\nu}\}$ are also *stochastically* independent uniformly distributed random variables over ${\text{GF}(q^p)}$ ($\tilde e_i$ is uniformly distributed over ${\text{GF}(q^p)}$ for all $i$ and $\tilde{\bm e}$ is uniformly distributed over ${\text{GF}(q^p)}^{\nu}$). Finally, since $e \in \{e_1,\ldots,e_w\} \setminus \{\tilde e_1,\dots,\tilde e_{\nu}\}$ can be written as a ${\text{GF}(q)}$-linear combination of $\{\tilde e_1,\dots,\tilde e_{\nu}\}$, it follows that $H(\bm e) = H(\tilde{\bm e})= \nu \cdot p \log q$. From Lemma \[Lemma: entropy\], $H(\bm e) \leq H(\bm r)$. Thus, $u \geq \nu$ since $H(\bm e) = \nu \cdot p \log q$ and $H(\bm r) = u \cdot p \log q$. The conditional entropy $H(\bm r|\bm e,\bm m)$ is equal to the logarithm (base-$2$) of the number of solutions of (\[eq:fy\]) when the number of unknowns $u$ is larger than or equal to the number of independent equations $\nu$, i.e., when $u \geq \nu$. Hence, $H(\bm r|\bm e,\bm m)=(u-\nu)p\log q = H(\bm r)-H(\bm e)$ from which the result follows from (\[Eq: lemma\]) (see Theorem \[Lemma: Secrecy lemma\]).
Consider the $(20,10)$ secure RFC over $GF(q^p)$ in Fig. \[Fig: Secure repairable fountain code\] that encodes the message $\bm m=(m_1,\ldots,m_6)$ of $6$ symbols and a vector ${\boldsymbol{r}}=(r_1,\ldots,r_4)$ of $4$ random symbols. Each $c_i, i=1,\ldots, 20$, is an evaluation of a linearized polynomial $f(\cdot)$ at $y_i$. For the $(1,1)$ eavesdropper model, the scenario where ${\mathcal{S}}_1=\{c_6\}$ and ${\mathcal{S}}_2=\{c_5\}$, i.e., the eavesdropper gains access to the symbols $\bm e=(c_5,c_6,c_8, c_{18}= c_5+ c_6+ c_8)$, is depicted. It can easily be seen that $H(\bm r)=4p\log q$, $H(\bm e)=3p\log q$, and $H(\bm r|\bm e,\bm m)=(4-3)p\log q$. Therefore, there is no information leakage to the eavesdropper.
Numerical Results
=================
We compare the proposed secure RFCs with the secure MSR codes and secure LRCs in [@Raw14] in terms of the maximum code rate $k/n$ that allows to achieve security. In particular, we consider $(r,\delta)$ $d_{\text{min}}-$optimal LRCs [@Raw14], where $r$ is the code locality (and thus has an analogous meaning to $\xi$ for RFCs) and $d_{\text{min}}$ is the minimum distance of the code. Each local group of such a code can be seen as a subcode (punctured from the LRC) of minimum distance at least $\delta$. In Fig. \[Fig: plot\], we fix the code rate of the inner code (RFC, LRC, or MSR code), ${\tilde{k}}/n$, to $0.5$ and $0.8$, and plot the achievable code rates (the maximum $k/n$ that allows to achieve security) for the $(2,2)$ eavesdropper model as a function of ${\tilde{k}}$. Note that ${\tilde{k}}/n$ is an upper bound on the achievable code rate $k/n$, since to achieve security a number of random symbols needs to be appended to the message of length $k$. Note also that $n$ is the total number of storage nodes. We remark that, unlike LRC- and RFC-based DSSs, where each code symbol is stored in a different storage node, for MSR codes each storage node stores $\alpha=(n-\tilde{k})^{\tilde k-1}$ code symbols. For a fair comparison between RFCs and LRCs, we set $r=\xi$ and $\delta=2$. It can be seen that the achievable code rates for secure RFCs and secure LRCs are identical. On the other hand, secure RFCs yield higher achievable code rates compared to secure MSR codes for ${\tilde{k}}/n=0.8$, while the opposite is observed for ${\tilde{k}}/n=0.5$.
Conclusion
==========
We proposed a code construction based on RFCs that is secure against the $(\ell_1,\ell_2)$ eavesdropper model. We gave a necessary and sufficient condition for the information leakage to the eavesdropper to be zero, and subsequently proved that the proposed construction is completely secure. The proposed secure RFCs yield the same achievable code rates as LRCs, and higher than MSR codes (when the code rate of the underlying code is high enough). An interesting extension of this work would be the design of secure and repair-efficient vector RFCs, i.e., code symbols are distributed over the storage nodes, each containing $\alpha>1$ code symbols.
[^1]: The work of S. Kumar and E. Rosnes was partially funded by the Research Council of Norway (grant 240985/F20) and by Simula@UiB. A. Graell i Amat was supported by the Swedish Research Council under grant \#2011-5961.
[^2]: S. Kumar and E. Rosnes are with the Department of Informatics, University of Bergen, N-5020 Bergen, Norway, and the Simula Research Lab (e-mail: kumarsi@simula.no; eirik@ii.uib.no).
[^3]: A. Graell i Amat is with the Department of Signals and Systems, Chalmers University of Technology, SE-41296 Gothenburg, Sweden (e-mail: alexandre.graell@chalmers.se).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The aim of this paper is to present and discuss some equivalent characterizations of $p$-parabolicity for complete Riemannian manifolds in terms of existence of special exhaustion functions. In particular, [Khas’minskii ]{}in *Ergodic properties of recurrent diffusion prossesses and stabilization of solution to the Cauchy problem for parabolic equations* (Theor. Prob. Appl., 5 no.2, 1960) proved that if there exists a $2$-superharmonic function ${\mathcal{K}}$ defined outside a compact set on a complete Riemannian manifold $R$ such that $\lim_{x\to \infty} {\mathcal{K}}(x)=\infty$, then $R$ is $2$-parabolic, and Sario and Nakai in *Classification theory of Riemann surfaces* (1970) were able to improve this result by showing that $R$ is $2$-parabolic if and only if there exists an Evans potential, i.e. a $2$-harmonic function $E:R\setminus K \to {\mathbb{R}}^+$ with $\lim_{x\to \infty} {\mathcal{E}}(x)=\infty$. In this paper, we will prove a reverse [Khas’minskii ]{}condition valid for any $p>1$ and discuss the existence of Evans potentials in the nonlinear case.'
author:
- Daniele Valtorta
title: 'Reverse Khas’minskii condition [^1]'
---
Given a complete Riemannian manifold $R$, we say that $R$ is $p$-parabolic if every compact subset $K\subset R$ has $p$-capacity zero, or equivalently if every bounded below $p$-subharmonic function is constant. In the following we briefly recall some definitions and results relative to $p$-capacity and $p$-harmonic functions. Some good references for this introductory part are [@3] and [@20] (for the $p=2$ case only). Note that [@3] works on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, but from the proofs it is quite clear that all the local results extend also to generic Riemannian manifolds.
This paper is dedicated to characterize the $p$-parabolicity of a complete Riemannian manifold through the so-called [Khas’minskii ]{}condition, answering in the affermative to a problem raised, e.g., in [@99] pag 820.
In particular we will prove that a complete Riemannian manifold $R$ is $p$-parabolic if and only if for any $p$-regular compact set (for example for many compact set with smooth boundary) there exists a $p$-superharmonic function $f:R\setminus K\to {\mathbb{R}}^+$ with $f|_{\partial K}=0$ and $\lim_{x\to \infty} f(x)=\infty$. The [Khas’minskii ]{}condition is discussed in [@20] and in [@99]; the latter article provides also some other equivalent characterizzations of $p$-parabolicity and applications of the [Khas’minskii ]{}condition.
In the following ${\mathcal{D}}_p(f)$ will denote its $p$-Dirichlet integral, i.e. $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathcal{D}}_p(f)\equiv \int_{\Omega} {\left|\nabla f\right|}^p dV\end{gathered}$$ where $\Omega$ is the domain of the function $f$. $W^{1,p}(\Omega)$ stands for the standard Sobolev space, while $L^{1,p}(\Omega)$ is the so-called Dirichlet space, i.e. the space of functions in $W^{1,p}_{loc}(\Omega)$ with finite $p$-Dirichlet integral. Hereafter, we assume that $R$ is a complete smooth noncompact Riemannian manifold without boundary with metric tensor $g_{ij}$ and volume form $dV$.
Given a compact set and an open set $K\subset\Omega\subset R$, we define $$\begin{gathered}
\operatorname{Cap_p}(K,\Omega)\equiv \inf_{\varphi \in C^\infty_c(\Omega), \ \varphi(K)=1 }\int_\Omega {\left|\nabla \varphi\right|}^p dV\end{gathered}$$ If $\Omega=R$, then we set ${\operatorname{Cap_p}}(K,R)\equiv {\operatorname{Cap_p}}(K)$.\
By a standard density argument for Sobolev spaces, the definition is unchanged if we allow $\varphi -\psi\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega\setminus K)$, where $\psi$ is a cutoff function with support in $\Omega$ and equal to $1$ on $K$.
By definition, $R$ is $p$-parabolic if and only if ${\operatorname{Cap_p}}(K)=0$ for every $K\in R$, or equivalently if there exists a compact set with nonempty interior $\tilde K$ with ${\operatorname{Cap_p}}(\tilde K)=0$.
A real function $h$ defined on an open $\Omega\subset R$ is said to be $p$-harmonic if $h\in W^{1,p}_{loc}(\Omega)$ and $\Delta_p h = 0$ in the weak sense, i.e. $$\begin{gathered}
\int_\Omega {\left|\nabla h\right|}^{p-2}{\left\langle\nabla h \middle\vert\nabla \phi \right\rangle}dV=0 \ \ \ \forall \ \phi \in C^\infty_c(\Omega)\end{gathered}$$ The space of $p$-harmonic functions on an open set $\Omega$ is denoted by $H_p(\Omega)$.
We recall that $p$-harmonic functions are always continuous (in fact, they are $C^{1,\alpha}(\Omega)$) and they are also minimizers of the $p$-Dirichlet integral
A function $s\in W^{1,p}_{loc}(\Omega)$ is a $p$-supersolution if $\Delta_p h \leq 0$ in the weak sense, i.e. $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{\Omega} {\left|\nabla s\right|}^{p-2}{\left\langle\nabla s\middle\vert\nabla \phi \right\rangle}dV\geq 0 \ \ \ \forall \ \phi \in C^\infty_c(\Omega), \phi \geq 0\end{gathered}$$ A function $s:\Omega\to {\mathbb{R}}\cup\{+\infty\}$ (not everywhere infinite) is said to be $p$-superharmonic if it is lower semicontinuous and for every open $D\Subset \Omega$ and every $p$-harmonic function on $D$ with $h|_{\partial D}\leq s|_{\partial D}$, then $h\leq s$ on all $D$. The space of $p$-superharmonic functions is denoted by $S_p(\Omega)$.
We recall that all $p$-supersolutions have a lower-semicontinuous rappresentative in $W^{1,p}_{loc}(\Omega)$ and $s\in W^{1,p}_{loc}(\Omega)$ is $p$-superharmonic if and only if it is a $p$-supersolution. In particular thanks to Caccioppoli-type estimates all bounded above $p$-superharmonic functions are $p$-supersolutions. The family of $p$-superharmonic functions is closed under right-directed convergence, i.e. if $s_n$ is an increasing sequence of $p-$superharmonic functions with pointwise limit $s$, then either $s=\infty$ everywhere or $s$ is $p$-superharmonic. By a truncation argument, this also shows that every $p$-superharmonic function is the limit of an increasing sequence of $p$-supersolutions.
Now we turn our attention to special $p$-harmonic functions, the so-called $p$-potentials.
Given $K\subset \Omega\subset R$ with $\Omega$ bounded and $K$ compact, and given $\psi\in C^{\infty}_c(\Omega)$ s.t. $\psi\vert_K=1$, there exists a unique function: $$\begin{gathered}
h\in W^{1,p}(\Omega\setminus K) \ \ \ h-\psi\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega\setminus K)\end{gathered}$$ This function is a minimizer for the $p$-capacity, explicitly: $$\begin{gathered}
{\operatorname{Cap_p}}(K,\Omega)=\int_\Omega {\left|\nabla h\right|}^p dV\end{gathered}$$ for this reason, we call $h$ the $p$-potential of the couple $(K,\Omega)$. Note that if $\Omega$ is not bounded, it is still possible to define its $p$-potential by a standard exhaustion argument.
One might ask when the $p$-potential of a couple of sets is continuous on $\overline \Omega$. In this case the set $\Omega\setminus K$ is said to be regular with respect to the $p$-laplacian, or simply $p$-regular. $p$-regularity depends strongly on the geometry of $\Omega$ and $K$, and there exist at least two characterization of this property: the Wiener criterion and the barrier condition. For the aim of this paper we simply note that $p$-regularity is a local property and that if $\Omega\setminus K$ has smooth boundary, then it is $p$-regular. As references for the Wiener criterion and the barrier condition, we cite [@3] and [@6] (which deal only with ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, but as observed before local properties of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ are easily extended to Riemannian manifolds) and [@22], a very recent article which deals with $p$-harmonicity and $p$-regularity on metric spaces.
Before proceding, we cite some elementary estimates on the capacity.
\[lemma\_cap\] Let $K_1\subset K_2\subset \Omega_1\subset \Omega_2\subset R$. Then: $$\begin{gathered}
{\operatorname{Cap_p}}(K_2,\Omega_1)\geq {\operatorname{Cap_p}}(K_1,\Omega_1) \ \ \ {\operatorname{Cap_p}}(K_2,\Omega_1)\geq {\operatorname{Cap_p}}(K_2,\Omega_2)\end{gathered}$$ Moreover, if $h$ is the $p$-potential of the couple $(K,\Omega)$, for $0\leq t<s\leq 1$ we have: $$\begin{gathered}
{\operatorname{Cap_p}}{\left(\{h\leq s\},\{h<t\}\right)}=\frac{{\operatorname{Cap_p}}(K,\Omega)}{(s-t)^{p-1}}\end{gathered}$$
The proofs of these estimates follow quite easily from the definitions, and they can be found in propositions 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 in [@77], or in section 2 of [@3]. Even though the setting of [@3] is ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, all the argumets used apply also to the Riemannian case.
In the following section we cite some technical results that will be essential in our proof of the reverse [Khas’minskii ]{}condition, in particular the solvability of the obstacle problem and the minimizing property of its solutions and a technical lemma about uniformly convex Banach spaces. Section \[sec\_ka\] contains the main results of this article, the proof of the reverse [Khas’minskii ]{}condition. We tried to use as few technical tools as possible in our proof, so as to make it is readable and understandable by non-specialists.
Obstacle problem {#sec_obs}
================
In this section we present the so-called obstacle problem, a technical tool that will be foundamental in our main theorem.
Let $R$ be a Riemannian manifold and $\Omega\subset R$ be a bounded domain. Given $\theta\in W^{1,p}(\Omega)$ and $\psi:\Omega\to [-\infty,\infty]$, we define the set: $$\begin{gathered}
K_{\theta,\psi}=\{\varphi\in W^{1,p}(\Omega) \ s.t. \ \varphi\geq \psi \ a.e. \ \ \ \varphi-\theta\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\}\end{gathered}$$ we say that $s\in K_{\theta,\psi}$ solves the obstacle problem relative to the $p$-laplacian if for any $\varphi\in K_{\theta,\psi}$: $$\begin{gathered}
\int_\Omega {\left\langle{\left|\nabla s \right|}^{p-2}\nabla s\middle\vert\nabla \varphi - \nabla s\right\rangle}dV \geq 0\end{gathered}$$
It is evident that the function $\theta$ defines in the Sobolev sense the boundary values of the solution $s$, while $\psi$ plays the role of obstacle, i.e. $s$ must be $\geq \psi$ at least almost everywhere. Note that if we set $\psi\equiv -\infty$, the obstacle problem turns into the classical Dirichlet problem. Anyway for our purposes the two functions $\theta$ and $\psi$ will always coincide, and in what follows for simplicity we will write $K_{\psi,\psi}\equiv K_{\psi}$.\
The obstacle problem is a very important tool in nonlinear potential theory, and with the development of calculus on metric spaces it has been studied also in this very general setting. In the following we cite some results relative to this problem and its solvability.
\[prop\_obs\] If $\Omega$ is a bounded domain in a Riemannian manifold $R$, the obstacle problem $K_{\theta,\psi}$ has always a unique (up to a.e. equivalence) solution if $K_{\theta,\psi}$ is not empty (which is always the case if $\theta=\psi$). Moreover the lower semicontinuous regularization of $s$ coincides a.e. with $s$ and it is the smallest $p$-superharmonic function in $K_{\theta,\psi}$, and also the function in $K_{\theta,\psi}$ with smallest $p$-Dirichlet integral. If the obstacle $\psi$ is continuous in $\Omega$, then $s\in C(\Omega)$.
In [@3], Heinonen, Kilpeläinen and Martio prove this theorem in the setting of a Euclidean measure space with a doubling property and a Poincaré inequality, but it is quite clear that the techniques involved also apply to the setting of any Riemannian manifold. As mentioned before, this problem has been extensively studied also on measure metric spaces with a doubling property and a Poincaré inequality (for example bounded domains in Riemannian manifolds with respect to the measure induced by the metric), and proposition \[prop\_obs\] holds even in this more general setting (see [@21]).
We make a remark on the minimizing property of the $p$-superharmonic function, which will play a central role in our proof.
\[rem\_min\] Let $s$ be a $p$-superharmonic function in $W^{1,p}(\Omega)$ where $\Omega\subset R$ is a bounded domain. Then for any function $f\in W^{1,p}(\Omega)$ with $f\geq s$ a.e. and $f-s\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ we have: $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathcal{D}}_p(s)\leq {\mathcal{D}}_p(f)\end{gathered}$$
This remark follows easily form the minimizing property of the solution to the obstacle problem. In fact, the previous proposition shows that $s$ is the solution to the obstacle problem relative to $K_s$, and the minimizing property follows.
When it comes to the obstacle problem (or similarly to the Dirichlet problem), the regularity of the solution on $\partial \Omega$ is always a good question. An easy corollary to theorem 7.2 in [@22] is the following:
\[prop\_cont\] Given a bounded $\Omega\subset R$ with smooth boundary and given a $\psi\in W^{1,p}(\overline \Omega)\cap C(\overline \Omega)$, then the unique solution to the obstacle problem $K_\psi$ is continuous up to $\partial \Omega$.
Note that it is not necessary to assume $\partial \Omega$ smooth, it suffices to assume $\partial \Omega$ regular with respect to the $p$-Dirichlet problem, or equivalently that satifies the Wiener criterion in each point, but we think that for the aim of this paper it is not necessary to go into such interesting but quite technical details.
In the following we will need this lemma about uniform convexity in Banach spaces. This lemma doesn’t seem very intuitive at first glance, but a very simple two dimensional drawing of the vectors involved shows that in fact it is quite natural.
\[lemma\_\*\] Given a uniformly convex Banach space $E$, there exists a function $\sigma:[0,\infty)\to [0,\infty)$ strictly positive on $(0,\infty)$ with $\lim_{x\to 0} \sigma(x)=0$ such that for any $v,w\in E$ with ${\left\|v+1/2 w\right\|}\geq {\left\|v\right\|}$: $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\|v+w\right\|}\geq {\left\|v\right\|} {\left(1+\sigma{\left(\frac{{\left\|w\right\|}}{{\left\|v\right\|} +{\left\|w\right\|}}\right)}\right)}\end{gathered}$$
Note that by the triangle inequality ${\left\|v+1/2 w\right\|}\geq {\left\|v\right\|}$ easily implies ${\left\|v+ w\right\|}\geq {\left\|v\right\|}$. Let $\delta$ be the modulus of convexity of the space $E$. By definition we have: $$\begin{gathered}
\delta(\epsilon)\equiv \inf\left\{ 1-{\left\|\frac{x+y}{2}\right\|} \ s.t. \ {\left\|x\right\|}, {\left\|y\right\|} \leq 1 \ \ \ {\left\|x-y\right\|}\geq \epsilon \right\}\end{gathered}$$ Consider the vectors $x=\alpha v$ $y=\alpha (v+w)$ where $\alpha={\left\|v+w\right\|}^{-1}\leq {\left\|v\right\|}^{-1}$. Then: $$\begin{gathered}
1-{\left\|\frac{x+y}{2}\right\|}=1-\alpha {\left\|v+\frac{w}{2}\right\|}\geq \delta(\alpha {\left\|w\right\|})\geq \delta{\left(\frac{{\left\|w\right\|}}{{\left\|v\right\|} + {\left\|w\right\|}}\right)}\\
{\left\|v+w\right\|}\geq {\left\|v+\frac{w}{2}\right\|} {\left(1-\delta{\left(\frac{{\left\|w\right\|}}{{\left\|v\right\|} + {\left\|w\right\|}}\right)}\right)}^{-1}\end{gathered}$$ Since ${\left\|v+\frac{w}{2}\right\|}\geq {\left\|v\right\|}$ and by the positivity of $\delta$ on $(0,\infty)$ if $E$ is uniformly convex, the thesis follows.
Recall that all $L^p(X,\mu)$ spaces with $1<p<\infty$ are uniformly convex thanks to Clarkson’s inequalities, and their modulus of convexity is a function that depends only on $p$ and not on the underling measure space $X$. For a reference on uniformly convex spaces, modulus of convexity and Clarkson’s inequality, we cite his original work [@7].
[Khas’minskii ]{}condition {#sec_ka}
==========================
In this section, we prove the [Khas’minskii ]{}condition for a generic $p>1$ and show that it is not just a sufficient condition, but also a necessary one.
If there exists a compact set $K\subset R$ and a $p$-superharmonic finite-valued function ${\mathcal{K}}:R\setminus K\to {\mathbb{R}}$ with $$\begin{gathered}
\lim_{x\to \infty} {\mathcal{K}}(x)=\infty\end{gathered}$$ then $R$ is $p$-parabolic.
This condition was proved in [@2] in the case $p=2$, however since the only tool necessary for this proof is the comparison principle, it is easily extended to any $p>1$. An alternative proof can be found in [@99].\
Fix an open relatively compact set $D$ with $K\subset D$ (for simplicity, we may also assume $\partial D$ smooth), and fix an exhaustion $D_n$ of $R$ with $D_0\equiv D$. Set $m_n\equiv \min_{x\in \partial D_n} {\mathcal{K}}(x)$, and consider for every $n$ the $p$-capacity potential $h_n$ of the couple $(\overline D,D_n)$. Since ${\mathcal{K}}$ is superharmonic, it is easily seen that $h_n(x)\geq 1-{\mathcal{K}}(x)/m_n$ for all $x\in D_n\setminus \overline D$. By letting $n$ go to infinity, we obtain that $h(x)\geq 1$ for all $x\in R$, where $h$ is the capacity potential of $(\overline D, R)$. Since by the maximum principle $h(x)\leq 1$ everywhere, $h(x)=1$ and so ${\operatorname{Cap_p}}(\overline D)=0$.
Observe that the hypothesis of ${\mathcal{K}}$ being finite-valued can be dropped. In fact if ${\mathcal{K}}$ is $p$-superharmonic, the set $\{x \ s.t. \ \ {\mathcal{K}}(x)=\infty\}$ has $p$-capacity zero, and so the reasoning above would lead to $h(x)= 1$ except on a set of $p$-capacity zero, but this indeed implies $h(x)=1$ everywhere (see [@3] for the details).
Before proving the reverse of [Khas’minskii ]{}condition for any $p>1$, we present a short simpler proof in the case $p=2$ and we briefly describe the reasoning that brought us to the general proof. In the linear case, the sum of $2$-superharmonic functions is again $2$-superharmonic, but of course this fails to be true for a generic $p$. Thanks to linearity, it is easy to prove that:
Given a $2$-parabolic Riemannian manifold, for any compact set $K$ with smooth boundary (actually $p$-regular is enough), there exists a $2$-superharmonic continuous function ${\mathcal{K}}:R\setminus K\to {\mathbb{R}}^+$ with $f|_{\partial K}=0$ and $\lim_{x\to \infty}{\mathcal{K}}(x)=\infty$.
Consider a regular (=with smooth boundary) exhaustion $\{K_n\}_{n=0}^\infty$ of $R$ with $K_0\equiv K$. For any $n\geq1$ define $h_n$ to be the $p$-potential of $(K,K_n)$. By the comparison principle, the sequence $\tilde h_n =1-h_n$ is a decreasing sequence, and since $R$ is $2$-parabolic the limit function $\tilde h$ is the zero function. By Dini’s theorem, the sequence $\tilde h_n$ converges to zero locally uniformly, so it is not hard to choose a subsequence $\tilde h_{n(k)}$ such that the series $\sum_{k=1}^\infty \tilde h_{n(k)}$ converges locally uniformly to a continuous function. It is straightforward to see that ${\mathcal{K}}=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \tilde h_{n(k)}$ has all the desidered properties.
For the nonlinear case, even though this proof doesn’t apply, the idea is similar in some aspects. Indeed, we will build an increasing locally uniformly bounded sequence of $p$-superharmonic functions, and the limit of this sequence will be the function ${\mathcal{K}}$.
The idea behind the proof in the nonlinear case is to extend the following well-known result about sets of $p$-capacity zero.
\[prop\_mimic\] A set $E\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is of $p$-capacity zero if and only if there exists a $p$-superharmonic $s$ function with $s|_E=\infty$.
See theorem 10.1 in [@3] for the proof.
Consider the $p$-Royden compactification $R_p^*$ of the manifold $R$ (like every compactification, the boundary $\Gamma_p=R^*_p\setminus R$ reflects in some sense the behaviour of $R$ at infinity). The concept of $p$-capacity can be extended to subsets of $R^*_p$, and it turns out that $R$ is $p$-parabolic if and only of ${\operatorname{Cap_p}}(\Gamma_p)=0$ (see for example [@11]). Then in some sense, by mimicking the proof of proposition \[prop\_mimic\], we get our statement. There are although some tecnical aspects to be considered, for example the boundedness assumption on the domain $\Omega$ makes it impossible to use the theory of the obstacle problem to solve it on the complement of a compact set in $R$, and also some convergence properties of the solutions are not so obvious and need some careful consideration.
For the sake of simplicity, in this article we chose to limit the use of abstract technical tools like the $p$-Royden compactification and follow instead a more direct approach.
We first prove that if $R$ is $p$-parabolic, then there exists a proper function $f:R\to {\mathbb{R}}$ with finite $p$-Dirichlet integral.
Let $R$ be a $p$-parabolic Riemannian manifold. Then there exists a positive continuous function $f:R\to {\mathbb{R}}$ such that: $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{R} {\left|\nabla f\right|}^p dV <\infty \ \ \ \ \ \ \lim_{x\to \infty} f(x)=\infty\end{gathered}$$
Fix an exhaustion $\{D_n\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ of $R$ such that every $D_n$ has smooth boundary, and let $\{h_n\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ be the $p$-capacity potential of the couple $(D_0,D_n)$. Then by an easy application of the comparison principle the sequence: $$\begin{gathered}
\tilde h_n(x) \equiv \begin{cases}
0 & \text{if }x\in D_0\\
1-h_n(x) & \text{if }x\in D_n\setminus D_0\\
1 & \text{if }x\in D_n^C
\end{cases}\end{gathered}$$ is a decreasing sequence of continuous function converging pointwise to $0$ (and so also locally uniformly by Dini’s theorem) and also $\int_{R}{\left|\nabla \tilde h_n\right|}^p dV \to 0$. So we can extract a subsequence $\tilde h_{n(k)}$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
0\leq \tilde h_{n(k)}(x)\leq \frac{1}{2^k} \ \ \ \ \forall x\in D_k \ \ \ \ \wedge \ \ \ \ \ \int_{R}{\left|\nabla \tilde h_{n(k)}\right|}^p dV<\frac1 {2^k}\end{gathered}$$ It is easily verified that $f(x)=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \tilde h _{n(k)}(x)$ has all the desidered properties.
We are now ready to prove the reverse ${Khas'minskii }$ condition, i.e.:
Given a $p$-parabolic manifold $R$ and an open nonempty compact $K\subset R$ with smooth boudary, there exists a continuous positive superharmonic function ${\mathcal{K}}:R\setminus \overline K\to {\mathbb{R}}$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
\lim_{x\to \infty} {\mathcal{K}}(x)=\infty\end{gathered}$$
Fix a continuous proper function $f:R\to {\mathbb{R}}^+$ with finite Dirichlet integral such that $f=0$ on a compact neighborhood of $K$, and let $D_n$ be a smooth exhaustion of $R$ such that $f|_{D_n^C}\geq n$. We want to build by induction an increasing sequence of continuous functions $s^{(n)} \in L^{1,p}(R)$ $p$-superharmonic in $\overline{K}^C$ with $s^{(n)}|_K=0$ and such that $s^{(n)}=n$ in a neighborhood of infinity (say $S_n^C$, where $S_n$ is compact). Moreover we will ask that $s^{(n)}$ is locally uniformly bounded, so that ${\mathcal{K}}(x)\equiv \lim_n s^{(n)}(x)$ is finite in $R$ and has all the desidered properties.\
Let $s^{(0)}\equiv 0$, and suppose by induction that an $s^{(n)}$ with the desidered property exists. Hereafter $n$ is fixed, so for simplicity we will write $s^{(n)}\equiv s$, $s^{(n+1)}\equiv s^+$ and $S_n = S$. Define the functions $ f_j(x)\equiv \min\{j^{-1}f(x),1\}$, and consider the obstacle problems on $\Omega_j\equiv D_{j+1}\setminus \overline D_0$ given by the obstacle $\psi_j=s+ f_j$ [^2]. For any $j$, the solution $h_j$ to this obstacle problem is a $p$-superharmonic function defined on $\Omega_j$ bounded above by $n+1$ and whose restriction to $\partial D_0$ is zero. If $j$ is large enough such that $s=n$ on $D_{j}^C$ (i.e. $S\subset D_j$), then the function $h_j$ is forced to be equal to $n+1$ on $D_{j+1}\setminus D_{j}$ and so the function: $$\begin{gathered}
\tilde h_j(x)\equiv \begin{cases}
h_j(x) & x\in \Omega_j\\
0 & x\in \overline D_0\\
n+1 & x\in D_{j+1}^C
\end{cases}\end{gathered}$$ is a continuous function on $R$, $p$-superharmonic in $\overline{D_0}^C$. If we are able to show that $\tilde h_j$ converges locally uniformly to $s$, then we can choose an index $\bar j$ large enough to have $\sup_{x\in D_{n+1}} {\left|\tilde h_{\bar j} (x)-s(x)\right|}<2^{-n-1}$, and so the function $s^+=\tilde h_{\bar j}$ has all the desidered properties.
For this aim, consider $\delta_j \equiv h_{j}-s$. Since the sequence $h_{j}$ is decreasing thanks to the properties of the solution to the obstacle problems, so is $\delta_j$ and therefore it converges pointwise to a function $\delta\geq 0$. By the minimizing properties of $h_j$, we have that $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\|\nabla h_j\right\|}_p\leq {\left\|\nabla s + \nabla f_j\right\|}_p\leq {\left\|\nabla s\right\|}_p + {\left\|\nabla f\right\|}_p\\
{\left\|\nabla \delta_j\right\|}_p\leq 2{\left\|\nabla s\right\|} + {\left\|\nabla f\right\|}\leq C\end{gathered}$$ and a standard weak-compactness argument in reflexive spaces shows that $\delta\in L^{1,p}_0(R)$ with $\nabla \delta_j \to \nabla \delta$ in the weak $L^p$ sense (see for example lemma 1.33 in [@3]). Now we prove that ${\mathcal{D}}_p(\delta_j)\to 0$ so that ${\mathcal{D}}_p(\delta)=0$, and since $\delta=0$ on $D_0$ we conclude $\delta=0$. Note also that since the limit function $\delta$ is continuous, Dini’s theorem assures that the convergence is locally uniform.
Let $\lambda>0$ (for example $\lambda = 1/2$), and consider the function $g(x)\equiv \min\{s+\lambda \delta_j,n\}$. It is quite clear that $s$ is the solution to the obstacle problem relative to itself on $S\setminus \overline {D_0}$, and since $\delta_j\geq0$ with $\delta_j=0$ on $D_0$, $g\geq s$ and $g-s\in W^{1,p}_0(S\setminus \overline {D_0})$. The minimizing property for solutions to the $p$-laplace equation then guarantees that: $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\|\nabla s + \lambda \nabla \delta_j\right\|}_p^p\equiv \int_{R} {\left|\nabla s + \lambda \nabla \delta_j\right|}^p dV \geq \int_{S\setminus \overline{D_0}} {\left|\nabla g\right|}^p dV\geq\\
\geq \int_{S\setminus \overline{D_0}} {\left|\nabla s\right|}^p dV = {\left\|\nabla s\right\|}_p^p\end{gathered}$$ Recalling that also $h_j=s+\delta_j$ is solution to an obstacle problem on $D_{j+1}\setminus D_0$, we get: $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\|\nabla s + \nabla \delta_j\right\|}_p={\left(\int_{R} {\left|\nabla \tilde h_j\right|}^p dV\right)}^{1/p}={\left(\int_{\Omega_j} {\left|\nabla h_j\right|}^p dV\right)}^{1/p}\leq \\
\leq {\left(\int_{\Omega_j} {\left|\nabla s + \nabla f_j\right|}^p dV\right)}^{1/p}\leq {\left\|\nabla s +\nabla f_j\right\|}_p \leq {\left\|\nabla s \right\|}_p + {\left\|\nabla {f_j}\right\|}_p\end{gathered}$$ Uding lemma \[lemma\_\*\] we conclude: $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\|\nabla s\right\|}_p {\left(1+\sigma{\left(\frac{{\left\|\nabla \delta_j\right\|}_p}{ {\left\|\nabla s\right\|}_p +{\left\|\nabla \delta_j\right\|}_p}\right)}\right)}\leq {\left\|\nabla s\right\|}_p + {\left\|\nabla f_j\right\|}_p\end{gathered}$$ Since ${\left\|\nabla f_j\right\|}_p \to 0$ as $j$ goes to infinity and by the properties of the function $\sigma$: $$\begin{gathered}
\lim_{j\to \infty}{\mathcal{D}}_p(\delta_j)\equiv \lim_{j\to \infty} {\left\|\nabla \delta_j\right\|}_p^p =0\end{gathered}$$
Since ${\left\|\nabla \tilde h_j\right\|}_p\leq {\left\|\nabla s^{(n)}\right\|}_p+{\left\|\nabla \delta_j\right\|}_p$, if for each induction step we choose $\bar j$ such that ${\left\|\nabla \delta_{\bar j}\right\|}_p<2^{-n}$, the function ${\mathcal{K}}=\lim_{n} s^{(n)}$ has finite $p$-Dirichlet integral.
In the previous theorem we built a function ${\mathcal{K}}$ which is proper and continuous in $R$, $p$-superharmonic in $K^C$ and zero on $K$ assuming $K$ compact with smooth boundary and with non-empty interior. However it is clear from the proof that these assumptions can be weakened. In fact, the only properties we need are that if a function $\delta$ is constant and zero on $K$, than it has to be zero everywhere on $R$, and the obstacle problem relative to ${\mathcal{D}}_j\setminus K$ has to be solvable with continuity on the boundary. From these we notice that it is sufficient to assume $K$ $p-$regular, which implies also that $cap_p(K,{\mathcal{D}}_j)>0$ and so $\delta=0$.
Evans potentials
================
We conclude this work with some remarks on the Evans potentials for $p$-parabolic manifolds. Given a compact set with nonempty interior and smooth boundary $K\subset R$, we call $p$-Evans potential a function ${\mathcal{E}}:R\setminus K\to {\mathbb{R}}$ $p$-harmonic where defined such that: $$\begin{gathered}
\lim_{x\to \infty } {\mathcal{E}}(x)=\infty \ \ \ \ \ \lim_{x\to \partial K} {\mathcal{E}}(x)=0\end{gathered}$$ It is evident that if such a function exists, then the [Khas’minskii ]{}condition guarantees the $p$-parabolicity of the manifold $R$. It is interesting to investigate whether also the reverse implication holds. In [@19] and [@5], Nakai and Sario prove that $2$-parabolicity of Riemannian surfaces is completely characterized by the existence of such functions. In particular they prove that:
\[teo\_sn\] Given a $p$-parabolic Riemannian surface $R$, and an open precompact set $R_0$, there exists a ($2-$)harmonic function ${\mathcal{E}}:R\setminus R_0\to {\mathbb{R}}^+$ which is zero on the boundary of $R_0$ and goes to infinity as $x$ goes to infinity. Moreover: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_evp}
\int_{\{0\leq {\mathcal{E}}(x)\leq c\}} {\left|\nabla {\mathcal{E}}(x)\right|}^2dV\leq 2\pi c\end{gathered}$$
This is the content of [@19] and theorems 12.F and 13.A in [@5]. Clearly the constant $2\pi$ in equation \[eq\_evp\] can be substituted by any other positive constant. As noted in the Appendix to [@5] (in particular pag. 400), with similar arguments and with the help of the classical potential theory ([@37] might be of help in some technical details), it is possible to prove the existence of $2$-Evans potentials for a generic $n$-dimensional $2$-parabolic Riemannian manifold.
This argument however is not adaptable to the nonlinear case ($p\neq 2$). In fact it relies heavily on the harmonicity of Green potentials and on tools like the energy and transfinite diameter of a set that are not available in the nonlinear contest. In the end the potential ${\mathcal{E}}$ is build as a special convex combination of Green kernels defined on the $2$-Royden compactification of $R$, and while convex combinations preserve $2$-harmonicity, this is evidently not the case when $p\neq 2$.
Since $p$-harmonic functions minimize the $p$-Dirichlet of functions with the same boundary values, it would be interesting from a theoretical point of view to prove existence of $p$-Evans potentials and maybe also to determine some of their properties. From the practical point of view such potentials could be used to get informations on the underlying manifold $R$, for example they can be used to improve the Kelvin-Nevanlinna-Royden criterion for $p$-parabolicity as shown in [@1].
Even though we were not able to prove the existence of such potentials in the generic case, some particular cases are easier to manage. As shown in [@99], conclusions similar to the ones in theorem \[teo\_sn\] can be easily obtained in the case $R$ is a model manifold or all of its ends are roughly Euclidean or Harnack. We briefly discuss these very particular cases hoping that the ideas involved in these proofs will be a good place to start for a proof in the general case.
First of all we recall the definition model manifolds:
A complete Riemannian manifold $R$ is a model manifold (or a spherically simmetric manifold) if it is diffeomorphic to ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ and if there exists a point $o\in R$ such that in exponential polar coordinates the metric assumes the form: $$\begin{gathered}
g_{ij}=\begin{Bmatrix}
1 &0\\ 0& \sigma(r)\delta_{ij}
\end{Bmatrix}\end{gathered}$$ where $\sigma$ is a smooth positive function on $(0,\infty)$ with $\sigma(0)=0$ and $\sigma'(0)=1$.
For some references on polar coordinates and model manifolds, we cite [@20] (a very complete survey on $2$-parabolicity) and the book [@4].
Define the function $A(r)=\sqrt{g(r)}=\sigma(r)^{\frac{n-1}2}$, where $g(r)$ is the determinant of the metric tensor. Note that, except for a constant depending only on $n$, $A(r)$ is the area of the sphere of radius $r$. On model manifolds, the radial function $$\begin{gathered}
f_{p,\bar r}(r)\equiv\int_{\bar r} ^r A(t)^{-\frac 1 {(p-1)}} dt\end{gathered}$$ is a $p$-harmonic function away from the origin $o$, in fact: $$\begin{gathered}
\Delta_p (f)=\frac{1}{\sqrt g} \operatorname{div}({\left|\nabla f\right|}^{p-2}\nabla f)= \frac{1}{\sqrt g} \partial_i {\left(\sqrt g {\left(g^{kl}\partial_k f \partial_l f\right)}^{\frac{p-2} 2} g^{ij}\partial_j f\right)}=\\
=\frac{1}{ {A(r)} }\partial_r {\left(A(r)\ A(r)^{-\frac{p-2}{p-1}}\ A(r)^{-\frac{1}{p-1}}\ \hat r\right)}=0\end{gathered}$$ where $\hat r$ is the gradient of $r$, which in polar coordinates has components $(1,0\cdots,0)$. The function $\min\{f_{p,\bar r},0\}$ is a $p$-subharmonic function on $R$, so if $f_{p,\bar r}(\infty)<~\infty$, $R$ cannot be $p$-parabolic. A straightforward application of the [Khas’minskii ]{}condition shows that also the reverse implication holds, so that a model manifold $R$ is $p$-parabolic if and only if $f_{p,\bar r}(\infty)=\infty$. This shows that if $R$ is $p$-parabolic, then for any $\bar r>0$ there exists a radial $p$-Evans potential $f_{p,\bar r}\equiv{\mathcal{E}}_{\bar r}:R\setminus B_{\bar r}(0)\to {\mathbb{R}}^+$, moreover it is easily seen by direct calculation that: $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{B_R} {\left|\nabla {\mathcal{E}}_{\bar r}\right|}^{p}dV={\mathcal{E}}_{\bar r}(R) \ \ \ \ \Longleftrightarrow \ \ \ \ \int_{{\mathcal{E}}_{\bar r}\leq t} {\left|\nabla {\mathcal{E}}_{\bar r}\right|}^p dV =t\end{gathered}$$ This estimate is similar to the one in equation \[eq\_evp\], and it allow us to conclude that: $$\begin{gathered}
{\operatorname{Cap_p}}(B_{\bar r}, \{{\mathcal{E}}_{\bar r}\leq t\})=\int_{\{{\mathcal{E}}_{\bar r}\leq t\}\setminus B_{\bar r}} {\left|\nabla{\left(\frac{{\mathcal{E}}_{\bar r}}{t}\right)}\right|}^p dV =t^{1-p}\end{gathered}$$ Since $R$ is $p$-parabolic, it is clear that $ {\operatorname{Cap_p}}(B_{\bar r}, \{{\mathcal{E}}_{\bar r}\leq t\})$ must go to $0$ as $t$ goes to infinity, but this estimate tells us also how fast the convergence is.
What we want to show now is that $p$-parabolic model manifolds admit $p$-Evans potentials relative to any compact set $K$.
Let $R$ be a $p$-parabolic model manifold and $K\subset R$ a $p$-regular compact set. Then there exists an Evans potential $e:R\setminus K \to {\mathbb{R}}^+$ with $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_evp2}
{\operatorname{Cap_p}}(K,\{e<t\})\sim t^{1-p}\end{gathered}$$ as $t$ goes to infinity.
Since $K$ is bounded, there exists $\bar r>0$ such that $K\subset B_{\bar r}$. Let ${\mathcal{E}}_{\bar r}$ be the radial $p$-Evans potential relative to this ball. For any $n>0$, set $A_n=\{{\mathcal{E}}_{\bar r}\leq n\}$ and define the function $e_n$ to be the unique $p$-harmonic function on $A_n\setminus K$ with boundary values $n$ on $\partial A_n$ and $0$ on $\partial K$. An easy application of the comparison principle shows that $e_n\geq {\mathcal{E}}_{\bar r}$ on $A_n\setminus K$, and so the sequence $\{e_n\}$ is increasing. By the Harnack principle, either $e_n$ converges locally uniformly to a harmonic function $e$, or it diverges everywhere to infinity. To exclude the latter, set $m_n$ to be the minumum of $e_n$ on $\partial B_{\bar r}$. By the maximum principle the set $\{0\leq e_n \leq m_n\}$ is contained in the ball $B_{\bar r}$, and using the capacity estimates in \[lemma\_cap\], we get that: $$\begin{gathered}
{\operatorname{Cap_p}}(K,B_{\bar r})\leq {\operatorname{Cap_p}}(K, \{e_n< m_n\})={\operatorname{Cap_p}}(K,\{e_n/n < m_n/n\}) =\\
=\frac{n^{p-1}}{m_n^{p-1}}{\operatorname{Cap_p}}{K, e_n<n} \leq \frac{n^{p-1}}{m_n^{p-1}}{\operatorname{Cap_p}}(B_{\bar r},{\mathcal{E}}_{\bar r}<n)\\
\\
m_n^{p-1} \leq \frac{n^{p-1}{\operatorname{Cap_p}}(B_{\bar r}, \{{\mathcal{E}}_{\bar r}< n\})}{{\operatorname{Cap_p}}(K,B_{\bar r})}<\infty\end{gathered}$$ So the limit function $e=\lim_n e_n$ is a $p$-harmonic function in $R\setminus K$ with $e\geq {\mathcal{E}}_{\bar r}$. Boundary continuity estimates like the one in [@78] (p236) prove that $e|_{\partial K}=0$, but in this case we can use a more simple argument. Let in fact $M$ be the maximum of $e$ on $\partial B_{\bar r}$. Then by the comparison principle, $0\leq e_n\leq M h$ for every $n$, where $h$ is the $p$-harmonic potential of $(K,B_{\bar r})$. The $p$-regularity of $K$ ensures that $h$ is continuous up to the boudary with $h|_{\partial K}=0$, and so the claim is proved.
To prove the estimates on the capacity, consider that by the comparison principle for every $n$ (and so also for the limit) $e_n \leq M+{\mathcal{E}}_{\bar r}$ (where this relation makes sense), so that: $$\begin{gathered}
{\operatorname{Cap_p}}(K,\{e<t\})\leq {\operatorname{Cap_p}}(B_{\bar r},\{e<t\})\leq \\
\leq{\operatorname{Cap_p}}(B_{\bar r}, \{{\mathcal{E}}_{\bar r}<t-M\}) =(t-M)^{1-p}\sim t^{1-p}\end{gathered}$$ For the reverse inequality, we have: $$\begin{gathered}
{\operatorname{Cap_p}}(K, \{e<t\})=\int_{\{e<t\}\setminus K}{\left|\nabla {\left(\frac e t\right)}\right|}^p dV =\int_{\{e<M\}\setminus K} {\left|\nabla {\left(\frac e t\right)}\right|}^p dV + \\
+\int_{\{M<e<t\}} {\left|\nabla {\left(\frac e t\right)}\right|}^p dV ={\left(\frac m t \right)}^p\int_{\{e<M\}\setminus K} {\left|\nabla {\left(\frac e M\right)}\right|}^p dV +\\
+{\left(\frac {t-m}{t}\right)} ^p\int_{\{M<e<t\}} {\left|\nabla {\left(\frac e {t-M}\right)}\right|}^p dV \geq\\
\geq{\left(\frac m t \right)}^p {\operatorname{Cap_p}}(K, \{e<M\})+ {\left(\frac {t-m}{t}\right)} ^p {\operatorname{Cap_p}}{B_{\bar r}, {\mathcal{E}}_{\bar r}}\sim t^{1-p}\end{gathered}$$
We conclude this work with a very simple consideration. Lemma 2.14 in [@8] proves that on the complement of a $p$-regular compact set in a $p$-parabolic Riemannian manifold, there always exists a positive unbounded harmonic function ${\mathcal{E}}'$. On some particular manifolds, every nonnegative $p$-harmonic function has a limit at infinity, and in particular any unbounded function goes to infinity on the ideal boundary of $R$. These shows that the function ${\mathcal{E}}'$ is actually an Evans potential.\
For example, if $R$ is roughly Euclidean or if all of its ends are Harnack ends, then all nonnegative $p$-harmonic functions have a limit at infinity. As references for these particular properties we cite [@8] and [@9], in particular lemma 3.23 in [@9] and paragraph 3 in [@8].
Even though we weren’t able to prove that every $p$-parabolic manifold admit a $p$-Evans potential, the partial proofs of this last section suggest that this is true, or at least that investigating this problem could be interesting.
Note that Evans potentials and in particular estimates like \[eq\_evp\] and \[eq\_evp2\] are useful to study the behaviour of functions on the manifold $R$, as proved in [@1].
[1112]{}
Björn, A.; Björn, J. *Boundary regularity for p-harmonic functions and solutions of the obstacle problem on metric spaces* J. Math. Soc. Japan (2006) vol. 58 n. 4 pp. 1211-1232
Clarkson, J. *Uniformly Convex Spaces* Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, Vol. 40, No. 3 (Dec., 1936), pp. 396-414\
Grigor’yan, A. *Analytic and Geometric Background of Recurrence and non-explosion of the Brownian Motion on Riemannian Manifolds* Bullettin of the american mathematical society
Helms,L. *Potential theory* Springer Universitytext (2009)
Heinonen, J.; Kilpeläinen, T.; Martio, O. *Nonlinear potential theory of degenerate elliptic equations* Dover N.Y., 2006
Holopainen, I. *Nonlinear potential theory and quasiregular mappings on Riemannian manifolds* Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fenicae, Series A, I. Mathematica, Dissertationes n.87 (1990)
Holopainen, I. *Volume growth, Green’s functions, and parabolicity of ends* Duke Math. J. 97 (1999), no. 2, pp. 319–346\
Holopainen, I. *Solutions of elliptic equations on manifolds with roughly Euclidean ends* Math. Z. 217 (1994), no. 3, pp. 459-477\
Khas’minskii, R.Z. *Ergodic properties of recurrent diffusion prossesses and stabilization of solution to the Cauchy problem for parabolic equations* Theor. Prob. Appl., 5 no.2, (1960) 179-195.
Kilpeläinen, T.; Maly, J. *The Wiener test and potential estimates for quasilinear elliptic equations* Acta Math 172 (1994), 137-161\
Kinnunen, J.; Martio, O. *Nonlinear potential theory on metric spaces* Illinois Journal on Mathematics (2002), vol. 46 n. 3 pp. 857-883
Kinderlehrer D., Stampacchia G. *An introduction to variational inequalities and their applications* Accademic Press, Ney York, 1980
Maz’ya, V. *On the continuity at a botmdary point of solutions of quasi-linear elliptic equations* Vestnik Leningrad Univ. 3, 1976, 225-242 (English translation)
Nakai, M. *On Evans’ Potential* Proc. Japan Acad. Vol.38 (1962) pp. 624-629
Petersen, P. *Riemannian Geometry, II ed* Graduate text in mathematics - Springer
Pigola, S.; Rigoli, M.; Setti, A.G. *Some non-linear function theoretic properties of Riemannian manifolds* Revista Matemàtica Iberoamericana, vol. 22 n.3, pp. 801-831
Sario, L.; Nakai, M. *Classification theory of Riemann Surfaces* Springer Verlag (1970)
Tanaka, H. *Harmonic boundaries of Riemannian Manifolds* Nonlinear Analysis, Vol. 14 n.1 pp- 55-67 (1990)
Valtorta, D.; Veronelli, G. *Stokes’ Theorem, Volume Growth and Parabolicity*
[^1]: Special thanks go to my advisor, prof. Alberto Giulio Setti, whose assistence has proven invaluable in writing this paper
[^2]: Note that $\psi_j\in L^{1,p}_0(R)$, in fact for every $j$ $\psi_j=n+1$ in a neighborhood of infinity
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
=1
Introduction
============
Discrete topological field theories – specifically, field theories on piecewise linear (PL) manifolds – are definitely a challenging research subject. As there are now many interesting topological quantum field theories (TQFT’s) in three dimensions, it looks reasonable to concentrate on the four-dimensional case. Such a theory is expected to bring about interesting results both by itself and when compared with the existing theories on smooth manifolds.
As explained, for instance, in [@Lickorish Section 1], it makes sense first to construct algebraic relations corresponding to *Pachner moves*. And the simplest nontrivial relations of such kind arise, as we believe, in *Grassmann algebras*. In three dimensions, a relation corresponding to Pachner move 2–3 is often called *pentagon relation*, and there are some Grassmann-algebraic constructions for pentagon relation, presented, in particular, in paper [@KS]. As we hope to demonstrate here, the four-dimensional case has its own specific beauty; it is more complicated but also yields to systematic investigation.
If we consider an *ansatz* – a (tentative) specific form of quantities or expressions entering in our relations, and consider the relations as equations for the ansatz parameters, and if our ansatz is simple enough, then it may happen that the *existence* of many solutions for such equations follows already from parameter counting.
In this paper, we take the simplest possible form of Grassmann-algebraic relation corresponding to Pachner move 3–3 – with just one Grassmann variable on each 3-face, and further assume that the Grassmann weight of a 4-simplex has the form of a Grassmann–Gaussian exponent, depending on the five variables on the 3-faces. A heuristic parameter count shows that there exists a large – and intriguing – family of relations of such form. We prefer to go further and prove the rigorous Theorem \[th:9c\], formulated in terms of *isotropic linear spaces of Grassmann differential operators* annihilating our Grassmann–Gaussian exponents. In doing so, we not only prove the existence of the 4-simplex weights satisfying the 3–3 relations, but discover some interesting operators (namely, and ) that may deserve further investigation; at least, they have an elegant form (namely, and ) in one specific case.
Having proved our Theorem \[th:9c\], we are naturally led to the problem of finding an *algebraic-topologically meaningful parameterization* of our Grassmann weights, which would enable us to move further and construct topological field theories. In the present paper, we make two steps in this direction by presenting two explicitly – and nicely – parameterized *subfamilies* of such weights, found largely by guess-and-try method. The first subfamily resembles the (more cumbersome) constructions in [@11S; @exo] – both are related to *exotic homologies*. The striking new fact is, however, that this is now only a subfamily of something mysterious, on whose nature only our parameterized second family sheds some additional light.
Some of the results of this paper have first appeared, in a preliminary form, in the preprint [@2-cocycles].
Below,
- in Section \[s:G\], we recall the basic definitions from the theory of Grassmann algebras and Berezin integral,
- in Section \[s:P\], we recall the four-dimensional Pachner moves, mainly moves 3–3 and 2–4 with which we will be dealing in this paper, and introduce some notational conventions,
- in Section \[s:33gen\], we introduce a 3–3 relation for Grassmann 4-simplex weights. First, we do it in a general form, then we specialize the weights to be Grassmann–Gaussian exponents and explain their connection with isotropic spaces of Grassmann differential operators,
- in Section \[s:p\], based on these isotropic spaces, we show the existence of a vast family of 4-simplex weights satisfying the 3–3 relation. The way we do it is constructive; what lacks in it is a parameterization for this whole family relevant for algebraic-topological applications,
- in Section \[s:33spe\], we present two subfamilies of Grassmann 4-simplex weights satisfying the 3–3 relation where such parameterization has been obtained,
- in Section \[s:h\], we do some preparational work in order to expose some exotic-homological structures lying behind the second of the mentioned subfamilies. Namely, we introduce, for a given triangulated four-manifold, a sequence of two linear mappings – supposedly a fragment of an exotic chain complex, prove their chain property (their composition vanishes), and present computational evidence showing that they provide an exotic analogue of usual middle (i.e., second) homologies, and
- in Section \[s:24spe\], guided by the fact that the mentioned exotic-homological structures manifest themselves more clearly for the Pachner move 2–4, we present the relations corresponding to this move, study a new factor – edge weight – appearing in these relations, and then formulate the relations for both moves 3–3 and 2–4 using these exotic-homological terms.
Grassmann algebras and Berezin integral {#s:G}
=======================================
In this paper, a *Grassmann algebra* is an associative algebra over the field $\mathbb C$ of complex numbers, with unity, generators $x_i$ – also called Grassmann variables – and relations $$\begin{gathered}
x_i x_j=-x_j x_i.\end{gathered}$$ This implies that, in particular, $x_i^2 =0$, so each element of a Grassmann algebra is a polynomial of degree $\le 1$ in each $x_i$.
The *degree* of a Grassmann monomial is its total degree in all Grassmann variables. If an algebra element consists of monomials of only odd or only even degrees, it is called *odd* or, respectively, *even*. If all the monomials have degree 2, we call such element a Grassmannian *quadratic form*.
The *exponent* is defined by its usual Taylor series. We call the exponent of a quadratic form *Grassmann–Gaussian exponent*. Here is an example of it: $$\begin{gathered}
\exp(x_1x_2+x_3x_4)=1+x_1x_2+x_3x_4+x_1x_2x_3x_4.\end{gathered}$$
There are two kinds of derivations in a Grassmann algebra: left derivative $\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}$ and right derivative $\frac{\overleftarrow{\partial}}{\partial x_i}$, with respect to a Grassmann variable $x_i$. These are $\mathbb C$-linear operations in Grassmann algebra defined as follows. Let $f$ be an element not containing variable $x_i$, then $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Gd1}
\dfrac{\partial}{\partial x_i}f=f\dfrac{\overleftarrow{\partial}}{\partial x_i}=0,\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Gd2}
\dfrac{\partial}{\partial x_i}(x_if)=f,
\qquad
(fx_i)\dfrac{\overleftarrow{\partial}}{\partial x_i}=f.\end{gathered}$$
From and , the following *Leibniz rules* follow: if $f$ is either even or odd, then $$\begin{gathered}
\label{L}
\dfrac{\partial}{\partial x_i}(fg)=\dfrac{\partial}{\partial x_i}f\cdot g+\epsilon f\dfrac{\partial}
{\partial x_i}g,
\qquad
(gf)\dfrac{\overleftarrow{\partial}}{\partial x_i}=g\cdot f\dfrac{\overleftarrow{\partial}}{\partial x_i}
+\epsilon g\dfrac{\overleftarrow{\partial}}{\partial x_i}f,\end{gathered}$$ where $\epsilon=1$ for an even $f$ and $\epsilon=-1$ for an odd $f$.
The *Grassmann–Berezin calculus* of anticommuting variables is in many respects parallel to the usual calculus, see [@B] and especially [@B-super]. Still, there are some peculiarities, and one of them is that the integral in a Grassmann algebra is the same operation as derivative; more specifically, *Berezin integral* in a variable $x_i$ is defined, traditionally, as the *right* derivative w.r.t. $x_i$. Independently, Berezin integral is defined as follows: it is a $\mathbb C$-linear operator in Grassmann algebra satisfying $$\begin{gathered}
\int\mathrm dx_i=0,
\qquad
\int x_i\,\mathrm dx_i=1,
\qquad
\int gh\,\mathrm dx_i=g\int h\,\mathrm dx_i,\end{gathered}$$ where $g$ does not contain $x_i$. Multiple integral is defined according to the following Fubini rule: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{mB}
\idotsint f\,\mathrm dx_1\,\mathrm dx_2\,\cdots\,\mathrm dx_n=\int\left(\cdots\int\left(\int f\,\mathrm dx_1\right)\mathrm dx_2\cdots\right)\mathrm dx_n .\end{gathered}$$ In “differential” notations, integral is $$\begin{gathered}
\label{dmB}
f\dfrac{\overleftarrow{\partial}}{\partial x_1}\dfrac{\overleftarrow{\partial}}{\partial x_2}
\cdots\dfrac{\overleftarrow{\partial}}{\partial x_n}.\end{gathered}$$
Pachner moves in four dimensions {#s:P}
================================
Pachner moves [@Pachner] are elementary local rebuildings of a manifold triangulation. A triangulation of a PL manifold can be transformed into any other triangulation using a finite sequence of Pachner moves.
In four dimensions, each Pachner move replaces a cluster of 4-simplices with a cluster of some other 4-simplices, occupying the same place in the triangulation and having the same boundary. There are five (types of) Pachner moves in four dimensions: $3\to 3$, $2\leftrightarrow 4$, and $1\leftrightarrow 5$, where the numbers indicate how many 4-simplices have been withdrawn and how many have replaced them. As the withdrawn and the replacing clusters of 4-simplices have the same common boundary, we can glue them together in a natural way (forgetting for a moment about the rest of the manifold); then, for all Pachner moves, they must form together a sphere $S^4$ triangulated in six 4-simplices as the boundary of a 5-simplex, which we denote $\partial \Delta^5$. More details and a pedagogical introduction can be found in [@Lickorish].
More traditional notations for the mentioned moves are 3–3, 2–4, 4–2, 1–5, and 5–1; we will be using these notations as well.
Move 3–3 is, in some informal sense, central: experience shows that if we have managed to find an algebraic formula whose structure can be regarded as reflecting the structure of the move, then we can also find (usually more complicated) formulas corresponding to the other Pachner moves. This may be compared to the three-dimensional case, where the popular “pentagon relation” often corresponds to the “central” three-dimensional Pachner move 2–3, while it is believed that, having done something interesting with this pentagon equation, one will be also able to work with the move 1–4.
We call the initial cluster of 4-simplices in a move the *left-hand side* (l.h.s.) of that move, and the final cluster – its *right-hand side* (r.h.s.). All moves in this paper will involve six vertices denoted $i=1,\dots,6$. Below are some more details.
Move $\boldsymbol{3\to 3}$
--------------------------
It transforms, in the notations used in this paper, the cluster of three 4-simplices 12345, 12346 and 12356 situated around the 2-face 123 into the cluster of three other 4-simplices, 12456, 13456 and 23456, situated around the 2-face 456. The inner 3-faces (tetrahedra) are 1234, 1235 and 1236 in the l.h.s., and 1456, 2456 and 3456 in the r.h.s. The boundary of both sides consists of nine tetrahedra listed below in table .
There are no inner edges (1-faces) or vertices (0-faces) in either side of this move.
Moves $\boldsymbol{2\leftrightarrow 4}$
---------------------------------------
We describe move $2\to 4$; move $4\to 2$ is its inverse. Move $2\to 4$ replaces, in the notations of this paper, the cluster of two 4-simplices 12345 and 12346 with the cluster of four 4-simplices 12356, 12456, 13456 and 23456. The boundary of both sides consists of eight tetrahedra 1235, 1236, 1245, 1246, 1345, 1346, 2345 and 2346.
In the l.h.s., there is one inner tetrahedron 1234, no inner 2-faces and no inner edges.
In the r.h.s., there are six inner tetrahedra 1256, 1356, 1456, 2356, 2456 and 3456, and four inner 2-faces: 156, 256, 356 and 456. It turns out especially important – see Subsection \[ss:w\] – that there *is* one inner edge, namely 56, in the r.h.s.
There are no inner vertices in either side of this move.
Moves $\boldsymbol{1\leftrightarrow 5}$
---------------------------------------
We don’t work with these moves in this paper, so we only indicate that the move $1\to 5$ adds a new vertex $6$ inside the 4-simplex $12345$, thus dividing it into five new 4-simplices. Move $5\to 1$ is, of course, its inverse.
A few conventions
-----------------
Any side of a Pachner move, as well as a single 4-simplex, is a triangulated four-manifold with boundary. In Section \[s:h\], we also consider an arbitrary *orientable* triangulated four-manifold. Here are some our conventions concerning manifolds, their simplices, and also some complex parameters appearing in our theory, like *vertex coordinates* (see Section \[s:33spe\]).
All manifolds in this paper are assumed to be *oriented*. In the case of Pachner moves, the orientation is defined so that, for the 4-simplex 12345, it is given by this order of its vertices.
\[cnv:num\] We denote by $N_k$ the number of $k$-simplices in a triangulation, and by $N'_k$ the number of *inner* $k$-simplices. Vertices are numbered from 1 through $N_0$ (as we have already done for Pachner moves, where $N_0=6$).
When simplices are written in terms of their vertices, these go in the increasing order of their numbers (again, as we have already done).
\[cnv:set\] If the order of vertices is unknown, we use the following notation. Let there be, for instance, a 4-simplex whose set of vertices is $\{i,j,k,l,m\}$, then we denote it, omitting the commas for brevity, as $\{ijklm\}$.
The complex parameters appearing in our theory – to be exact, the eighteen parameters in Section \[s:p\] and vertex coordinates introduced in Section \[s:33spe\] – lie in the *general position* with respect to any considered algebraic formula, unless the opposite is explicitly stated. For instance, there is no division by zero in formula . Moreover, concerning vertex coordinates, all functions of them in this paper are *rational*, so the reader can assume that the coordinates are *indeterminates* over $\mathbb C$ (and we extended $\mathbb
C$ to the relevant field of rational functions).
Relation 3–3 with Grassmann–Gaussian exponents:\
generalities {#s:33gen}
================================================
The form of relation 3–3
------------------------
The Grassmann-algebraic Pachner move relations for move 3–3, considered in this paper, have the following general form: $$\begin{gathered}
\iiint\mathcal W_{12345}\mathcal W_{12346}\mathcal W_{12356}\,\mathrm dx_{1234}\,\mathrm dx_{1235}
\,\mathrm dx_{1236}
\nonumber
\\
\qquad
{}=\mathrm{const}\iiint\mathcal W_{12456}\mathcal W_{13456}\mathcal W_{23456}\,\mathrm dx_{1456}
\,\mathrm dx_{2456}\,\mathrm dx_{3456}.
\label{33}\end{gathered}$$ Here Grassmann variables $x_{ijkl}$ are attached to all 3-faces, i.e., tetrahedra $t=ijkl$; the *Grassmann weight* $\mathcal W_{ijklm}$ of a 4-simplex $u=ijklm$ depends on (i.e., contains) the variables on its 3-faces, e.g., $\mathcal W_{12345}$ depends on $x_{1234}$, $x_{1235}$, $x_{1245}$, $x_{1345}$ and $x_{2345}$. Also, $\mathcal W_u$ may depend on parameters attached to the 4-simplex $u$ or/and its subsimplices. The integration goes in variables on *inner* three-faces in the corresponding side of Pachner move, while the result depends on the variables on boundary faces. Finally, $\mathrm{const}$ in the right-hand side is a numeric factor.
Formula appears to give the simplest possible form for a Grassmann-algebraic relation imitating the 3–3 move.
We expect formula to be the first step in constructing a fermionic topological field theory, based on our previous experience. As yet, the most detailed construction of such kind can be found in paper [@0806], although for a three-dimensional case and a simpler theory. Note especially
- the analogy between either side of and [@0806 formula (10)] describing what happens when we glue together manifolds with boundary,
- also the analogy between either side of if the $\mathcal W_u$ are as in formula below, and [@0806 formula (8)] for a multi-component fermionic state-sum invariant of a manifold with boundary,
- and the discussion in [@0806 Section 5] of the modification of Atiyah’s TQFT axioms for anti-commuting variables.
As an example of a more heavyweight relation corresponding to the same Pachner move 3–3, we can cite [@11S formula (38)], where, in particular, *two* Grassmann variables live on each tetrahedron.
Further simplification is achieved by using *Grassmann–Gaussian exponents* (which corresponds to *free fermions* in physical language) and assuming that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{gg}
\mathcal W_u=\exp\left(\frac{1}{2}\sum_{t_1,t_2\subset u}\alpha_{t_1t_2}^{(u)}x_{t_1}x_{t_2}\right),\end{gathered}$$ where $t_1$ and $t_2$ are two 3-faces of $u$, and $\alpha_{t_1t_2}^{(u)}\in\mathbb C$ are numeric coefficients, with the antisymmetry condition $$\begin{gathered}
\label{as}
\alpha_{t_1t_2}^{(u)}=-\alpha_{t_2t_1}^{(u)}.\end{gathered}$$ We hope to demonstrate in this paper that the relation is interesting already in the case of such exponents.
Isotropic subspaces of operators
--------------------------------
The exponent is characterized, up to a factor that does not depend on those $x_t$ that enter in it, by the equations $$\begin{gathered}
\label{dandx}
\left(\partial_t-\sum_{t'\subset u}\alpha_{tt'}^{(u)}x_{t'}\right)\mathcal W_u=0
\qquad
\text{for all}
\quad
t\subset u,\end{gathered}$$ where we denote $\partial_t = \partial / \partial x_t$. Generalizing the operators in the big parentheses in , we consider $\mathbb C$-linear combinations of operators of left differentiations and multiplying by Grassmann generators: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{bg}
d=\sum_t(\beta_t\partial_t+\gamma_tx_t),\end{gathered}$$ where $t$ runs over all 3-faces in a given triangulated manifold.
\[r:PWZ\] We are going to apply differential equations like to analysing the integral identity . Such kind of analysis is a well known and widely used tool, especially in the bosonic context. For example, holonomic and $q$-holonomic functions are studied via the difference/differential equations they satisfy, see [@Bjork; @Cartier; @PWZ].
We regard the anticommutator of two operators (defined as $[A,B]_+=AB+BA$ for operators $A$ and $B$) as their *scalar product*: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{sc}
\big\langle d^{(1)},d^{(2)}\big\rangle\stackrel{\rm def}{=}\big[d^{(1)},d^{(2)}\big]_+
=\sum_t\Big(\beta_t^{(1)}\gamma_t^{(2)}+\beta_t^{(2)}\gamma_t^{(1)}\Big).\end{gathered}$$ With this scalar product, operators form a *complex Euclidean space*, while all polynomials of these operators form a *Clifford algebra*.
Recall that an *isotropic*, or *totally singular*, subspace of a complex Euclidean space $\mathbb
C^{2n}$ is such linear subspace where the scalar product identically vanishes. We will need some basic facts about isotropic subspaces; for the reader’s convenience, we formulate them as the following Theorem \[th:iso\] and give it a simple proof. Much more interesting facts about Clifford algebras and isotropic subspaces in Euclidean spaces can be found, e.g., in [@C].
\[th:iso\] Maximal isotropic spaces in complex Euclidean space $\mathbb C^{2n}$ have dimension $n$. The manifold of these maximal isotropic spaces – isotropic Grassmannian – splits up in two connected components.
The first statement is an easy exercise. The second can be proved as follows. Let $V\subset \mathbb C^{2n}$ be a maximal isotropic subspace. For a *generic* orthonormal basis $\mathsf e_1,\dots,\mathsf e_{2n}$, the orthogonal projection of $V$ onto the space $W$ spanned by the first half of basis vectors, i.e., $\mathsf e_1,\dots,\mathsf e_n$, coincides with the whole $W$. Also, considering the manifold $B$ of orthonormal bases, it has two connected components (the determinant of transition matrix is $1$ within a component, and $-1$ between the components), and the same components remain in $B\setminus S$ – the result of taking away the set $S$ of non-generic (in the sense indicated above) bases: the components cannot split any further, because $S$ has complex codimension $\ge 1$ and thus real codimension $\ge 2$. Taking some liberty, we call, in this proof, the components of $B$ *orientations* of $\mathbb C^{2n}$.
We prefer to arrange basis vectors in a column, and vector coordinates in a row; so, an arbitrary vector in $\mathbb C^{2n}$ is written like $
\begin{pmatrix}
\alpha_1 & \dots & \alpha_n
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\mathsf e_1
\\
\vdots
\\
\mathsf e_{2n}
\end{pmatrix}
$, and vectors in $\mathbb C^{2n}$ are identified with row vectors if a basis is given. For a space $V$ and basis $\mathsf e_1,\dots,\mathsf e_{2n}$ such as in the previous paragraph, we can represent $V$ as the linear span of the rows of the following matrix: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{1o}
\begin{pmatrix}
\mathbf1_n&\mathrm i O
\end{pmatrix}
,\end{gathered}$$ where $\mathbf 1_n$ is the identity matrix and $O$ is an orthogonal matrix, both of sizes $n\times n$, and $\mathrm i=\sqrt{-1}$. The determinant of $O$ is either $1$ or $-1$, and its sign obviously cannot change within one component of $B\setminus S$. So, given a fixed orientation of $\mathbb C^{2n}$ and a maximal isotropic space $V$, we get either $1$ or $-1$ as $\det O$.
It remains to prove that there is no further splitting between maximal isotropic spaces. Consider two such spaces, $V_1$ and $V_2$. There exists a generic, in the above sense, basis $\mathsf e_1,\dots,\mathsf e_{2n}$ for *both* of them. Using this basis, $V_1$ and $V_2$ can be written in terms of matrices , and the corresponding orthogonal matrices $O_1$ and $O_2$ belong to the same connected component in the space of orthogonal matrices.
\[th:5\]
1. \[th:5:i\] For a given weight $\mathcal W_u$ of the form , the operators $d$ satisfying equation $$\begin{gathered}
\label{dWu}
d\mathcal W_u=0\end{gathered}$$ form a five-dimensional isotropic linear space.
2. \[th:5:ii\] For the set of equations corresponding to a five-dimensional isotropic space $V$ of operators with $t$ running over the five $3$-faces of a $4$-simplex $u$, there exists a nonzero Grassmann algebra element $\mathcal W_u$, containing only the Grassmann generators $x_t$ and satisfying all these equations. This $\mathcal W_u$ is determined by these equations uniquely up to a numeric factor.
3. \[th:5:iii\] The element $\mathcal W_u$ from item $\ref{th:5:ii}$ is even for one connected component of the set of five-dimensional isotropic spaces $V$, and odd for the other. In the first case, it is, for a generic $V$, a Grassmann–Gaussian exponent .
(i) Five such linearly independent equations are already written in . It follows from the antisymmetry of coefficients $\alpha_{tt'}$ that any two operators $d$ written in the big parentheses in anticommute (including the case where they coincide). This means that the scalar product vanishes.
(ii) We denote the ten-dimensional Euclidean space of all operators , where $t\subset
u$, simply as $\mathbb C^{10}$. There exists an orthogonal transform $O$ of $\mathbb C^{10}$ sending $V$ into the subspace generated by the five $\frac{\partial}{\partial x_t}$, and to $O$ corresponds, according to the general theory, a $\mathbb
C$-linear automorphism $B$ of the Grassmann algebra such that $$\begin{gathered}
O\mathsf y=B\mathsf y B^{-1}
\qquad
\text{for}
\quad
\mathsf y\in\mathbb C^{10}.\end{gathered}$$ As $\frac{\partial}{\partial x_t}1=0$ for all five $t$, it follows that $\mathcal W_u = B^{-1} 1$ is annihilated by all operators in $V$. On the other hand, if there were two linearly independent $\mathcal W_u$ annihilated by all operators in $V$, it would follow that the two corresponding algebra elements $B \mathcal W_u$ would be annihilated by all five $\frac{\partial}{\partial x_t}$, but this holds only for the one-dimensional space of constants.
(iii) A Zariski open set of even elements $\mathcal W_u$ is already provided, and it consists of Grassmann–Gaussian exponents . A similar Zariski open set of odd elements $\mathcal W_u$ can be described as follows. Take any *odd* number of indices $t$ and make the interchange $\partial_t\leftrightarrow x_t$ in the equations *for these $t$*. An easy exercise shows that, for a given antisymmetric matrix $\alpha_{tt'}^{(u)}$, the operators in the left-hand sides of the resulting equations span an isotropic subspace, and annihilate a one-dimensional space of *odd* $\mathcal W_u$’s. Now take, for every $\alpha_{tt'}^{(u)}$, those $\mathcal W_u$ that satisfy the resulting equations.
For instance, we can make the mentioned interchange for all $n=5$ indices $t$, so that the $\mathcal W_u$’s in the resulting set will satisfy equations $$\begin{gathered}
\left(x_t-\sum_{t'\subset u}\alpha_{tt'}^{(u)}\partial_{t'}\right)\mathcal W_u=0
\qquad
\text{for all}
\quad
t\subset u.\tag*{\qed}\end{gathered}$$
\[th:9\]
1. \[th:9:i\] For weights $\mathcal W$ of the form , both sides of satisfy $9$-dimensional spaces of isotropic equations, i.e., equations $$\begin{gathered}
d(\text{l.h.s.})=0
\qquad
\text{and}
\qquad
d(\text{r.h.s.})=0\end{gathered}$$ where in both cases the relevant operators $d$ form a $9$-dimensional isotropic space.
2. \[th:9:ii\] Such $9$-dimensional space of isotropic equations determines the l.h.s. or r.h.s. of up to a numeric factor, if it is also assumed that this l.h.s. or r.h.s. depends only on Grassmann variables on the boundary $3$-faces, as explained after formula .
(i) First, we consider the integrand $\mathfrak W = \mathcal W_{12345}\mathcal W_{12346}\mathcal
W_{12356}$ for the l.h.s. or $\mathfrak W = \mathcal W_{12456}\mathcal W_{13456}\mathcal W_{23456}$ for the r.h.s. It satisfies a 12-dimensional isotropic space of equations of the form $$\begin{gathered}
\partial_t\mathfrak W=\sum_{t'}\gamma_{t'}x_{t'}\mathfrak W\end{gathered}$$ for each boundary or inner tetrahedron $t$; these equations follow from equations for individual weights and the first Leibniz rule in . Next, if $t$ is an inner tetrahedron and if some operator $\sum\limits_{t'} (\beta_{t'}\partial_{t'} +
\gamma_{t'}x_{t'})$ anticommutes with the differentiation $\partial_t$ – that is, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{gt}
\gamma_t=0\end{gathered}$$ in the sum – and if also $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{t'}(\beta_{t'}\partial_{t'}+\gamma_{t'}x_{t'})\mathfrak W=0,\end{gathered}$$ then $\partial_t \mathfrak W$ satisfies a similar equation, from which $\partial_t$ and $x_t$ are absent, namely $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{t'\ne t}(\beta_{t'}\partial_{t'}+\gamma_{t'}x_{t'})(\partial_t\mathfrak W)=-\partial_t\sum_{t'}
(\beta_{t'}\partial_{t'}+\gamma_{t'}x_{t'})\mathfrak W=0,\end{gathered}$$ and it is not hard to see that $\int \mathfrak W \,\mathrm dx_t$ – the right derivative – satisfies the same equation.
Due to condition , now there remains, at least, an 11-dimensional isotropic space of equations instead of the 12-dimensional. Proceeding this way further with the two remaining inner tetrahedra $t$, we get, at least, a 9-dimensional space of equations. As an isotropic subspace in a 18-dimensional complex Euclidean space (nine boundary tetrahedra $t$, operators $\partial_t$ and $x_t$ for each of them) cannot be more than 9-dimensional, it is exactly 9-dimensional.
(ii) This is proved in full analogy with similar statement in item \[th:5:ii\] in Theorem \[th:5\].
\[r:parity\] This time, each side of is easily shown to be an *odd* element – namely, of Grassmann degree 3, and this determines the connected component in the manifold of maximal isotropic subspaces where our subspaces belong. This will be important for the construction in Section \[s:p\], see Remark \[r:+\].
A large family of Grassmann–Gaussian weights\
satisfying relation 3–3 {#s:p}
=============================================
In this section, we construct a 18-parameter family of Grassmann weights depending on the variables $x_{ijkl}$ on the boundary tetrahedra of either l.h.s. or r.h.s. of Pachner move 3–3 and such that a weight in this family can be represented as *both* the l.h.s. and r.h.s. of , with all the 4-simplex weights $\mathcal W_{ijklm}$ having the form . Although the search for an *algebraic-topologically meaningful* parameterization for these weights is still in progress, the very existence of such family is already of interest; moreover, some properties of these weights can be seen already from the parameterization given below.
Heuristic parameter count
-------------------------
Before presenting our construction below in Subsection \[ss:rig\], we would like to explain it heuristically, using parameter counting. For a single 4-simplex, the corresponding isotropic space of operators, spanned by the operators in big parentheses in , depends on 10 parameters. When we compose the l.h.s. or r.h.s. of (not yet demanding that l.h.s. be equal to r.h.s.), there are thus 30 parameters. Three of them are, however, redundant, because of the possible scalings of variables $x_t$ on three *inner* tetrahedra $t$ – it is easily seen that such scalings may only multiply the considered integrals by a numeric factor. So, we have $3\times 10 - 3 = 27$ essential parameters in each side of .
On the other hand, a 9-dimensional isotropic subspace in an 18-dimensional complex Euclidean space is determined by 36 parameters. So, requiring this equalness, we subtract 36 parameters and are left with $2\times 27 - 36 = 18$ parameters.
Rigorous construction {#ss:rig}
---------------------
There are nine boundary tetrahedra in the l.h.s. or r.h.s. of Pachner move 3–3. We see it convenient to arrange them in the following table, where also 4-simplices are indicated by small numbers to which the tetrahedra belong: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{table}
\begin{array}{@{}c|ccc}
&\scriptstyle12456&\scriptstyle13456&\scriptstyle23456\\
\hline
\scriptstyle12345&1245&1345&2345\\
\scriptstyle12346&1246&1346&2346\\
\scriptstyle12356&1256&1356&2356
\end{array}\end{gathered}$$ Thus, the tetrahedra in every row correspond to a 4-simplex in the l.h.s., and the tetrahedra in every column correspond to a 4-simplex in the r.h.s. of the move.
First, we introduce nine nonvanishing parameters $\varkappa_t\in \mathbb C$ for all tetrahedra $t=ijkl$ in the table, and then eighteen *orthonormal* vectors-operators – a pair $$\begin{gathered}
\mathsf e_t=\frac{1}{\varkappa_t}\frac{\partial}{\partial x_t}+\varkappa_t x_t,
\qquad
\mathsf f_t=\mathrm i\left(\frac{1}{\varkappa_t}\frac{\partial}{\partial x_t}-\varkappa_t x_t\right)\end{gathered}$$ for each $t$; here $$\begin{gathered}
\mathrm i=\sqrt{-1}.\end{gathered}$$ Then, we introduce six more parameters: $\lambda_u$ for each table row, and $\mu_u$ for each table column, where $u=ijklm$ is the corresponding 4-simplex. With these parameters, we construct the following six *isotropic and mutually orthogonal* vectors: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{g}
\mathsf g_{ijklm}=\mathsf e_{ijlm}+\mathrm i\cos\lambda_{ijklm}\,\mathsf e_{iklm}
+\mathrm i\sin\lambda_{ijklm}\,\mathsf e_{jklm}\end{gathered}$$ for the table rows, and $$\begin{gathered}
\label{h}
\mathsf h_{ijklm}=\mathsf f_{ijkl}+\mathrm i\cos\mu_{ijklm}\,\mathsf f_{ijkm}+\mathrm i\sin\mu_{ijklm}
\,\mathsf f_{ijlm}\end{gathered}$$ for the table columns.
Next, we bring into consideration six more unit vectors, orthogonal to each other and to all $\mathsf g_u$ and $\mathsf h_u$: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{p}
\mathsf p_{ijklm}=\sin\lambda_{ijklm}\,\mathsf e_{iklm}-\cos\lambda_{ijklm}\,\mathsf e_{jklm}\end{gathered}$$ for each row and $$\begin{gathered}
\label{q}
\mathsf q_{ijklm}=\sin\mu_{ijklm}\,\mathsf f_{ijkm}-\cos\mu_{ijklm}\,\mathsf f_{ijlm}\end{gathered}$$ for each column, and an orthogonal $3\times 3$ matrix $$\begin{gathered}
A=
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos\psi&\sin\psi&0
\\
-\sin\psi&\cos\psi&0
\\
0&0&1
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
1&0&0
\\
0&\cos\psi'&\sin\psi'
\\
0&-\sin\psi'&\cos\psi'
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos\psi''&\sin\psi''&0
\\
-\sin\psi''&\cos\psi''&0
\\
0&0&1
\end{pmatrix},\end{gathered}$$ where $\psi$, $\psi'$ and $\psi''$ – Euler angles for $A$ – are our three remaining parameters. With these vectors and matrix, we construct isotropic, and orthogonal to each other as well as to all $\mathsf g_u$ and $\mathsf h_u$, vectors $\mathsf r$, $\mathsf s$ and $\mathsf t$. It is convenient for us to arrange these vectors in a column, and we define them as follows: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{rst}
\begin{pmatrix}
\mathsf r
\\
\mathsf s
\\
\mathsf t
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
\mathsf p_{12345}
\\
\mathsf p_{12346}
\\
\mathsf p_{12356}
\end{pmatrix}
+\mathrm i A
\begin{pmatrix}
\mathsf q_{12456}
\\
\mathsf q_{13456}
\\
\mathsf q_{23456}
\end{pmatrix}.\end{gathered}$$
\[r:+\] The plus sign before the second term in cannot be changed to minus without making change(s) elsewhere in our construction. As a direct calculation shows, this sign ensures that the isotropic space spanned by vectors $\mathsf g_u$, $\mathsf h_u$, $\mathsf r$, $\mathsf s$ and $\mathsf t$ (see item \[th:9c:i\] below in Theorem \[th:9c\]) belongs to the desired connected component, according to Remark \[r:parity\].
\[th:9c\]
1. \[th:9c:i\] The linear space $\mathfrak V$ spanned by vectors $\mathsf g_{12345}$, $\mathsf g_{12346}$, $\mathsf
g_{12356}$, $\mathsf h_{12456}$, $\mathsf h_{13456}$, $\mathsf h_{23456}$, $\mathsf r$, $\mathsf s$ and $\mathsf t$ is $9$-dimensional isotropic – a maximal isotropic subspace in the $18$-dimensional space of operators for tetrahedra $t$ in the table .
2. \[th:9c:ii\] The $18$ parameters $\varkappa_t$, $\lambda_u$, $\mu_u$, $\psi$, $\psi'$ and $\psi''$, used in our construction, are independent: the Jacobian matrix of the mapping from the space of these parameters to the Grassmannian $($which consists of $9$-dimensional subspaces in the mentioned $18$-dimensional linear space$)$ has rank $18$ in a generic point.
3. \[th:9c:iii\] For generic parameters, $\mathfrak V$ is such that there exist such weights $\mathcal W_u$ of the form for all $4$-simplices in the l.h.s. and r.h.s. of that both sides of are turned into zero by all operators in $\mathfrak V$.
(i) This follows directly from our construction.
(ii) This is shown by a direct calculation (enough to find that rank is 18 for some specific values of parameters).
(iii) We begin with considering the four vectors $\mathsf g_{12346}$, $\mathsf g_{12356}$, $\mathsf s$ and $\mathsf t$, see and . They are linearly independent, and their expansions in terms of the basis vectors $\mathsf e_t$ and $\mathsf f_t$ have zero coefficients if $t$ belongs to the first row of table ; we visualize this fact by saying that our four vectors have the form [$
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0
\\
\ast & \ast & \ast
\\
\ast & \ast & \ast
\end{pmatrix}
{}$]{}. Moreover, $\mathsf g_{12346}$ and $\mathsf g_{12356}$ have the forms [$
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0
\\
\ast & \ast & \ast
\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
{}$]{} and [$
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0
\\
0 & 0 & 0
\\
\ast & \ast & \ast
\end{pmatrix}
{}$]{}; in this proof, we call vectors of such forms *second-row* and *third-row* vectors, respectively.
Next, we consider the orthogonal projections of linear combinations $\sigma\mathsf s+\tau\mathsf t$ (where $\sigma,\tau\in\mathbb C$) onto the space of third-row vectors. There exist two such linear combinations $$\begin{gathered}
\label{1236dx}
\sigma_d\mathsf s+\tau_d\mathsf t
\qquad
\text{and}
\qquad
\sigma_x\mathsf s+\tau_x\mathsf t\end{gathered}$$ whose projections, called $\mathsf d_{1236}^{(12356)}$ and $\mathsf x_{1236}^{(12356)}$ (where the 4-simplex $12356$ corresponds to the third row, and the *inner* tetrahedron $1236$ is common for it and the “second-row” 4-simplex $12346$), satisfy $$\begin{gathered}
\Big\langle\mathsf d_{1236}^{(12356)},\,\mathsf d_{1236}^{(12356)}\Big\rangle
=\Big\langle\mathsf x_{1236}^{(12356)},\,\mathsf x_{1236}^{(12356)}\Big\rangle=0,
\qquad
\Big\langle\mathsf d_{1236}^{(12356)},\,\mathsf x_{1236}^{(12356)}\Big\rangle=1.\end{gathered}$$ As $\mathsf s$ and $\mathsf t$ lie in an isotropic subspace, this means also that the projections $\mathsf
d_{1236}^{(12346)}$ and $\mathsf x_{1236}^{(12346)}$ of the same vectors onto the space of *second*-row vectors satisfy $$\begin{gathered}
\Big\langle\mathsf d_{1236}^{(12346)},\,\mathsf d_{1236}^{(12346)}\Big\rangle
=\Big\langle\mathsf x_{1236}^{(12346)},\,\mathsf x_{1236}^{(12346)}\Big\rangle=0,
\qquad
\Big\langle\mathsf d_{1236}^{(12346)},\,\mathsf x_{1236}^{(12346)}\Big\rangle=-1.\end{gathered}$$
Now the three operators $$\begin{gathered}
\label{1236(5)}
\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{1236}}+\mathsf d_{1236}^{(12356)},
\qquad
x_{1236}-\mathsf x_{1236}^{(12356)}
\qquad
\text{and}
\qquad
\mathsf g_{12356}\end{gathered}$$ span a three-dimensional isotropic subspace in the (10-dimensional) space of operators for which $t\in \partial(12356)$ (boundary of the 4-simplex $12356$), while the three operators $$\begin{gathered}
\label{1236(4)}
\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{1236}}+\mathsf d_{1236}^{(12346)},
\qquad
x_{1236}+\mathsf x_{1236}^{(12346)}
\qquad
\text{and}
\qquad
\mathsf g_{12346}\end{gathered}$$ span a three-dimensional isotropic subspace in the space of operators for which $t\in
\partial(12346)$.
To move further, we note that our space $\mathfrak V$ depends on the vectors $\mathsf p_u$ and $\mathsf
q_u$ only modulo the six vectors $\mathsf g_u$ and $\mathsf h_u$: the definitions and can be changed by adding any linear combinations of $\mathsf g_u$’s and $\mathsf h_u$’s to their right-hand sides, and this does not affect $\mathfrak V$. In particular, this means that each $\mathsf q_u$ can be changed to a linear combination of itself and $\mathsf h_u$ (with the same $u=ijklm$) in such two ways that all the new $\mathsf q_u$’s will fit into the pattern [$
\begin{pmatrix}
\ast & \ast & \ast
\\
\ast & \ast & \ast
\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
{}$]{} in the first case, and [$
\begin{pmatrix}
\ast & \ast & \ast
\\
0 & 0 & 0
\\
\ast & \ast & \ast
\end{pmatrix}
$]{} in the second case. Then, in full analogy with what we have already done, we obtain the analogues of operators and for the two remaining inner tetrahedra (namely, $1234$ and $1235$, respectively, instead of $1236$) in the l.h.s. of the move 3–3 and their adjoining 4-simplices.
As a result, we get a five-dimensional isotropic space of operators for a 4-simplex in the l.h.s. For instance, for $12356$, it is spanned by the operators and also $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{1235}}+\mathsf d_{1235}^{(12356)}
\qquad
\text{and}
\qquad
x_{1235}+\mathsf x_{1235}^{(12356)}\end{gathered}$$ (the signs before $\mathsf x_t^{(u)}$ must be different for the two 4-simplices $u$ containing the tetrahedron $t$).
Of course, the five-dimensional isotropic space of operators can be found in a similar way also for the 4-simplices in the r.h.s. of our Pachner move. Then we define the weights $\mathcal W_u$ for all the six 4-simplices as satisfying each the corresponding five equations, according to item \[th:5:ii\] in Theorem \[th:5\], and (see the proof of item \[th:9:ii\] in Theorem \[th:9\]) the relation does hold.
What remains is to show that the above construction can be performed in such way that we get *even* Grassmann elements – exponents (see item \[th:5:iii\] in Theorem \[th:5\]) as our weights $\mathcal W_u$. We think that the easiest way to do this is to refer to the nontrivial example given below in Subsection \[ss:tan\], where the weights have the form , and the construction of isotropic spaces mentioned in this proof works well; then it is extended to the general case by continuity. So, to within this example, Theorem \[th:9c\] is proven.
Two explicit constructions of parameterized weights\
satisfying relation 3–3 {#s:33spe}
====================================================
The first construction, given in Subsection \[ss:tan\], is a particular case of the construction in the previous Section \[s:p\]. It depends on five (six, one of which is redundant) parameters – so, the nature of remaining $18-5=13$ parameters is still mysterious. Note that the rank of matrix $\big(\alpha_{t_1t_2}^{(u)}\big)$ (compare formula with , and ) is 4 for this construction, as is the rank of a generic antisymmetric $5\times 5$ matrix, hence this rank is also 4 in the general case of Section \[s:p\].
The second construction, given in Subsection \[ss:mh\], is probably a *limiting* case of the construction in Section \[s:p\], because here $\operatorname{rank}(\alpha_{t_1t_2}^{(u)}) = 2$. Despite this kind of degeneracy, the second construction exhibits extremely interesting relations to exotic homologies, studied in Sections \[s:h\] and \[s:24spe\].
Some formulas common for the two constructions
----------------------------------------------
We are going to present, in Subsections \[ss:tan\] and \[ss:mh\], two explicit constructions of nicely parameterized Grassmann four-simplex weights $\mathcal W_{ijklm}$ of the form , satisfying the 3–3 algebraic relation . In this subsection, we write out some formulas that belong to both of them.
First, in both cases a quantity $\varphi_{ijk}$ is introduced for each 2-face $ijk$. These $\varphi_{ijk}$ enter both in the expressions for weights and in the multiplier $\mathrm{const}$ in . To be more exact, our relations here look as follows: $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{1}{\varphi_{123}}\iiint\mathcal W_{12345}\mathcal W_{12346}\mathcal W_{12356}\,\mathrm dx_{1234}
\,\mathrm dx_{1235}\,\mathrm dx_{1236}
\nonumber
\\
\qquad
{}=-\frac{1}{\varphi_{456}}\iiint\mathcal W_{12456}\mathcal W_{13456}\mathcal W_{23456}\,\mathrm dx_{1456}
\,\mathrm dx_{2456}\,\mathrm dx_{3456}.
\label{33'}\end{gathered}$$
Second, the following Grassmannian quadratic form is used in both cases. For a 4-simplex $u=ijklm$, let $abc$ be its 2-face, and $d_1<d_2$ – two remaining vertices. We put $$\begin{gathered}
\Phi_{ijklm}=\sum_{\substack{\text{ over 2-faces }abc
\\[.3ex]
\text{ of }ijklm}}\epsilon_{d_1abcd_2}\,\varphi_{abc}\,x_{\{abcd_1\}}x_{\{abcd_2\}},
\label{Phi}\end{gathered}$$ where $\epsilon_{d_1abcd_2}=1$ if the order $d_1abcd_2$ of vertices determines the orientation of $ijklm$ induced by the fixed orientation of the manifold – l.h.s. or r.h.s. of a Pachner move in our case – and $\epsilon_{d_1abcd_2}=-1$ otherwise. Recall also Convention \[cnv:set\] concerning the curly brackets in the subscripts in .
In practical calculations, we use formula $$\begin{gathered}
\epsilon_{d_1abcd_2}=p_{ijklm}\epsilon_{d_1abcd_2}^{ijklm},\end{gathered}$$ where $p_{ijklm}$ reflects the consistent orientation of 4-simplices. Namely, for the simplices in the l.h.s. of move 3–3, $p_{12345}=-p_{12346}=p_{23456}=1$, and for the simplices in the r.h.s. $p_{12456}=-p_{13456}=p_{23456}=1$. As for $\epsilon_{d_1abcd_2}^{ijklm}$, it is the sign of permutation between the sequences of its subscripts and superscripts.
First family of weights {#ss:tan}
-----------------------
Let a complex number $\xi_i$ be put in correspondence to every vertex $i=1,\dots,6$. We call these numbers *vertex coordinates*. Then we define $\varphi_{ijk}$ as follows: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{tg}
\varphi_{ijk}=\frac{\xi_i-\xi_j}{1+\xi_i\xi_j}\cdot\frac{\xi_j-\xi_k}{1+\xi_j\xi_k}\cdot\frac{\xi_k-\xi_i}
{1+\xi_k\xi_i},\end{gathered}$$ then $\Phi_{ijklm}$ according to , and then the weight $\mathcal W_{ijklm}$ as the following Grassmann–Gaussian exponent: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{exp}
\mathcal W_{ijklm}=\exp\Phi_{ijklm}.\end{gathered}$$
These formulas for weights first appeared in [@2-cocycles Appendix].
The weights $\mathcal W_{ijklm}$ with $\varphi_{ijk}$ defined according to satisfy the relation .
Direct computer calculation.
Direct calculations show that the isotropic spaces of operators for the weights introduced in this Subsection fit well into the scheme of Section \[s:p\]. We think that this subject of isotropic spaces for 4-simplex weights deserves a detailed study in further works; right here we write out, just for illustration, the elegant explicit formulas for one $\mathsf g_u$ and one $\mathsf h_u$ (and, looking at them, it will not be hard to guess the formulas for other $\mathsf
g_u$ and $\mathsf h_u$). First, introduce the following auxiliary quantities: $$\begin{gathered}
r_{ijkl}
=\frac{(\xi_i\xi_j+1)(\xi_k\xi_l+1)(\xi_i\xi_j\xi_k\xi_l-\xi_k\xi_l+\xi_j\xi_l+\xi_i\xi_l+\xi_j\xi_k+\xi_i\xi_k-\xi_i\xi_j+1)}{(\xi_k-\xi_i)(\xi_k-\xi_j)(\xi_l-\xi_i)(\xi_l-\xi_j)},
\\
s_{ijkl}
=-\frac{(\xi_j-\xi_i)(\xi_l-\xi_k)(\xi_j\xi_k\xi_l+\xi_i\xi_k\xi_l-\xi_i\xi_j\xi_l-\xi_i\xi_j\xi_k+\xi_l+\xi_k-\xi_j-\xi_i)}{(\xi_i\xi_k+1)(\xi_j\xi_k+1)(\xi_i\xi_l+1)(\xi_j\xi_l+1)}.\end{gathered}$$ Then, $\mathsf g_{12345}$ is proportional to the following vector: $$\begin{gathered}
\mathsf g_{12345} \propto r_{1245}\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{1245}}+s_{1245}x_{1245}+r_{1345}
\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{1345}}-s_{1345}x_{1345}
\nonumber
\\
\hphantom{\mathsf g_{12345} \propto}{}
+r_{2345}\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{2345}}+s_{2345}x_{2345},
\label{g1}\end{gathered}$$ and $\mathsf h_{12456}$ is proportional to the following vector: $$\begin{gathered}
\mathsf h_{12456} \propto r_{1245}\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{1245}}-s_{1245}x_{1245}+r_{1246}
\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{1246}}+s_{1246}x_{1246}
\nonumber
\\
\hphantom{\mathsf h_{12456} \propto}{}
+r_{1256}\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{1256}}-s_{1256}x_{1256}.
\label{h1}\end{gathered}$$
Second family of weights {#ss:mh}
------------------------
This time, let each vertex $i$ have *three* complex coordinates $\xi_i$, $\eta_i$, $\zeta_i$ over field $\mathbb C$. We define $\varphi_{ijk}$ as the following determinant: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{phi}
\varphi_{ijk}=\left|
\begin{matrix}
\xi_i&\xi_j&\xi_k
\\
\eta_i&\eta_j&\eta_k
\\
\zeta_i&\zeta_j&\zeta_k
\end{matrix}
\right|.\end{gathered}$$
Then we define the quantity $$\begin{gathered}
\label{h33}
h_{ijklm}=\alpha\xi_n+\beta\eta_n+\gamma\zeta_n,\end{gathered}$$ where $\alpha,\beta,\gamma \in \mathbb C$, and $n \in \{1,\dots, 6\}$ is the number *missing* in the set $\{i,j,k,l,m\}$.
Finally, we define the 4-simplex weight $\mathcal W_{ijklm}$ as follows: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{hPhi}
\mathcal W_{ijklm}=h_{ijklm}+\Phi_{ijklm}.\end{gathered}$$
The weight is a Grassmann–Gaussian exponent: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{he}
\mathcal W_{ijklm}=h_{ijklm}\exp(\Phi_{ijklm}/h_{ijklm}).\end{gathered}$$
A direct calculation shows that the form $\Phi_{ijklm}$ has now rank 2. So, the Grassmann exponent in cannot include terms of degree${}>2$, and the terms of degree${}\le 2$ are exactly as in .
\[th:33\] The weights $\mathcal W_{ijklm}$ defined in this Subsection satisfy the $3$–$3$ relation .
Direct calculation. We used our package PL[^1] for manipulations in Grassmann algebra.$\!\!\!\!\!$
\[r:r\] Formula is simple and works well, but conceals the real nature of quantities $h_{ijklm}$. This will be explained below in Sections \[s:h\] and \[s:24spe\], and we will rephrase the statement of Theorem \[th:33\] in new terms, as part of Theorem \[th:24\].
An exotic analogue of middle homologies {#s:h}
=======================================
The terms $h_{ijklm}$ of zero Grassmann degree in weights have actually an exotic homological nature. This becomes especially clear if we consider not only move 3–3, but also move 2–4, and this we are going to do in Section \[s:24spe\]. Right here, we are presenting the sequence of two linear mappings and some related notions and statements. Then, in the end of Subsection \[ss:h\], we will explain that what is essential in a set of terms $h_{ijklm}$ corresponds to an element in $\operatorname{Ker}g_4 / \operatorname{Im}g_3$, at least in the case of the mentioned Pachner moves. To be exact, the permitted $h_{ijklm}$’s will correspond to $\operatorname{Ker}g_4$, while the result for the Grassmann weight of either side of the move will not change under a change of the $h_{ijklm}$’s corresponding to an element in $\operatorname{Im}g_3$.
Sequence is expected to be part of a longer chain complex, but we don’t need here that complex in full.
Let there be an oriented triangulated PL manifold $M$ with boundary. We introduce $\mathbb C$-linear spaces $\mathbb C^{N'_1}$ and $\mathbb C^{N_4}$ whose bases are *inner* edges and (all) 4-simplices of $M$, respectively (notations in accordance with Convention \[cnv:num\]), and two $\mathbb C$-linear mappings between them as follows: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{g3g4}
\mathbb C^{N'_1}\stackrel{g_3}{\longrightarrow}\mathbb C^{N_4}\stackrel{g_4}{\longrightarrow}
\mathbb C^{N'_1}.\end{gathered}$$ We use notations $g_3$ and $g_4$ because these mappings have a clear analogy with mappings $g_3$ and $g_4$ in [@exo formula(13)]; we leave the definition and discussion of other $g_i$ (namely, $g_1$, $g_2$, $g_5$ and $g_6$) for further papers.
A set of admissible values for $h_{ijklm}$ will correspond to an element of $\operatorname{Ker}g_4$, while such Grassmann weights as the right-hand side of formula below do not change when an element of $\operatorname{Im}g_3$ is added to it.
By definition, the matrix element of mapping $g_3$ between an edge $b=ij$ and a 4-simplex $u$ vanishes unless $b\subset u$. Assuming $b\subset u$, we can write $u=\{ijklm\}$, which means, according to Convention \[cnv:set\], that $u$ has vertices $i$, $i$, $k$, $l$ and $m$ but they all don’t necessarily go in the increasing order. In this case, the matrix element of $g_3$ is $$\begin{gathered}
\label{g3}
\frac{1}{\varphi_{ijk}\varphi_{ijl}\varphi_{ijm}}.\end{gathered}$$ Recall that $\varphi_{ijk}$ is defined in .
Similarly, by definition, the matrix element of mapping $g_4$ between a 4-simplex $u$ and an edge $b$ is nonzero only if $b\subset u$. We write again $u=\{ijklm\}$ and $b=ij$, and define this matrix element as $$\begin{gathered}
\label{g4}
\epsilon_{ijklm}\varphi_{klm},\end{gathered}$$ where $\epsilon_{ijklm}=1$ if the sequence $ijklm$, in this order, gives the consistent (with the fixed orientation of manifold $M$) orientation of $u$, and $\epsilon_{ijklm}=-1$ otherwise.
\[th:c\] Mappings $g_3$ and $g_4$ defined according to and form a chain, in the sense that $$\begin{gathered}
g_4\circ g_3=0.\end{gathered}$$
We first show this for $M=\partial\Delta^5$ – the sphere $S^4$ triangulated into five 4-simplices as the boundary of 5-simplex $123456$. Consider an edge $a\subset S^4$ as a basis vector in the leftmost space in , an edge $b\subset
S^4$ as a basis vector in the rightmost space in , and the matrix element of mapping $g_4\circ
g_3$ between $a$ and $b$. This matrix element is the sum of products of expressions and over those 4-simplices $u$ that contain both $a$ and $b$; we call such a product *contribution* of $u$.
There are three cases; in all three $ijklmn$ is a permutation of the set of vertices $1,\dots, 6$.
Case 1. Edges $a$ and $b$ coincide, $a=b=ij$. The matrix element is $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{\epsilon_{ijklm}\varphi_{klm}}{\varphi_{ijk}\varphi_{ijl}\varphi_{ijm}}+\frac{\epsilon_{ijkln}
\varphi_{kln}}{\varphi_{ijk}\varphi_{ijl}\varphi_{ijn}}+\frac{\epsilon_{ijkmn}\varphi_{kmn}}{\varphi_{ijk}
\varphi_{ijm}\varphi_{ijn}}+\frac{\epsilon_{ijlmn}\varphi_{lmn}}{\varphi_{ijl}\varphi_{ijm}\varphi_{ijn}}
\\
\qquad
{}=\epsilon_{ijklm}\frac{\varphi_{klm}\varphi_{ijn}-\varphi_{kln}\varphi_{ijm}+\varphi_{kmn}\varphi_{ijl}
-\varphi_{lmn}\varphi_{ijk}}{\varphi_{ijk}\varphi_{ijl}\varphi_{ijm}\varphi_{ijn}}=0.\end{gathered}$$ The numerator, after the reducing to a common denominator, vanishes: this is a *Plücker relation*.
Case 2. Edges $a$ and $b$ have one vertex in common, $a=ij$, $b=ik$. The matrix element is $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{\epsilon_{ikjlm}\varphi_{jlm}}{\varphi_{ijk}\varphi_{ijl}\varphi_{ijm}}+\frac{\epsilon_{ikjln}
\varphi_{jln}}{\varphi_{ijk}\varphi_{ijl}\varphi_{ijn}}+\frac{\epsilon_{ikjmn}\varphi_{jmn}}{\varphi_{ijk}
\varphi_{ijm}\varphi_{ijn}}
=\epsilon_{ikjlm}\frac{\varphi_{jlm}\varphi_{ijn}-\varphi_{jln}\varphi_{ijm}+\varphi_{jmn}\varphi_{ijl}}
{\varphi_{ijk}\varphi_{ijl}\varphi_{ijm}\varphi_{ijn}}=0.\end{gathered}$$ Here the numerator is obtained from the numerator in our Case 1 by letting $k=j$.
Case 3. Edges $a$ and $b$ do not intersect, $a=ij$, $b=kl$. The matrix element is $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{\epsilon_{klijm}\varphi_{ijm}}{\varphi_{ijk}\varphi_{ijl}\varphi_{ijm}}+\frac{\epsilon_{klijn}
\varphi_{ijn}}{\varphi_{ijk}\varphi_{ijl}\varphi_{ijn}}=0.\end{gathered}$$
Next, we prove the theorem again for $M=S^4$, but triangulated in an *arbitrary* way. This arbitrary triangulation can be achieved by a sequence of Pachner moves performed on the initial triangulation considered above. Each Pachner move replaces some 4-simplices with some other ones, in such way that the withdrawn and the replacing 4-simplices will form together a sphere $\partial \Delta^5$ *if we change the orientation* of, say, the withdrawn 4-simplices. It follows then from what we have proved for $\partial \Delta^5$ that the contribution of all the replacing 4-simplices into any matrix element of $g_4\circ g_3$ is the same as the contribution of all the withdrawn 4-simplices, *including the cases where an edge appears or disappears* during the move.
Finally, it remains to say that any manifold $M$ has locally the same structure as $S^4$, and any matrix element of $g_4\circ g_3$ consists only of obviously local contributions.
\[x:r\] For a closed oriented 4-dimensional PL manifold $M$, the vector space $\operatorname{Ker}g_4 / \operatorname{Im}g_3$ is six times $($i.e., isomorphic to the direct sum of six copies of$)$ usual second homologies $H_2(M;\mathbb C)$.
This has been checked (in particular) for $M=T^4$, $T^2\times S^2$, $S^1\times S^3$, $S^2\times
S^2$, $S^4$, and the Kummer surface.
Relation 2–4 and the exotic homological nature of $\boldsymbol{h_{ijklm}}$ {#s:24spe}
==========================================================================
As we have already said, it is the relation 2–4 that makes especially clear the exotic homological nature of free terms $h_{ijklm}$. Here it is: $$\begin{gathered}
\int\mathcal W_{12345}\mathcal W_{12346}\,\mathrm dx_{1234}
=-\frac{1}{\varphi_{156}\varphi_{256}\varphi_{356}\varphi_{456}}\idotsint\mathcal W_{12356}
\mathcal W_{12456}\mathcal W_{13456}\mathcal W_{23456}
\nonumber
\\
\hphantom{\int\mathcal W_{12345}\mathcal W_{12346}\,\mathrm dx_{1234}=}{}
\times w_{56}\,\mathrm dx_{1256}\,\mathrm dx_{1356}\,\mathrm dx_{1456}\,\mathrm dx_{2356}\,\mathrm dx_{2456}
\,\mathrm dx_{3456}.
\label{24}\end{gathered}$$ It involves a new factor $w_{56}$ in the integrand in its r.h.s. – the *edge weight* of the inner edge $56$. So, we first define this weight in Subsection \[ss:w\], and then return to our quantities $h_{ijklm}$ in Subsection \[ss:h\].
The edge weight {#ss:w}
---------------
For any edge $a=ij$ in a triangulation of a 4-manifold with boundary, we define a Grassmann differential operator $\partial_a=\partial_{ij}$ as the following sum over all tetrahedra $t=\{ijkl\}$ containing this edge: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{dij}
\partial_{ij}=\sum_{t=\{ijkl\}}\frac{1}{\varphi_{ijk}\varphi_{ijl}}\,\partial_t .\end{gathered}$$
The weight $\mathcal W_u$ of a $4$-simplex $u$ satisfies “edge equations” $$\begin{gathered}
\partial_a\mathcal W_u=0\end{gathered}$$ for any edge $a$.
Direct calculation (which is, of course, nontrivial only if $a\subset u$).
Specifically, here is how the operator looks for the inner edge 56 of the cluster of four 4-simplices corresponding to the r.h.s. of relation : $$\begin{gathered}
\partial_{56}=\frac{1}{\varphi_{156}\varphi_{256}}\partial_{1256}+\frac{1}{\varphi_{156}\varphi_{356}}
\partial_{1356}+\frac{1}{\varphi_{156}\varphi_{456}}\partial_{1456}
\nonumber
\\
\phantom{\partial_{56}=}
+\frac{1}{\varphi_{256}\varphi_{356}}\partial_{2356}+\frac{1}{\varphi_{256}\varphi_{456}}\partial_{2456}
+\frac{1}{\varphi_{356}\varphi_{456}}\partial_{3456}.
\label{d56}\end{gathered}$$
\[th:w\] The right-hand side of does not change if an expression is added to $w_{56}$ whose “edge $56$ derivative” is zero, as follows: $$\begin{gathered}
w_{56}\mapsto w_{56}+\tilde w_{56},
\qquad
\partial_{56}\tilde w_{56}=0.\end{gathered}$$
We have to prove that $$\begin{gathered}
\idotsint\mathcal W_{12356}\mathcal W_{12456}\mathcal W_{13456}\mathcal W_{23456}
\tilde w_{56}\,\mathrm dx_{1256}\,\mathrm dx_{1356}\,\mathrm dx_{1456}\,\mathrm dx_{2356}
\,\mathrm dx_{2456}\,\mathrm dx_{3456}=0.
\label{tw56}\end{gathered}$$ As the “edge 56 derivative” of every factor in the integrand $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal X=\mathcal W_{12356}\mathcal W_{12456}\mathcal W_{13456}\mathcal W_{23456}\tilde w_{56}.\end{gathered}$$ vanishes, it vanishes for all the product: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{l}
\partial_{56}\mathcal X=0.\end{gathered}$$ It is an easy exercise (just break $\mathcal X$ into the even and odd parts) to see that the right analogue of also holds: $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal X\overleftarrow\partial_{\!56}=0,\end{gathered}$$ where $\overleftarrow \partial_{\!56}$ is the same linear combination , but with left derivatives replaced with the right ones. Finally, recall that the integration means, according to Section \[s:G\], the right differentiation, and specifically in this can be represented as follows (compare ): $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal X\overleftarrow\partial_{\!1256}\overleftarrow\partial_{\!1356}\cdots\overleftarrow\partial_{\!3456}
=\varphi_{156}\varphi_{256}\mathcal X\overleftarrow\partial_{\!56}\overleftarrow\partial_{\!1356}
\cdots\overleftarrow\partial_{\!3456}=0.\tag*{{}}\end{gathered}$$
Due to Theorem \[th:w\], the following definition of $w_{56}$ is not surprising: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{w56}
w_{56}=\partial_{56}^{-1}1,\end{gathered}$$ by which we understand *any* Grassmann algebra element $w_{56}$ such that $\partial_{56}w_{56}=1$. For instance, we can take $w_{56} = \varphi_{156}\varphi_{256}x_{1256}$.
The quantities $\boldsymbol{h_{ijklm}}$ {#ss:h}
---------------------------------------
The quantities $h_{ijklm}$ for *both* moves 3–3 and 2–4 considered in this paper can be obtained as follows. First, glue together both sides of a Pachner move in the natural way – identifying like-named boundary simplices. This gives $S^4=\partial \Delta^5$ (recall that this means a 4-sphere triangulated as the boundary of a 5-simplex).
This gluing implies that we have changed the orientation in one of the sides. Nevertheless, our mapping $g_3$ is defined in such way that the orientation issues do not affect the definition of allowable set of values for $h_{ijklm}$ given below.
The sequence for $S^4=\partial \Delta^5$ is exact: $\operatorname{Ker}g_4=\operatorname{Im}g_3$.
Taking into account Theorem \[th:c\], it is enough to show that $$\begin{gathered}
\operatorname{rank}g_3+\operatorname{rank}g_4=6,\end{gathered}$$ where 6 is the number of 4-simplices in the triangulation and thus the dimension of the middle space in . This is done by a direct calculation; both ranks prove to be 3.
Compare this also with the Experimental result on page .
We now take an arbitrary chain $c_{\rm edges}$ on edges of our $S^4$ – element of the first linear space in , and then its image under $g_3$ – a chain on 4-simplices. We call the resulting coefficients at 4-simplices $u=ijklm$, both in the l.h.s. and r.h.s. of our Pachner move, an *allowable set* of values for $h_{ijklm}$.
\[th:24\] Let there be an allowable set of values $h_u=h_{ijklm}$ for the six $4$-simplices in both sides of either Pachner move $3$–$3$ or $2$–$4$, and, in case of move $2$–$4$, let there be chosen any edge weight $w_{56}$ according to . Let also the $4$-simplex weights be defined according to , with the quadratic forms $\Phi_u$ defined according to and . Then, the relation holds for move $3$–$3$ or, respectively, holds for move $2$–$4$.
Direct calculation.
It is an easy exercise to show that our allowable sets of values $h_u=h_{ijklm}$ for Pachner moves can be represented in the form (although this form may disguise their nature). Hence, the part of Theorem \[th:24\] dealing with move 3–3 says the same as Theorem \[th:33\], as was promised in Remark \[r:r\].
We explain now why we said in the first paragraph of Section \[s:h\] that what is essential in a set of terms $h_{ijklm}$ corresponds to an element in $\operatorname{Ker}g_4 / \operatorname{Im}g_3$. First, we note that in both sides of the move 3–3, as well as in the l.h.s. of move 2–4, there are *no* inner edges. So, the sequence assumes the form $$\begin{gathered}
0\stackrel{g_3}{\longrightarrow}\mathbb C^{N_4}\stackrel{g_4}{\longrightarrow}0,\end{gathered}$$ i.e., the factor $\operatorname{Ker}g_4 / \operatorname{Im}g_3$ obviously gives *all* possible values for $h_{ijklm}$, which agrees with Theorem \[th:24\].
Of course, Theorem \[th:24\] tells us more, namely, also how to make the $h_{ijklm}$’s agree *for the two sides*, so that or holds.
Now consider the r.h.s. of the 2–4 relation . As it is equal to the l.h.s., it does not depend on the coefficient in $c_{\rm edges}$ at the edge $56$, the latter being absent from the l.h.s. of the Pachner move, while being the only inner edge for its r.h.s. Consider the sequence for the r.h.s. of move 2–4. The first and third spaces in this sequence are one-dimensional, the only basis vector being the edge $56$. Any allowable set of $h_u$, with the $u$’s in this r.h.s., obviously makes a *cycle* in the sense that it is annihilated by the mapping $g_4$. So, the r.h.s. of is determined by this cycle modulo a *boundary* – image of $g_3$.
Especially interesting question for future research is to uncover the analogue(s) of such exotic-homological structures for more general 4-simplex weights described in Section \[s:p\].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
We thank the creators and maintainers of GAP[^2] and Maxima[^3] for their excellent computer algebra systems. We also thank the referees for valuable comments, including drawing our attention to the literature on holonomic functions (see Remark \[r:PWZ\]).
[99]{}
Berezin F.A., The method of second quantization, *Pure and Applied Physics*, Vol. 24, Academic Press, New York, 1966.
Berezin F.A., Introduction to superanalysis, *Mathematical Physics and Applied Mathematics*, Vol. 9, D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht, 1987.
Bj[ö]{}rk J.E., Rings of differential operators, *North-Holland Mathematical Library*, Vol. 21, North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1979.
Cartier P., Démonstration “automatique” d’identités et fonctions hypergéométriques (d’après [D]{}. [Z]{}eilberger), S[é]{}minaire Bourbaki, Vol. 1991/92, *Astérisque* **206** (1992), Exp. No. 746, 3, 41–91.
Chevalley C., The algebraic theory of spinors and [C]{}lifford algebras, Collected works, Vol. 2, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1997.
Korepanov I.G., Geometric torsions and an [A]{}tiyah-style topological field theory, [*Theoret. and Math. Phys.*](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11232-009-0028-0) **158** (2009), 344–354, [arXiv:0806.2514](http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.2514).
Korepanov I.G., Relations in [G]{}rassmann algebra corresponding to three- and four-dimensional [P]{}achner moves, [*SIGMA*](http://dx.doi.org/10.3842/SIGMA.2011.117) **7** (2011), 117, 23 pages, [arXiv:1105.0782](http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0782).
Korepanov I.G., Deformation of a $3\to 3$ [P]{}achner move relation capturing exotic second homologies, [arXiv:1201.4762](http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4762).
Korepanov I.G., Special 2-cocycles and 3–3 [P]{}achner move relations in [G]{}rassmann algebra, [arXiv:1301.5581](http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5581).
Korepanov I.G., Sadykov N.M., Pentagon relations in direct sums and [G]{}rassmann algebras, [*SIGMA*](http://dx.doi.org/10.3842/SIGMA.2013.030) **9** (2013), 030, 16 pages, [arXiv:1212.4462](http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.4462).
Lickorish W.B.R., Simplicial moves on complexes and manifolds, in Proceedings of the [K]{}irbyfest ([B]{}erkeley, [CA]{}, 1998), [*Geom. Topol. Monogr.*](http://dx.doi.org/10.2140/gtm.1999.2.299), Vol. 2, Geom. Topol. Publ., Coventry, 1999, 299–320, [math.GT/9911256](http://arxiv.org/abs/math.GT/9911256).
Pachner U., P.[L]{}. homeomorphic manifolds are equivalent by elementary shellings, *European J. Combin.* **12** (1991), 129–145.
Petkov[š]{}ek M., Wilf H.S., Zeilberger D., [$A=B$]{}, A K Peters Ltd., Wellesley, MA, 1996.
[^1]: Korepanov A.I., Korepanov I.G., Sadykov N.M., PL: Piecewise-linear topology using GAP, <http://sf.net/projects/plgap/>.
[^2]: GAP – Groups, Algorithms, Programming – a System for Computational Discrete Algebra, <http://gap-system.org/>.
[^3]: Maxima, a computer algebra system, <http://maxima.sourceforge.net>.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'In paper [@EnhancedLie], we constructed a symmetric monoidal category ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}^{\mathrm{MC}}}$ whose objects are shifted (and filtered) $L_{\infty}$-algebras. Here, we fix a cooperad ${{\cal C}}$ and show that algebras over the operad ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$ naturally form a category enriched over ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}^{\mathrm{MC}}}$. Following [@EnhancedLie], we “integrate” this ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}^{\mathrm{MC}}}$-enriched category to a simplicial category ${{\mathsf{HoAlg}}}^{{{\mathsf{\Delta}}}}_{{{\cal C}}}$ whose mapping spaces are Kan complexes. The simplicial category ${{\mathsf{HoAlg}}}^{{{\mathsf{\Delta}}}}_{{{\cal C}}}$ gives us a particularly nice model of an $(\infty,1)$-category of ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebras. We show that the homotopy category of ${{\mathsf{HoAlg}}}^{{{\mathsf{\Delta}}}}_{{{\cal C}}}$ is the localization of the category of ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebras and $\infty$-morphisms with respect to $\infty$ quasi-isomorphisms. Finally, we show that the Homotopy Transfer Theorem is a simple consequence of the Goldman-Millson theorem.'
author:
- 'Vasily A. Dolgushev, Alexander E. Hoffnung, and Christopher L. Rogers'
title: 'What do homotopy algebras form?'
---
Introduction
============
This work is motivated by Dmitry Tamarkin’s answer [@dgcat] to Vladimir Drinfeld’s question “What do dg categories form?” [@Drinfeld-dgcat], and by papers [@Berglund], [@DotsPoncin], [@Ezra-infty], [@Hinich:1997], and [@Lazarev]. Here, we give an answer to the question “What do homotopy algebras form?”
Homotopy algebras and their generalizations appear in constructions of string topology, in rational homotopy theory, symplectic topology, deformation quantization, and quantum field theory. For a gentle introduction to this topic, we refer the reader to paper [@Bruno-plus-equals]. For a more detailed exposition, a standard reference is book [@LV] by Jean-Louis Loday and Bruno Vallette.
Despite an important role of homotopy algebras, it is not clear what higher categorical structure stands behind the homotopy theory of homotopy algebras. A possible way to answer to this question is to use closed model categories and this approach is undertaken in paper [@Bruno-HT] by Bruno Vallette. Here, we suggest a different approach which is based on the use of the convolution $L_{\infty}$-algebra and the Getzler-Hinich construction [@Ezra-infty], [@Hinich:1997].
By a homotopy algebra structure on a cochain complex of ${{\Bbbk}}$-vector[^1] spaces $A$ we mean a ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebra structure on $A$, where ${{\cal C}}$ is a differential graded (dg) cooperad satisfying some technical conditions. In this paper, we fix such a cooperad ${{\cal C}}$ and show that ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebras form a ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}^{\mathrm{MC}}}$-enriched category ${{\mathsf{HoAlg}}}_{{{\cal C}}}$, where ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}^{\mathrm{MC}}}$ is the enhancement of the symmetric monoidal category of shifted $L_{\infty}$-algebras introduced in[^2] [@EnhancedLie]. Then, using a generalization of the Getzler-Hinich construction [@Ezra-infty], [@Hinich:1997], we show that the ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}^{\mathrm{MC}}}$-category of ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebras can be “integrated” to the category ${{\mathsf{HoAlg}}}^{{{\mathsf{\Delta}}}}_{{{\cal C}}}$ enriched over $\infty$-groupoids (a.k.a. Kan complexes).
Our approach is conceptually similar to a standard construction of the simplicial category of chain complexes i.e., “trivial” homotopy algebras. There, instead of constructing the simplicial mapping spaces directly, one exploits the simple fact that chain complexes are naturally enriched over chain complexes i.e., abelian $L_{\infty}$-algebras. The simplicial category is then constructed by first truncating the mapping complexes and applying the Dold-Kan functor. It has been noted, for example by E. Getzler in [@Ezra-infty], that the integration of a $L_{\infty}$-algebra is, up to homotopy, a non-abelian analogue of the Dold-Kan functor. Hence, to construct the simplicial category ${{\mathsf{HoAlg}}}^{{{\mathsf{\Delta}}}}_{{{\cal C}}}$ of non-trivial homotopy algebras, we proceed via analogy by first considering a category of homotopy algebras enriched over $L_{\infty}$-algebras i.e., “non-abelian complexes”.
Furthermore, we prove that the homotopy category of ${{\mathsf{HoAlg}}}^{{{\mathsf{\Delta}}}}_{{{\cal C}}}$ [*is*]{} the localization of the category of ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebras with respect to $\infty$ quasi-isomorphisms, and this is indeed the correct homotopy category of homotopy algebras (see for example [@LV Thm. 11.4.12]). Thus the simplicial category ${{\mathsf{HoAlg}}}^{{{\mathsf{\Delta}}}}_{{{\cal C}}}$ is the sought higher categorical structure which stands behind the homotopy category of homotopy algebras.
For simplicity of the exposition, we present all constructions in the “1-colored” setting. However, it is not hard to see the all the statements can be easily extended to the multi-colored setting.
Our paper is organized as follows. Section \[sec:prereq-HA\] is devoted to prerequisites on homotopy algebras. In this section, we describe the convolution $L_{\infty}$-algebra ${{\mathrm{Conv}}}(V,A)$ associated to a ${{\cal C}}$-coalgebra $V$ and a ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebra $A$, and recall [@DotsPoncin] that, for every pair of ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebras $A,B$, Maurer-Cartan (MC) elements of ${{\mathrm{Conv}}}({{\cal C}}(A), B)$ are in bijection with $\infty$-morphisms from $A$ to $B$. Section \[sec:HoAlg-cC\] starts with a brief reminder of the symmetric monoidal category ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}^{\mathrm{MC}}}$ introduced in [@EnhancedLie]. Then we construct the ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}^{\mathrm{MC}}}$-enriched category ${{\mathsf{HoAlg}}}_{{{\cal C}}}$ and the corresponding simplicial category ${{\mathsf{HoAlg}}}^{{{\mathsf{\Delta}}}}_{{{\cal C}}}$. In Section \[sec:HT\], we show that $\pi_0 \big( {{\mathsf{HoAlg}}}^{{{\mathsf{\Delta}}}}_{{{\cal C}}} \big)$ is the homotopy category of ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebras, i.e. every $\infty$ quasi-isomorphism of ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebras gives an invertible morphism in $\pi_0 \big( {{\mathsf{HoAlg}}}^{{{\mathsf{\Delta}}}}_{{{\cal C}}} \big)$ and the category $\pi_0 \big( {{\mathsf{HoAlg}}}^{{{\mathsf{\Delta}}}}_{{{\cal C}}} \big)$ has the desired universal property. Also in Section \[sec:HT\], we characterize $\infty$ quasi-isomorphisms as precisely those morphisms which induce homotopy equivalences between mapping spaces via (pre)composition. Finally, in Section \[sec:HTT\], we give a very concise proof of the Homotopy Transfer Theorem for homotopy algebras. This proof is based on a construction from [@DefHomotInvar] and a version of the Goldman-Millson theorem from [@GMtheorem].
#### On a more general definition of a homotopy algebra.
One could also define a homotopy algebra as an algebra over an operad ${\mathcal{O}}$ which is freely generated by a collection ${{\cal C}}$ when viewed as an operad in the category of graded vector spaces, where the collection ${{\cal C}}$ and the differential on ${\mathcal{O}}$ are subject to some technical conditions. It is not hard to generalize all the constructions of our paper to this more general setting. However, for simplicity of the exposition, we decided to present the whole story for the case when ${\mathcal{O}}$ is the cobar construction applied to a fixed cooperad.
#### Is the ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}^{\mathrm{MC}}}$-enriched category of $L_{\infty}$-algebras related to the rational homotopy theory?
It is not surprising that the answer to this question is “yes”. However, a precise formulation of the answer requires some technical conditions on $L_{\infty}$-algebras and some amendments to the definition of the mapping space. So separate note [@RHT] is devoted to this question.
### Related work on this subject {#related-work-on-this-subject .unnumbered}
While this preprint was in preparation, paper [@KhPQ] appeared on arXiv.org. In this paper, the authors constructed a quasi-category of Leibniz $\infty$-algebras also using the Getzler-Hinich construction [@Ezra-infty], [@Hinich:1997].
Our paper agrees in spirit with treatise [@h-alg] by Jacob Lurie. In this treatise, J. Lurie develops a systematic approach to algebraic structures on objects in a fixed symmetric monoidal $\infty$-category. This approach allows him to define $E_{\infty}$-ring as a commutative algebra object in the $\infty$-category of spectra. Even though, the framework of the presentation of [@h-alg] is very general, we could not find a particular statement in the current version of draft [@h-alg] from which all statements proved in our paper will follow. One of the reasons for this is that, in [@h-alg], J. Lurie usually assumes the all the (co)chain complexes under consideration satisfy some kind of boundedness condition whereas in our paper we do not impose this assumption.
In paper [@Bruno-HT], Bruno Vallette used the simplicial localization methods of Dwyer and Kan [@DK] to upgrade the category of ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebras with $\infty$-morphisms (for a cooperad ${{\cal C}}$ satisfying some conditions) to a simplicial category (see Theorem 3.5 in [@Bruno-HT]). The homotopy category of this simplicial category is isomorphic to that of ${{\mathsf{HoAlg}}}^{{{\mathsf{\Delta}}}}_{{{\cal C}}}$ and we believe that there is a more precise link between these two simplicial categories.
\
**Acknowledgements:** We would like to thank Thomas Willwacher for useful discussions, and Jim Stasheff for helpful comments. V.A.D. and C.L.R. acknowledge NSF grant DMS-1161867 for a partial support. C.L.R. also acknowledges support from the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)) through the Institutional Strategy of the University of Göttingen. Finally, we would like to thank an anonymous referee for reading carefully our manuscript and for many helpful suggestions.
### Notation and conventions {#notation-and-conventions .unnumbered}
A big part of our conventions is borrowed from [@EnhancedLie]. For example, the ground field ${{\Bbbk}}$ has characteristic zero and ${{\mathsf{Ch}}}_{{{\Bbbk}}}$ denotes the category of unbounded cochain complexes of ${{\Bbbk}}$-vector spaces. Any ${{\mathbb Z}}$-graded vector space $V$ is tacitly considered as the cochain complex with the zero differential. Following [@EnhancedLie] we frequently use the ubiquitous abbreviation “dg” (differential graded) to refer to algebraic objects in ${{\mathsf{Ch}}}_{{{\Bbbk}}}$. The notation ${{\bf s}}V$ (resp. by ${{\bf s}^{-1}\,}V$) is reserved for the suspension (resp. the desuspension) of a cochain complex $V$, i.e. $\big({{\bf s}}V\big)^{{{\bullet}}} = V^{{{\bullet}}-1}$ and $\big({{\bf s}}^{-1} V\big)^{{{\bullet}}} = V^{{{\bullet}}+1}$. Finally, for a pair $V$, $W$ of ${{\mathbb Z}}$-graded vector spaces we denote by $${{\mathrm{Hom}}}(V,W)$$ the corresponding inner-hom object in the category of ${{\mathbb Z}}$-graded vector spaces.
Following [@EnhancedLie] we tacitly assume the Koszul sign rule. In particular, $$(-1)^{{{\varepsilon}}({{\sigma}}; v_1, \dots, v_m)}$$ will always denote the sign factor corresponding to the permutation ${{\sigma}}\in S_m$ of homogeneous vectors $v_1, v_2, \dots, v_m$. Namely, $$\label{ve-si-vvv}
(-1)^{{{\varepsilon}}({{\sigma}}; v_1, \dots, v_m)} := \prod_{(i < j)} (-1)^{|v_i | |v_j|}\,,$$ where the product is taken over all inversions $(i < j)$ of ${{\sigma}}\in S_m$.
For a finite group $G$ acting on a cochain complex (or a graded vector space) $V$, we denote by $$V^G, \qquad \textrm{ and } \qquad V_G,$$ respectively, the subcomplex of $G$-invariants in $V$ and the quotient complex of $G$-coinvariants. Using the advantage of the zero characteristic, we often identify $V_G$ with $V^G$ via this isomorphism $$\label{coinvar-invar}
v ~\mapsto~ \sum_{g \in G} g (v) {\,\colon\,}V_G \to V^G\,.$$
For a graded vector space (or a cochain complex) $V$ the notation $S(V)$ (resp. ${{\underline{S}}}(V)$) is reserved for the underlying vector space of the symmetric algebra (resp. the truncated symmetric algebra) of $V$: $$S(V) = {{\Bbbk}}\oplus V \oplus S^2(V) \oplus S^3(V) \oplus \dots\,,$$ $${{\underline{S}}}(V) = V \oplus S^2(V) \oplus S^3(V) \oplus \dots\,,$$ where $$S^n(V) = \big( V^{\otimes_{{{\Bbbk}}}\, n} \big)_{S_n}\,.$$
We denote by ${{\mathsf{As}}}$, ${{\mathsf{Com}}}$, ${{\mathsf{Lie}}}$ the operads governing associative, commutative (and associative), and Lie algebras, respectively. We set ${{\mathsf{As}}}(0) = {{\mathsf{Com}}}(0) ={{\mathbf 0}}$. In other words, algebras over ${{\mathsf{As}}}$ and ${{\mathsf{Com}}}$ are non-unital. We denote by ${{\mathsf{As}}}_{\infty}$, ${{\mathsf{Com}}}_{\infty}$, and ${{\mathsf{Lie}}}_{\infty}$ the dg operads which govern homotopy versions of the corresponding algebras. Furthermore, we denote by ${{\mathsf{coAs}}}$, ${{\mathsf{coCom}}}$, and ${{\mathsf{coLie}}}$, the cooperads which are obtained from ${{\mathsf{As}}}$, ${{\mathsf{Com}}}$, and ${{\mathsf{Lie}}}$ respectively, by taking the linear dual.
For an augmented operad ${\mathcal{O}}$, we denote by ${\mathcal{O}}_{{\circ}}$ the kernel of the augmentation. Dually, for a coaugmented cooperad ${{\cal C}}$ we denote by ${{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}$ the cokernel of the coaugmentation. Recall that for every augmented operad ${\mathcal{O}}$ (resp. coaugmented cooperad ${{\cal C}}$) the collection ${\mathcal{O}}_{{\circ}}$ (resp. ${{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}$) is naturally a pseudo-operad (resp. pseudo-cooperad) in the sense of [@notes Section 3.2] (resp. [@notes Section 3.4]).
For an operad (resp. a cooperad) $P$ and a cochain complex $V$ we denote by $P(V)$ the free $P$-algebra (resp. the cofree[^3] $P$-coalgebra) generated by $V$: $$\label{P-Schur-V}
P(V) : = \bigoplus_{n \ge 0} \Big( P(n) \otimes V^{\otimes \, n} \Big)_{S_n}\,.$$ For example, $${{\mathsf{Com}}}(V) = {{\underline{S}}}(V) \qquad \textrm{and} \qquad {{\mathsf{coCom}}}(V) = {{\underline{S}}}(V)\,.$$
For a cooperad ${{\cal C}}$, it is sometimes more convenient to work with the cofree ${{\cal C}}$-coalgebra defined as the direct sum of the space of invariants (instead of coinvariants): $$\label{cC-V-invar}
\bigoplus_{n \ge 0} \Big( {{\cal C}}(n) \otimes V^{\otimes \, n} \Big)^{S_n}\,.$$ For example, it is more natural to define a ${{\cal C}}$-coalgebra structure on a graded vector space (or a cochain complex) $V$ as a collection of comultiplication maps $$\label{Delta-n}
{{\Delta}}_n : V \to \Big( {{\cal C}}(n) \otimes V^{\otimes \, n} \Big)^{S_n}$$ satisfying some natural coassociativity axioms which are obtained by dualizing the corresponding axioms for algebras over an operad.
We denote this direct sum by $$\label{cC-V-inv}
{{\cal C}}(V)^{{{\mathrm{inv}}}} : = \bigoplus_{n \ge 0} \Big( {{\cal C}}(n) \otimes V^{\otimes \, n} \Big)^{S_n}$$ and keep in mind that ${{\cal C}}(V)^{{{\mathrm{inv}}}}$ is isomorphic to ${{\cal C}}(V)$ via map .
Following [@EnhancedLie], ${{\mathfrak{S}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{S}}}^{-1}$ denote the underlying collections of the operads $${{\mathrm{End}}}_{{{\bf s}^{-1}\,}{{\Bbbk}}}\,, \qquad \textrm{and} \qquad {{\mathrm{End}}}_{{{\bf s}}{{\Bbbk}}}\,,$$ respectively. Furthermore, for a dg (co)operad $P$, we denote by ${{\mathfrak{S}}}P$ (resp. ${{\mathfrak{S}}}^{-1} P$) the dg (co)operad which is obtained from $P$ by tensoring with ${{\mathfrak{S}}}$ (resp. ${{\mathfrak{S}}}^{-1}$): $${{\mathfrak{S}}}P : = {{\mathfrak{S}}}\otimes P\,, \qquad
{{\mathfrak{S}}}^{-1} P : = {{\mathfrak{S}}}^{-1} \otimes P\,.$$ For example, ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebras are algebra over the dg operad $$\label{sLie-oper}
{{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}: ={{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\mathsf{coCom}}})$$ and $L_{\infty}$-algebras are algebras over the dg operad $$\label{Lie-inf-oper}
{{\mathsf{Lie}}}_{\infty} : ={{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\mathfrak{S}}}^{-1} {{\mathsf{coCom}}})\,.$$
Just as in [@EnhancedLie], we often call ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebras [*shifted $L_{\infty}$-algebras*]{}. Although a ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebra structure on a cochain complex $V$ is the same thing as an $L_{\infty}$ structure on ${{\bf s}}V$, working with ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebras has important technical advantages. This is why we prefer to deal with shifted $L_{\infty}$ structures on $V$ versus original $L_{\infty}$ structures on ${{\bf s}}V$.
Following [@EnhancedLie], we denote the tensor product of $\infty$-morphisms of ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebras by $\otimes$ even though the tensor product of the ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebras is denoted by $\oplus$.
We often use the plain arrow $\to$ for $\infty$-morphisms of homotopy algebras. Of course, it should be kept in mind that in general such morphisms are maps of the corresponding coalgebras but not the underlying cochain complexes.
The abbreviation “MC” is reserved for the term “Maurer-Cartan”.
#### Conventions about trees.
By a [*tree*]{} we mean a connected graph without cycles with a marked vertex called [*the root*]{}. In this paper, we assume that the root of every tree has valency $1$ (such trees are sometimes called [*planted*]{}). The edge adjacent to the root is called the [*root edge*]{}. Non-root vertices of valency $1$ are called [*leaves*]{}. A vertex is called [*internal*]{} if it is neither a root nor a leaf. We always orient trees in the direction towards the root. Thus every internal vertex has at least $1$ incoming edge and exactly $1$ outgoing edge. An edge adjacent to a leaf is called [*external*]{}. A tree ${{\mathbf{t}}}$ is called [*planar*]{} if, for every internal vertex $v$ of ${{\mathbf{t}}}$, the set of edges terminating at $v$ carries a total order.
Let us recall [@notes Section 2] that for every planar tree ${{\mathbf{t}}}$ the set $V({{\mathbf{t}}})$ of all its vertices is equipped with a natural total order such that the root is the smallest vertex of the tree.
For a non-negative integer $n$, an $n$-labeled planar tree ${{\mathbf{t}}}$ is a planar tree equipped with an injective map $$\label{labeling}
{{\mathfrak{l}}}: \{1,2, \dots, n\} \to L({{\mathbf{t}}})$$ from the set $\{1,2, \dots, n\}$ to the set $L({{\mathbf{t}}})$ of leaves of ${{\mathbf{t}}}$. Although the set $L({{\mathbf{t}}})$ has a natural total order we do not require that map is monotonous.
The set $L({{\mathbf{t}}})$ of leaves of an $n$-labeled planar tree ${{\mathbf{t}}}$ splits into the disjoint union of the image ${{\mathfrak{l}}}(\{1,2, \dots, n\})$ and its complement. We call leaves in the image of ${{\mathfrak{l}}}$ [*labeled*]{}.
A vertex $x$ of an $n$-labeled planar tree ${{\mathbf{t}}}$ is called [*nodal*]{} if it is neither the root, nor a labeled leaf. We denote by $V_{{{\mathrm{nod}}}}({{\mathbf{t}}})$ the set of all nodal vertices of ${{\mathbf{t}}}$. Keeping in mind the canonical total order on the set of all vertices of ${{\mathbf{t}}}$ we can say things like “the first nodal vertex”, “the second nodal vertex”, and “the $i$-th nodal vertex”.
It is convenient to talk about (co)operads and pseudo-(co)operads using the groupoid ${{\mathsf{Tree}}}(n)$ of $n$-labeled planar trees. Objects of ${{\mathsf{Tree}}}(n)$ are $n$-labeled planar trees and morphisms are isomorphisms of the corresponding (non-planar) trees compatible with labeling.
Following [@notes Section 3.2, 3.4], for an $n$-labelled planar tree ${{\mathbf{t}}}$ and pseudo-operad $P$ (resp. pseudo-cooperad $Q$) the notation $\mu_{{{\mathbf{t}}}}$ (resp. the notation ${{\Delta}}_{{{\mathbf{t}}}}$) is reserved for the multiplication map $$\label{mu-bt}
\mu_{{{\mathbf{t}}}} : P (r_1) \otimes P(r_2) \otimes \dots \otimes P(r_k) \to P(n)$$ and the comultiplication map $$\label{Delta-bt}
{{\Delta}}_{{{\mathbf{t}}}} : Q(n) \to Q(r_1) \otimes Q(r_2) \otimes \dots \otimes Q(r_k)\,.$$ respectively. Here, $k$ is the number of nodal vertices of the planar tree ${{\mathbf{t}}}$ and $r_i$ is the number of edges (of ${{\mathbf{t}}}$) which terminate at the $i$-th nodal vertex of ${{\mathbf{t}}}$.
For example, if ${{\mathbf{t}}}_{n,k,i}$ is the labeled planar tree shown on figure[^4] \[fig:bt-n-k-i\] then the map $$\label{mu-bt-nki}
\mu_{{{\mathbf{t}}}_{n,k,i}} : P (n) \otimes P(k) \to P(n+k-1)$$ is precisely the $i$-th elementary insertion $$\label{circ-i}
\circ_i : P (n) \otimes P(k) \to P(n+k-1)\,.$$
=\[circle, draw, minimum size=3, inner sep=1\] =\[circle, draw, fill, minimum size=3, inner sep=1\] (v1) at (0, 2) ; (0,2.6) node\[anchor=center\] [[$1$]{}]{}; (v2) at (1.5, 2) ; (1.5,2.6) node\[anchor=center\] [[$2$]{}]{}; (2.8,2) node\[anchor=center\] [[$\dots$]{}]{}; (v1i) at (4, 2) ; (4,2.6) node\[anchor=center\] [[$i-1$]{}]{}; (vv) at (6, 2) ; (vi) at (4.5, 4) ; (4.5,4.6) node\[anchor=center\] [[$i$]{}]{}; (5.8,4) node\[anchor=center\] [[$\dots$]{}]{}; (v1ik) at (7, 4) ; (7.6,4.6) node\[anchor=center\] [[$i+k-1$]{}]{}; (vik) at (8, 2) ; (8,2.6) node\[anchor=center\] [[$i+k$]{}]{}; (10,2) node\[anchor=center\] [[$\dots$]{}]{}; (v1nk) at (12, 2) ; (12.6,2.6) node\[anchor=center\] [[$n+k-1$]{}]{}; (v) at (6, 0.5) ; (r) at (6, -0.5) ; (vv) edge (vi); (vv) edge (v1ik); (v) edge (v1); (v) edge (v2); (v) edge (v1i); (v) edge (vv); (v) edge (vik); (v) edge (v1nk); (r) edge (v);
Recall that a (co)operad $P$ is [*reduced*]{} if it satisfies this technical condition $$\label{reduced}
P(0)= {{\mathbf 0}}\,.$$
When we deal with reduced (co)operads, we may discard all labeled trees which have at least one nodal vertex with no incoming edges. In other words, one may safely assume that nodal vertices of a labeled tree are precisely its internal vertices, i.e. map is a bijection.
Prerequisites on homotopy algebras {#sec:prereq-HA}
==================================
Let ${{\cal C}}$ be a dg coaugmented cooperad satisfying the following technical condition:
\[cond:cC-circ-filtered\] The pseudo-cooperad ${{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}$ carries an ascending filtration $$\label{cC-circ-filtr}
{{\mathbf 0}}= {{\cal F}}^0 {{\cal C}}_{{\circ}} \subset {{\cal F}}^1 {{\cal C}}_{{\circ}} \subset {{\cal F}}^2 {{\cal C}}_{{\circ}} \subset {{\cal F}}^3 {{\cal C}}_{{\circ}} \subset \dots$$ which is compatible with the pseudo-cooperad structure in the following sense: $$\label{D-bt-filtr}
{{\Delta}}_{{{\mathbf{t}}}} \big( {{\cal F}}^m {{\cal C}}_{{\circ}} (n) \big) \subset
\bigoplus_{m_1 + \dots + m_k = m}
{{\cal F}}^{m_1} {{\cal C}}_{{\circ}} (r_1) \otimes {{\cal F}}^{m_2} {{\cal C}}_{{\circ}} (r_2) \otimes \dots
\otimes {{\cal F}}^{m_k} {{\cal C}}_{{\circ}} (r_k)\,,$$ $${{\mathbf{t}}}\in {{\mathsf{Tree}}}(n)\,,$$ where $k$ is the number of nodal vertices of the planar tree ${{\mathbf{t}}}$ and $r_i$ is the number of edges (of ${{\mathbf{t}}}$) which terminate at the $i$-th nodal vertex of ${{\mathbf{t}}}$. We also assume that ${{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}$ is cocomplete with respect to filtration , i.e. $$\label{cocomplete}
{{\cal C}}_{{\circ}} = \bigcup_{m} {{\cal F}}^m {{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}\,.$$
We will use the following pedestrian definition of homotopy algebras of a given type:
\[dfn:infinity\] Homotopy algebras of type ${{\cal C}}$ are algebras in ${{\mathsf{Ch}}}_{{{\Bbbk}}}$ over the operad ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$.
Thus, $A_{\infty}$-, $L_{\infty}$-, and ${{\mathsf{Com}}}_{\infty}$-algebras are examples of homotopy algebras. Indeed, $A_{\infty}$-algebras are algebras over the operad ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\mathfrak{S}}}^{-1} {{\mathsf{coAs}}})$, $L_{\infty}$-algebras are algebras over\
${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\mathfrak{S}}}^{-1}{{\mathsf{coCom}}})$, and ${{\mathsf{Com}}}_{\infty}$-algebras are algebras over ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\mathfrak{S}}}^{-1} {{\mathsf{coLie}}})$.
Let $A$ be a cochain complex and let $$\label{coDer-cC-A}
{{\mathrm {coDer}}}\big( {{\cal C}}(A) \big)$$ be the dg Lie algebra of coderivations of the ${{\cal C}}$-coalgebra ${{\cal C}}(A)$.
It is known [@notes Corollary 5.3], [@GJ Proposition 2.15], that ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebra structures on $A$ are in bijection with MC elements of the dg Lie subalgebra $$\label{coDer-pr-cC-A}
{{\mathrm {coDer}}}'\big( {{\cal C}}(A) \big) \subset {{\mathrm {coDer}}}\big( {{\cal C}}(A) \big)$$ of coderivations $Q$ satisfying the condition $$\label{coder-condition}
Q \Big|_{A} = 0\,.$$
Thus every homotopy algebra $A$ of type ${{\cal C}}$ gives us a (dg) ${{\cal C}}$-coalgebra $$\label{cC}
\Big( {{\cal C}}(A), {{\partial}}+ Q \Big)$$ where ${{\partial}}$ is the differential on ${{\cal C}}(A)$ induced by the ones on $A$ and ${{\cal C}}$.
This observation is used to define a notion of $\infty$-morphism of homotopy algebras of type ${{\cal C}}$. In other words,
\[dfn:morphism\] Let $A$ and $B$ be homotopy algebras of type ${{\cal C}}$ and let $Q_A$ (resp. $Q_B$) be the MC element of ${{\mathrm {coDer}}}({{\cal C}}(A))$ (resp. ${{\mathrm {coDer}}}({{\cal C}}(B))$) corresponding to the homotopy algebra structure on $A$ (resp. on $B$). Then, an $\infty$-morphism from $A$ to $B$ is a homomorphism of dg ${{\cal C}}$-coalgebras $$\label{U-morph}
U ~:~ \Big( {{\cal C}}(A), {{\partial}}+ Q_A \Big) ~\to~ \Big( {{\cal C}}(B), {{\partial}}+ Q_B \Big)\,.$$
Recall that any such homomorphism $U$ is uniquely determined by its composition $$\label{U-pr}
U' : = p_B \circ U$$ with the canonical projection $p_B : {{\cal C}}(B) \to B$. In this paper, we often use this convention: [*$U'$ denotes composition corresponding to a homomorphism of ${{\cal C}}$-coalgebras $U$ .*]{}
Given an $\infty$-morphism $U$ from $A_1$ to $A_2$ and an $\infty$-morphism ${{\tilde{U}}}$ from $A_2$ to $A_3$, their composition is defined, in the obvious way, as the composition of the corresponding homomorphisms of dg ${{\cal C}}$-coalgebras. We denote by $${{\mathrm{Cat}}}_{{{\cal C}}}$$ the category whose objects are homotopy algebras of type ${{\cal C}}$ (a.k.a. ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebras) and whose morphisms are $\infty$-morphisms with the above obvious composition.
\[rem:why-homot-alg\] Due to [@MVnado11 Proposition 38], Condition \[cond:cC-circ-filtered\] implies that ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$ is a cofibrant object in the closed model category of dg operads. The same condition also guarantees that homotopy algebras of type ${{\cal C}}$ enjoy the obvious version of the Homotopy Transfer Theorem (see [@LV Theorem 10.3.2]). A very concise proof of this important theorem in given in Section \[sec:HTT\] of this paper.
\[rem:Markl\] Another way to define the notion of $\infty$-morphism of homotopy algebras is to resolve a $2$-colored operad which governs pairs of algebras with a morphism between them. This different approach to the “higher category” of homotopy algebras is initiated in works [@Doubek], [@Markl-h-alg] of M. Doubek and M. Markl.
The convolution ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebra
---------------------------------------------------------------
Let $V$ be a ${{\cal C}}$-coalgebra and $A$ be a homotopy algebra of type ${{\cal C}}$ (i.e. an algebra over ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$).
On the graded vector space $$\label{Conv-V-A}
{{\mathrm{Hom}}}(V, A)$$ we define the following multi-brackets: $$\label{1-bracket}
\{f\}(v) = {{\partial}}_{A}\, f(v) -(-1)^{|f|} f({{\partial}}_{V}\, v) + p_A \circ Q_A\big( 1 \otimes f({{\Delta}}_1(v)) \big)$$ $$\label{m-bracket}
\{f_1, \dots, f_m\} (v) =
p_A \circ Q_A \big( 1 \otimes f_{1}\otimes \dots \otimes f_{m}
({{\Delta}}_m (v)) \big)\,, \qquad m \ge 2\,,$$ where ${{\Delta}}_m$ is the $m$-th component of the comultiplication $${{\Delta}}_m : V \to \Big( {{\cal C}}(m) \otimes V^{\otimes\, m} \Big)^{S_m}$$ and $p_A$ is the canonical projection $$p_A : {{\cal C}}(A) \to A\,.$$
Note that, since $Q_A$ has degree $1$, each multi-bracket in also carries degree $1$.
We claim that
\[prop:Conv-V-A\] For every ${{\cal C}}$-coalgebra $V$ and a ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebra $A$, multi-brackets , equip the graded vector space ${{\mathrm{Hom}}}(V, A)$ with a structure of a ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebra.
The proof of this proposition is given in Appendix \[app:proof-Conv\].
\[dfn:Conv\] Let $V$ be a ${{\cal C}}$-coalgebra and $A$ be a homotopy algebra of type ${{\cal C}}$. Then ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebra is called the convolution algebra of the pair $(V, A)$. We use the notation: $${{\mathrm{Conv}}}(V,A) : = {{\mathrm{Hom}}}(V, A)\,.$$
### Convolution ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebra and $\infty$-morphisms
For a pair $A$, $B$ of homotopy algebras of type ${{\cal C}}$, we consider the convolution ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebra $$\label{Conv-cCA-B}
L = {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A), B)\,,$$ where the ${{\cal C}}$-coalgebra ${{\cal C}}(A)$ is considered with the differential ${{\partial}}+ Q_{A}$, and ${{\partial}}$ comes from the differential on $A$ and the differential on ${{\cal C}}$.
We observe that the ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebra carries the following descending filtration $$\label{Conv-filter}
\begin{split}
{{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_0 L & \supset {{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_{1} L \supset {{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_{2}L \supset \cdots \\[0.3cm]
{{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_{n}L & = \{ f \in {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A), B) ~\vert ~
f \big|_{{{\cal C}}(m) \otimes_{S_m} A^{\otimes \, m}} =0
~~ \forall ~ m < n \}.
\end{split}$$
It is also easy to check that:
\[prop:filtered\] The convolution ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebra structure given by and is compatible with filtration i.e.$$\Bigl \{{{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_{i_{1}}L,{{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_{i_{2}}L,\ldots,{{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_{i_{k}}L \Bigr \} \subseteq
{{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_{i_{1} + i_{2} + \cdots + i_{k}} L \quad \forall~~ k >1,$$ Moreover, the ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebra $L = {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A), B)$ is complete with respect to this filtration, i.e. $$L = \varprojlim_{k} L / {{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_{k}L\,.$$
The notion of the convolution ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebra is partially justified by the following lemma:
\[lem:infty-morph\] Let $A$ and $B$ be homotopy algebras of type ${{\cal C}}$. If the cooperad ${{\cal C}}$ satisfies condition $$\label{cC-reduced}
{{\cal C}}(0) = {{\mathbf 0}}$$ then $$\label{Conv-AB-pronilp}
{{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A), B) = {{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_1 {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A), B)\,.$$ In particular, the ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebra ${{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A), B)$ is pro-nilpotent. Furthermore, the assignment $$U ~\mapsto~ U' : = p_{B} \circ U$$ is a bijection between the set of $\infty$-morphisms from $A$ to $B$ and the set of MC elements of the ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebra ${{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A), B)$.
The first statement of the lemma follows directly from the definition of filtration on the ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebra ${{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A), B)$. Since ${{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A), B)$ is complete with respect to this filtration, we conclude that the ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebra ${{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A), B)$ is pronilpotent.
This conclusion allows us to write the MC equation in the ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebra ${{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A), B)$ for any degree zero element.
According to Definition \[dfn:morphism\], an $\infty$-morphism from $A$ to $B$ is a homomorphism of dg ${{\cal C}}$-coalgebras $$U ~:~ \Big( {{\cal C}}(A), {{\partial}}+ Q_A \Big) ~\to~ \Big( {{\cal C}}(B), {{\partial}}+ Q_B \Big)\,.$$ Since the ${{\cal C}}$-coalgebra ${{\cal C}}(B)$ is cofree (over graded vector spaces), the homomorphism $U$ is uniquely determined by its composition $$\label{pB-U}
U' : = p_{B} \circ U : {{\cal C}}(A) \to B\,.$$ Furthermore, the compatibility of $U$ with the differentials ${{\partial}}+ Q_A$ and ${{\partial}}+ Q_B$ is equivalent to the equation $$\begin{gathered}
\label{U-and-diffs}
{{\partial}}\circ U' (X; a_1, \dots, a_m) \\
+ Q_B \circ (1 \otimes U') \circ {{\Delta}}_1 (X; a_1, \dots, a_m) - U' \circ ({{\partial}}+ Q_A) (X; a_1, \dots, a_m) \\
+ \sum_{k=2}^{\infty} \frac{1}{k!} Q_B \circ (1 \otimes (U')^{\otimes k})
\circ {{\Delta}}_k (X; a_1, \dots, a_m) = 0\,, \end{gathered}$$ where $(X; a_1, \dots, a_m)$ represents a vector in ${{\cal C}}(A)$ and the factor $1/k!$ in the last sum comes from the identification of ${{\cal C}}(B)^{{{\mathrm{inv}}}}$ with ${{\cal C}}(B)$ via the inverse of isomorphism .
Using the definition of multi-brackets , on ${{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A), B)$, we see that is precisely the MC equation for $U'$ in the ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebra ${{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A), B)$. Thus $$U ~~ \leftrightarrow ~~ U' : = p_{B} \circ U$$ is a desired bijection between the set of $\infty$-morphisms from $A$ to $B$ and the set of MC elements of the ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebra ${{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A), B)$.
\[rem:Dots-Poncin\] A version of Lemma \[lem:infty-morph\] is proved in [@DotsPoncin]. See Proposition 3 in [@DotsPoncin Section 1.3].
\[exam:A-infinity\] Let us recall that ${{\mathsf{coAs}}}$ is the cooperad which governs coassociative coalgebras without counit and the dg operad ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\mathfrak{S}}}^{-1} {{\mathsf{coAs}}})$ governs (flat) $A_{\infty}$-algebras. It is easy to see that, for every $A_{\infty}$-algebra $A$, $$\label{Conv-cC-A-A}
{{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\mathfrak{S}}}^{-1} {{\mathsf{coAs}}}(A), A )$$ is the completed version of the truncated Hochschild cochain complex of $A$ $$\label{Hoch-A}
\prod_{n \ge 1} {{\bf s}}^{n-1} {{\mathrm{Hom}}}(A^{\otimes \, n}, A)$$ and the shifted $L_{\infty}$-algebra on is obtain by symmetrizing the cup product and its higher analogues. It is worthy of mentioning that the Hochschild differential on is obtained by twisting the differential on by the MC element corresponding to the identity map $\operatorname{\mathrm{id}}: A \to A$.
The ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}^{\mathrm{MC}}}$-enriched category ${{\mathsf{HoAlg}}}_{{{\cal C}}}$ and the simplicial category ${{\mathsf{HoAlg}}}^{{{\mathsf{\Delta}}}}_{{{\cal C}}}$ {#sec:HoAlg-cC}
=================================================================================================================================================================================================
A brief reminder of the symmetric monoidal category ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}^{\mathrm{MC}}}$ {#sec:tLie}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us recall [@EnhancedLie] that a ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebra $(L, {{\partial}}, \{\cdot,\cdot\},
\{\cdot,\cdot,\cdot\},\ldots)$ is *filtered* if the underlying complex $(L, {{\partial}})$ is equipped with a complete descending filtration, $$\label{filtr-L}
L = {{\cal F}}_{1}L \supset {{\cal F}}_{2}L \supset {{\cal F}}_{3}L \cdots$$ $$\label{L-complete}
L =\varprojlim_{k} L/{{\cal F}}_{k}L\,,$$ which is compatible with the brackets, i.e. $$\Bigl \{{{\cal F}}_{i_{1}}L,{{\cal F}}_{i_{2}}L,\ldots,{{\cal F}}_{i_{m}}L \Bigr \} \subseteq
{{\cal F}}_{i_{1} + i_{2} + \cdots + i_{m}} L \quad \forall ~~ m >1.$$
For example, if $A$ and $B$ are ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebras and the cooperad ${{\cal C}}$ satisfies the condition ${{\cal C}}(0) = {{\mathbf 0}}$, then the filtration “by arity” on ${{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A), B)$ satisfies the above conditions. In other words, ${{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A), B)$ is a filtered ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebra.
The filtration induces a natural descending filtration and hence a topology on ${{\underline{S}}}(L)$. Just as in [@EnhancedLie], we tacitly assume that $\infty$-morphisms of filtered ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebras are continuous with respect to this topology.
Let us also recall [@EnhancedLie] that an *enhanced morphism* $$L_1 {\stackrel{({{\alpha}}, F)}{\longrightarrow}} L_2$$ between filtered ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebras is a pair consisting of a MC element $\alpha \in L_2$ and a (continuous) $\infty$-morphism $F {\,\colon\,}L_1 \to L^{\alpha}_2$, where $L^{\alpha}_2$ is obtained from $L_2$ via twisting[^5] by the MC element ${{\alpha}}$. The composition of two enhanced morphisms $L_1 {\stackrel{({{\alpha}}_2, F)}{\longrightarrow}} L_2$ and $L_2 {\stackrel{({{\alpha}}_3, G)}{\longrightarrow}} L_3$ is the pair $$\label{composition}
({{\alpha}}_3 + G_*({{\alpha}}_2), G^{{{\alpha}}_2} \circ F)\,,$$ where the $\infty$-morphism $G^{{{\alpha}}_2}$ is obtained from $G$ via twisting by the MC element ${{\alpha}}_2 \in L_2$.
Following [@EnhancedLie], we denote by ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}^{\mathrm{MC}}}$ the category of filtered ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebras with the above enhanced morphisms.
Given two filtered ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$ algebras $(L, \{\cdot,\cdot\},
\{\cdot,\cdot, \cdot\},\ldots)$ and $({{\widetilde{L}}}, \{\cdot,\cdot \}{{\widetilde{~}}},
\{\cdot,\cdot, \cdot\}{{\widetilde{~}}},\ldots)$, one obtains a filtered ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$ structure on the direct sum $L \oplus {{\widetilde{L}}}$ by setting $$\{x_1 + x'_1, x_2 + x'_2,\ldots, x_k + x'_k\} :=
\{x_1, x_2,\ldots, x_k\} + \{x'_1, x'_2,\ldots, x'_k\}{{\widetilde{~}}}\,,$$ and $${{\cal F}}_k (L \oplus {{\widetilde{L}}}) : = ({{\cal F}}_k L) \oplus ({{\cal F}}_k {{\widetilde{L}}})\,.$$
If ${{\alpha}}$ and ${{\widetilde{{{\alpha}}}}}$ are MC elements of $L$ and ${{\widetilde{L}}}$, respectively, then ${{\alpha}}+ {{\widetilde{{{\alpha}}}}} \in L \oplus {{\widetilde{L}}}$ is clearly a MC element of the ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebra $L\oplus {{\widetilde{L}}}$. Furthermore, the operation of twisting (by a MC element) is compatible with $\oplus$, i.e. the ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebra $L^{{{\alpha}}} \oplus {{\widetilde{L}}}^{{{\widetilde{{{\alpha}}}}}}$ is canonically isomorphic to the ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebra $(L\oplus {{\widetilde{L}}})^{{{\alpha}}+ {{\widetilde{{{\alpha}}}}}}$.
Using these observations, we show, in [@EnhancedLie Section 3.1], that the assignment $$(L, {{\widetilde{L}}}) ~\mapsto~ L \oplus {{\widetilde{L}}}$$ can be upgraded to a structure of a symmetric monoidal category on ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}^{\mathrm{MC}}}$ with ${{\mathbf 0}}$ being the unit object.
The ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}^{\mathrm{MC}}}$-enriched category of ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebras
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given two ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebras $A$ and $B$, we denote by $$\label{Map-A-B}
{{\mathbf{map}}}(A, B) : = {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A), B)$$ the convolution ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebra defined in Proposition \[prop:Conv-V-A\].
In this section, we construct a ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}^{\mathrm{MC}}}$-enriched category [@EnhancedLie], [@Kelly] ${{\mathsf{HoAlg}}}_{{{\cal C}}}$ whose objects are homotopy algebras $A,B, \dots$ of type ${{\cal C}}$ and whose mapping spaces are ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebras .
We start with defining a degree $0$ linear map $$\label{comp_map}
\begin{split}
{{\mathcal{U}}}' : {{\underline{S}}}\big( {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A_2), A_3) \oplus {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A_1), A_2) \big)
\to {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A_1), A_3)
\end{split}$$ by using the identification $$\begin{aligned}
{{\underline{S}}}\bigl( {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A_2), A_3) \oplus {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A_1), A_2) \bigr)
& = {{\underline{S}}}\bigl({{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A_2), A_3) \bigr) \, \oplus \,
{{\underline{S}}}\bigl({{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A_1), A_2) \bigr )
\\ & \quad \oplus \,
\Big( {{\underline{S}}}\bigl( {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A_2), A_3) \bigr) {\otimes}{{\underline{S}}}\bigl( {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A_1), A_2) \bigr) \Big)\end{aligned}$$ and the formulas: $$\label{cU-pr-nonzero}
{{\mathcal{U}}}' \big( g \otimes (f_1 \dots f_n) \big) (X) =
g \big( 1 \otimes f_{1} \otimes \dots \otimes f_{n} \, ({{\Delta}}_n(X)) \big)\,,$$ for all $X \in {{\cal C}}(A_1)$, $g \in {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A_2), A_3)$, $f_1, \dots, f_n \in {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A_1), A_2)$, and $$\label{cU-pr-zero}
\begin{array}{c}
{{\mathcal{U}}}' \big|_{ {{\underline{S}}}({{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A_2), A_3)) } ~ = ~
{{\mathcal{U}}}' \big|_{ {{\underline{S}}}({{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A_1), A_2)) } ~ = ~ 0\,, \\[0.5cm]
{{\mathcal{U}}}' \big|_{ {{\underline{S}}}^{m \neq 1} ( {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A_2), A_3) ) \otimes
{{\underline{S}}} ({{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A_1), A_2) ) } ~ = ~ 0\,.
\end{array}$$
We claim that
\[prop:comp\] The vector ${{\mathcal{U}}}'$ defined by the above formulas is a MC element of the ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebra $$\label{Conv-for-composition}
{{\mathrm{Hom}}}\Big({{\underline{S}}} \big( {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A_2), A_3) \oplus {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A_1), A_2)
\big) \,,\,
{{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A_1), A_3) \Big)\,.$$
Let us denote by $L_{ij}$ the ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebra ${{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A_i), A_j)$ and by $d_{ij}$ the differential on $L_{ij}$. We also denote by $Q_{ij}$ the degree $1$ coderivation on the ${{\mathsf{coCom}}}$-coalgebra $$\label{und-S-Lij}
{{\underline{S}}} \big( L_{ij} \big)$$ corresponding to the ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebra $L_{ij}$. By abuse of notation, $d_{ij}$ also denotes the differential on coming from the one on $L_{ij}$.
In terms of this notation, our goal is to prove that ${{\mathcal{U}}}'$ satisfies the equation[^6] $$\label{MC-U-pr}
d_{13} \circ {{\mathcal{U}}}' - {{\mathcal{U}}}' \circ \big( (d_{23} + Q_{23}) \otimes 1 + 1 \otimes (d_{12} +Q_{12}) \big) +
\sum_{m=2}^{\infty} \frac{1}{m!} \{{{\mathcal{U}}}', {{\mathcal{U}}}', \dots, {{\mathcal{U}}}' \}_m = 0\,.$$
We will present the most bulky part of the proof of . Namely, we will show in detail that the sum $$\label{sum-UUU-brack}
\sum_{m=2}^{\infty} \frac{1}{m!} \{{{\mathcal{U}}}', {{\mathcal{U}}}', \dots, {{\mathcal{U}}}' \}_m$$ cancels with the term $-{{\mathcal{U}}}' \circ (Q_{23} \otimes 1)$ in . The remaining cancellations are much more straightforward and we leave them to the reader.
In the computations given below, we do not specify explicitly sign factors coming from the Koszul sign rule. We address this issue by a short comment at the end of the proof.
Let $g_1, \dots, g_k \in L_{23}$ and $f_1, \dots, f_n \in L_{12}$. Due to , $$\frac{1}{m!} \{{{\mathcal{U}}}', {{\mathcal{U}}}', \dots, {{\mathcal{U}}}' \}_m (g_1, \dots, g_k, f_1, \dots, f_n) = 0$$ if $k \neq m$ or $n < k$.
Unfolding the term $$\label{UUU-brack}
\frac{1}{m!} \{{{\mathcal{U}}}', {{\mathcal{U}}}', \dots, {{\mathcal{U}}}' \}_m (g_1, \dots, g_m, f_1, \dots, f_n)$$ with $n \ge m$, we get $$\begin{gathered}
\label{UUU-brack-unfold}
\frac{1}{m!} \{{{\mathcal{U}}}', {{\mathcal{U}}}', \dots, {{\mathcal{U}}}' \}_m (g_1, \dots, g_m, f_1, \dots, f_n) = \\
\sum_{\substack{k_1 + \dots + k_m = n \\[0.1cm] k_j \ge 1}}~
\sum_{\tau \in S_m}
\sum_{{{\sigma}}\in {{\mathrm{Sh}}}_{k_1, k_2, \dots, k_m}} \frac{\pm 1}{m!}
\big\{
{{\mathcal{U}}}'(g_{\tau(1)}, f_{{{\sigma}}(1)}, \dots, f_{{{\sigma}}(k_1)}),
{{\mathcal{U}}}'(g_{\tau(2)}, f_{{{\sigma}}(k_1+1)}, \dots, f_{{{\sigma}}(k_1+k_2)}),
\dots \\[0.1cm]
\dots {{\mathcal{U}}}'(g_{\tau(m)}, f_{{{\sigma}}(n-k_m+1)}, \dots, f_{{{\sigma}}(n)}) \big\}^{L_{13}}_m\,,\end{gathered}$$ where $\{~, ~, \dots, ~\}^{L_{13}}_m$ denotes the corresponding multi-bracket on $L_{13}$ and the sign factors in the right hand side are determined by the Koszul rule.
Since $\{~, ~, \dots, ~\}^{L_{13}}_m$ is (graded) symmetric in its argument, we can simplify term further: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{UUU-brack-better}
\frac{1}{m!} \{{{\mathcal{U}}}', {{\mathcal{U}}}', \dots, {{\mathcal{U}}}' \}_m (g_1, \dots, g_m, f_1, \dots, f_n) = \\
\sum_{\substack{k_1 + \dots + k_m = n \\[0.1cm] k_j \ge 1}}~
\sum_{{{\sigma}}\in {{\mathrm{Sh}}}_{k_1, k_2, \dots, k_m}} \pm
\big\{
{{\mathcal{U}}}'(g_{1}, f_{{{\sigma}}(1)}, \dots, f_{{{\sigma}}(k_1)}),
{{\mathcal{U}}}'(g_{2}, f_{{{\sigma}}(k_1+1)}, \dots, f_{{{\sigma}}(k_1+k_2)}),
\dots \\[0.1cm]
\dots {{\mathcal{U}}}'(g_{m}, f_{{{\sigma}}(n-k_m+1)}, \dots, f_{{{\sigma}}(n)}) \big\}^{L_{13}}_m\,.\end{gathered}$$
Let $X \in {{\cal C}}(A_1)$ and $$\label{Delta-X}
{{\Delta}}_m (X) = \sum_{{{\alpha}}} ({{\gamma}}_{{{\alpha}}}; X_{{{\alpha}},1}, X_{{{\alpha}}, 2}, \dots, X_{{{\alpha}}, m}) \in \big( {{\cal C}}(m) \otimes {{\cal C}}(A_1)^{\otimes\, m} \big)^{S_m}\,.$$
Then, applying equation and using the definition of the multi-bracket on $L_{13} = {{\mathrm{Hom}}}( {{\cal C}}(A_1), A_3)$, we get $$\begin{gathered}
\label{UUU-brack-applied}
\frac{1}{m!} \{{{\mathcal{U}}}', {{\mathcal{U}}}', \dots, {{\mathcal{U}}}' \}_m (g_1, \dots, g_m, f_1, \dots, f_n) (X) = \\[0.1cm]
\sum_{{{\alpha}}}
\sum_{\substack{k_1 + \dots + k_m = n \\[0.1cm] k_j \ge 1}}~
\sum_{{{\sigma}}\in {{\mathrm{Sh}}}_{k_1, k_2, \dots, k_m}}
\pm
Q_{A_3}
\big( {{\gamma}}_{{{\alpha}}} ;
{{\mathcal{U}}}'(g_{1}, f_{{{\sigma}}(1)}, \dots, f_{{{\sigma}}(k_1)}) (X_{{{\alpha}},1}), \\[0.1cm]
{{\mathcal{U}}}'(g_{2}, f_{{{\sigma}}(k_1+1)}, \dots, f_{{{\sigma}}(k_1 + k_2)}) (X_{{{\alpha}}, 2}),
\dots,
{{\mathcal{U}}}'(g_{m}, f_{{{\sigma}}(n-k_m+1)}, \dots, f_{{{\sigma}}(n)}) (X_{{{\alpha}}, m}) \big)\,,\end{gathered}$$ where $Q_{A_3}$ denotes the coderivation of ${{\cal C}}(A_3)$ corresponding to the ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebra structure on $A_3$.
Using , we deduce that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{UUU-brack1}
\frac{1}{m!} \{{{\mathcal{U}}}', {{\mathcal{U}}}', \dots, {{\mathcal{U}}}' \}_m (g_1, \dots, g_m, f_1, \dots, f_n) (X) = \\[0.1cm]
\sum_{\substack{k_1 + \dots + k_m = n \\[0.1cm] k_j \ge 1}}~
\sum_{{{\sigma}}\in {{\mathrm{Sh}}}_{k_1, k_2, \dots, k_m}}
\pm Q_{A_3} \circ
(1 \otimes g_{1}\otimes f_{{{\sigma}}(1)} \otimes \dots \otimes f_{{{\sigma}}(k_1)}
\otimes \dots \otimes g_{m} \otimes
f_{{{\sigma}}(n-k_m+1)} \otimes \dots \otimes f_{{{\sigma}}(n)}) \\[0.1cm]
\circ (1 \otimes {{\Delta}}_{k_1} \otimes {{\Delta}}_{k_2} \otimes \dots \otimes {{\Delta}}_{k_m} ) \circ {{\Delta}}_m (X)\,.\end{gathered}$$
By the axioms of the ${{\cal C}}$-coalgebra structure on ${{\cal C}}(A_1)$, we have $$\label{Delta-Delta-X}
(1 \otimes {{\Delta}}_{k_1} \otimes {{\Delta}}_{k_2} \otimes \dots \otimes {{\Delta}}_{k_m} ) \circ {{\Delta}}_m (X) =
{{\mathfrak{b}}}\circ ({{\Delta}}_{{{\mathbf{t}}}^{{{\,\pitchfork}}}_{k_1, \dots, k_m}} \otimes 1^{\otimes\, n} ) \circ {{\Delta}}_n(X)\,,$$ where $n = k_1 + k_2 + \dots + k_m$, ${{\Delta}}_{{{\mathbf{t}}}^{{{\,\pitchfork}}}_{k_1, \dots, k_m}}$ is the cooperadic comultiplication $${{\Delta}}_{{{\mathbf{t}}}^{{{\,\pitchfork}}}_{k_1, \dots, k_m}} : {{\cal C}}(n) \to {{\cal C}}(m) \otimes {{\cal C}}(k_1) \otimes
{{\cal C}}(k_2) \otimes \dots \otimes {{\cal C}}(k_m)$$ corresponding to the planar tree ${{\mathbf{t}}}^{{{\,\pitchfork}}}_{k_1, \dots, k_m}$ shown on figure \[fig:fork-kkk\], and ${{\mathfrak{b}}}$ is the braiding isomorphism which “changes the positions” of tensor factors appropriately.
=\[circle, draw, minimum size=3, inner sep=1\] =\[circle, draw, fill, minimum size=3, inner sep=1\] (l1) at (0, 8) ; (0,8.6) node\[anchor=center\] [[$1$]{}]{}; (1.5,8) node\[anchor=center\] [[$\dots$]{}]{}; (lk1) at (3, 8) ; (3,8.6) node\[anchor=center\] [[$k_1$]{}]{}; (n2) at (1.5, 6) ; (lk11) at (6, 8) ; (6,8.6) node\[anchor=center\] [[$k_1+1$]{}]{}; (7.5,8) node\[anchor=center\] [[$\dots$]{}]{}; (lk1k2) at (9, 8) ; (9.2,8.6) node\[anchor=center\] [[$k_1+k_2$]{}]{}; (n3) at (7.5, 6) ; (11.3,7) node\[anchor=center\] [[$\dots$]{}]{}; (lnkm1) at (14, 8) ; (13.6,8.6) node\[anchor=center\] [[$n-k_m+1$]{}]{}; (15.5,8) node\[anchor=center\] [[$\dots$]{}]{}; (ln) at (17, 8) ; (17,8.6) node\[anchor=center\] [[$n$]{}]{}; (nm1) at (15.5, 6) ; (n1) at (8.5, 3) ; (r) at (8.5, 2) ; (n2) edge (l1); (n2) edge (lk1); (n3) edge (lk11); (n3) edge (lk1k2); (nm1) edge (lnkm1); (nm1) edge (ln); (n1) edge (n2); (n1) edge (n3); (n1) edge (nm1); (r) edge (n1);
Unfolding ${{\Delta}}_n (X)$ $${{\Delta}}_n(X) = \sum_{\beta} ({{\tilde{{{\gamma}}}}}_{\beta}; {{\tilde{X}}}_{\beta, 1}, \dots, {{\tilde{X}}}_{\beta, n})$$ and using the fact that ${{\Delta}}_n$ lands in the space of $S_n$-invariants, we rewrite the expression $({{\Delta}}_{{{\mathbf{t}}}^{{{\,\pitchfork}}}_{k_1, \dots, k_m}} \otimes 1^{\otimes\, n} ) \circ {{\Delta}}_n(X)$ as follows: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{compute-Delta-Delta}
({{\Delta}}_{{{\mathbf{t}}}^{{{\,\pitchfork}}}_{k_1, \dots, k_m}} \otimes 1^{\otimes\, n} ) \circ {{\Delta}}_n(X) = \\[0.1cm]
\sum_{\beta} \pm
({{\Delta}}_{{{\mathbf{t}}}^{{{\,\pitchfork}}}_{k_1, \dots, k_m} } \otimes 1^{\otimes\, n} )
( {{\sigma}}^{-1} ({{\tilde{{{\gamma}}}}}_{\beta}); {{\tilde{X}}}_{\beta, {{\sigma}}(1)}, \dots, {{\tilde{X}}}_{\beta, {{\sigma}}(n)})
= \\[0.1cm]
\sum_{\beta} \pm
({{\Delta}}_{{{\sigma}}({{\mathbf{t}}}^{{{\,\pitchfork}}}_{k_1, \dots, k_m}) } \otimes 1^{\otimes\, n} )
( {{\tilde{{{\gamma}}}}}_{\beta}; {{\tilde{X}}}_{\beta, {{\sigma}}(1)}, \dots, {{\tilde{X}}}_{\beta, {{\sigma}}(n)}) \end{gathered}$$ for any ${{\sigma}}\in S_n$.
Combining this observation with , we conclude that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{UUU-brack11}
\frac{1}{m!} \{{{\mathcal{U}}}', {{\mathcal{U}}}', \dots, {{\mathcal{U}}}' \}_m (g_1, \dots, g_m, f_1, \dots, f_n) (X) \\[0.1cm]
= \sum_{\beta}
\sum_{\substack{k_1 + \dots + k_m = n \\[0.1cm] k_j \ge 1}}~
\sum_{{{\sigma}}\in {{\mathrm{Sh}}}_{k_1, k_2, \dots, k_m}}
\pm Q_{A_3} \circ (1 \otimes g_1 \otimes \dots \otimes g_m) \\[0.1cm] \circ
({{\Delta}}_{{{\sigma}}({{\mathbf{t}}}^{{{\,\pitchfork}}}_{k_1, \dots, k_m}) } \otimes 1^{\otimes\, n} )
( {{\tilde{{{\gamma}}}}}_{\beta}; f_{{{\sigma}}(1)}({{\tilde{X}}}_{\beta, {{\sigma}}(1)}), \dots, f_{{{\sigma}}(n)}({{\tilde{X}}}_{\beta, {{\sigma}}(n)})) \,.\end{gathered}$$
On the other hand, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{line-Delta-Delta}
\sum_{\beta}
\sum_{\substack{k_1 + \dots + k_m = n \\[0.1cm] k_j \ge 1}}~
\sum_{{{\sigma}}\in {{\mathrm{Sh}}}_{k_1, k_2, \dots, k_m}}
\pm ({{\Delta}}_{{{\sigma}}({{\mathbf{t}}}^{{{\,\pitchfork}}}_{k_1, \dots, k_m}) } \otimes 1^{\otimes\, n} )
( {{\tilde{{{\gamma}}}}}_{\beta}; f_{{{\sigma}}(1)}({{\tilde{X}}}_{\beta, {{\sigma}}(1)}), \dots, f_{{{\sigma}}(n)}({{\tilde{X}}}_{\beta, {{\sigma}}(n)})) \\[0.1cm]
= {{\Delta}}_m \Big( \sum_{\beta} \pm ({{\tilde{{{\gamma}}}}}_{\beta}; f_{1}({{\tilde{X}}}_{\beta, 1}), \dots, f_n({{\tilde{X}}}_{\beta, n})) \Big)\,.\end{gathered}$$
Therefore, by definition of the ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-structure on $L_{23} = {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A_2), A_3)$, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{UUU-brack-OK}
\frac{1}{m!} \{{{\mathcal{U}}}', {{\mathcal{U}}}', \dots, {{\mathcal{U}}}' \}_m (g_1, \dots, g_m, f_1, \dots, f_n) (X) = \\[0.1cm]
{{\mathcal{U}}}' (\{g_1, \dots, g_m \}^{L_{23}}_m, f_1, \dots, f_n) \, (X)\,.\end{gathered}$$
Let us also observe that, due to , $$\big( {{\mathcal{U}}}' \circ (Q_{23} \otimes 1) (g_1, \dots, g_m, f_1, \dots, f_n) \big) (X) =
{{\mathcal{U}}}' (\{g_1, \dots, g_m \}^{L_{23}}_m, f_1, \dots, f_n) (X)\,.$$
Thus, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{UUU-brack-OK1}
\frac{1}{m!} \{{{\mathcal{U}}}', {{\mathcal{U}}}', \dots, {{\mathcal{U}}}' \}_m (g_1, \dots, g_m, f_1, \dots, f_n) (X) = \\[0.1cm]
\big( {{\mathcal{U}}}' \circ (Q_{23} \otimes 1) (g_1, \dots, g_m, f_1, \dots, f_n) \big) (X)\end{gathered}$$ which implies the desired cancellation of sum with the term $- {{\mathcal{U}}}' \circ (Q_{23} \otimes 1)$ in .
Let us now address the issue of sign factors. The sign factor in front of the term $$\label{term-UUU-brack}
Q_{A_3} \circ (1 \otimes g_1 \otimes \dots \otimes g_m) \\[0.1cm] \circ
({{\Delta}}_{{{\sigma}}({{\mathbf{t}}}^{{{\,\pitchfork}}}_{k_1, \dots, k_m}) } \otimes 1^{\otimes\, n} )
( {{\tilde{{{\gamma}}}}}_{\beta}; f_{{{\sigma}}(1)}({{\tilde{X}}}_{\beta, {{\sigma}}(1)}), \dots, f_{{{\sigma}}(n)}({{\tilde{X}}}_{\beta, {{\sigma}}(n)}))$$ in comes from rearranging the homogeneous vectors $$\label{stand-order}
f_1, f_2, \dots, f_n, {{\tilde{{{\gamma}}}}}_{\beta}, {{\tilde{X}}}_{\beta, 1}, {{\tilde{X}}}_{\beta, 2},
\dots {{\tilde{X}}}_{\beta, n}$$ from their standard order in to the order in which they appear in . It is easy to see that we get the same sign factors in front of the corresponding terms, when we unfold the right hand side of .
Proposition \[prop:comp\] is proved.
Combining Lemma \[lem:infty-morph\] with Proposition \[prop:comp\] we deduce that
\[cor:cU-intro\] The map ${{\mathcal{U}}}'$ defined by equations and lifts to an $\infty$-morphism $$\label{cU-comp}
{{\mathcal{U}}}{\,\colon\,}{{\mathbf{map}}}(A_2, A_3) \oplus {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_1, A_2) \to {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_1, A_3)\,.$$
\[rem:U-pr-again\] We would like to remark that the map $${{\mathcal{U}}}' {\,\colon\,}{{\underline{S}}} \big( {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A_2), A_3) \oplus {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A_1), A_2) \big)
\to {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A_1), A_3),$$ can be equivalently defined by the single formula: $$\label{U-pr-again}
{{\mathcal{U}}}' \bigl( (g_1 \oplus f_1),(g_2 \oplus f_2),\ldots,(g_n \oplus f_n) \bigr) =
\sum_{i=1}^{n} \pm g_{i} \circ \bigl(1 {\otimes}f_1 {\otimes}\cdots {\otimes}\widehat{f_{i}} {\otimes}\cdots {\otimes}f_{n} \bigr) \circ {{\Delta}}_{n-1}$$ where $(g_i \oplus f_i) \in {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A_2), A_3)
\oplus {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A_1), A_2)$ and $\pm$ is the usual Koszul sign factor.
The following theorem shows that the composition in ${{\mathsf{HoAlg}}}_{{{\cal C}}}$ given by $\infty$-morphism is associative.
\[thm:comp-assoc\] Let $A_1, \dots, A_4$ be ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebras and let $${{\mathcal{U}}}_{i_1 i_2 i_3} {\,\colon\,}{{\mathbf{map}}}(A_{i_2} , A_{i_3}) \oplus {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_{i_1}, A_{i_2}) \to {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_{i_1}, A_{i_3})$$ be the $\infty$-morphism given in Corollary \[cor:cU-intro\]. Then the following diagram $$\label{pent}
\begin{tikzpicture}[ext/.style={rectangle, minimum size=4, inner sep=1}]
\node[ext] (123-4) at (0,1.5) {${{\mathbf{map}}}(A_3, A_4) \oplus \big( {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_2,A_3) \oplus {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_1,A_2) \big)$};
\node[ext] (1-234) at (0,0) {$\big( {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_3, A_4) \oplus {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_2,A_3) \big) \oplus {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_1,A_2)$};
\node[ext] (134) at (6, 3) {${{\mathbf{map}}}(A_3, A_4) \oplus {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_1,A_3)$};
\node[ext] (124) at (6, -1.5) {${{\mathbf{map}}}(A_2, A_4) \oplus {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_1,A_2)$};
\node[ext] (14) at (10, 0.75) {${{\mathbf{map}}}(A_1, A_4) $};
\path[->,font=\scriptsize]
(0,1.1) edge node[auto] {$\cong$} (0, 0.4)
(1,2) edge node[auto] {$~~\operatorname{\mathrm{id}}\otimes {{\mathcal{U}}}_{123}$} (3,2.8)
(1,-0.5) edge node[below] {$ {{\mathcal{U}}}_{234} \otimes \operatorname{\mathrm{id}}~~$} (3,-1.3)
(8,2.5) edge node[auto] {$ {{\mathcal{U}}}_{134}$} (9.5,1.2)
(8,-1) edge node[below] {$~~~~{{\mathcal{U}}}_{124}$} (9.5,0.3) ;
\end{tikzpicture}$$ commutes.
Let $h \in {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_3,A_4)$, $g_{1}, \ldots, g_{m} \in {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_2,A_3)$, and $f_{1}, \ldots, f_{n} \in {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_1,A_2)$. Composing the lower arrows in with the canonical projection $$\label{p-14}
p_{14} : {{\underline{S}}}({{\mathbf{map}}}(A_1,A_4)) \to {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_1, A_4),$$ we get $$\label{enrich_eq1}
\begin{split}
&p_{14}\circ {{\mathcal{U}}}_{124} \circ ({{\mathcal{U}}}_{234} {\otimes}\operatorname{\mathrm{id}})(h, g_1, \dots, g_m,
f_1, \dots, f_n ) =\\
& \quad h
\Bigl( (1 {\otimes}g_1 {\otimes}\cdots {\otimes}g_{m})\circ \Delta_{m} \circ
(1 {\otimes}f_{1} {\otimes}\cdots {\otimes}f_{n}) \circ \Delta_{n} \Bigr)\,.
\end{split}$$
Similarly, composing the upper arrows in with canonical projection , we get $$\label{enrich_eq2}
\begin{split}
& p_{14} \circ {{\mathcal{U}}}_{134} \circ (\operatorname{\mathrm{id}}{\otimes}\, {{\mathcal{U}}}_{123})(h, g_1, \dots, g_m, f_1, \dots, f_n) = \\
&\sum_{\substack{k_1+\cdots + k_{m} =n \\ \sigma \in
{{\mathrm{Sh}}}(k_1,\ldots,k_m)}} \pm
h \Bigl ( 1 {\otimes}g_1(1 {\otimes}f_{\sigma(1)} {\otimes}f_{\sigma(2)} {\otimes}\cdots {\otimes}f_{\sigma(k_1)})
{\otimes}g_2(1 {\otimes}f_{\sigma(k_1 +1)} {\otimes}\cdots {\otimes}f_{\sigma(k_1+
k_2)}) {\otimes}\cdots \\
&\quad \quad {\otimes}g_m(1 {\otimes}f_{\sigma(n-k_m +1)} {\otimes}\cdots
{\otimes}f_{\sigma(n)}) \circ (1 {\otimes}\Delta_{k_1} {\otimes}\Delta_{k_2} {\otimes}\cdots {\otimes}\Delta_{k_m} ) \Bigr) \Delta_m,
\end{split}$$ where the sign factors are determined by the Koszul rule.
Using equation , computation , and equation from the proof of Proposition \[prop:comp\], we conclude that the left hand side of coincides with the left hand side of . Since any $\infty$-morphism to ${{\mathbf{map}}}(A_1, A_4)$ is uniquely determined by its composition with projection , we deduce that $${{\mathcal{U}}}_{124} \circ ({{\mathcal{U}}}_{234} {\otimes}\operatorname{\mathrm{id}}) = {{\mathcal{U}}}_{134} \circ (\operatorname{\mathrm{id}}{\otimes}\, {{\mathcal{U}}}_{123})\,.$$
Thus diagram is indeed commutative.
The proof of the unit axiom
---------------------------
Let us recall that ${{\mathbf 0}}$ is the unit object in the category ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}^{\mathrm{MC}}}$ and observe that for every ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebra $A$ we have a canonical enhanced morphism $$\label{unit-morphism}
{{\mathbf 0}}~{\stackrel{(\operatorname{\mathrm{id}}_A, \, 0)}{\longrightarrow}}~ {{\mathbf{map}}}(A,A)\,,$$ where $\operatorname{\mathrm{id}}_A$ is the MC element of ${{\mathbf{map}}}(A,A) = {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A), A)$ corresponding to the identity $\infty$-morphism $$\operatorname{\mathrm{id}}_{{{\cal C}}(A)} : {{\cal C}}(A) \to {{\cal C}}(A)$$ and $0$ is the unique ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-morphism from ${{\mathbf 0}}$ to ${{\mathbf{map}}}(A,A)$.
We claim that
\[prop:unit\] For every pair $A, B$ of homotopy algebras of type ${{\cal C}}$, the diagrams $$\label{unit-right}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\matrix (m) [matrix of math nodes, row sep=3em, column sep=3em]
{{{\mathbf{map}}}(A,B) \oplus {{\mathbf{map}}}(A,A) & {{\mathbf{map}}}(A,B) ~ \\
{{\mathbf{map}}}(A,B) \oplus {{\mathbf 0}}& ~ \\ };
\path[->, font=\scriptsize]
(m-1-1) edge node[above] {${{\mathcal{U}}}$} (m-1-2)
(m-2-1) edge node[auto] {$ \operatorname{\mathrm{id}}_{{{\mathbf{map}}}(A,B)} \otimes (\operatorname{\mathrm{id}}_A, \, 0)$} (m-1-1)
edge (m-1-2);
\end{tikzpicture}$$ $$\label{unit-left}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\matrix (m) [matrix of math nodes, row sep=3em, column sep=3em]
{{{\mathbf{map}}}(B,B) \oplus {{\mathbf{map}}}(A,B) & {{\mathbf{map}}}(A,B) ~ \\
{{\mathbf 0}}\oplus {{\mathbf{map}}}(A,B) & ~ \\ };
\path[->, font=\scriptsize]
(m-1-1) edge node[above] {${{\mathcal{U}}}$} (m-1-2)
(m-2-1) edge node[auto] {$(\operatorname{\mathrm{id}}_B, \, 0) \otimes \operatorname{\mathrm{id}}_{{{\mathbf{map}}}(A,B)}$} (m-1-1)
edge (m-1-2);
\end{tikzpicture}$$ commute.
Let us denote by $${{\mathcal{K}}}~:~ {{\mathbf{map}}}(A,B) \oplus {{\mathbf 0}}~\to~ {{\mathbf{map}}}(A,B)$$ the composition of the vertical arrow and the horizontal arrow in and let ${{\mathcal{K}}}'$ be the corresponding element in $${{\mathrm{Hom}}}\big( {{\underline{S}}}( {{\mathbf{map}}}(A,B) \oplus {{\mathbf 0}}),\, {{\mathbf{map}}}(A,B) \big)\,.$$
Unfolding the definition of composition of enhanced morphisms in ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}^{\mathrm{MC}}}$ (see Proposition 3.4 in [@EnhancedLie]), we get that $$\label{cK-pr}
{{\mathcal{K}}}'(g_1, \dots, g_m) = \sum_{n \ge 0} \frac{1}{n!}
{{\mathcal{U}}}'\big( (g_1, \dots, g_m) \otimes \operatorname{\mathrm{id}}^{n}_A \big)\,,$$ where $g_1, \dots, g_m \in {{\mathbf{map}}}(A,B)$.
Hence, using and we deduce that $${{\mathcal{K}}}'(g_1, \dots, g_m) = 0 \qquad \forall ~~ m \ge 2$$ and, for every $X \in {{\cal C}}(A)$, $$\label{cK-pr-unfold}
{{\mathcal{K}}}'(g_1) (X) = \sum_{n \ge 0} \frac{1}{n!} \,
g_1 \big( (1\otimes \operatorname{\mathrm{id}}^{n}_A) {{\Delta}}_n(X) \big) = g_1(X)\,,$$ where the last equality follows from the identification of ${{\cal C}}({{\cal C}}(A) )^{{{\mathrm{inv}}}}$ and ${{\cal C}}({{\cal C}}(A))$ via the inverse of isomorphism .
Thus diagram indeed commutes.
The proof of the commutativity of is easier. So we leave it to the reader.
The simplicial category ${{\mathsf{HoAlg}}}_{{{\cal C}}}^{{{\mathsf{\Delta}}}}$ of homotopy algebras
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $\Omega_{n}=\Omega^{\bullet}(\Delta^{n})$ denote the polynomial de Rham complex on the $n$-simplex with coefficients in ${{\Bbbk}}$, and $\{\Omega_{n} \}_{n \geq 0}$ the associated simplicial dg commutative ${{\Bbbk}}$-algebra. Let us recall [@EnhancedLie Proposition 4.1] that for every filtered ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebra $L$ the simplicial set ${\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}}(L)$ with[^7] $${\mathfrak{MC}}_n(L) : = {\mathrm{MC}}(L {{\,\hat{\otimes}\,}}{{\Omega}}_n )$$ is a Kan complex (a.k.a. an $\infty$-groupoid). We call the simplicial set ${\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}}(L)$ the [*Deligne-Getzler-Hinich (DGH) $\infty$-groupoid*]{}.
Let us also recall (see Theorem 4.2 in [@EnhancedLie]) that applying the functor ${\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}}$ to mapping spaces of any ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}^{\mathrm{MC}}}$-enriched category, we get a simplicial category whose mapping spaces are Kan complexes. Thus, applying [@EnhancedLie Theorem 4.2] to the ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}^{\mathrm{MC}}}$-enriched category ${{\mathsf{HoAlg}}}_{{{\cal C}}}$ and using Lemma \[lem:infty-morph\] we deduce the following theorem:
\[thm:HoAlg-Delta\] Let ${{\cal C}}$ be a coaugmented dg cooperad satisfying Conditions and . Then the assignment $$(A, B) ~\in~ {{\mathrm{Objects}}}({{\mathrm{Cat}}}_{{{\cal C}}}) \times {{\mathrm{Objects}}}({{\mathrm{Cat}}}_{{{\cal C}}}) ~~ \mapsto ~~
{\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}}({{\mathbf{map}}}(A,B))$$ gives us a category enriched over $\infty$-groupoids (a.k.a. Kan complexes). Moreover, for every pair of ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebras $A, B$, the set ${\mathfrak{MC}}_{0}({{\mathbf{map}}}(A,B))$ is in bijection with the set of $\infty$-morphisms from $A$ to $B$.
$\pi_0 \big({{\mathsf{HoAlg}}}^{{{\mathsf{\Delta}}}}_{{{\cal C}}} \big)$ is a correct homotopy category of homotopy algebras {#sec:HT}
============================================================================================================================
Let $A$ and $B$ be homotopy algebras of type ${{\cal C}}$ and $F$ be an $\infty$-morphism from $A$ to $B$: $$F ~:~ \Big( {{\cal C}}(A), {{\partial}}+ Q_A \Big) ~\to~ \Big( {{\cal C}}(B), {{\partial}}+ Q_B \Big)\,.$$
Composing $F$ with a canonical projection $p_B : {{\cal C}}(B) \to B$, and restricting this composition to $A \subset {{\cal C}}(A)$, we get a map of cochain complexes: $$\label{F-lin-term}
p_B \circ F \Big|_{A} : A \to B\,.$$ We refer to as [*the linear term*]{} of the $\infty$-morphism $F$. Recall that an $\infty$-morphism $F$ is called an $\infty$ [*quasi-isomorphism*]{} if its linear term is a quasi-isomorphism of cochain complexes.
Let us recall that ${{\mathrm{Cat}}}_{{{\cal C}}}$ is the category of ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebras with morphisms being $\infty$-morphisms, and observe that we have the obvious functor $$\label{mF}
{{\mathfrak{F}}}: {{\mathrm{Cat}}}_{{{\cal C}}} \to \pi_0 \big({{\mathsf{HoAlg}}}^{{{\mathsf{\Delta}}}}_{{{\cal C}}} \big)$$ which acts by identity on objects and assigns to every $\infty$-morphism the isomorphism class of the corresponding MC element.
The goal of this section is to prove that the category $\pi_0 \big({{\mathsf{HoAlg}}}^{{{\mathsf{\Delta}}}}_{{{\cal C}}} \big)$ is the homotopy category for ${{\mathrm{Cat}}}_{{{\cal C}}}$. Namely,
\[thm:pi-0-HoAlg\] The functor ${{\mathfrak{F}}}$ sends $\infty$ quasi-isomorphisms to isomorphisms and it is a universal functor with this property. I.e., if ${{\mathfrak{G}}}: {{\mathrm{Cat}}}_{{{\cal C}}} \to {{\mathfrak{D}}}$ is a functor which sends $\infty$ quasi-isomorphisms to isomorphisms in ${{\mathfrak{D}}}$ then there exists a unique functor $${{\mathfrak{G}}}' : \pi_0\big( {{\mathsf{HoAlg}}}^{{{\mathsf{\Delta}}}}_{{{\cal C}}} \big) \to {{\mathfrak{D}}}$$ such that ${{\mathfrak{G}}}= {{\mathfrak{G}}}' \circ {{\mathfrak{F}}}$.
“Inverting” $\infty$ quasi-isomorphisms
---------------------------------------
Let $A_1, A_2, A_3$ be ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebras, $F$ be an $\infty$-morphism from $A_1$ to $A_2$, and $F'$ be the MC element of ${{\mathbf{map}}}(A_1, A_2)$ corresponding to $F$. Let us denote by $F' \oplus 0$, $0 \oplus F'$ the corresponding MC elements of the ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebras $${{\mathbf{map}}}(A_1, A_2) \oplus {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_3 , A_1)$$ and $${{\mathbf{map}}}(A_2, A_3) \oplus {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_1, A_2)\,,$$ respectively.
Twisting the ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-morphisms $${{\mathcal{U}}}: {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_1, A_2) \oplus {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_3 , A_1) \to {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_3, A_2)$$ and $${{\mathcal{U}}}: {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_2, A_3) \oplus {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_1, A_2) \to {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_1, A_3)$$ by the MC elements $F' \oplus 0$, $0 \oplus F'$, respectively, and composing the resulting ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-morphisms with the canonical maps $$f \mapsto 0 \oplus f ~: ~
{{\mathbf{map}}}(A_3, A_1) \to {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_1, A_2) \oplus {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_3 , A_1)$$ $$f \mapsto f \oplus 0 ~: ~
{{\mathbf{map}}}(A_2, A_3) \to {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_2, A_3) \oplus {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_1, A_2)$$ we get two ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-morphisms $$\label{comp-A-312}
{{\mathcal{U}}}_{A_3 A_1 A_2} : {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_3, A_1) \to {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_3, A_2)$$ and $$\label{comp-A-123}
{{\mathcal{U}}}_{A_1 A_2 A_3} : {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_2, A_3) \to {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_1, A_3)\,.$$
The following proposition says that the induced maps of MC elements $$\label{comp-F-312}
({{\mathcal{U}}}_{A_3 A_1 A_2})_* : {\mathrm{MC}}( {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_3, A_1) ) \to {\mathrm{MC}}( {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_3, A_2) )$$ and $$\label{comp-F-123}
({{\mathcal{U}}}_{A_1 A_2 A_3})_* : {\mathrm{MC}}( {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_2, A_3) ) \to {\mathrm{MC}}( {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_1, A_3) )$$ correspond to the composition (resp. the pre-composition) of an $\infty$-morphism from $A_3$ to $A_1$ (resp. from $A_2$ to $A_3$) with $F$:
\[prop:cU-star-comp\] If $G$ is an $\infty$-morphism from $A_3$ to $A_1$ and $G'$ is the corresponding MC element of ${{\mathbf{map}}}(A_3, A_1)$ then the MC element $({{\mathcal{U}}}_{A_3 A_1 A_2})_* (G')$ of ${{\mathbf{map}}}(A_3, A_2)$ corresponds to the composition $F \circ G$. Similarly, if $G$ is an $\infty$-morphism from $A_2$ to $A_3$ and $G'$ is the corresponding MC element of ${{\mathbf{map}}}(A_2, A_3)$ then the MC element $({{\mathcal{U}}}_{A_1 A_2 A_3})_* (G')$ of $ {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_1, A_3) $ corresponds to the composition $G \circ F$.
The proof of these statements is straightforward.\
We also claim that
\[prop:cU-F-q-iso\] ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-morphisms and are compatible with the filtrations ${{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_{{{\bullet}}}$ from . Furthermore, if $F$ is an $\infty$ quasi-isomorphism, then and give us ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$ quasi-isomorphisms $$\label{q-iso-cF-m}
{{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_{m} {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_3, A_1) \to {{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_{m} {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_3, A_2)
\quad \textrm{and} \quad
{{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_{m} {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_2, A_3) \to {{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_{m} {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_1, A_3)$$ respectively, for every $m \ge 1$.
Due to Remark \[rem:U-pr-again\], the composition $${{\mathcal{U}}}'_{A_3 A_1 A_2} : = p_{{{\mathbf{map}}}(A_3, A_2)} \circ {{\mathcal{U}}}_{A_3 A_1 A_2} : {{\underline{S}}}\big({{\mathbf{map}}}(A_3, A_1)\big) \to {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_3, A_2)$$ is given by the formula $$\label{cU-A-312-pr}
{{\mathcal{U}}}'_{A_3 A_1 A_2} (g_1, \dots, g_n) (X) =
F' \big( 1 \otimes g_{1} \otimes \dots \otimes g_{n} \, ({{\Delta}}_n(X)) \big)\,,$$ where $X \in {{\cal C}}(A_3)$ and $g_1, \dots, g_n \in {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_3, A_1)$. Similarly, the composition $${{\mathcal{U}}}'_{A_1 A_2 A_3} : = p_{{{\mathbf{map}}}(A_1, A_3)} \circ {{\mathcal{U}}}_{A_1 A_2 A_3} :
{{\underline{S}}}\big( {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_2, A_3) \big) \to {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_1, A_3)$$ is given by the formula $$\label{cU-A-123-pr}
{{\mathcal{U}}}'_{A_1 A_2 A_3} (h_1, \dots, h_n) (Y) =
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle \sum_{m \ge 1}
\frac{1}{m!} h_1 \big( 1 \otimes F' \otimes \dots \otimes F' \, ({{\Delta}}_m(Y)) \big) \qquad {\rm if} ~~ n=1 \,, \\[0.5cm]
0 \qquad {\rm otherwise}\,,
\end{cases}$$ where $Y \in {{\cal C}}(A_1)$ and $h_1, \dots, h_n \in {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_2, A_3)$.
The compatibility of map ${{\mathcal{U}}}'_{A_3 A_1 A_2}$ and ${{\mathcal{U}}}'_{A_1 A_2 A_3}$ with the filtrations ${{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_{{{\bullet}}}$ can be checked directly by unfolding the right hand side of and the right hand side of , respectively.
We also see that the linear terms $$\label{cU-1-A-312}
{{\mathcal{U}}}_{1, A_3 A_1 A_2} : {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_3, A_1) \to {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_3, A_2)$$ and $$\label{cU-1-A-123}
{{\mathcal{U}}}_{1, A_1 A_2 A_3} : {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_2, A_3) \to {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_1, A_3)$$ of the ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-morphisms ${{\mathcal{U}}}_{A_3 A_1 A_2}$ and ${{\mathcal{U}}}_{A_1 A_2 A_3}$ are given by the formulas: $${{\mathcal{U}}}_{1, A_3 A_1 A_2} (g) (X) = F' \big( (1 \otimes g) \circ {{\Delta}}_1(X) \big)$$ and $${{\mathcal{U}}}_{1, A_1 A_2 A_3}(h) (Y) = \sum_{k \ge 1}
\frac{1}{k!} h \big( 1 \otimes F' \otimes \dots \otimes F' \, ({{\Delta}}_k(Y)) \big)\,,$$ respectively, where $g \in {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_3, A_1)$, $h \in {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_2, A_3)$ $X \in {{\cal C}}(A_3)$ and $Y \in {{\cal C}}(A_1)$.
Let ${{\varphi}}: A_1 \to A_2$ be the linear term $$\label{vf}
{{\varphi}}: = p_{A_2} \circ F \big|_{A_1}$$ of the $\infty$-morphism $F$ and assume that ${{\varphi}}$ is a quasi-isomorphism of cochain complexes.
To prove that ${{\mathcal{U}}}_{1, A_1 A_2 A_3}$ induces an isomorphism $$H^{{{\bullet}}} \big( {{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_{m} {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_2, A_3) \big) \to H^{{{\bullet}}} \big( {{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_{m} {{\mathbf{map}}}(A_1, A_3) \big)$$ for every $m$, we observe that, for $m \ge 2$ $${{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_{m} {{\mathbf{map}}}(W, A_3) = {{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_{m} {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(W), A_3)$$ and ${{\mathbf{map}}}(W, A_3) = {{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_{1} {{\mathbf{map}}}(W, A_3)$ splits into the direct sum of cochain complexes $$\label{Map-W-A3-splits}
{{\mathbf{map}}}(W, A_3) = {{\mathrm{Hom}}}(W, A_3) ~\oplus~ {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(W), A_3)\,,$$ where $W$ is either $A_2$ or $A_1$, and ${{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}$ is the cokernel of the coaugmentation of ${{\cal C}}$.
We also observe that the chain map ${{\mathcal{U}}}_{1, A_1 A_2 A_3}$ is compatible with decomposition and the corresponding chain map $${{\mathrm{Hom}}}(A_2, A_3) \to {{\mathrm{Hom}}}(A_1, A_3)$$ is a quasi-isomorphism because the functor ${{\mathrm{Hom}}}(-,-)$ preserves quasi-isomorphisms in ${{\mathsf{Ch}}}_{{{\Bbbk}}}$.
So we should now prove that the chain map $$\label{cU1-123-cC-circ}
{{\mathcal{U}}}_{1, A_1 A_2 A_3} \Big|_{{{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_{m} {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(A_2), A_3) } ~:~ {{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_{m} {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(A_2), A_3)
\to {{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_{m} {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(A_1), A_3)$$ induces an isomorphism on cohomology for every $m \ge 1$.
For this purpose, we equip the cochain complex ${{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_{m} {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(W), A_3)$ with the following descending filtration $${{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_{m} {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(W), A_3) = {{\cal F}}^{{{\cal C}}}_0 {{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_{m} {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(W), A_3)
\supset {{\cal F}}^{{{\cal C}}}_1 {{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_{m} {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(W), A_3) \supset$$ $$\supset {{\cal F}}^{{{\cal C}}}_2 {{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_{m} {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(W), A_3) \supset \dots$$ $$\label{cF-cC-Map}
{{\cal F}}^{{{\cal C}}}_q \, {{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_{m} {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(W), A_3) ~ : = ~$$ $$\big\{ g \in {{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_{m} {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(W), A_3) ~~ \big|~~ g (X) = 0 ~~\forall~ X \in {{\cal F}}^{q}{{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(W) \big\}\,,$$ where ${{\cal F}}^{{{\bullet}}} {{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}$ is the ascending filtration on the pseudo-cooperad ${{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}$ from and $W$ is, as above, either $A_1$ or $A_2$.
Due to inclusion , the differential on ${{\mathbf{map}}}(W,A_3)$ is compatible with the filtration. Moreover, condition implies that ${{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_{m} {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(W), A_3)$ is complete with respect to this filtration, i.e. $${{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_{m} {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(W), A_3) = \lim_q ~ {{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_{m} {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(W), A_3) ~
\big/ ~{{\cal F}}^{{{\cal C}}}_q {{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_{m} {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(W), A_3)\,.$$
Let us denote by $E_{m,q}({{\cal C}}, W)$ the following cochain complex $$\label{E-m-q}
E_{m,q}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}, W) : =
\bigoplus_{n \ge m} \Big( \big( {{\cal F}}^q {{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(n) / {{\cal F}}^{q-1} {{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(n) \big) \, \otimes \, W^{\otimes\, n} \Big)_{S_n} \,.$$
It is clear that, the associated graded complex $${{\mathrm{Gr}}}_{{{\cal F}}^{{{\cal C}}}} \, {{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_m {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(W), A_3)$$ is isomorphic to $$\label{assoc-Gr-m-ge2}
\bigoplus_{q \ge 1} {{\mathrm{Hom}}}\big(E_{m,q}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}, W) , A_3 \big)\,.$$ Furthermore, the differential ${{\partial}}_{{{\mathrm{Gr}}}}$ on comes from those on $W$, ${{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}$ and $A_3$.
The map between the associated graded complexes $$\label{assoc-Gr-map}
{{\mathcal{U}}}^{{{\mathrm{Gr}}}}_{1, A_1 A_2 A_3} ~ : ~
{{\mathrm{Hom}}}\big(E_{m,q}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}, A_2) , A_3 \big) \to {{\mathrm{Hom}}}\big(E_{m,q}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}, A_1) , A_3 \big)$$ induced by is given by the formula $$\label{assoc-Gr-map-dfn}
{{\mathcal{U}}}^{{{\mathrm{Gr}}}}_{1, A_1 A_2 A_3} (g)({{\gamma}}; a_1, \dots, a_n) = g ({{\gamma}}; {{\varphi}}(a_1), \dots, {{\varphi}}(a_n))\,,$$ where ${{\varphi}}$ is the linear term of the $\infty$-morphism $F$ and ${{\gamma}}\in {{\cal F}}^q {{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(n) / {{\cal F}}^{q-1} {{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(n)$.
Using the Künneth theorem, the fact that ${{\varphi}}$ induces an isomorphism $H^{{{\bullet}}}(A_1) \to H^{{{\bullet}}}(A_2)$, and $\textrm{char}({{\Bbbk}}) = 0$ we conclude that the chain map $$E_{m,q}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}, A_1) \to E_{m,q}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}, A_2)$$ induced by ${{\varphi}}$ is a quasi-isomorphism.
Therefore, since the functor ${{\mathrm{Hom}}}(-,-)$ preserves quasi-isomorphisms in ${{\mathsf{Ch}}}_{{{\Bbbk}}}$, we deduce chain map between the associated graded complexes is a quasi-isomorphism.
Since ${{\cal F}}^{{{\mathrm{ari}}}}_{m} {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(W), A_3)$ is complete with respect to filtration , and filtration is bounded from the left, applying Lemma D.1 from [@DeligneTw] to the cone of chain map , we conclude that , and hence , is indeed a quasi-isomorphism of cochain complexes.
A similar argument shows that map is a quasi-isomorphism of cochain complexes, provided so is ${{\varphi}}$ .
Proposition \[prop:cU-F-q-iso\] is proved.
Let $A$ and $B$ be ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebras. We will now prove that every $\infty$ quasi-morphism $F$ from $A$ to $B$ is “invertible” in the following sense:
\[cor:invertible\] Let $F$ be an $\infty$ quasi-isomorphism from $A$ to $B$. Then there exists an $\infty$-morphism $G$ from $B$ to $A$ such that the MC element $(G \circ F)'$ (resp. $(F \circ G)'$) of the ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebra ${{\mathbf{map}}}(A,A)$ (resp. ${{\mathbf{map}}}(B,B)$) corresponding to the composition $G \circ F$ (resp. $F \circ G$) is isomorphic in ${\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}}({{\mathbf{map}}}(A,A))$ (resp. in ${\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}}({{\mathbf{map}}}(B,B))$) to the MC element $\operatorname{\mathrm{id}}'_A$ (resp. $\operatorname{\mathrm{id}}'_B$) corresponding to the identity morphism $\operatorname{\mathrm{id}}_A$ (resp. $\operatorname{\mathrm{id}}_B$). If ${{\widetilde{G}}}$ is another $\infty$-morphism from $B$ to $A$ satisfying the above properties then the MC element ${{\widetilde{G}}}' \in {{\mathbf{map}}}(B,A)$ corresponding to ${{\widetilde{G}}}$ is isomorphic to $G'$ in ${\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}}({{\mathbf{map}}}(B,A))$.
Let us start with the question of existence of $G$.
Due to Proposition \[prop:cU-star-comp\], it suffices to prove that there exists a MC element $G'$ of ${{\mathbf{map}}}(B,A)$ such that the $0$-cell $$\label{G-pr-to-A}
({{\mathcal{U}}}_{A B A})_* (G') \in {\mathfrak{MC}}_0({{\mathbf{map}}}(A,A))$$ is connected to $\operatorname{\mathrm{id}}'_A$ and the $0$-cell $$\label{G-pr-to-B}
({{\mathcal{U}}}_{B A B})_* (G') \in {\mathfrak{MC}}_0({{\mathbf{map}}}(B,B))$$ is connected to $\operatorname{\mathrm{id}}'_B$.
Proposition \[prop:cU-F-q-iso\] implies that the ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-morphism $${{\mathcal{U}}}_{A B A} : {{\mathbf{map}}}(B,A) \to {{\mathbf{map}}}(A,A)$$ is a quasi-isomorphism and, moreover, it satisfies the necessary conditions of Theorem 2.2 from [@GMtheorem]. This theorem, in turn, implies that ${{\mathcal{U}}}_{A B A}$ induces a bijection of sets $$\label{cU-ABA-pi0}
\pi_0\Big( {\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}}({{\mathbf{map}}}(B,A)) \Big)
{\stackrel{\cong}{\longrightarrow}}
\pi_0\Big( {\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}}({{\mathbf{map}}}(A,A)) \Big) \,.$$
Therefore, there exists a MC element $G' \in {{\mathbf{map}}}(B,A)$ such that the $0$-cell $$\label{GF-pr}
(G \circ F)'= ({{\mathcal{U}}}_{A B A})_* (G')$$ is connected to $\operatorname{\mathrm{id}}'_A$.
To prove that the $0$-cell $(F\circ G)' = ({{\mathcal{U}}}_{B A B})_* (G')$ is connected to $\operatorname{\mathrm{id}}'_B$, we consider the ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-morphisms $$\label{ABB}
{{\mathcal{U}}}_{A B B} : {{\mathbf{map}}}(B, B) \to {{\mathbf{map}}}(A, B)\,,$$ and $$\label{AAB}
{{\mathcal{U}}}_{AAB} : {{\mathbf{map}}}(A, A) \to {{\mathbf{map}}}(A, B)$$ constructed, as above, using the $\infty$-morphism $F$.
Proposition \[prop:cU-star-comp\] implies that, if $K'$ is a MC element of ${{\mathbf{map}}}(B, B)$ (resp. ${{\mathbf{map}}}(A, A)$) corresponding to an $\infty$-morphism $K$ from $B$ to $B$ (resp. from $A$ to $A$) then the MC element $({{\mathcal{U}}}_{A B B})_*(K')$ (resp. $({{\mathcal{U}}}_{A A B})_*(K')$) corresponds to the composition $K \circ F$ (resp. $F \circ K$).
Let us now consider the composition $F \circ G$ and denote by $(F\circ G)'$ the $0$-cell of ${\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}}({{\mathbf{map}}}(B,B))$ corresponding to the $\infty$-morphism $F \circ G$.
Due to the above observation, the MC element $(F\circ G \circ F)' \in {{\mathbf{map}}}(A, B)$ corresponding to the $\infty$-morphism $F\circ G \circ F$ satisfies the equations $$\label{MC-FGF-FG}
(F\circ G \circ F)' = ({{\mathcal{U}}}_{A B B})_*\, (F\circ G)'$$ and $$\label{MC-FGF-GF}
(F\circ G \circ F)' = ({{\mathcal{U}}}_{A A B})_* \, (G\circ F)'\,.$$
Therefore, since the $0$-cell $(G \circ F)'$ is connected to the $0$-cell $\operatorname{\mathrm{id}}'_A$, the $0$-cell $(F\circ G \circ F)'$ is connected to $F'$ in ${\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}} ({{\mathbf{map}}}(A,B))$.
On other hand, $F' = ({{\mathcal{U}}}_{A B B})_* (\operatorname{\mathrm{id}}'_B)$, and hence the $0$-cells $$({{\mathcal{U}}}_{A B B })_* (\operatorname{\mathrm{id}}'_B) \qquad \textrm{and} \qquad ({{\mathcal{U}}}_{A B B})_*\, (F\circ G)'$$ are connected in ${\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}} ({{\mathbf{map}}}(A,B))$.
Since $F$ is an $\infty$ quasi-isomorphism, Proposition \[prop:cU-F-q-iso\] and [@GMtheorem Theorem 2.2] imply that $({{\mathcal{U}}}_{A B B })_*$ induces a bijection $$\pi_0 \Big( {\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}} ({{\mathbf{map}}}(B,B)) \Big) {\stackrel{\cong}{\longrightarrow}} \pi_0 \Big( {\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}} ({{\mathbf{map}}}(A,B)) \Big)\,.$$
Thus the $0$-cells $(F\circ G)'$ and $\operatorname{\mathrm{id}}'_B$ are also connected in ${\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}} ({{\mathbf{map}}}(B,B))$ and the existence of a desired $\infty$-morphism $G$ is proved.
Let ${{\widetilde{G}}}$ be another $\infty$-morphism from $B$ to $A$ such that $0$-cells and $\operatorname{\mathrm{id}}'_A$ are connected in ${\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}}( {{\mathbf{map}}}(A,A) )$.
Therefore, since ${{\mathcal{U}}}_{ABA}$ induces bijection and the $0$-cells $({{\mathcal{U}}}_{ABA})_* (G')$ and $\operatorname{\mathrm{id}}'_A$ are connected, we conclude that the $0$-cells ${{\widetilde{G}}}'$ and $G'$ are also connected.
Thus we proved the first part of Theorem \[thm:pi-0-HoAlg\].
We would like to conclude this subsection with the observation that mapping spaces of the simplicial category ${{\mathsf{HoAlg}}}^{{{\mathsf{\Delta}}}}_{{{\cal C}}}$ enjoy the following remarkable property
\[cor:q-iso-gives\] Let $A_1, A_2, A_3$ be ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebras and $F$ be an $\infty$ quasi-isomorphism from $A_1$ to $A_2$. Then the composition (resp. pre-composition) with $F$ induces the weak equivalences of simplicial sets: $${\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}}({{\mathbf{map}}}(A_3, A_1)) \to {\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}}({{\mathbf{map}}}(A_3, A_2))\,,$$ $${\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}}({{\mathbf{map}}}(A_2, A_3)) \to {\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}}({{\mathbf{map}}}(A_1, A_3))\,.$$
The desired statement is a direct consequence of Proposition \[prop:cU-F-q-iso\] and [@GMtheorem Theorem 2.2].
The functor ${{\mathfrak{F}}}$ from Theorem \[thm:pi-0-HoAlg\] has the desired universal property
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proof of the universal property of the functor ${{\mathfrak{F}}}$ is based on the following proposition:
\[prop:homot-implies-OK\] Let ${{\mathfrak{G}}}: {{\mathrm{Cat}}}_{{{\cal C}}} \to {{\mathfrak{D}}}$ be a functor which sends $\infty$ quasi-isomorphisms to isomorphisms in ${{\mathfrak{D}}}$. Let $A$, $B$ be ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebras and $F, G$ be $\infty$-morphisms from $A$ to $B$. If the corresponding $0$-cells $F'$ and $G'$ of ${\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}}({{\mathbf{map}}}(A,B))$ are connected then $${{\mathfrak{G}}}(F) = {{\mathfrak{G}}}(G)\,.$$
By the condition of the proposition, there exists a $1$-cell $$\label{K-pr}
K' \in {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A), B) {{\,\hat{\otimes}\,}}{{\Bbbk}}[t, \, dt]$$ such that $$\label{proj-0}
K' \Big|_{t=d t = 0} = F'$$ and $$\label{proj-1}
K' \Big|_{t=1, ~ d t = 0} = G'\,.$$
Since $${{\cal C}}(A) = \bigoplus_n \big( {{\cal C}}(n) \otimes A^{\otimes \, n} \big)_{S_n}$$ and ${{\mathrm{Hom}}}\big({{\cal C}}(A), B \big)$ is considered with the topology coming from filtration , we have the natural strict ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-morphism $$\label{isom-hotimes}
{{\mathrm{Hom}}}\big({{\cal C}}(A), B \big) {{\,\hat{\otimes}\,}}{{\Bbbk}}[t, \, dt] ~\to~
{{\mathrm{Hom}}}\big( {{\cal C}}(A), B \otimes {{\Bbbk}}[t, \, dt] \big) \,.$$
Therefore the $1$-cell $K'$ gives us an $\infty$-morphism $K$ from $A$ to $B \otimes {{\Bbbk}}[t, \, dt] $ which fits into the following commutative diagram $$\label{diag-K}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\matrix (m) [matrix of math nodes, row sep=2em, column sep=4em]
{ ~& ~ & B \\
A & B \otimes {{\Bbbk}}[t, \, dt] & ~ \\
~ & ~ & B\,,\\ };
\path[->, font=\scriptsize]
(m-2-1) edge node[above] {$K$} (m-2-2)
edge[bend left=15] node[above] {$F$} (m-1-3) edge[bend right=15] node[below] {$G$} (m-3-3)
(m-2-2) edge node[above] {$p_0$} (m-1-3) edge node[below] {$p_1$} (m-3-3);
\end{tikzpicture}$$ where $ B \otimes {{\Bbbk}}[t, \, dt]$ is considered with the differential ${{\partial}}_{B} + dt \,{{\partial}}_t $ and the natural ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-structure coming from the one on $B$. Moreover, $p_0$ and $p_1$ are the obvious (strict) morphisms of ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebras $$\label{p-0}
p_0 (v) : = v \big|_{t=dt=0} ~:~ B \otimes {{\Bbbk}}[t, \, dt] \to B$$ and $$\label{p-1}
p_1 (v) : = v \big|_{t=1,~ dt=0} ~:~ B \otimes {{\Bbbk}}[t, \, dt] \to B\,.$$
Let us observe that the maps $p_0$ and $p_1$ fit into the commutative diagram $$\label{diag-p0p1}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\matrix (m) [matrix of math nodes, row sep=2em, column sep=4em]
{ ~& ~ & B \\
B & B \otimes {{\Bbbk}}[t, \, dt] & ~ \\
~ & ~ & B\,,\\ };
\path[->, font=\scriptsize]
(m-2-1) edge node[above] {$~~i$} (m-2-2)
edge[bend left=15] node[above] {$\operatorname{\mathrm{id}}_B$} (m-1-3) edge[bend right=15] node[below] {$\operatorname{\mathrm{id}}_B$} (m-3-3)
(m-2-2) edge node[above] {$p_0$} (m-1-3) edge node[below] {$p_1$} (m-3-3);
\end{tikzpicture}$$ where $i: B \to B \otimes {{\Bbbk}}[t, \, dt]$ is the natural embedding given by $$i (v) : = v \otimes 1\,.$$
Applying the functor ${{\mathfrak{G}}}$ to , we get $${{\mathfrak{G}}}(p_0) \circ {{\mathfrak{G}}}(i) = {{\mathfrak{G}}}(p_1) \circ {{\mathfrak{G}}}(i) = \operatorname{\mathrm{id}}_{{{\mathfrak{G}}}(B)}\,.$$ Hence, since $i$ is obviously a quasi-isomorphism, we deduce that $${{\mathfrak{G}}}(p_0) = {{\mathfrak{G}}}(p_1)\,.$$
Finally, applying the functor ${{\mathfrak{G}}}$ to , we get $${{\mathfrak{G}}}(p_0) \circ {{\mathfrak{G}}}(K) = {{\mathfrak{G}}}(F)\,, \qquad
{{\mathfrak{G}}}(p_1) \circ {{\mathfrak{G}}}(K) = {{\mathfrak{G}}}(G)$$ which implies that ${{\mathfrak{G}}}(F) = {{\mathfrak{G}}}(G)$.
Proposition \[prop:homot-implies-OK\] motivates the following definition[^8]
\[dfn:homotopy\] Let $A,B$ be ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebras. We say that $\infty$-morphisms $F,G$ from $A$ to $B$ are *homotopic* if the corresponding $0$-cells $F'$ and $G'$ are connected in ${\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}}({{\mathbf{map}}}(A,B))$.
We can now prove the universal property of functor .
Indeed, let ${{\mathfrak{G}}}$ be a functor from ${{\mathrm{Cat}}}_{{{\cal C}}}$ to some category ${{\mathfrak{D}}}$ which sends $\infty$ quasi-isomorphisms to isomorphisms.
For objects of $A,B, \dots$ of $\pi_0 \big( {{\mathsf{HoAlg}}}^{{{\mathsf{\Delta}}}}_{{{\cal C}}} \big)$ we set $${{\mathfrak{G}}}'(A) : = {{\mathfrak{G}}}(A)\,.$$
Next, given two ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebras $A,B$ and an isomorphism class $$[F'] \in \pi_0 \big( {\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}}({{\mathbf{map}}}(A,B)) \big)$$ of a MC element $F'$ in ${{\mathbf{map}}}(A,B)$ we set $$\label{mG-pr-morph}
{{\mathfrak{G}}}([F']) : = {{\mathfrak{G}}}(F)\,,$$ where $F$ is the $\infty$-morphism from $A$ to $B$ corresponding to the MC element $F'$.
Due to Proposition \[prop:homot-implies-OK\], the right hand side of does not depend on the choice of the MC element $F'$ in its isomorphism class $[F']$.
It is clear that, this way, we get a functor $${{\mathfrak{G}}}' : \pi_0 \big( {{\mathsf{HoAlg}}}^{{{\mathsf{\Delta}}}}_{{{\cal C}}} \big) \to {{\mathfrak{D}}}$$ satisfying ${{\mathfrak{G}}}' \circ {{\mathfrak{F}}}= {{\mathfrak{G}}}$.
It is also clear that such a functor ${{\mathfrak{G}}}'$ is unique and the proof of Theorem \[thm:pi-0-HoAlg\] is complete. We can use the above results to obtain the following converse to Cor. \[cor:q-iso-gives\]. Together they give a recognition principal for $\infty$ quasi-isomorphisms, in analogy with the characterization of weak equivalences via function complexes in a simplicial model category.
\[cor:q-iso-gives-converse\] For every $\infty$-morphism $F {\,\colon\,}A \to B$ of ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$ algebras, the following statements are equivalent:
1. $F$ is an $\infty$-quasi-isomorphism.
2. The ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-morphisms $${{\mathcal{U}}}_{AAB} {\,\colon\,}{{\mathbf{map}}}(A,A) \to {{\mathbf{map}}}(A,B) \quad \textrm{ and } \quad
{{\mathcal{U}}}_{BAB} {\,\colon\,}{{\mathbf{map}}}(B,A) \to {{\mathbf{map}}}(B,B)$$ induce homotopy equivalences of simplicial sets $${\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}}({{\mathbf{map}}}(A, A)) {\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}} {\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}}({{\mathbf{map}}}(A, B))
~ \textrm{ and } ~
{\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}}({{\mathbf{map}}}(B, A)) {\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}} {\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}}({{\mathbf{map}}}(B, B))$$ respectively.
3. The ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-morphisms $${{\mathcal{U}}}_{ABA} {\,\colon\,}{{\mathbf{map}}}(B,A) \to {{\mathbf{map}}}(A,A)
\quad \textrm{ and } \quad
{{\mathcal{U}}}_{ABB} {\,\colon\,}{{\mathbf{map}}}(B, B) \to {{\mathbf{map}}}(A, B)$$ induce homotopy equivalences of simplicial sets $${\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}}({{\mathbf{map}}}(B, A)) {\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}} {\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}}({{\mathbf{map}}}(A, A))
~ \textrm{ and } ~
{\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}}({{\mathbf{map}}}(B, B)) {\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}} {\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}}({{\mathbf{map}}}(A, B))$$ respectively.
The implications $1 \Rightarrow 2$ and $1 \Rightarrow 3$ are particular cases of Corollary \[cor:q-iso-gives\]. Let us prove the implication $2 \Rightarrow 1$.
Since $F$ induces a homotopy equivalence of simplicial sets $${\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}}({{\mathbf{map}}}(B, A)) {\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}} {\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}}({{\mathbf{map}}}(B, B)),$$ we have an isomorphism $$\pi_0 \Bigl({\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}}({{\mathbf{map}}}(B, A))\Bigr ) \cong \pi_0
\Bigl({\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}}({{\mathbf{map}}}(B, B)) \Bigr),$$ which implies that there exists an $\infty$-morphism $G {\,\colon\,}B \to A$ such that $F \circ G$ and $\operatorname{\mathrm{id}}_B$ are homotopic, in the sense of Def. \[dfn:homotopy\]. As in the proof of Prop. \[prop:homot-implies-OK\], this gives a commutative diagram of ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$ algebras and $\infty$-morphisms: $$\begin{tikzpicture}
\matrix (m) [matrix of math nodes, row sep=2em, column sep=4em]
{ ~& ~ & B \\
B & B \otimes {{\Bbbk}}[t, \, dt] & ~ \\
~ & ~ & B\,\\ };
\path[->, font=\scriptsize]
(m-2-1) edge node[above] {$H$} (m-2-2)
edge[bend left=15] node[above] {$F\circ G$} (m-1-3) edge[bend right=15] node[below] {$\operatorname{\mathrm{id}}_B$} (m-3-3)
(m-2-2) edge node[above] {$p_0$} (m-1-3) edge node[below] {$p_1$} (m-3-3);
\end{tikzpicture}$$ By taking the linear terms of the $\infty$-morphisms, this diagram, in turn, gives a diagram of cochain complexes $$\begin{tikzpicture}
\matrix (m) [matrix of math nodes, row sep=2em, column sep=4em]
{ ~& ~ & B \\
B & B \otimes {{\Bbbk}}[t, \, dt] & ~ \\
~ & ~ & B\,,\\ };
\path[->, font=\scriptsize]
(m-2-1) edge node[above] {$h$} (m-2-2)
edge[bend left=15] node[above] {$f\circ g$} (m-1-3) edge[bend right=15] node[below] {$\operatorname{\mathrm{id}}_B$} (m-3-3)
(m-2-2) edge node[above] {$p_0$} (m-1-3) edge node[below] {$p_1$} (m-3-3);
\end{tikzpicture}$$ where $h$ and $f\circ g$ are the linear terms $p_{B{\otimes}{{\Bbbk}}[t,dt]}
\circ H \vert_{B}$, and $p_{B} \circ F\circ G \vert_{B}$, respectively. Let $I {\,\colon\,}B{\otimes}{{\Bbbk}}[t,dt] \to B$ denote “integration over the fiber”, i.e. the degree $-1$ linear map $$I\Bigl( b {\otimes}q(t) + \tilde{b} {\otimes}\tilde{q}(t)dt \Bigr) = (-1)^{\vert
\tilde{b} \vert} ~ \tilde{b}\int^{1}_{0} \tilde{q}(t)dt.$$ Then one can show that the map $s_B {\,\colon\,}B \to B$ defined as $$s_B : = I \circ h$$ is a chain homotopy $$\operatorname{\mathrm{id}}_B - f \circ g = \partial_B s_B + s_B \partial_B.$$ Hence, the map $f$ is surjective on cohomology.
Now consider the ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-morphism $${{\mathcal{U}}}_{ABB} {\,\colon\,}{{\mathbf{map}}}(B,B) \to {{\mathbf{map}}}(A,B)$$ which sends a MC element $K'$ to $(K \circ F)'$. This gives a map between sets $$\pi_0 \Bigl({\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}}({{\mathbf{map}}}(B, B))\Bigr ) \to \pi_0\Bigl({\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}}({{\mathbf{map}}}(A, B)) \Bigr).$$ Since the MC elements $(F \circ G)'$ and $(\operatorname{\mathrm{id}}_B)'$ are connected by a $1$-cell, we conclude that $F'$ is connected to $(F \circ G \circ F)'$. By the first part of statement 2, the ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-morphism $${{\mathcal{U}}}_{AAB} {\,\colon\,}{{\mathbf{map}}}(A,A) \to {{\mathbf{map}}}(A,B)$$ induces a bijection $$\pi_0 \Bigl({\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}}({{\mathbf{map}}}(A, A))\Bigr ) \cong \pi_0
\Bigl({\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}}({{\mathbf{map}}}(A, B)) \Bigr).$$ sending $[(\operatorname{\mathrm{id}}_A)']$ to $[F']$, and $[(G \circ F)']$ to $[(F \circ G \circ F)']=[F']$. Hence, we see that $\operatorname{\mathrm{id}}_A$ is homotopic to $G \circ F$. We produce a chain homotopy $s_A {\,\colon\,}A \to A$ using the same construction as before, which shows that $f$ is also injective on cohomology. Hence, $F {\,\colon\,}A \to
B$ is an $\infty$-quasi-isomorphism.
The proof of the implication $3 \Rightarrow 1$ is very similar to that of $2 \Rightarrow 1$. So we leave it to the reader.
The Homotopy Transfer Theorem is a simple consequence of the Goldman-Millson theorem {#sec:HTT}
====================================================================================
In this section we give an elegant proof of the Homotopy Transfer Theorem for ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebras. This proof is based on a construction from [@DefHomotInvar] and a version of the Goldman-Millson theorem from [@GMtheorem].
Let us consider a dg cooperad ${{\cal C}}$ for which ${{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}$ carries ascending filtration satisfying condition and let $A$, $B$ be cochain complexes.
In [@DefHomotInvar Section 3.1], we equipped the cochain complex $$\label{Cyl-cC-A-B}
{{\mathrm{Cyl}}}({{\cal C}}, A, B) : = {{\bf s}^{-1}\,}{{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(A), A) ~\oplus~ {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}(A), B)~ \oplus~
{{\bf s}^{-1}\,}{{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(B), B)$$ with a natural ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebra structure[^9]
According to [@DefHomotInvar Section 3.1], MC elements of ${{\mathrm{Cyl}}}({{\cal C}}, A, B)$ are triples:
- a ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebra structure on $A$,
- a ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebra structure on $B$, and
- an $\infty$-morphism from $A$ to $B$.
In particular, any chain map ${{\varphi}}: A \to B$ gives a MC element $Q_{{{\varphi}}}$ corresponding to the zero ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebra structures on $A$, $B$, and the strict $\infty$-morphism from $A$ to $B$.
Let us twist the ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebra structure on , and denote the new ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebra by $$\label{Cyl-cC-AB-twisted}
{{\mathrm{Cyl}}}({{\cal C}}, A, B)^{Q_{{{\varphi}}}}\,.$$
It is not hard to see that the graded subspace $$\label{Cyl-cC-0-AB}
{{\mathrm{Cyl}}}_{{\circ}}({{\cal C}}, A, B)^{Q_{{{\varphi}}}} : = {{\bf s}^{-1}\,}{{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(A), A) ~\oplus~ {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(A), B)~ \oplus~
{{\bf s}^{-1}\,}{{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(B), B)$$ is a ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-subalgebra of and filtration on ${{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}$ allows us to equip with a natural complete descending filtration ${{\cal F}}_{{{\bullet}}} {{\mathrm{Cyl}}}_{{\circ}}({{\cal C}}, A, B)^{Q_{{{\varphi}}}}$ (see Remark 2 in [@DefHomotInvar Section 3.2]) such that $$\label{Cyl-cC-0-AB-OK}
{{\mathrm{Cyl}}}_{{\circ}}({{\cal C}}, A, B)^{Q_{{{\varphi}}}} = {{\cal F}}_{1} {{\mathrm{Cyl}}}_{{\circ}}({{\cal C}}, A, B)^{Q_{{{\varphi}}}}\,.$$ In other words, is a filtered ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebra.
Furthermore, according to [@DefHomotInvar Section 3.2], MC elements of are in bijection with triples:
- a ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebra structure on $A$,
- a ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebra structure on $B$, and
- an $\infty$-morphism $F$ from $A$ to $B$ whose linear term is ${{\varphi}}$.
The Homotopy Transfer Theorem can be now formulated as follows:
\[thm:HTT\] Let $B$ be a ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebra, $A$ be a cochain complex and ${{\varphi}}: A \to B$ be a quasi-isomorphism of cochain complexes. Then there exists a ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebra structure $Q_A$ on $A$, a ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebra structure $Q_B$ on $B$ (which is homotopy equivalent to the original one) and an $\infty$-morphism $F$ from $(A, Q_A)$ to $(B,Q_B)$ whose linear term is ${{\varphi}}$. If $({{\tilde{Q}}}_A, {{\tilde{Q}}}_B, {{\tilde{F}}})$ is another triple satisfying the above properties then the MC elements corresponding to $(Q_A, Q_B, F)$ and $({{\tilde{Q}}}_A, {{\tilde{Q}}}_B, {{\tilde{F}}})$ are isomorphic in $${\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}} \big(\, {{\mathrm{Cyl}}}_{{\circ}}({{\cal C}}, A, B)^{Q_{{{\varphi}}}}\, \big)\,.$$
Let us identify the graded vector space of the convolution Lie algebra $${{\mathrm{Conv}}}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}, {{\mathrm{End}}}_B)$$ with ${{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(B), B)$ and consider ${{\bf s}^{-1}\,}{{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(B), B)$ with the corresponding ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebra structure.
Due to [@DefHomotInvar Proposition 3.2], the canonical projection $$\label{pi-B}
\pi_B ~:~ {{\mathrm{Cyl}}}_{{\circ}}({{\cal C}}, A, B)^{Q_{{{\varphi}}}} \to {{\bf s}^{-1}\,}{{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(B), B)$$ is a strict quasi-isomorphism of ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebras which is obviously compatible with the descending filtrations coming from .
Using the same arguments, as in the proof of [@DefHomotInvar Proposition 3.2], it is easy to see that $$\pi_B ~:~ {{\cal F}}_m {{\mathrm{Cyl}}}_{{\circ}}({{\cal C}}, A, B)^{Q_{{{\varphi}}}} \to {{\bf s}^{-1}\,}{{\cal F}}_m {{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(B), B)$$ is a quasi-isomorphism of cochain complexes for every $m \ge 1$.
Therefore, applying Theorem 1.1 from [@GMtheorem] to , we conclude that $\pi_B$ induces a weak equivalence of simplicial sets $${\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}} \big(\, {{\mathrm{Cyl}}}_{{\circ}}({{\cal C}}, A, B)^{Q_{{{\varphi}}}}\, \big) \to
{\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}} \big( {{\bf s}^{-1}\,}{{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(B), B) \big)$$ and hence a bijection $$\pi_0\Big( {\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}} \big(\, {{\mathrm{Cyl}}}_{{\circ}}({{\cal C}}, A, B)^{Q_{{{\varphi}}}}\, \big) \Big) \to
\pi_0\Big( {\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}} \big( {{\bf s}^{-1}\,}{{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(B), B) \big) \Big)\,.$$
Thus Theorem \[thm:HTT\] is a simple consequence of the fact that MC elements of the ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebra $$\label{bsi-Hom-cCB-B}
{{\bf s}^{-1}\,}{{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(B), B)$$ are in bijection with ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebra structures on $B$. Moreover, homotopy equivalent ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebra structures on $B$ correspond precisely to isomorphic MC elements of .
\[rem:HTT\] In the usual version of the Homotopy Transfer Theorem (see [@LV Theorem 10.3.2]) one constructs a ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebra structure on $A$ and an $\infty$ quasi-isomorphism $F$ from $A$ to $B$ with the original ${{\mathrm{Cobar}}}({{\cal C}})$-algebra structure, while in the above theorem, $F$ lands in $(B, Q_B)$ where $Q_B$ is only homotopy equivalent to the original one. On the other hand, given an isomorphism connecting two MC elements ${{\tilde{Q}}}_B$ and $Q_B$ in $${\mathfrak{MC}}_{{{\bullet}}} \big( {{\bf s}^{-1}\,}{{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(B), B) \big)\,,$$ it is easy to construct an $\infty$-morphism $G$ from $(B, Q_B)$ to $(B, {{\tilde{Q}}}_B)$ whose linear term is $\operatorname{\mathrm{id}}_B$. So the “usual” version of the Homotopy Transfer Theorem follows from Theorem \[thm:HTT\].
Proof of Proposition \[prop:Conv-V-A\] {#app:proof-Conv}
======================================
Although very similar claims to Proposition \[prop:Conv-V-A\] appeared in the literature (see, for example, [@Berglund], [@FMYau], [@KhPQ], [@MVnado1]) we still decided to give its proof for convenience of the reader.
Let us denote by $Q'_A$ the composition $$p_A \circ Q_A : {{\cal C}}(A) \to A\,.$$
To prove that multi-bracket is symmetric in its arguments, we let $$\label{Delta-m}
{{\Delta}}_m(v) = \sum_{{{\alpha}}} ({{\gamma}}_{{{\alpha}}}; v^{{{\alpha}}}_1, v^{{{\alpha}}}_{2}, \dots, v^{{{\alpha}}}_m)$$ and recall that ${{\Delta}}_m(v)$ lands in $S_m$-invariants of $ {{\cal C}}(m) \otimes V^{\otimes\, m} $. In other words, for every ${{\sigma}}\in S_m$ we have $$\label{S-m-invar}
\sum_{{{\alpha}}} \big( {{\sigma}}^{-1}({{\gamma}}_{{{\alpha}}}); v^{{{\alpha}}}_{{{\sigma}}(1)}, v^{{{\alpha}}}_{{{\sigma}}(2)}, \dots, v^{{{\alpha}}}_{{{\sigma}}(m)} \big) =
\sum_{{{\alpha}}} ({{\gamma}}_{{{\alpha}}}; v^{{{\alpha}}}_1, v^{{{\alpha}}}_{2}, \dots, v^{{{\alpha}}}_m)\,.$$
Therefore, for every ${{\sigma}}\in S_m$, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\{f_{{{\sigma}}(1)}, \dots, f_{{{\sigma}}(m)}\} (v) = \\
\sum_{{{\alpha}}} Q'_A \circ (1 \otimes f_{{{\sigma}}(1)}\otimes \dots \otimes f_{{{\sigma}}(m)} )
\big( {{\sigma}}^{-1}({{\gamma}}_{{{\alpha}}}); v^{{{\alpha}}}_{{{\sigma}}(1)}, v^{{{\alpha}}}_{{{\sigma}}(2)}, \dots, v^{{{\alpha}}}_{{{\sigma}}(m)} \big)=\\
\sum_{{{\alpha}}} \pm\, Q'_A \big( {{\sigma}}^{-1}({{\gamma}}_{{{\alpha}}}); f_{{{\sigma}}(1)}(v^{{{\alpha}}}_{{{\sigma}}(1)}),
f_{{{\sigma}}(2)}(v^{{{\alpha}}}_{{{\sigma}}(2)}), \dots, f_{{{\sigma}}(m)}(v^{{{\alpha}}}_{{{\sigma}}(m)}) \big)\,.\end{gathered}$$
Thus, since $Q_A$ is compatible with the action of the symmetric group, $$\begin{gathered}
\{f_{{{\sigma}}(1)}, \dots, f_{{{\sigma}}(m)}\} (v) =\\
\sum_{{{\alpha}}} \pm\, Q'_A \big( {{\sigma}}^{-1}({{\gamma}}_{{{\alpha}}}); f_{{{\sigma}}(1)}(v^{{{\alpha}}}_{{{\sigma}}(1)}),
f_{{{\sigma}}(2)}(v^{{{\alpha}}}_{{{\sigma}}(2)}), \dots, f_{{{\sigma}}(m)}(v^{{{\alpha}}}_{{{\sigma}}(m)}) \big) =\\
\sum_{{{\alpha}}} \pm\, Q'_A \big( {{\gamma}}_{{{\alpha}}}; f_{1}(v^{{{\alpha}}}_{1}),
f_{2}(v^{{{\alpha}}}_{2}), \dots, f_{m}(v^{{{\alpha}}}_{m}) \big) =\\
\sum_{{{\alpha}}} \pm Q'_A \circ (1 \otimes f_{1}\otimes \dots \otimes f_{m} )
({{\gamma}}_{{{\alpha}}}; v^{{{\alpha}}}_1, v^{{{\alpha}}}_{2}, \dots, v^{{{\alpha}}}_m) =
\pm \{f_{1}, \dots, f_{m}\} (v)\,. \end{gathered}$$ So multi-bracket is indeed symmetric[^10] in its arguments.
Let us now prove that the operation $$\label{diff-Conv}
f \mapsto \{f\}$$ is a differential on ${{\mathrm{Hom}}}(V, A)$, i.e. $\{\{f\}\} =0$ for every $f \in {{\mathrm{Hom}}}(V, A)$.
Indeed, using the identities ${{\partial}}^2_A =0$, ${{\partial}}^2_{V} = 0$ and the compatibility of ${{\Delta}}_1$ with the differentials on $V$ and ${{\cal C}}(1) \otimes V$, we get $$\begin{gathered}
\label{1-brack-square}
\{\{f\}\}(v) = {{\partial}}_{A}\, \{f\}(v) -(-1)^{|f|+1} \{f\}({{\partial}}_{V}\, v) + Q'_A\big( 1 \otimes \{f\} ({{\Delta}}_1(v)) \big) =\\
{{\partial}}_A \circ Q'_A \circ (1 \otimes f) \circ {{\Delta}}_1(v) +
(-1)^{|f|} Q'_A \circ (1 \otimes f) \big( ({{\partial}}_{{{\cal C}}} + {{\partial}}_V) {{\Delta}}_1(v) \big) \\
+ Q'_A \circ (1\otimes ({{\partial}}_A \circ f)) \big({{\Delta}}_1 (v) \big)
-(-1)^{|f|} Q'_A \circ (1\otimes (f\circ {{\partial}}_V)) \big({{\Delta}}_1 (v) \big) \\
+ Q'_A \circ (1 \otimes Q'_A) \circ (1\otimes 1 \otimes f) \big( (1\otimes {{\Delta}}_1)\circ {{\Delta}}_1 (v) \big)\end{gathered}$$ for every $v \in V$.
Using the axioms of a coalgebra over a cooperad, we rewrite the expression $(1\otimes {{\Delta}}_1)\circ {{\Delta}}_1 (v) $ in as follows $$\label{D1D1}
(1\otimes {{\Delta}}_1)\circ {{\Delta}}_1 (v) = ({{\Delta}}^{{{\cal C}}} \otimes 1) \circ {{\Delta}}_1 (v)\,,$$ where ${{\Delta}}^{{{\cal C}}}$ is the cooperadic comultiplication $${{\Delta}}^{{{\cal C}}} : {{\cal C}}(1) \to {{\cal C}}(1) \otimes {{\cal C}}(1)\,.$$
Therefore the expression $\{\{f\}\}(v)$ can be rewritten as $$\label{1-brack-sq-easy}
\{\{f\}\}(v) = \big({{\partial}}_{A} \circ Q'_A + Q'_A \circ ({{\partial}}_{{{\cal C}}} + {{\partial}}_A) + Q'_A \circ Q_A
\big) \circ (1 \otimes f) \circ {{\Delta}}_1 (v) \,.$$
Thus the identity $ \{\{f\}\} =0 $ is a consequence of the MC equation for $Q'_A$.
Our goal now is to prove the relation $$\label{goal-brack}
\sum_{p=1}^{m}
\sum_{{{\sigma}}\in {{\mathrm{Sh}}}_{p, m-p} }
(-1)^{{{\varepsilon}}({{\sigma}}; f_1, \dots, f_m)}
\{ \{f_{{{\sigma}}(1)}, \dots, f_{{{\sigma}}(p)} \}, f_{{{\sigma}}(p+1)}, \dots, f_{{{\sigma}}(m)} \} (v) =0$$ for every $m \ge 2$ and $v \in V$, where the sign factor $(-1)^{{{\varepsilon}}({{\sigma}}; f_1, \dots, f_m)}$ is defined in .
In our calculations below, we often put $\pm$ instead of the precise sign factor. These sign factors can be easily deduced from the Koszul rule of signs.
Unfolding we get $$\begin{gathered}
\label{goal-unfolded}
\sum_{p=1}^{m}
\sum_{{{\sigma}}\in {{\mathrm{Sh}}}_{p, m-p} }
(-1)^{{{\varepsilon}}({{\sigma}}; f_1, \dots, f_m)}
\{ \{f_{{{\sigma}}(1)}, \dots, f_{{{\sigma}}(p)} \}, f_{{{\sigma}}(p+1)}, \dots, f_{{{\sigma}}(m)} \} (v) = \\
{{\partial}}_{A} \big( \{f_1, \dots, f_m\} (v)\big) + (-1)^{|f_1| + \dots + |f_m|}
\{f_1, \dots, f_m\} \big({{\partial}}_{V}(v) \big) \\
+ \sum_{i=1}^{m} (-1)^{|f_1| + \dots + |f_{i-1}|} \{f_1, \dots, ({{\partial}}_{A} \circ f_i - (-1)^{|f_i|} f_i \circ {{\partial}}_{V} ), \dots, f_m\} (v)\\
+ \sum_{ \substack{1 \le p \le m\\[0.1cm]
{{\sigma}}\in {{\mathrm{Sh}}}_{p, m-p} } } (-1)^{{{\varepsilon}}({{\sigma}}; f_1, \dots, f_m)}
Q'_{A}\big(1; Q'_{A}\big( (1; f_{{{\sigma}}(1)}, \dots, f_{{{\sigma}}(p)}) {{\Delta}}_{p}(-)\big) , f_{{{\sigma}}(p+1)}, \dots, f_{{{\sigma}}(m)} ({{\Delta}}_{m-p+1}(v))\big)\,.\end{gathered}$$
Expanding the expression ${{\partial}}_{A} \big( \{f_1, \dots, f_m\} (v)\big)$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
{{\partial}}_{A} \big( \{f_1, \dots, f_m\} (v)\big) &=& {{\partial}}_{A}Q'_A \big( 1; f_{1},\dots, f_{m}
({{\Delta}}_m (v)) \big)\\
&=& \sum_{{{\alpha}}}{{\partial}}_{A}Q'_A \big( (1; f_{1}, \dots, f_{m} )
( {{\gamma}}_{{{\alpha}}}; v^{{{\alpha}}}_1, v^{{{\alpha}}}_{2}, \dots, v^{{{\alpha}}}_m))\\
&=& \sum_{{{\alpha}}}\pm{{\partial}}_{A}Q'_A \big( {{\gamma}}_{{{\alpha}}}; f_{1}(v^{{{\alpha}}}_1), \dots, f_{m}(v^{{{\alpha}}}_m)).\end{aligned}$$
Using $${{\Delta}}_m({{\partial}}_V(v)) =
\sum_{{{\alpha}}} ({{\partial}}_{{{\cal C}}}({{\gamma}}_{{{\alpha}}}); v^{{{\alpha}}}_1, v^{{{\alpha}}}_{2}, \dots, v^{{{\alpha}}}_m) +
\sum_{ \substack{{{\alpha}}\\[0.1cm] 1\leq i\leq m}}\pm({{\gamma}}_{{{\alpha}}}; v^{{{\alpha}}}_1, \dots, {{\partial}}_V(v^{{{\alpha}}}_{i}),\dots, v^{{{\alpha}}}_m)\,,$$ we expand $\{f_1, \dots, f_m\} \big({{\partial}}_{V}(v) \big)$ obtaining $$\begin{aligned}
\{f_1, \dots, f_m\} \big({{\partial}}_{V}(v) \big) &=& Q'_A \big( 1; f_{1}, \dots, f_{m}
({{\Delta}}_m ({{\partial}}_{V}(v))) \big)\\
&=&\sum_{{{\alpha}}} Q'_A \big( (1; f_{1}, \dots, f_{m} )
({{\partial}}_{{{\cal C}}}({{\gamma}}_{{{\alpha}}}); v^{{{\alpha}}}_1, v^{{{\alpha}}}_{2}, \dots, v^{{{\alpha}}}_m) \big)\\
&+& \sum_{ \substack{{{\alpha}}\\[0.1cm] 1\leq i\leq m}}\pm Q'_A \big( (1; f_{1}, \dots, f_{m} )({{\gamma}}_{{{\alpha}}}; v^{{{\alpha}}}_1, \dots, {{\partial}}_V(v^{{{\alpha}}}_{i}),\dots, v^{{{\alpha}}}_m)\big)\\
&=&\sum_{{{\alpha}}} \pm Q'_A \big( {{\partial}}_{{{\cal C}}}({{\gamma}}_{{{\alpha}}}); f_{1}(v^{{{\alpha}}}_1), \dots, f_{m}(v^{{{\alpha}}}_m) \big) \\
&+& \sum_{ \substack{{{\alpha}}\\[0.1cm] 1\leq i\leq m}} \pm Q'_A \big({{\gamma}}_{{{\alpha}}}; f_{1}(v^{{{\alpha}}}_1), \dots, f_i({{\partial}}_V(v^{{{\alpha}}}_{i})),\dots, f_{m}(v^{{{\alpha}}}_m)\big).\end{aligned}$$
Expanding the sum $$\sum_{i=1}^{m} (-1)^{|f_1| + \dots + |f_{i-1}|} \{f_1, \dots, ({{\partial}}_{A} \circ f_i - (-1)^{|f_i|} f_i \circ {{\partial}}_{V} ), \dots, f_m\} (v)$$ we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\label{brack-f-df-fd-f}
\sum_{i=1}^{m} (-1)^{|f_1| + \dots + |f_{i-1}|} \{f_1, \dots, ({{\partial}}_{A} \circ f_i - (-1)^{|f_i|} f_i \circ {{\partial}}_{V} ), \dots, f_m\} (v) = \\
\sum_{ \substack{{{\alpha}}\\[0.1cm] 1\leq i\leq m}} \pm Q'_A \big( 1; f_{1},\dots,
({{\partial}}_{A} \circ f_i - (-1)^{|f_i|} f_i \circ {{\partial}}_{V} ), \dots, f_{m} \big)({{\gamma}}_{{{\alpha}}}; v^{{{\alpha}}}_1, v^{{{\alpha}}}_{2}, \dots, v^{{{\alpha}}}_m) \\
= \sum_{ \substack{{{\alpha}}\\[0.1cm] 1\leq i\leq m}}\pm Q'_A \big( {{\gamma}}_{{{\alpha}}}; f_{1}(v^{{{\alpha}}}_1),\dots,
({{\partial}}_{A} \circ f_i - (-1)^{|f_i|} f_i \circ {{\partial}}_{V} ) (v^{{{\alpha}}}_i), \dots, f_{m}(v^{{{\alpha}}}_m) \big)\\
= \sum_{ \substack{{{\alpha}}\\[0.1cm] 1\leq i\leq m}}\pm Q'_A \big( {{\gamma}}_{{{\alpha}}}; f_{1}(v^{{{\alpha}}}_1),\dots, {{\partial}}_{A} (f_i(v^{{{\alpha}}}_i)),\dots,f_{m}(v^{{{\alpha}}}_m) \big)\\
- \sum_{ \substack{{{\alpha}}\\[0.1cm] 1\leq i\leq m}}\pm Q'_A \big( {{\gamma}}_{{{\alpha}}};f_{1}(v^{{{\alpha}}}_1),\dots, f_i({{\partial}}_{V}v^{{{\alpha}}}_i),\dots, f_{m}(v^{{{\alpha}}}_m) \big).\end{gathered}$$
The last sum in the R.H.S. of is expanded as follows: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{QQ-fff}
\sum_{ \substack{1 \le p \le m\\[0.1cm]
{{\sigma}}\in {{\mathrm{Sh}}}_{p, m-p} } } (-1)^{{{\varepsilon}}({{\sigma}}; f_1, \dots, f_m)}
Q'_{A}\big(1; Q'_{A}\big( (1; f_{{{\sigma}}(1)}, \dots, f_{{{\sigma}}(p)}) {{\Delta}}_{p}(-)\big) , f_{{{\sigma}}(p+1)}, \dots, f_{{{\sigma}}(m)} ({{\Delta}}_{m-p+1}(v))\big) \\
= \sum_{ \substack{1 \le p \le m\\[0.1cm]
{{\sigma}}\in {{\mathrm{Sh}}}_{p, m-p} } }\pm
Q'_A ( 1 \otimes Q'_A \otimes 1^{\otimes (m-p)}) \big( 1; (1; f_{{{\sigma}}(1)}, \dots , f_{{{\sigma}}(p)})
, f_{{{\sigma}}(p+1)},\dots , f_{{{\sigma}}(m)} \big) \\
\big( (1 \otimes {{\Delta}}_p \otimes 1^{\otimes (m-p)} ) \circ {{\Delta}}_{m-p+1} (v) \big)\,.\end{gathered}$$
Using the axioms of ${{\cal C}}$-coalgebra structure on $V$, we can rewrite the term $(1 \otimes {{\Delta}}_p \otimes 1^{\otimes (m-p)} )\circ {{\Delta}}_{m-p+1} (v) $ as follows: $$\label{Del-Del-v}
(1 \otimes {{\Delta}}_p \otimes 1^{\otimes (m-p)} ) \circ {{\Delta}}_{m-p+1} (v) =
({{\Delta}}^{{{\cal C}}}_{{{\mathbf{t}}}_{m, p}} \otimes 1^{\otimes \, m})\circ {{\Delta}}_m (v)\,,$$ where ${{\mathbf{t}}}_{m,p}$ is the labeled planar tree depicted in Figure \[fig:bt-m-p-i\].
=\[circle, draw, minimum size=3, inner sep=1\] =\[circle, draw, fill, minimum size=3, inner sep=1\] (l1) at (0, 3) ; (6,3) node\[anchor=center\] [[$\dots$]{}]{}; (limp) at (3, 3) ; (3,3.6) node\[anchor=center\] [[$p+1$]{}]{}; (limp1) at (-2, 5) ; (-2.6,5.6) node\[anchor=center\] [[$1$]{}]{}; (0,5) node\[anchor=center\] [[$\dots$]{}]{}; (li) at (2, 5) ; (2.4,5.6) node\[anchor=center\] [[$p$]{}]{}; (lm) at (9, 3) ; (9,3.6) node\[anchor=center\] [[$m$]{}]{};
(v1) at (6, 0) ; (r) at (6, -1) ; (r) edge (v1); (v1) edge (l1); (v1) edge (limp); (v1) edge (lm); (l1) edge (limp1); (l1) edge (li);
and let ${{\gamma}}^{{{\sigma}}}_{{{\alpha}}, \beta, 1}$ and ${{\gamma}}^{{{\sigma}}}_{{{\alpha}}, \beta, 2}$ be the tensor factors in $$\label{Del-tau-bt-mpi}
{{\Delta}}^{{{\cal C}}}_{{{\sigma}}({{\mathbf{t}}}_{m,p})}({{\gamma}}_{{{\alpha}}}) = \sum_{\beta} {{\gamma}}^{{{\sigma}}}_{{{\alpha}}, \beta, 1} \otimes {{\gamma}}^{{{\sigma}}}_{{{\alpha}}, \beta, 2}\,,$$ where ${{\sigma}}({{\mathbf{t}}}_{m,p})$ is the tree corresponding to the $(p,m-p)$-shuffle ${{\sigma}}$.
Using the axioms of the cooperadic comultiplication ${{\Delta}}^{{{\cal C}}}$, we get $$\textrm{Sum \eqref{QQ-fff}} =$$ $$\label{the-sum111}
\sum^{{{\alpha}}, \beta}_{ \substack{1 \le p \le m \\[0.1cm]
{{\sigma}}\in {{\mathrm{Sh}}}_{p, m-p} } }
\pm Q'_A( 1 \otimes Q'_A \otimes 1^{\otimes (m-p)})$$ $$\Big(\, {{\gamma}}^{{{\sigma}}}_{{{\alpha}}, \beta, 1}\,; ( \,{{\gamma}}^{{{\sigma}}}_{{{\alpha}}, \beta, 2}; f_{{{\sigma}}(1)}(v^{{{\alpha}}}_{{{\sigma}}(1)}),\dots, f_{{{\sigma}}(p)}(v^{{{\alpha}}}_{{{\sigma}}(p)})),
f_{{{\sigma}}(p+1)} (v^{{{\alpha}}}_{{{\sigma}}(p+1)}), \dots,
f_{{{\sigma}}(m)} (v^{{{\alpha}}}_{{{\sigma}}(m)}) \Big)\,,$$ which can be rewritten in terms of the bracket on the convolution Lie algebra ${{\mathrm{Conv}}}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}, {{\mathrm{End}}}_{A})$ (Prop. 4.1, [@notes]). Namely, $$\textrm{Sum \eqref{QQ-fff} } =$$ $$\label{the-sum-OK}
\frac{1}{2} \sum_{{{\alpha}}} [Q'_A , Q'_A] ({{\gamma}}_{{{\alpha}}}; f_1(v^{{{\alpha}}}_1), \dots, f_m(v^{{{\alpha}}}_m))\,,$$ where we tacitly identify the composition $Q'_A = p_A \circ Q_A$ with the corresponding element in $$\label{Conv-cC-End-A}
{{\mathrm{Conv}}}({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}, {{\mathrm{End}}}_{A}) = \prod_{n \ge 1}
{{\mathrm{Hom}}}_{S_n} \big({{\cal C}}_{{\circ}}(n), {{\mathrm{End}}}_{A}(n) \big)\,.$$
Collecting the expanded terms of the R.H.S. of we obtain $$\sum_{{{\alpha}}}\pm{{\partial}}_{A}Q'_A \big( {{\gamma}}_{{{\alpha}}}; f_{1}(v^{{{\alpha}}}_1), \dots, f_{m}(v^{{{\alpha}}}_m))
+ \sum_{{{\alpha}}} \pm Q'_A \big( {{\partial}}_{{{\cal C}}}({{\gamma}}_{{{\alpha}}}); f_{1}(v^{{{\alpha}}}_1), \dots, f_{m}(v^{{{\alpha}}}_m) ) \\$$ $$\label{pa_V-1}
+ \sum_{ \substack{{{\alpha}}\\[0.1cm] 1\leq i\leq m}} \pm Q'_A \big({{\gamma}}_{{{\alpha}}}; f_{1}(v^{{{\alpha}}}_1), \dots, f_i({{\partial}}_V(v^{{{\alpha}}}_{i})),
\dots, f_{m}(v^{{{\alpha}}}_m)\big)\\$$ $$\label{pa_V-2}
- \sum_{ \substack{{{\alpha}}\\[0.1cm] 1\leq i\leq m}}\pm Q'_A \big( {{\gamma}}_{{{\alpha}}}; f_{1}(v^{{{\alpha}}}_1), \dots, f_i({{\partial}}_{V}v^{{{\alpha}}}_i), \dots, f_{m}(v^{{{\alpha}}}_m) \big)\\$$ $$\sum_{ \substack{{{\alpha}}\\[0.1cm] 1\leq i\leq m}} \pm Q'_A \big( {{\gamma}}_{{{\alpha}}}; f_{1}(v^{{{\alpha}}}_1), \dots, {{\partial}}_{A} (f_i(v^{{{\alpha}}}_i)), \dots, f_{m}(v^{{{\alpha}}}_m) \big)
+ \frac{1}{2} \sum_{{{\alpha}}} [Q'_A , Q'_A] ({{\gamma}}_{{{\alpha}}}; f_1(v^{{{\alpha}}}_1), \dots, f_m(v^{{{\alpha}}}_m))\,$$
Canceling terms and , we see that the right hand side of can be rewritten as $$\textrm{The R.H.S. of \eqref{goal-unfolded} } =$$ $$\Big( {{\partial}}_A \circ Q'_A + Q'_A \circ ({{\partial}}_{{{\cal C}}} + {{\partial}}_A) + \frac{1}{2} [Q'_A, Q'_A] \Big) (1;f_1,\ldots,f_m)({{\Delta}}_m(v))\,,
\label{RHS-goal-unfolded}$$ where, as above, we identify $Q'_A$ with the corresponding element in .
Thus desired equations are satisfied due to the fact that $Q'_A$ is a MC element of dg Lie algebra .
We conclude this proof by a comment about the sign factors.
All sign factors in the above computations are subject to the usual Koszul rule. For example, to show explicitly that terms and cancel each other, we need to verify that the corresponding contributions from the term $$\label{term1}
(-1)^{|f_1| + \dots + |f_m|} \{f_1,\dots,f_m\}({{\partial}}_{V}(v))$$ matches with the contributions from $$\label{term2}
(-1)^{|f_1| + \dots + |f_i|} \{f_1,\dots,f_i \circ {{\partial}}_{V},\dots,f_m\}(v)\,.$$ in equation .
It is easy to see that the contribution $$\label{contribution}
Q'_{A}({{\gamma}}_{{{\alpha}}};f_1(v_{1}^{{{\alpha}}}),\dots,f_i \circ {{\partial}}_V(v_{i}^{{{\alpha}}}),\dots f_m(v_{m}^{{{\alpha}}}))$$ from and from has the same sign factor $$(-1)^{{{\varepsilon}}+ {{\varepsilon}}'},$$ where $${{\varepsilon}}= |{{\gamma}}_{{{\alpha}}}| (1 + |f_1| + \dots + |f_m|) + |v_1^{{{\alpha}}}| + \dots + |v_{i-1}^{{{\alpha}}}| +
|f_{1}| + \dots + |f_i|\,,$$ and $${{\varepsilon}}' = |v_1^{{{\alpha}}}|(|f_2|+\dots +|f_{m}|) + \dots + |v^{{{\alpha}}}_{m-1}| |f_{m}|\,.$$
Proposition \[prop:Conv-V-A\] is proved.
[99]{}
A. Berglund, Rational homotopy theory of mapping spaces via Lie theory for L-infinity algebras, [arXiv:1110.6145](http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.6145).
V.A. Dolgushev and C.L. Rogers, A version of the Goldman-Millson theorem for filtered $L_{\infty}$-algebras, [arXiv:1407.6735](http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.6735).
V.A. Dolgushev and C.L. Rogers, Notes on Algebraic Operads, Graph Complexes, and Willwacher’s Construction, [*Mathematical aspects of quantization,*]{} 25–145, Contemp. Math., [**583**]{}, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2012 ; [arXiv:1202.2937](http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.2937).
V.A. Dolgushev and C.L. Rogers, On an enhancement of the category of shifted $L_{\infty}$-algebras, [arXiv:1406.1744](http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.1744).
V.A. Dolgushev and C.L. Rogers, The spatial realization functor revisited, in preparation.
V. Dolgushev and T. Willwacher, Operadic Twisting – with an application to Deligne’s conjecture, accepted to J. Pure and Applied Algebra; [arXiv:1207.2180](http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.2180).
V. Dolgushev and T. Willwacher, The deformation complex is a homotopy invariant of a homotopy algebra, [*Developments and Retrospectives in Lie Theory*]{}, Springer, Developments in Mathematics, [**38**]{} (2014) 137–158; [arXiv:1305.4165](http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4165).
Vladimir Dotsenko and Norbert Poncin, A tale of three homotopies, [arXiv:1208.4695](http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.4695).
M. Doubek, On resolutions of diagrams of algebras, [arXiv:1107.1408](http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.1408).
V. Drinfeld, DG quotients of DG categories, J. Algebra [**272**]{}, 2 (2004) 643–691.
W. G. Dwyer and D. M. Kan, Function complexes in homotopical algebra, Topology [**19**]{}, 4 (1980) 427–440.
Y. Frégier, M. Markl, and D. Yau, The $L_{\infty}$-deformation complex of diagrams of algebras, New York J. Math. [**15**]{} (2009) 353–392; [arXiv:0812.2981](http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2981).
E. Getzler, Lie theory for nilpotent $L_\infty$-algebras, Ann. of Math. (2) [**170**]{}, 1 (2009) 271–301; [arXiv:math/0404003](http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0404003).
E. Getzler and J.D.S. Jones, Operads, homotopy algebra and iterated integrals for double loop spaces, [arXiv:hep-th/9403055](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9403055).
V. Hinich, Descent of Deligne groupoids, Internat. Math. Res. Notices [**1997**]{}, no. 5, 223–239; [ arXiv:alg-geom/9606010](http://arxiv.org/abs/alg-geom/9606010).
D. Khudaverdyan, N. Poncin and J. Qiu, On the infinity category of homotopy Leibniz algebras, Theory Appl. Categ. [**29**]{}, 12 (2014) 332–370; [arXiv:1308.2583](http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.2583).
G. M. Kelly, [*Basic concepts of enriched category theory*]{}, London Math. Soc. Lect. Note Ser., [**64**]{}, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1982.
A. Lazarev, Maurer-Cartan moduli and models for function spaces, Adv. Math. [**235**]{} (2013) 296–320; [arXiv:1109.3715](http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.3715).
J.-L. Loday and B. Vallette, Algebraic operads, [*Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften*]{}, [**346**]{}, Springer, Heidelberg, 2012.
J. Lurie, Higher Algebra, a draft is available at [http://www.math.harvard.edu/$\sim$lurie/](http://www.math.harvard.edu/~lurie/).
M. Markl, Homotopy diagrams of algebras, [*The 21st Winter School "Geometry and Physics” (Srni, 2001)*]{}, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo (2) Suppl. [**69**]{} (2002) 161–180; [arXiv:math/0103052](http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0103052).
S. Merkulov and B. Vallette, Deformation theory of representations of prop(erad)s. I, J. Reine Angew. Math. [**634**]{} (2009) 51–106.
S. Merkulov and B. Vallette, Deformation theory of representations of prop(erad)s. II, J. Reine Angew. Math. [**636**]{} (2009), 123–174.
D. Tamarkin, What do DG categories form? Compos. Math. [**143**]{}, 5 (2007) 1335–1358; [arXiv:math/0606553](http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0606553).
B. Vallette, Algebra$+$Homotopy$=$Operad, [arXiv:1202.3245](http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.3245).
B. Vallette, Homotopy theory of homotopy algebras, [arXiv:1411.5533](http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.5533).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Department of Mathematics, Temple University,\
Wachman Hall Rm. 638\
1805 N. Broad St.,\
Philadelphia PA, 19122 USA\
*E-mail address:* [**vald@temple.edu**]{}</span>
\
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Middle College Program\
Gateway Community College\
New Haven, CT 06510\
*E-mail address:* [**alexhoffnung@gmail.com**]{}</span>
\
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Institut für Mathematik und Informatik\
Universität Greifswald\
Walther-Rathenau-Strasse 47\
17487 Greifswald, Germany *E-mail address:* [**rogersc@uni-greifswald.de**]{}</span>
[^1]: In this paper, we assume that $\textrm{char}({{\Bbbk}}) = 0$.
[^2]: See also Section \[sec:tLie\] of this paper.
[^3]: In this paper we only consider nilpotent coalgebras.
[^4]: On figures, small white circles are used for nodal vertices and small black circles are used for all the remaining vertices.
[^5]: See [@EnhancedLie Section 2] for details on twisting by MC elements.
[^6]: We sometimes use the subscript $m$ in $\{~,~,\dots, ~\}_m$ to denote the number of entries of the corresponding multi-bracket.
[^7]: Recall that ${\mathrm{MC}}(L)$ denotes the set of MC elements of a filtered ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebras $L$ [@EnhancedLie].
[^8]: For several other justifications of this definition, we refer the reader to paper [@DotsPoncin] by V. Dotsenko and N. Poncin.
[^9]: In [@DefHomotInvar], we actually introduce an $L_{\infty}$-structure on the suspension of . But the latter is, of course, equivalent to introducing a ${{\mathfrak{S}}\mathsf{Lie}_{\infty}}$-algebra structure on .
[^10]: In the above calculations, the sign factors can be easily deduced from the Koszul rule of signs.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The Faraday effect, caused by a magnetic-field-induced change in the optical properties, takes place in a vast variety of systems from a single atomic layer of graphenes to huge galaxies. Currently, it plays a pivot role in many applications such as the manipulation of light and the probing of magnetic fields and material’s properties. Basically, this effect causes a polarization rotation of light during its propagation along the magnetic field in a medium. Here, we report an extreme case of the Faraday effect where a linearly polarized ultrashort laser pulse splits in time into two circularly polarized pulses of opposite handedness during its propagation in a highly magnetized plasma. This offers a new degree of freedom for manipulating ultrashort and ultrahigh power laser pulses. Together with technologies of ultra-strong magnetic fields, it may pave the way for novel optical devices, such as magnetized plasma polarizers. Besides, it may offer a powerful means to measure strong magnetic fields in laser-produced plasmas.'
author:
- 'Suming Weng$^{1,2}$'
- 'Qian Zhao$^{1,2}$'
- 'Zhengming Sheng$^{1,2,3}$'
- 'Wei Yu$^{4}$'
- 'Shixia Luan$^{4}$'
- 'Min Chen$^{1,2}$'
- 'Lule Yu$^{1,2}$'
- 'Masakatsu Murakami$^{5}$'
- 'Warren B. Mori$^{6}$'
- 'Jie Zhang$^{1,2}$'
bibliography:
- 'apssamp.bib'
title: 'Extreme case of Faraday effect: magnetic splitting of ultrashort laser pulses in plasmas'
---
Introduction
============
As the hallmark of magneto-optics, the Faraday effect or Faraday rotation observed in 1846 was the first experimental evidence of the electromagnetic wave nature of light [@Faraday]. Importantly, it provides an ingenious method for manipulating light, and becomes the basic principle underlying the operation of a number of magneto-optical devices [@Saleh; @Liu]. In principle, the Faraday rotation is caused by magneto-chiral dichroism of left-circularly polarized (LCP) and right-circularly polarized (RCP) electromagnetic waves propagating at differential speeds in magnetized materials. Since the magneto-chiral dichroism in most materials are very weak, considerable Faraday rotation generally happens only after a long propagation distance. This severely limits the miniaturization and integration of magneto-optical devices. Therefore, there has been a growing interest in the search for enhanced Faraday rotation. As a collection of charged particles, a dense plasmas responds strongly to electromagnetic waves and thus often gives rise to a strong Faraday rotation under the influence of a magnetic field [@Chen]. Furthermore, the plasma optical devices are particularly suitable for the fast manipulation of ultrashort high-power laser pulses due to their ultrahigh damage threshold [@Mourou; @Thaury; @YuLL; @Trines].
In this work, we report an extreme case of the Faraday effect in which not only the polarization direction but also the polarization state of ultrashort laser pulses can be completely changed in strongly magnetized plasmas with magnetic fields $B \ge 50$ tesla. The underlying physics is that a linearly polarized (LP) laser pulse can be considered as the superposition of a RCP sub-pulse and a LCP sub-pulse. While the eigen electromagnetic waves propagating along the magnetic field in plasmas are the RCP and LCP waves, which have differential group velocities as well as differential phase velocities. Therefore, under appropriate conditions a LP laser pulse will split into a RCP sub-pulse and a LCP sub-pulse as shown in Fig. \[figSchematic\].
Theory
======
We first provide a set of formulas to describe the propagation of electromagnetic waves in magnetized plasmas. The electromagnetic wave propagation along the magnetic field in a plasma is mainly governed by the dispersion relation [@Chen] $$\frac{c^2k^2}{\omega^2} = 1- \frac{\omega_p^2}{ \omega^2 (1 \pm \omega_c/\omega)},$$ where $\pm$ are respectively for the LCP ($+$) and RCP ($-$) waves, $\omega$ and $k$ are the wave’s angular frequency and wavenumber, the plasma frequency $\omega_p\equiv (n_e e^2/\epsilon_0 m_e)^{1/2}$ is defined by the plasma density, and the electron cyclotron frequency $\omega_c\equiv eB/m_e$ is proportional to the magnetic field strength $B$. From the dispersion relation, one can easily get the phase velocities $v_{p} = [1-\omega_p^2/(\omega^2 \pm \omega \omega_c)]^{-1/2} c$ for the LCP ($+$) and RCP ($-$) waves [@Chen]. The differential phase velocities will induce a rotation of the polarization plane of a LP wave, since it can be considered as the sum of a RCP wave and a LCP wave. In the limit of low plasma density ($\omega_p \ll \omega $) and small magnetic field ($\omega_c \ll \omega $), the Faraday rotation angle can be estimated as $\Delta \phi \simeq \texttt{RM} \lambda^2 $, where $\texttt{RM}=e^3\int n_e(x) B(x) dx/8\pi^2\epsilon_0 m_e^2 c^3$ is the so-called rotation measure in astronomy [@Klein; @Brandenburg], and $\lambda$ is the wavelength. This is the scenario of the familiar Faraday rotation, in which the rotation angle is proportional to the magnitude of magnetic field. However, this linear Faraday effect can only be applied for a relatively small magnetic field with a low plasma density. As long as $\omega_c/\omega$ approaches $(1-\omega_p^2/\omega^2)$, the phase velocity for the RCP wave will quickly become infinite. Therefore, the RCP wave cannot propagate in a strong magnetized plasma if $(1-\omega_p^2/\omega^2) \leq \omega_c/\omega \leq 1$. But the propagation of the RCP wave becomes possible again in the whistler-mode region ($\omega_c/\omega > 1$). In latter case, the RCP wave can even penetrate into an overcritical density plasma but accompanied by a strong heating of the plasma [@YangAPL]. For the sake of simplicity, we will not discuss the wave propagation in the whistler-mode region here. Anyhow, one can conclude from the above analysis that the Faraday rotation angle is no longer linearly proportional to the magnitude of the magnetic field if the latter is strong enough, i.e., one enters a nonlinear regime of the Faraday effect.
In addition to the differential phase velocities, more importantly, we notice that the group velocities are also different for the LCP and RCP waves in a magnetized plasma. From the dispersion relation, one can deduce the group velocities $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{v_{g,\texttt{L}}}{c} = \left(1-\frac{\omega_p^2/\omega^2}{1 + \omega_c/\omega}\right)^{1/2} \left[1-\frac{\omega_c \omega_p^2/ \omega^3}{2(1+\omega_c/\omega)^2} \right]^{-1}, \label{groupL} \\
\frac{v_{g,\texttt{R}}}{c} = \left(1-\frac{\omega_p^2/\omega^2}{1 - \omega_c/\omega}\right)^{1/2} \left[1+\frac{\omega_c \omega_p^2/ \omega^3}{2(1-\omega_c/\omega)^2} \right]^{-1}, \label{groupR}\end{aligned}$$ for the LCP and RCP waves, respectively. As shown in Fig. \[figAnalysis\], the former increases with the magnetic field, while the latter behaves in the opposite way. So for a LP short laser pulse, its LCP and RCP components will gradually split apart. Assuming the pulse initially has a duration $t_p$, the time delay between the peaks of LCP and RCP sub-pulses ($\Delta v_gt/ v_{g,R}$) will be larger than $t_p$ after $$t_s = \frac{v_{g,R}}{\Delta v_g} t_p, \label{tSplit}$$ where $\Delta v_g=v_{g,\texttt{L}}-v_{g,\texttt{R}}$ is the difference in the group velocities. Figure \[figAnalysis\](c) indicates that the stronger the magnetic field and the higher the plasma density, the larger the difference in the group velocities will be. If the magnetic field is small enough ($\omega_c \ll \omega$) and the plasma density is low enough ($\omega_p \ll \omega$), we can get $$\frac{\Delta v_g}{c} \simeq 2 \frac{ n_e }{n_c} \frac{ \omega_c}{ \omega}, \label{deltaVg}$$ where $n_c\equiv \epsilon_0 m_e \omega^2/e^2$ is the critical plasma density.
For an ultrashort laser pulse, however, its frequency spread must be taken into account. For instance, $\Delta\omega/\omega_0 \geq 0.441\tau/t_p$ holds for a Gaussian pulse [@Koechner], where $\tau=2\pi/\omega_0$ is the laser wave period, $\omega_0$, $\Delta \omega$ and $t_p$ are the center frequency, FWHM frequency spread, and FWHM duration of the pulse, respectively. So that the group velocities are not constant, and the pulse temporal broadening due to dispersion must be considered. Consequently, the magnetic splitting of the pulse is observable only under the condition $$v_{g,R}|_{\omega=\omega_0+\Delta\omega/2} < v_{g,L}|_{\omega=\omega_0-\Delta\omega/2}. \label{omegaMin}$$ Otherwise, the dispersive broadening will dominate over the magnetic splitting. The above inequality prescribes a lower limit of the magnetic field ($B \ge B_{\min}=m_e\omega_{c,\min}/e$). Under the same assumptions for Eq. (\[deltaVg\]), we can get $\omega_c \ge \omega_{c,\min} \simeq \Delta\omega/2$, which is in good agreement with the numerical solution at $n_e=0.1n_c$ in Fig. \[figAnalysis\](d). With a relatively higher plasma density such as $n_e=0.5n_c$, however, the required $\omega_{c,\min}$ increases very fast with an increasing $\Delta\omega$. From the numerical solutions, we find that $$\omega_c \ge \omega_{c,\min}=\Delta\omega$$ is a sufficient condition for the inequality (\[omegaMin\]) if $n_e/n_c \le 0.5$ as shown in Fig. \[figAnalysis\](d). That is to say, the pulse splitting will be quicker than the dispersive broadening if the electron cyclotron frequency ($\omega_c$) in the magnetic field is larger than the frequency spread ($\Delta \omega$) of the laser pulse. The latter is inversely proportional to the pulse duration. This implies that the shorter the pulse duration is, the stronger the magnetic field is required to split the pulse. While Eq. (\[tSplit\]) implies that the longer the pulse duration is, the thicker the required magnetized plasma has to be. These two aspects grimly prescribe that the magnetic splitting of a laser pulse can be clearly observed only if the pulse duration is modest and the magnetic field is strong enough.
With the invention of novel laser techniques such as chirped-pulse-amplification [@Strickland], it becomes mature to generate laser pulses as short as femtosecond (fs). On the other hand, the magnets of 20 tesla become commercially available, and the magnetic fields above 100 tesla are recorded in some laboratories[@Report]. In particular, the interaction of high-power laser pulses with matters can generate kilo-tesla level magnetic fields [@Fujioka; @Wagner]. Such kilo-tesla level magnetic fields are not only of fundamental interests, but also show prospects of various applications [@Eliezer; @HoraLPB; @Miley]. The breathtaking advances in the pulsed laser and the high magnetic field sciences conspire to provide the good opportunity to achieve the magnetic splitting of an ultrashort laser pulse.
Simulation
==========
To verify the magnetic splitting of short laser pulses, we perform a series of particle-in-cell (PIC) simulations using the code OSIRIS [@Fonseca]. In simulations, laser pulses are incident along the magnetic field into semi-infinite plasmas at $x\geq0$. The initial LP pulses are polarized along the $z$-axis with $\lambda=1\mu\texttt{m}$. For reference, the pulse peaks are all assumed to arrive at the vacuum-plasma interface (x=0) at t=0. The moving-window technique is employed with a simulation box moving along the $x$-axis at the speed of light in vacuum. The simulation box is set large enough to contain the laser pulse in the whole process of each simulation. In 1D simulations, the sizes of the simulation boxes range from $500\lambda$ to $35000\lambda$, the spatial and temporal resolutions are $\Delta x=\lambda/16$ and $\Delta t \simeq \Delta x/c$, each cell has 16 macro-particles, and the electron density $n_e=0.5n_c$. In 3D simulation, the simulation box has a size of $210\lambda \times 24000 \lambda \times 24000 \lambda$. The spatial resolutions are $\Delta x=\lambda/16$ and $\Delta y=\Delta z=100 \lambda$, the temporal resolution is $\Delta t \simeq \Delta x/c$, each cell has 4 macro-particles, and the electron density $n_e=0.1n_c$.
Figure \[fig1D\] compares 1D simulation results with varying laser pulse duration $t_p$ and magnetic field $B$. In Fig. \[fig1D\](a), the magnetic splitting condition ($\omega_{c}>\Delta\omega$) holds well with $t_p=500$ fs and $B=50$ tesla. Consequently, the initial pulse splits into two discrete sub-pulses at $t=300$ picosecond (ps). The first sub-pulse peaked at $x\simeq63145\lambda$ is LCP since its Stokes parameter $V<0$, while the second sub-pulse peaked at $x\simeq62735\lambda$ is RCP with $V>0$. The degrees of circular polarization exceed $94\%$ for both the LCP and RCP sub-pulses. Simulation shows that the difference in the group velocities for these two sub-pulses is about 0.0046c, which is in rough agreement with the prediction 0.0050c by Eq. (\[deltaVg\]). In Fig. \[fig1D\](b), the difference in the group velocities is increased roughly by an order of magnitude with a 500 tesla magnetic field. Consequently, the LCP and RCP sub-pulses are clearly separated at a much earlier time t=30 ps. By such a 500 tesla magnetic field, we find that the laser pulses with much shorter durations such as 50 fs can also be separated, although each sub-pulse is a little longer than the initial pulse due to dispersion as shown in Fig. \[fig1D\](c). However, a 50 fs laser pulse cannot be separated by a 50 tesla magnetic field since the pulse frequency spread $\Delta\omega \simeq 0.029\omega > \omega_c \simeq 0.005 \omega$ in this relatively weak magnetic field. As illustrated in Fig. \[fig1D\](d), at t=30 ps the pulse duration has been stretched to about 600 fs, which is an order of magnitude longer than the estimated time delay between the RCP and LCP sub-pulses. This confirms that the dispersive broadening will dominate over the magnetic splitting of the pulse if $\Delta\omega>\omega_{c}$.
Figure \[figRCP\] displays the simulation result with an extremely strong magnetic field B=6000 tesla ($\omega_c/\omega_0\simeq0.6$). In this case, it becomes impossible for the RCP wave to propagate into the magnetized plasma since $\omega_c/\omega > (1-\omega_p^2/\omega^2)$. Figure \[figRCP\] illustrates that the incident LP pulse has been separated into two sub-pulse as well. However, here only the LCP sub-pulse (peaked at $x\simeq 88 \lambda$ with $V<0$) can propagate into the magnetized plasma. The RCP sub-pulse (peaked at $x\simeq -100 \lambda$ with $V>0$) is completely reflected and propagates backward.
The magnetic splitting of a 50 fs laser pulse is also verified by a 3D simulation as displayed in Fig. \[fig3D\](a), where the isosurface of intensity $I=I_0/4$ appears as two separate ellipsoids at t=5 ps (see Supplementary Movie for the whole splitting process). At the early stage in the Supplementary Movie, a conventional Faraday rotation as large as many cycles is also evidenced by the quick variations in the $E_y$ and $E_z$ components of the electric field. Here a relatively lower plasma density $n_e=0.1n_c$ is used to alleviate nonlinear effects [@GibbonBook], and a stronger magnetic field B=1000 tesla is employed in order to save the computation time. The laser intensity $I_0=1.37\times10^{16}$ W/cm$^2$ ($a_0=0.1$), and the peak power is 10 petawatt (PW) with a waist $r_0 \simeq 6800\lambda$. The intensity distribution on the $x$-axis in Fig. \[fig3D\](b) suggests that two sub-pulses have the FWHM durations $\approx 47$ fs and the peak intensities $I_{\max}\approx I_0/2$ as expected according to energy conservation. Since the laser intensity now is already weakly relativistic, each sub-pulse is a little shorter than the initial pulse due to the self-compression of intense laser pulses in plasmas [@Shorokhov]. The first sub-pulse centered at $x\simeq 1452\lambda$ has a group velocity $v_{g,L}\simeq 0.955c$, while the second one at $x\simeq 1422 \lambda$ has $v_{g,R}\simeq0.935c$. They are in good quantitative agreement with the predictions by Eqs. (\[groupL\]) and (\[groupR\]), respectively. And the difference between these two group velocities is approximate to the estimation by Eq. (\[deltaVg\]).
Regardless of the temporal splitting of the pulse, the transversal distribution of the laser intensity is keeping as a Gaussian function as shown in Fig. \[fig3D\](a). Furthermore, Fig. \[fig3D\](a) illustrates that the y-component of the electric field $E_y$ at t=5 ps becomes as strong as the z-component $E_z$, although the pulse is initially polarized along the $z$-axis only. Figure \[fig3D\](c) illuminates that the endpoint of the electric-field vector rotates anti-clockwise as viewed along $\textbf{B}$ in the time interval $54 \lambda<(ct-x)<66 \lambda $. This time interval corresponds to the rising stage of the first sub-pulse, and the electric-field vector at its falling stage also rotates anti-clockwise and thus is omitted here. Therefore, we are convinced that the first sub-pulse is a LCP pulse and hence it propagates faster. Conversely, Fig. \[fig3D\](d) confirms that the endpoint of the electric-field vector rotates clockwise during $ 85 \lambda<(ct-x)<97 \lambda$ and the second sub-pulse is a RCP pulse.
Discussion
==========
In comparison with the familiar Faraday rotation, the extreme case of the Faraday effect reported above offers a new degree of freedom to manipulate ultrashort high power laser pulses. Therefore, it may form the basis of a new type of novel optical devices, such as magnetized plasma polarizers. Since the laser gain of amplifiers and the loss of resonators such as Brewster plate are usually polarization dependent, the laser emissions are often linearly polarized [@Koechner]. To get a circularly polarized pulse, a quarter-wave plate is employed in common [@Saleh]. For a high power laser pulse, however, the quarter-wave plate suffers from the problem of optically induced damage [@Koechner]. The state-of-the-art laser facilities under construction will provide a peak power as high as 10 PW [@Papadopoulos], where the diameter of the quarter-wave plate should be larger than a few decimetres to avoid the laser-induced damage. To the best of our knowledge, it is extremely challenging to manufacture such a large-diameter quarter-wave plate. Fortunately, one may realize a novel type of magnetized plasma polarizer for such high power lasers based on the above extremely strong Faraday effect. Thanks to the ultrahigh damage threshold of plasmas, this magnetized plasma polarizer is nearly free from laser-induced damage. It is worthwhile to notice that in the above 3D simulation the laser pulse already has a peak power of 10 PW, and this pulse has been converted into circularly polarized sub-pulses by a magnetized plasma on the centimeter scale (a waist of 0.68 cm). The resultant high-power circularly polarized pulses are particularly attractive to the laser-driven ion acceleration[@Daido; @Macchi], the optical control of mesoscopic objects[@Arita], and the ultrahigh acceleration of plasma blocks for fusion ignition[@Eliezer; @HoraLPB; @Miley; @Weng].
Although the magnetized plasma polarizer is nearly free from laser-induced damage, it also has its own limitations due to nonlinear effects in intense laser-plasma interactions [@GibbonBook; @HoraBook]. Above all, the laser pulse may collapse at a distance $\sim z_R (P/P_c)^{-1/2}$ if its power exceeds the critical power for relativistic self-focusing ($P_c \simeq 17.5 n_c/n_e $ GW) [@GibbonBook], where $z_R=\pi r_0^2/\lambda$ is the Rayleigh length. Therefore, the distance for the magnetic splitting ($\sim ct_s$) must be shorter than $z_R (P/P_c)^{-1/2}$. Using Eqs. (\[tSplit\]) and (\[deltaVg\]), we can get $$r_0^2 \frac{\omega_c}{\omega} (\frac{n_e}{n_c})^{1/2} > \frac{\lambda t_p v_{g,R} }{2\pi} [\frac{P}{17.5 \texttt{ GW}}]^{1/2}.$$ This prescribes a lower limit for the pulse waist $r_0$. Assuming $\omega_c=0.01\omega$ ($B\simeq 100$ T) and $n_e/n_c=0.1$, we find that a waist $r_0 > 1700\lambda$ is required for the magnetic splitting of a 500 fs 10 PW laser pulse. Setting $a_0=0.1$ for a 10 PW laser pulse, we will have a pulse waist $r_0 \simeq 6800\lambda$ that satisfies the above requirement well. With $r_0 \simeq 6800\lambda$, the Rayleigh length $z_R \simeq 1.44 \times 10^{8} \lambda$. On the other hand, such a large waist and a long Rayleigh length are also crucial in postponing the self-modulational instability, which is due to laser-driven plasma wakefield and becomes significant at the time scale of laser self-focusing [@GibbonBook; @Antonsen; @Esarey]. Secondly, besides the relativistic self-focusing, the laser pulse could also be focused by a transversely inhomogeneous plasma with $dn(r)/dr>0$ or defocused with $dn(r)/dr<0$. Analogous to the geometric optics picture of self-focusing in Ref. [@GibbonBook], we can get $\Delta v_p/c \sim \Delta n_e/2n_c$, where $\Delta v_p$ ($\Delta n_e$) is the difference between the phase velocities (plasma densities) at the center and at the edge of the pulse. Then the focusing (or defocusing) angle of the laser pulse is given by $\alpha \simeq \sqrt{\Delta v_p/c} = \sqrt{\Delta n_e/2n_c}$. Further, the condition $\alpha < r_0/ct_s$ should be satisfied in order to split the laser pulse before it is focused (or defocused). Combining this condition with Eqs. (\[tSplit\]) and (\[deltaVg\]), we can get $$\frac{\Delta n_e}{n_e} < 8 \frac{n_e (r_0 \omega_c )^2} { n_c (c t_p \omega)^2}. \label{Dne}$$ Under the conditions $\omega_c=0.01\omega$ and $n_e/n_c=0.1$, it is required that $\Delta n_e/n_e<16.2\%$ for the magnetic splitting of a 500 fs 10 PW laser pulse with a waist $r_0 \sim 6800 \lambda$. Similarly, we can get the difference in phase velocity due to the transverse inhomogeneity of magnetic field as $\Delta v_p/c \sim n_e \Delta \omega_c/2n_c \omega$, where $\Delta \omega_c$ is the difference between the magnetic fields at the center and at the edge of the pulse. In the case of $n_e=0.1n_c$ and $\omega_c/\omega=0.01$, we find that $\Delta v_p/c \sim 0.0005 \Delta \omega_c/\omega_c $ will be very small. Consequently, the focusing or defocusing effect due to the transverse inhomogeneity of magnetic field could be negligible in this case. However, a magnetic field inhomogeneity less than a few tens of percentages would be of great benefit to the quality of the resultant LCP and RCP sub-pulses. The magnetic splitting of laser pulses should not be sensitive to the longitudinal inhomogeneity of plasma density or magnetic field. For a longitudinally inhomogeneous plasma or/and magnetic field, we find that the distance between the peaks of LCP and RCP sub-pulses is approximate to $\int \Delta v_g dt \simeq \int \Delta v_g dx/c \propto \int n_e(x) B(x) dx$, and the magnetic splitting emerges if this distance is larger than $c t_p$. Thirdly, if gaseous targets are used, one should also take into account the nonlinear effects due to ionization and Kerr nonlinearity. The former could induce a defocusing effect since usually more electrons are produced via ionization on the laser axis. While the latter could induce a self-focusing effect since the higher intensity at the pulse center leads to a larger refractive index. It is worthwhile to point out that these nonlinear effects sometimes may counteract each other. For instance, a plasma channel as long as a few kilometres in the atmosphere could be created if the Kerr effect balances the diffraction and the ionization-induced defocusing [@GibbonBook; @Kasparian].
Due to the nonlinear effects discussed above, the laser pulse will lose energy as it propagates in a plasma even if the collisional damping is ignored. From simulations, we find that it is crucial to set $a_0 \ll 1$ and $n_e \ll n_c$ in order to reduce the collisionless losses. So we use $a_0=0.1$ and $n_e=0.1n_c$ in the 3D simulation shown in Fig. \[fig3D\]. Then about 95.092% laser energy can be preserved in the LCP (48.069%) and RCP (47.023%) pulses. In particular, only about $0.062\%$ laser energy is lost after $t=100$ fs when the pulse propagates inside the plasma, other $4.846\%$ laser energy is lost near the vacuum-plasma interface before $t=100$ fs. Therefore, one can expect that the collisionless losses can be controlled at a level of a few percentages with a much longer propagation distance when a relatively weaker magnetic field ($\sim 100$ T) and a longer laser pulse ($\sim 500$ fs) are used. The collisional losses, which are not treated in our PIC simulations, can be estimated as $K_{ib}=1-\exp{(-\kappa_{ib} L)}$ [@EliezerBook], where $L \sim c t_s$ is the distance required for the magnetic splitting and $\kappa_{ib} \simeq \nu_{ei} (n_e/n_c)^2(1-n_e/n_c)^{-1/2}/c$ is the spatial damping rate by inverse bremsstrahlung. At high laser intensities, e.g. $I > 10^{15}$ W/cm$^2$, the electron-ion collision frequency should be modified as $\nu_{ei}\simeq Z_i e^4 n_e \ln \Lambda / (4 \pi \epsilon_0^2 m_e^2 v_{eff}^3)$ [@GibbonBook; @EliezerBook; @WengPRE], where $Z_i$ is the ionization state, $\ln \Lambda$ is the Coulomb logarithm, and the effective electron thermal velocity $v_{eff} = (v_{te}^2 + v_{os}^2)^{1/2} \simeq a_0 c$ is defined by the electron thermal velocity $v_{te}$ and the electron oscillatory velocity $v_{os} \simeq a_0c$ in the laser field. Assuming $\omega_c=0.01\omega$, $n_e=0.1n_c$, and $Z_i \ln \Lambda \simeq 10$, we can get $K_{ib} \simeq 7.2\%$ for a 500 fs laser pulse with $a_0=0.1$. With a decreasing plasma density, we find that both the collisionless losses and the collisional losses can be reduced. With a decreasing laser intensity, however, the collisional losses will increase although the collisionless losses can be reduced. A moderate laser intensity $\sim 10^{16}$ W/cm$^2$ ($a_0 \sim 0.1$) may be appropriate to keep both the collisonal and collisionless losses at a tolerable level. Besides the applications as optical devices, this extremely strong Faraday effect may be applied to measure ultra-strong magnetic fields. Although the Faraday rotation is widely used in the measurement of magnetic fields, it essentially has three limitations. Firstly, the magnetic field should be small enough ($\omega_c\ll\omega$) to guarantee its linear relation with the Faraday rotation angle. Secondly, there may be $n\times180^o$ ambiguity of the Faraday rotation angle. Thirdly, the exact information of the initial polarization direction is required. In laser-produced plasmas with strong magnetic fields ($B \sim 1000T$) [@Wagner; @Fujioka], sometimes it may be difficult to meet all above requirements together. In these scenarios, however, the probe pulse may split into two circularly polarized pulses due to the extremely strong Faraday effect if the plasma thickness $>100\lambda n_c/n_e$ (the corresponding areal density $\rho R > 10^{-4}$ g/cm$^2$). Then the magnetic field could be estimated from the time delay between two resultant circularly polarized pulses. Therefore, this extremely strong Faraday effect could be a powerful alternative to the conventional Faraday rotation in the measurement of ultra-strong magnetic fields in plasmas. Such strongly magnetized plasmas may be encountered in magnetically assisted fast ignition [@WangMAFI], which is advantageous in depositing the laser energy into the core of fuel target in inertial confinement fusion.
It is worth pointing out that the higher the plasma density is, the more obvious this extremely strong Faraday effect is. This is because the light is slowed down more obviously and the difference in the group velocities is larger at a higher plasma density. We notice that the temporal splitting of laser pulses can also be achieved in other slow-light medium such as atomic vapors[@Grischkowsky], although in which the pulse duration is usually longer than nanosecond. In contrast to a bandwidth of gigahertz for the tunable pulse with atomic vapors[@Camacho], the femtosecond laser pulses with terahertz (THz) bandwidths can be manipulated by the magnetized plasmas. In principle, this extremely strong Faraday effect can be applied to manipulate electromagnetic radiations from radio waves to gamma rays for multiple potential applications [@Gibbon; @Teubner; @Wang]. However, this effect is observable only when $\omega_c/\omega$ is not too small, which presents a practical limit for experiments at high wave frequency. While for a THz radiation, magnetic fields on the order of tesla are already enough to achieve this effect.
Conclusion
==========
In summary, an extreme case of the Faraday effect has been found in magnetized plasmas due to its remarkable chiral dichroism. With this, the magnetic splitting of a LP short laser pulse into a LCP pulse and a RCP pulse can be realized. This opens the way for advanced applications, such as a magnetized plasma polarizer. The latter could allow the generation of circularly polarized laser pulses as high-power as 10 PW in the up-to-date laser facilities. Moreover, this eliminates some limits in the Faraday rotation for the measurement of magnetic fields, thus offering a way to measure ultra-high magnetic fields, broadly existing in objects in the universe and laser-matter interactions in the laboratories.
Funding Information {#funding-information .unnumbered}
===================
National Basic Research Program of China (2013CBA01504); National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (11129503, 11374210, 11405108, 11421064, 11675108); National 1000 Youth Talent Project of China; Leverhulme Trust.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors thank L. J. Qian, J. Q. Zhu, J. Fuchs, S. Chen, Y. T. Li, Z. Zhang, T. Sano, H. C. Wu, X. H. Yuan, Y. P. Chen, G. Q. Xie, and L. L. Zhao for fruitful discussions. Simulations have been carried out at the Pi cluster of Shanghai Jiao Tong University.
See [Supplement 1](link) for supporting content.
[9]{}
M. Faraday, “*On the Magnetization of Light and the Illumination of Magnetic Lines of Force,*” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. **136**, 1-20 (1846).
B. E. A. Saleh and M. C. Teich, *Fundamentals of Photonics* (John Wiley & Sons, 1991).
M. Liu and X. Zhang, “*Nano-optics: Plasmon-boosted magneto-optics,*” Nat. Photonics **7**, 429-430 (2013).
F. F. Chen, *Introduction to Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion* (Plenum Press, 1984).
G. A. Mourou, T. Tajima, and S. V. Bulanov, “*Optics in the relativistic regime,*” Rev. Mod. Phys. **78**, 309-371 (2006).
L. L. Yu, Y. Zhao, L. J. Qian, M. Chen, S. M. Weng, Z. M. Sheng, D. A. Jaroszynski, W. B. Mori and J. Zhang, “*Plasma optical modulators for intense lasers,*” Nat. Commun. **7**, 11893 (2016).
C. Thaury, F. Quéré, J. -P. Geindre, A. Levy, T. Ceccotti, P. Monot, M. Bougeard, F. Réau, P. d’Oliveira, P. Audebert, R. Marjoribanks and Ph. Martin, “*Plasma mirrors for ultrahigh-intensity optics,*” Nat. Phys. **3**, 424-429 (2007).
R. M. G. M. Trines, F. Fiúza, R. Bingham, R. A. Fonseca, L. O. Silva, R. A. Cairns and P. A. Norreys, “*Simulations of efficient Raman amplification into the multipetawatt regime,*” Nat. Phys. **7**, 87-92 (2011).
U. Klein and A. Fletcher, *Galactic and Intergalactic magnetic fields* (Springer, 2015).
A. Brandenburg and K. Subramanian, “*Astrophysical Magnetic Fields and Nonlinear Dynamo Theory,*” Phys. Rep. **417**, 1-209 (2005).
X. H. Yang, W. Yu, H. Xu, M. Y. Yu, Z. Y. Ge, B. B. Xu, H. B. Zhuo, Y. Y. Ma, F. Q. Shao, and M. Borghesi, “*Propagation of intense laser pulses in strongly magnetized plasmas,*”Appl. Phys. Lett. **106**, 224103 (2015).
W. Koechner, *Solid-State Laser Engineering* (Springer, 2006).
D. Strickland and G. Mourou, “*Compression of amplified chirped optical pulses,*” Opt. Commun. **56**, 219-221 (1985).
*High Magnetic Field Science and Its Application in the United States: Current Status and Future Directions* <http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18355>
U. Wagner, M. Tatarakis, A. Gopal, F. N. Bee, E. L. Clark, A. E. Dangor, R. G. Evans, M. G. Haines, S. P. D. Mangles, P. A. Norreys, M. S. Wei, M. Zepf, and K. Krushelnick, “*Laboratory measurements of 0.7GG magnetic fields generated during highintensity laser interactions with dense plasmas,*” Phys. Rev. E **70**, 026401 (2004).
S. Fujioka, Z. Zhang, and K. Ishihara, K. Shigemori, Y. Hironaka, T. Johzaki, A. Sunahara, N. Yamamoto, H. Nakashima, T. Watanabe, H. Shiraga, H. Nishimura and H. Azechi, “*Kilotesla Magnetic Field due to a Capacitor-Coil Target Driven by High Power Laser,*” Sci. Rep. **3**, 1170 (2013).
H. Hora, G. Korn, L. Giuffrida, D. Margarone, A. Picciotto, J. Krasa, K. Jungwirth, J. Ullschmied, P. Lalousis, S. Eliezer, G. H. Miley, S. Moustaizis and G. Mourou, “*Fusion energy using avalanche increased boron reactions for block ignition by ultrahigh power picosecond laser pulses,*” Laser Part. Beams **33**, 607-619 (2015).
S. Eliezer, H. Hora, G. Korn, N. Nissim and J. M. M. Val, “*Avalanche proton-boron fusion based on elastic nuclear collisions,*” Phys. Plasmas **23**, 050704 (2016).
G. H. Miley, H. Hora and G. Kirchhoff, “*Reactor for boron fusion with picosecond ultrahigh power laser pulses and ultrahigh magnetic field trapping,*” J. Phys. Conf. Ser. **717**, 012095 (2016).
R. A. Fonseca, L. O. Silva, F. S. Tsung, V. K. Decyk, W. Lu, C. Ren, W. B. Mori, S. Deng, S. Lee, T. Katsouleas and J. C. Adam, “*OSIRIS, a three-dimensional fully relativistic particle in cell code for modeling plasma based accelerators,*” Lect. Not. Comput. Sci. **2331**, 342-351 (2002).
J. Tinbergen, *Astronomical Polarimetry* (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996).
P. Gibbon, *Short Pulse Laser Interactions with Matter* (Imperial College Press, 2000).
H. Hora, *Laser Plasma Physics* (SPIE Press, 2016).
O. Shorokhov, A. Pukhov and I. Kostyukov, “*Self-compression of laser pulses in plasma,*” Phys. Rev. Lett. **91**, 265002 (2003).
D. N. Papadopoulos, J. P. Zou, and C. Le Blanc, G. Chériaux, P. Georges, F. Druon, G. Mennerat, P. Ramirez, L. Martin, A. Fréneaux, A. Beluze, N. Lebas, P. Monot, F. Mathieu and P. Audebert, “*The Apollon 10 PW laser: experimental and theoretical investigation of the temporal characteristics,*” High Power Laser Sci. Eng. **4**, e34 (2016).
H. Daido, M. Nishiuchi and A. S. Pirozhkov, “*Review of laser-driven ion sources and their applications,*” Rep. Prog. Phys. **75**, 056401 (2012).
A. Macchi, M. Borghesi and M. Passoni, “*Ion acceleration by superintense laser-plasma interaction,*” Rev. Mod. Phys. **85**, 751-793 (2013).
Y. Arita, M. Mazilu and K. Dholakia, “*Laser-induced rotation and cooling of a trapped microgyroscope in vacuum,*” Nat. Commun. **4**, 2374 (2013).
S. M. Weng, M. Liu, Z. M. Sheng, M. Murakami, M. Chen, L. L. Yu and J. Zhang, “*Dense blocks of energetic ions driven by multi-petawatt lasers,*” Sci. Rep. **6**, 22150 (2016).
T. M. Antonsen, Jr. and P. Mora, “*Self-focusing and Raman scattering of laser pulses in tenuous plasmas,*” Phys. Rev. Lett. **69**, 2204-2207 (1992).
E. Esarey, J. Krall and P. Sprangle, “*Envelope analysis of intense laser pulse self-modulation in plasmas,*” Phys. Rev. Lett. **72**, 2887-2890 (1994).
J. Kasparian, M. Rodriguez, G. M[é]{}jean, J. Yu, E. Salmon, H. Wille, R. Bourayou, S. Frey, Y.-B. Andr[é]{}, A. Mysyrowicz, R. Sauerbrey, J.-P. Wolf and L. W[ö]{}ste, “*White-Light Filaments for Atmospheric Analysis,*” Science **301**, 61-64 (2003).
S. Eliezer, *The Interaction of High-Power Lasers with Plasmas* (Institute of Physics Publishing, 2002).
S. M Weng, Z. M. Sheng, and J. Zhang, “*Inverse bremsstrahlung absorption with nonlinear effects of high laser intensity and non-Maxwellian distribution,*” Phys. Rev. E **80**, 056406 (2009).
W. M. Wang, P. Gibbon, Z. M. Sheng and Y. T. Li, “*Magnetically Assisted Fast Ignition,*” Phys. Rev. Lett. **114**, 015001 (2015).
D. Grischkowsky, “*Adiabatic following and slow optical pulse propagation in rubidium vapor,*” Phys. Rev. A **7**, 2096-2103 (1973).
R. M. Camacho, M. V. Pack, J. C. Howell, A. Schweinsberg and R. W. Boyd, “*Wide-bandwidth, tunable, multiple-pulse-width optical delays using slow light in Cesium vapor,*” Phys. Rev. Lett. **98**, 153601 (2007).
P. Gibbon, “*Harmonic generation by femtosecond laser-solid interaction: A coherent ”water-window” light source?*” Phys. Rev. Lett. **76**, 50-53 (1996).
U. Teubner and P. Gibbon, “*High-order harmonics from laser-irradiated plasma surfaces,*” Rev. Mod. Phys. **81**, 445-479 (2009).
W. M. Wang, P. Gibbon, Z. M. Sheng and Y. T. Li, “*Tunable circularly polarized terahertz radiation from magnetized gas plasma,*” Phys. Rev. Lett. **114**, 253901 (2015).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
Background: Determining sample sizes for metabolomic experiments is important but due to the complexity of these experiments, there are currently no standard methods for sample size estimation in metabolomics. Since pilot studies are rarely done in metabolomics, currently existing sample size estimation approaches which rely on pilot data can not be applied.
Results: In this article, an analysis based approach called MetSizeR is developed to estimate sample size for metabolomic experiments even when experimental pilot data are not available. The key motivation for MetSizeR is that it considers the type of analysis the researcher intends to use for data analysis when estimating sample size. MetSizeR uses information about the data analysis technique and prior expert knowledge of the metabolomic experiment to simulate pilot data from a statistical model. Permutation based techniques are then applied to the simulated pilot data to estimate the required sample size.
Conclusions: The MetSizeR methodology, and a publicly available software package which implements the approach, are illustrated through real metabolomic applications. Sample size estimates, informed by the intended statistical analysis technique, and the associated uncertainty are provided.
author:
- Gift Nyamundanda
- 'Isobel Claire Gormley[^1]'
- Yue Fan
- William M Gallagher
- Lorraine Brennan
bibliography:
- 'NyamundandaEtAl.bib'
title: '****MetSizeR**: selecting the optimal sample size for metabolomic studies using an analysis based approach**'
---
Background
==========
In many metabolomic experiments, one of the most important objectives is to discover the set of metabolites that plays a significant role in distinguishing samples from two different groups or populations and thus, in the identification of novel biomarkers [@Berk11]. As in any experiment, designing the experiment is critical if reliable statistically significant metabolites are to be obtained. Since metabolomic experiments are expensive, it is crucial to determine the optimal sample size $\hat{n}$ to attain the desired power to identify discriminating metabolites without wasting resources or unnecessarily sampling many subjects. However, metabolomic data are typically high dimensional and correlated meaning sample size estimation using classical statistical methods is not straight forward.\
Currently, in the metabolomics literature, there is no standard method for the determination of sample size when designing a metabolomic experiment. Several methods currently exist in the literature for sample size selection in the high-dimensional data setting [@muller04; @tibshirani06; @Liu07; @lin10]. However, none of these methods are suitable for metabolomic experiments since many either assume variables have equal variance or are independent. More importantly, these methods rely on the existence of some experimental pilot data on which the actual sample size selection is then based, and are not based on the method to be used to analyze the data. In metabolomic studies, experimental pilot data are rarely available, making such sample size selection approaches redundant.
In this article, we propose a method known as MetSizeR for sample size estimation for metabolomic experiments that addresses some of these limitations. MetSizeR is founded on the idea that the method for selecting sample size firmly depends on the type of data analysis the researcher intends to employ. In a situation where experimental pilot data are not available, pseudo-metabolomic data are simulated from a statistical model. The specific statistical model from which the pseudo-metabolomic data are simulated depends on the type of statistical analysis that the metabolomic scientist intends to use. In its current form the MetSizeR approach assumes the user intends to employ one of the following three statistical analysis techniques on completion of their experiment:
1. Probabilistic Principal Components Analysis (PPCA) [@tipping99; @nyamundanda10].
2. Probabilistic Principal Components and Covariates Analysis (PPCCA) [@nyamundanda10].
3. Dynamic Probabilistic Principal Components Analysis (DPPCA) [@nyamundanda12a].
Intuitively the MetSizeR method can be naturally extended to include other analysis approaches, assuming they are based on a statistical model rather than being non-parametric in nature.\
MetSizeR draws on two currently existing methods (see [@muller04] and [@tibshirani06]) for sample size calculation in high-dimensional data settings. While the approach in [@tibshirani06] is based on the existence of an experimental pilot data set, the approach detailed in [@muller04] simulates pilot data from a statistical model. Further, while independence in the data is assumed in [@muller04], the approach in [@tibshirani06] uses permutation methods to account for the correlation in the experimental pilot data. MetSizeR combines these ideas of prior simulation and permutation based techniques to estimate the sample size for metabolomic experiments. The main advantage of the developed approach is its ability to determine sample size without experimental pilot data and without assuming variable independence.\
A graphic user interface (GUI) software called MetSizeR was developed to implement this approach to estimating sample sizes in R [@R09]. Effort was focused on designing the interface of MetSizeR to encourage its wide use in the metabolomics community regardless of previous knowledge of R. The software is available through the **R** statistical software environment `www.r-project.org`.
Methods
=======
Metabolomic data sets are typically acquired using analytical technologies such as nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (NMR) [@Reo2002] and mass spectrometry (MS) [@Dettmer07]. The spectrum resulting from NMR spectroscopy is usually divided into spectral bins (representing variables) and the signal intensities within the bins are related to the relative abundances of metabolites. MS is typically used for targeted metabolomics in which a specified list of metabolites is measured [@Patti12]. The following section describes how the number of samples required for either an NMR or an MS metabolomic experiment can be determined under the MetSizeR approach.
Sample size estimation
----------------------
Let $\bar{x}_{jg}$ be the estimate of the average signal intensity $\mu_{jg}$ for metabolite $j$ in samples from the treatment group $g$ which has corresponding sample size $n_g$, where $g=1,2$. Often in metabolomics, the goal of discovering a set of metabolites that discriminates between samples from two treatment groups is achieved by testing the hypothesis $\mbox{H}_{oj}:\mu_{j1}-\mu_{j2}=0$, on each metabolite $j$, where $j=1,\ldots,p$. The aim of discovering discriminating metabolites can be framed as a multiple testing problem as there are $p$ hypotheses to be tested and the probability of falsely declaring a metabolite as significant increases with $p$. It is therefore important to estimate sample size while controlling an error rate to improve the power of the test for identifying significant metabolites. MetSizeR focuses on controlling the false discovery rate (FDR, [@Benjamini95]). Here, the FDR is the expected number of metabolites incorrectly deemed to be significantly different between the two treatment groups, as a proportion of the total number of metabolites declared to be significant.
### The test statistic and its distribution {#the-test-statistic-and-its-distribution .unnumbered}
A test statistic widely used to identify discriminating metabolites is a two sample $t$-statistic. The $t$-statistic $TS$ is evaluated for all metabolites, $j=1, \ldots, p$, under the assumption that the null hypothesis of no difference $\mu_{j1}=\mu_{j2}$ is true: $$\begin{aligned}
TS_j&=&\frac{(\bar{x}_{j1}-\bar{x}_{j2})}{S_j + cf},\\
\mbox{where}~~~~~S_j &=& \left\{\left(\frac{1}{n_1}+\frac{1}{n_2}\right)\frac{(n_1-1)(s_{j1})^2+(n_2-1)(s_{j2})^2}{n_1+n_2-2}\right\}^{\frac{1}{2}},\end{aligned}$$ where $S_j$ is the estimate of the pooled standard error for metabolite *j*. The corresponding within treatment variability estimate is $s^2_{jg}=(n_g-1)^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n_g}(x_{(jg)i}-\bar{x}_{jg})^2$ for $g=1,2$ where $x_{(jg)i}$ denotes the signal intensity for metabolite $j$ in sample $i$ from the treatment group $g$. A correction factor $cf$ is a small positive value added to the standard error of each metabolite to prevent some metabolites with signal intensity near zero from having large test statistic $TS_j$; such a metabolite may have $TS_{j} \approx 0/0$.\
The typical assumption about the null distribution (i.e. the distribution under the null hypotheses) of the test statistic $TS_j$ is the *t*-distribution with $n_1+n_2-2$ degrees of freedom. However, when the data violate such an assumption, misleading sample size estimates would result. Hence, as in [@tibshirani06], MetSizeR estimates the null distribution of $TS_j$ using a permutation technique. This is a non-parametric method based on the assumption that under the null hypothesis of no difference, the distribution of the test statistic does not change no matter how the group labels of the pilot data are permuted. The data generated using this approach maintains the between subject variability and the amount of noise in the data. The null distribution of the test statistic $TS$ is estimated by randomly permuting the group labels of pilot data and calculating the test statistic for each metabolite, $TS_{jt}$, where $t=1, \ldots, T$ permutations.
### Analysis based data simulation {#analysis-based-data-simulation .unnumbered}
Unfortunately, in most cases, experimental pilot data are not readily available in metabolomics since pilot studies are rarely done. Therefore, MetSizeR uses the intended statistical analysis model to simulate pilot data. The simulated pilot data are then used to learn about the null distribution of the relevant test statistic for estimating sample size. This simulation approach is similar to that in [@muller04] in which pilot data are simulated from the marginal model: $$\begin{aligned}
p(\mathbf{x}) &=& \int p(\mathbf{x}| \mathbf{u}, \theta) dp(\mathbf{u}, \theta),
\label{eqn:margmodel}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{x}$ is the $n \times p$ data matrix, $\mathbf{u}$ denotes the latent variables, and $\theta$ is a vector of unknown model parameters. Simulating from the marginal model is achieved by first generating values of the parameters and the latent variables from the prior distribution $p(\mathbf{u}, \theta)$, and then simulating the data from the assumed model $p(\mathbf{x}| \mathbf{u}, \theta)$ given the simulated values of $\mathbf{u}$ and $\theta$.\
Currently, MetSizeR assumes the metabolomic practitioner will use one of three different statistical models $p(\mathbf{x}| \mathbf{u}, \theta)$ to analyse the data from their metabolomic experiment – either the PPCA, PPCCA or DPPCA model. Simulation of the parameters of these models is based on the model assumptions and on prior expert knowledge of metabolomic data properties. As PPCA is equivalent to the widely used Principal Components Analysis (PCA) method, simulating from the PPCA model is discussed here; details of the simulation of pilot data from the closely related PPCCA and DPPCA models are provided in the Additional File. Specifically, PPCA is a probabilistic formulation of PCA based on a Gaussian latent variable model [@tipping99; @nyamundanda10]. PPCA models the high dimensional spectrum $\underline{x}_i^{T}=(x_{i1}, \ldots, x_{ip})$ of subject $i$ ($i=1,\ldots,n$ where $n= n_1 + n_2$) as a linear function of the corresponding low dimensional latent variable $\underline{u}_i^{T}=(u_{i1}, \ldots, u_{iq})$, where $(q \ll p)$. The PPCA model can be expressed as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\underline{x}_i & = & \textbf{W} \underline{u}_i + \underline{\mu} + \underline{\epsilon}_i\end{aligned}$$ where $\textbf{W}$ is a $p \times q$ loadings matrix, $\underline{\mu}$ is a mean vector and $\underline{\epsilon}_i$ is multivariate Gaussian noise for observation $i$, i.e. $p(\underline{\epsilon}_i)
\, = \, \mbox{MVN}_{p}(\,\underline{0}\,,\,\sigma^2\textbf{I}\,)$ where **I** denotes the identity matrix. The latent variable $\underline{u}_i$ is also multivariate Gaussian distributed, $p(\underline{u}_i) \,= \, \mbox{MVN}_{q}(\,\underline{0}\,,\,\textbf{I}\,)$. The maximum likelihood estimates of the loadings matrix $\mathbf{W}$ and the latent variable $\mathbf{u}$ in the PPCA model are equivalent to the traditional PCA loadings matrix and principal component scores. For a given sample size $n$, pilot data $\mathbf{x} $ can be simulated from the PPCA model as follows:
1. Generate parameter values from their prior distributions: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:sig}
p(\underline{u}_{i}) & = & \mbox{MVN}_{q}(\underline{0}, \textbf{I}) \:\: \mbox{for } i =1, \ldots n.\\
p(\underline{w}_{j}) & = & \mbox{MVN}_{q}(\underline{\mu}_{W}, \mathbf{\Sigma}_{W}) \:\: \mbox{for } j = 1, \ldots p.\\
p(\sigma^2) & = & \mbox{IG}(\alpha_1, \alpha_2)\end{aligned}$$
2. Given the generated model parameters and latent variables the pilot data $\mathbf{x}$ are then simulated from the PPCA model: $$\begin{aligned}
p(\underline{x}_{i}| \underline{u}_{i}, \textbf{W}, \sigma^2) &=& \mbox{MVN}_{p}(\textbf{W}\underline{u}_i, \sigma^2\textbf{I}) \:\: \mbox{for } i = 1, \ldots, n.
\label{eqn:model}\end{aligned}$$
Estimating sample size based on pilot data simulated in this way ensures the estimated sample size is firmly dependent on the type of model being used to analyse the real experimental metabolomic data. Hence, MetSizeR represents an analysis based approach to sample size estimation for metabolomic studies. The specific steps involved in the MetsizeR algorithm are detailed in the next section.
### The MetSizeR Algorithm {#the-metsizer-algorithm .unnumbered}
The MetSizeR procedure for sample size estimation starts with a number $ntry$ of different sample sizes and a user-specified FDR (denoted by $target.fdr$). It then searches for the optimal sample size $\hat{n}$ by estimating the FDR for each of the $ntry$ sample sizes. In order to estimate FDR for each sample size, the null distribution of the test statistics of all metabolites is estimated and then a shift constant is added to the test statistics of some $p_o$ metabolites to allow them to be truly significant. The null distribution is estimated by calculating the test statistics of the permuted pilot data. After obtaining the critical values of the null distribution, the FDR is estimated. The optimal sample size $\hat{n}$ is then set to be the sample size with FDR equal to $target.fdr$.\
In summary, the MetSizeR sample size estimation method proceeds as follows:
1. Specify the input parameters which include the desired level of FDR ($target.fdr$), the expected proportion $m$ of significant metabolites and the model to be used when analyzing the observed metabolomic data.
2. Simulate pilot data of sample size $n_k$ from the assumed analysis model, where $k=1,\ldots,ntry$. Pilot data simulation from the PPCA model is detailed in the previous Section; the Additional File details pilot data simulation from the PPCCA and DPPCA models. \[item:data\]
3. Estimate the null distribution for all metabolites by randomly permuting the group labels of the simulated pilot data and computing the test statistic $TS_{jt}$ for each metabolite $j$ and each permuted data set $t$ for $T$ permutations.
4. Estimate the FDR for each permuted data set $t=1,\ldots,T$: \[item:perm\]
1. Consider the corresponding $p$-vector of the test statistics $\underline{TS}_t=(TS_{1t},TS_{2t},\ldots, TS_{pt})$ for all metabolites on permutation $t$.
2. Randomly sample $p_o = m \times p$ of the test statistics $\underline{TS}_t$ and add $\frac{\delta}{\varrho_{jt}(\sqrt{\frac{1}{n_1}+\frac{1}{n_2}})}$ to their intensities. This allows $p_o$ metabolites to be truly significant. Here, $\delta$ is the effect size, and $\varrho_{jt}$ is the true within group standard deviation estimated by $\frac{S_{jt}}{\sqrt{\frac{1}{n_1}+\frac{1}{n_2}}}$.
3. A cut off point $crit$ is set to be the $p_o^{th}$ largest absolute value of the test statistics $\underline{TS}_t$. All metabolites with $|TS_{jt}| > crit$ are declared as significant. The FDR for permutation $t$ can then be calculated.
5. Estimate the FDR for data simulation $s$ by taking the $50^{th}$ percentile of the FDR values of $1,\ldots,T$ permutations. \[item:sim\]
6. Repeat steps \[item:data\] to \[item:sim\] for $s=1,\ldots,SIM$ simulations and report the $10^{th}, 50^{th}$ and $90^{th}$ percentiles of the FDR values for sample size $n_k$. \[item:nk\]
7. Repeat steps \[item:data\] to \[item:nk\] for $k=1,\ldots,ntry$ different sample sizes and select the optimal sample size $\hat{n}$ as the $n_k$ with FDR $=$ $target.fdr$.
The total number of permutations $T$ used to estimate the sampling distribution of the test statistics $TS$ was chosen to be twenty. In the `samr` R package [@tibshirani06] 20 permutations were used to estimate the null distribution and they give accurate estimates of the FDR. Here, the value of the effect size $\delta$ is chosen based on the variance of the underlying model. The optimal sample size $\hat{n}$ is estimated by predicting the sample size at $target.fdr$ using a simple linear regression model on values of FDR above and below the $target.fdr$ with their corresponding sample sizes $n_k$. The estimated sample size by MetSizeR ensures that the power or the confidence level in statistical tests reaches (1-$target.fdr$).
### Parameter Specification: details and guidelines. {#parameter-specification-details-and-guidelines. .unnumbered}
The MetSizeR algorithm requires the specification of several parameters; some are parameters relevant to the intended analysis model, and some are parameters relevant to the sample size estimation procedure itself.\
In terms of the MetSizeR GUI which has been developed, the user is requested to specify parameters specific to the sample size estimation procedure i.e. the number of bins in the NMR or MS spectrum, the expected proportion of significant bins, the target FDR and the minimum sample size they wish to be considered. The default settings of these parameters are 200 spectral bins, 20% significantly different bins, a target FDR of 5% and a minimum sample size of 4. The choice of the number and proportion of significantly different spectral bins will naturally be informed by the metabolomic practitioner’s knowledge, as will the minimum sample size choice. For the target FDR, again this depends on the conservatism of the metabolomic practitioner and/or the research question of interest, but a FDR of 5% is indicative of typical statistical practice. The user can easily re-run the MetSizeR algorithm for different settings of these parameters to ascertain the influence of their particular specifications. However, within the MetSizeR GUI the user has the option of requesting plots of the expected proportion of significant bins versus the FDR, over different sample sizes, giving insight to the influence of this particularly influential parameter on sample size estimation. Regarding the specification of parameters relevant to the intended analysis model, in the MetSizeR GUI, the user is only required to specify the intended analysis model (PPCA, PPCCA or DPPCA), and in the case of PPCCA, the number of covariates to be included. Both of these decisions are again practitioner informed, depending on the particular experiment under consideration. The MetSizeR manual, available through the developed MetSizeR GUI, guides the user through these parameter specification steps using a number of illustrative examples.\
The remaining parameters in the MetSizeR algorithm have been fixed within the **R** code underlying the MetSizeR GUI, but given the open source nature of **R**, these can be changed by the user if desired. In the context of the PPCA model discussed above the hyperparameters of the prior distributions of the loadings matrix $\mathbf{W}$ and the variance $\sigma^{2}$ are based on previous estimates of $\mathbf{W}$ and $\sigma^2$ from applications of PPCA to metabolomic data (eg. [@nyamundanda10; @nyamundanda12a]). Each row of the loadings matrix $\mathbf{W}$ is simulated from a standard multivariate Gaussian distribution MVN$_{q}(\underline{0}, \textbf{I})$ and the noise variance $\sigma^2$ is simulated from an inverse gamma distribution with shape parameter $\alpha_1=3$ and scale parameter $\alpha_2 = 4$. Hyperparameter settings for the PPCCA and DPPCA models are detailed in the Additional File. Within the MetSizeR algorithm four final parameters are specified: the effect size $\delta$ (fixed at 2.3, the 99th quantile of the assumed prior distribution of the loadings), the correction factor $cf$ (fixed as the fifth percentile of the estimated standard errors of all metabolites), the number of permutations $T$ (set to 20) and the number of simulations $SIM$ (set at 20). These specifications are based on the choices in [@tibshirani06; @lin10; @Hwang02] in similar sample size estimation settings.\
Results
========
This section illustrates the application of MetSizeR to different metabolomic experimental settings. In the first section, MetSizeR is employed to estimate sample size in the setting where experimental pilot data are not available; the second section considers the case where experimental pilot data are available.
Sample size estimation using simulated pilot data {#sec:pilot}
-------------------------------------------------
Here the MetSizeR approach to sample size estimation is illustrated in the setting where experimental pilot data are not available and it is assumed that the user has indicated that a PPCA model will be used to analyze the observed experimental data. Further, it is assumed that the user has specified that the spectra will consist of 300 spectral bins, the target FDR is 5% and the expected proportion of significant spectral bins is 20%. In this example, the user has also specified that they wish to consider a minimum sample size of ten, with five in each treatment group (i.e. $n_1=5$ and $n_2=5$). All other MetSizeR parameters are set at their default values, as detailed in the previous section. The MetSizeR method was then applied, and the $10^{th}, 50^{th}$ and $90^{th}$ percentiles of the FDR were calculated across a range of sample sizes and are shown in Figure 1. The sample size at which the target FDR of 5% was achieved was estimated to be 30 with 15 in each treatment group as shown in Figure 1(A).\
The expected proportion of significant spectral bins specified by the user impacts on the estimated number of samples required for the metabolomic experiment. Figures 1(B), 1(C) and 1(D) demonstrate the effect on FDR of varying the expected proportion of significant spectral bins for three different sample sizes. The figures show that, increasing the expected proportion of significant spectral bins reduces the FDR.\
{width="10cm" height="10cm"}
A second example which demonstrates the applicability of MetSizeR is based on an experimental paradigm where additional information is available in the form of covariates. In this instance, the PPCCA model will be used to analyze the acquired data and thus was used to simulate pilot data with 300 spectral bins, five samples from each treatment group and two covariates. Fixing the target FDR at 5% and the expected proportion at 20%, Figure 2(A) demonstrates that when two covariates are included in the PPCCA model, the total number of samples required for such an experiment increases to 36 with 18 samples in each treatment group.\
Figure 2(B) illustrates a third example of the setting where no experimental pilot data are available and the practitioner aims to conduct a longitudinal metabolomic experiment. The pilot data for this example are simulated from the DPPCA model; the data are simulated by only focusing on the first time point of the experiment as it is expected that the same number of subjects will be followed over time and that, while there may be dropouts, the largest number of subjects will be present at the first time point. Figure 2(B) shows that the expected number of samples required for a longitudinal study of 300 spectral bins with 20% significant bins and a target FDR of 5%, is 24 with 12 samples from each treatment group.
{width="10cm" height="10cm"}
Sample size estimation with experimental pilot data {#sec:pilot}
---------------------------------------------------
In a situation where experimental pilot data are available, parameter estimates used for simulations are based on fitting the underlying model to the experimental pilot data. Here, the application of MetSizeR is illustrated using real metabolomic data sets as experimental pilot data.\
The first experimental pilot data set is from a longitudinal metabolomic animal study. Urine samples of 18 animals in two treatment groups were collected over a 15 day period and the animals’ weights were measured. Details of this study have been previously detailed in [@Carmody10]. Data from day 10 of the study were used as experimental pilot data here; the NMR spectra consist of 189 spectral bins with nine samples in each treatment group. The PPCCA model was fitted to the experimental pilot data, with weight as a covariate and the maximum likelihood parameter estimates from fitting this model are used for data simulations in MetSizeR. Controlling the target FDR at 5% and setting the expected proportion of significant bins at 20%, the MetSizeR method was employed. Figure 3(A) depicts that the sample size estimate is 40, with 20 samples in each treatment group. It is interesting to note that, the 10% and 90% curves in Figure 3(A) are much narrower than in the previous examples in which MetSizeR was used to estimate sample size with no experimental pilot data (Figures 1 and 2). This reduction in uncertainty is due to the fact that MetSizeR simulations are now based on fixed parameter values not on draws from prior distributions as used when experimental pilot data are not available.\
The approach developed here for sample size estimation is not limited to NMR data. The method has been developed to accept data from targeted metabolomic analysis using MS, thus ensuring its applicability across the metabolomics community. Setting MetSizeR specifications as in the previous examples, the PPCA model was fitted to a targeted metabolomic MS pilot data set and under the MetSizR algorithm, the estimated sample size is shown in Figure 3(B).
{width="10cm" height="10cm"}
Conclusions
===========
Determining sample sizes in metabolomics is important but due to the complexity of these experiments, there are currently no standard methods for sample size estimation in metabolomics. Moreover, since pilot studies are rarely done in metabolomics, sample size estimation approaches for high dimensional data studies requiring experimental pilot data, cannot be applied.\
The method presented in this article is a straight forward approach for determining sample sizes for metabolomic experiments whilst controlling the FDR. The main advantage of the developed approach is its ability to determine sample size even when experimental pilot data are not available. Another key advantage is that it takes the type of analysis the researcher intends to use into consideration when estimating sample size and this can improve the power of the study. Also, since MetSizeR employs permutation techniques to estimate sample size, it accounts for correlation between metabolites and effect size variability. The method has been developed to accept both NMR and targeted MS data which will ensure wide applicability in the metabolomics community. Further, a software package facilitates easy implementation of the MetSizeR approach.\
Areas of future work are multiple and varied. MetSizeR is currently designed to estimate the number of samples required for metabolomic experiments which involve two groups; modifications to the MetSizeR approach are possible to accommodate different metabolomic experimental designs. Alternatives to the permutation approach employed in MetSizeR could be examined – bootstrap sampling would provide an interesting alternative. Proof of concept metabolomic experiments are currently underway to validate the MetSizeR approach.
[^1]: claire.gormley@ucd.ie
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
-
bibliography:
- 'bib/IEEEabrv.bib'
- 'bib/main.bib'
title: 'A Distributed Multi-GPU System for Large-Scale Node Embedding at Tencent'
---
Network Embedding, Multi-GPU, Large-Scale Machine Learning
Introduction
============
Preliminaries
=============
Scaling Node Embedding on A GPU Cluster
=======================================
System Implementation
=====================
Experiments & Results
=====================
Related Works
=============
Conclusion and Future Work
==========================
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We study the macroscopic quantum tunneling of magnetization of the $F=1$ spinor condensate interacting through dipole-dipole interaction with an external magnetic field applied along the longitudinal or transverse direction. We show that the ground state energy and the effective magnetic moment of the system exhibit an interesting macroscopic quantum oscillation phenomenon originating from the oscillating dependence of thermodynamic properties of the system on the vacuum angle. Tunneling between two degenerate minima are analyzed by means of an effective potential method and the periodic instanton method.'
author:
- 'Limin Yang$^{1}$'
- 'Yunbo Zhang$^{1,2}$'
title: 'Quantum tunneling of magnetization in dipolar spin-1 condensates under external fields'
---
Introduction
============
Rapid experimental progresses in realization of spinor condensates [Ho,Stamper-Kurn]{} have generated fascinating opportunities to study the spin dynamics and magnetic properties of condensate atoms. The properties of spinor condensates under external magnetic field are investigated both experimentally [@Schmaljohann] and theoretically [@Pu1]. The spin-exchange interaction plays an important role in these works, which is reminiscent of the exchange interaction responsible for interesting magnetic properties in solid. Other interactions, due to much weaker than the exchange interaction, are in most cases ignored.
Since the spin degree of freedom becomes accessible in an optical trap, the magnetic dipole-dipole interaction which arises from the intrinsic or field-included magnetic dipole moment [@Yi1; @Goral] should be taken into account. The dipolar coupling was first considered between atoms at different sites, based on the assumption that the spin-exchange interaction dominates the on-site interaction [@Yi2]. Due to its long range and vectorial characters, more and more attentions are paid to this spinor dipolar condensate, for example, the ground state structure and spin dynamics were examined for this novel quantum system in a single trap [Cheng]{} and in deep optical lattices [@Pu2].
Recently a major experimental breakthrough [@Griesmaier] has been achieved in the condensation of chromium atoms $^{52}$Cr which possesses a large magnetic dipole moment of $6\mu _{B}$ ($\mu _{B}$ is the Bohr magneton) in its ground state. The dipolar interaction in this condensate is a factor of 36 higher than that for alkali atoms, which makes possible the study of many dipolar phenomena and new kinds of quantum phase transitions predicted by theory. Indeed, the long-range and anisotropic magnetic dipole-dipole interaction in degenerate quantum gases has been shown to lead to an anisotropic deformation of the expanding Cr-BEC which depends on the orientation of the atomic dipole moments [@Stuhler].
In the present paper we mainly consider a rich set of macroscopic quantum phenomena occurred in different quantum phases of spinor dipolar condensate. These phases may be tuned via modifying the trapping geometry so that various effective strengths of the dipolar interaction can be achieved. Based on the ground state structure of a spin-1 condensate with dipole-dipole interaction at zero temperature, macroscopic quantum tunneling and oscillations occur in different phases, which are quite similar to what happens in molecular magnets [@Garg; @Kou].
The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we introduce the dipolar spinor BEC model for $T=0$ under the single mode approximation, taking as a starting point the spin system analogous to the magnetization tunneling in magnetic particles. The ground state structure of the system is summarized in Section 3 for zero, longitudinal and transverse fields, respectively. Sections 4 and 5 are devoted to analyze the macroscopic quantum phenomena in the ground state for different phases under longitudinal or transversal external fields, in which cases tunneling between magnetizations arise naturally. Finally a brief summary is given in Section 6.
Spinor Condensate with Dipolar Interaction
==========================================
Our starting point is the many-body Hamiltonian $H$ proposed in Ref. [Yi2]{}, which describes a $F=1$ spinor condensate at zero temperature trapped in an axially symmetric potential $V_{ext}$. Without loss of generality, the symmetry axis is conveniently chosen to be the quantization axis $\widehat{z}
$. We consider here two atomic interaction terms, the short-range collisional interaction and the long-range magnetic dipolar interaction, the competition of which gives rise to different quantum phases. Under an external magnetic field $B$, the second quantized Hamiltonian of the system reads $$\begin{aligned}
H& =\int d\mathbf{r}\widehat{\psi }_{\alpha }^{\dagger }(\mathbf{r})[(-\frac{%
\hbar ^{2}\nabla ^{2}}{2M}+V_{ext})\delta _{\alpha \beta }-g\mu _{B}\mathbf{B%
}\cdot \mathbf{F}_{\alpha \beta }]\widehat{\psi }_{\beta }(\mathbf{r})
\notag \\
& +\frac{c_{0}}{2}\int d\mathbf{r}\widehat{\psi }_{\alpha }^{\dagger }(%
\mathbf{r})\widehat{\psi }_{\beta }^{\dagger }(\mathbf{r})\widehat{\psi }%
_{\alpha }(\mathbf{r})\widehat{\psi }_{\beta }(\mathbf{r}) \notag \\
& +\frac{c_{2}}{2}\int d\mathbf{r}\widehat{\psi }_{\alpha }^{\dagger }(%
\mathbf{r})\widehat{\psi }_{\delta }^{\dagger }(\mathbf{r})\mathbf{F}%
_{\alpha \beta }\cdot \mathbf{F}_{\delta \gamma }\widehat{\psi }_{\beta }(%
\mathbf{r})\widehat{\psi }_{\gamma }(\mathbf{r}) \notag \\
& +\frac{c_{d}}{2}\int \int \frac{d\mathbf{r}d\mathbf{r}^{\prime} }{|\mathbf{r}-%
\mathbf{r}^{\prime} |^{3}}\left[ \widehat{\psi }_{\alpha }^{\dagger }(\mathbf{r}%
)\widehat{\psi }_{\delta }^{\dagger }(\mathbf{r}^{\prime}
)\mathbf{F}_{\alpha
\beta }\cdot \mathbf{F}_{\delta \gamma }\widehat{\psi }_{\beta }(\mathbf{r})%
\widehat{\psi }_{\gamma }(\mathbf{r}^{\prime} )\right. \notag \\
& \left. -3\widehat{\psi }_{\alpha }^{\dagger }(\mathbf{r})\widehat{\psi }%
_{\delta }^{\dagger }(\mathbf{r}^{\prime })\left( \mathbf{F}_{\alpha \beta
}\cdot \mathbf{e}\right) \left( \mathbf{F}_{\delta \gamma }\cdot \mathbf{e}%
\right) \widehat{\psi }_{\beta }(\mathbf{r})\widehat{\psi }_{\gamma }(%
\mathbf{r}^{\prime })\right] , \label{1}\end{aligned}$$where $\widehat{\psi }_{\alpha }\left( \mathbf{r}\right) \left( \alpha
=0,\pm 1\right) $ are the field annihilation operators for an atom in the hyperfine state $|F=1,m_{F}=\alpha \rangle .$ The two coefficients $%
c_{0}=4\pi \hbar ^{2}\left( a_{0}+2a_{2}\right) /3M$ and $c_{2}=4\pi \hbar
^{2}\left( a_{2}-a_{0}\right) /3M$ characterize the density-density and spin-spin collisional interactions, respectively. Here $a_{f}$ $(f=0$ or $2)$ being the $s$-wave scattering length for spin-1 atoms in the combined symmetric channel of total spin $f$. The dipolar interaction parameter is $%
c_{d}=\mu _{0}g^{2}\mu _{B}^{2}/4\pi $ with $g$ being Landé $g$-factor. The $V_{ext}$ represent the external trapping potential which is spin independent for a far off-resonant optical trap. And $\mathbf{e}=\left( \mathbf{r-r}^{\prime }\right)
/|\mathbf{r-r}^{\prime }|$ is a unit vector. In this study, the external field $\mathbf{B}$ is assumed to be spatially uniform.
In order to simplify the Hamiltonian (\[1\]), we usually adopt the single mode approximation (SMA): $\widehat{\psi }_{\alpha
}(\mathbf{r})\simeq \phi \left( \mathbf{r}\right)
\widehat{a}_{\alpha }$ [@Yi3], where $\phi \left(
\mathbf{r}\right) $ is the spin independent spatial wave function of the condensate, $\widehat{a}_{\alpha }$ is the annihilation operator for $ m_{F}=\alpha $ component. It is always safe to use this approximation for ferromagnetic interactions, however, it may break down for antiferromagnetic interactions if both the atomic number $N$ and the magnetization $\mathcal{M} $ are large. The interaction parameters in our case of study are such that $ \left\vert
c_{2}\right\vert \ll c_{0}$ and $c_{d}\lesssim 0.1\left\vert
c_{2}\right\vert $. Under these conditions, the single mode approximation is expected to be valid if the trapping potential is axially symmetric. All integral terms in the long range interactions involving $e^{\pm i\varphi _{e}}$ vanish after integrating over the azimuthal angles of $\mathbf{r-r} ^{\prime }$. We then obtain a much simpler Hamiltonian by assuming that the mode function $\phi \left(
\mathbf{r}\right) $ hence possesses the axial symmetry and dropping the spin-independent constant terms [@Yi2]: $$H=\left( c_{2}^{\prime }-c_{d}^{\prime }\right) \mathbf{\hat{L}}%
^{2}+3c_{d}^{\prime }\left( \hat{L}_{z}^{2}+\widehat{n}_{0}\right) -g\mu _{B}%
\mathbf{B}\cdot \mathbf{\hat{L},} \label{2}$$where $\mathbf{\hat{L}}=\widehat{a}_{\alpha }^{\dagger }\mathbf{F}_{\alpha
\beta }\widehat{a}_{\beta }$ characterizes the total many-body angular momentum operator, $\widehat{n}_{0}=\widehat{a}_{0}^{\dagger }\widehat{a}%
_{0} $ is the number operator for $m_{F}=0$ atoms. The new parameters are $%
c_{2}^{\prime }=\left( c_{2}/2\right) \int d\mathbf{r}|\phi \left( \mathbf{r}%
\right) |^{4}$ and $c_{d}^{\prime }=\left( c_{d}/4\right) \int d\mathbf{r}d%
\mathbf{r}^{\prime }|\phi \left( \mathbf{r}\right) |^{2}|\phi \left( \mathbf{%
r}^{\prime }\right) |^{2}\left( 1-3\cos ^{2}\theta _{e}\right) /|\mathbf{r}-%
\mathbf{r}^{\prime }|^{3}$, with $\theta _{e}$ being the polar angle of $%
\left( \mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime }\right) $. Eq. (\[2\]) may be put into the following dimensionless form by rescaling it in energy unit $%
|c_{2}^{\prime }|$:$$H=\left( \pm 1-c\right) \mathbf{\hat{L}}^{2}+3c\left( \hat{L}_{z}^{2}+%
\widehat{n}_{0}\right) -\mathbf{B}^{\prime }\cdot \mathbf{\hat{L},}
\label{3}$$where $+$ and $-$ correspond to $c_{2}>0$ and $c_{2}<0$, respectively. The new parameter $c=c_{d}^{\prime }/|c_{2}^{\prime }|$ thus measures the relative strength of dipolar interaction with respect to the spin-exchange interaction. The dimensionless magnetic field $\mathbf{B}^{\prime }=g\mu _{B}%
\mathbf{B}/\left\vert c_{2}^{\prime }\right\vert =B^{\prime }(\sin \theta
,0,\cos \theta )$ is assumed to lie in the $xz$-plane with an angle $\theta $ relative to the $z$-axis.
Ground State Structure under External Field
===========================================
We summarize the ground state structure which has been described in Ref. [@Yi2]. In the absence of an external field, the ground state of our system is divided into three distinct regions $A$, $B$, and $C$ in the $%
c_{2}^{\prime }$-$c_{d}^{\prime }$ parameter plane (see Figure 1). We denote here the simultaneous eigenstate of $\mathbf{\hat{L}}^{2}$ and $\hat{L}_{z}$ as $\left\vert l,m\right\rangle $ with eigenvalues $l(l+1)\hbar ^{2}$ and $%
m\hbar $, respectively. In Region $A$ ($c_{d}^{\prime }>0$ and $%
c_{d}^{\prime }>c_{2}^{\prime }$) the ground state is given by $G=\left\vert
N,0\right\rangle $, a quantum superposition of a chain of Fock states $%
\left\vert N/2-k,2k,N/2-k\right\rangle $ in which the numbers of atoms in the spins $1$ and $-1$ are equal. In Region $B$ ($c_{d}^{\prime }<0$ and $%
c_{d}^{\prime }<-c_{2}^{\prime }/2$), $G=\left\vert N,\pm N\right\rangle $ is a Fock state with all the population in either $m_{F}=1$ or $-1$. In these two regions, the $\widehat{n}_{0}$ term is at least a factor of $1/N$ smaller than the rest and therefore can be neglected safely. In Region $C$, however, the ground state is a little more complicated because the $\widehat{%
n}_{0}$ term is expected to be important. In general it is expressed as $%
G=\sum_{l}g_{l}\left\vert l,0\right\rangle $, a superposition of different angular momentum states with $\left\langle \hat{L}_{z}\right\rangle =0$.
When we apply a longitudinal field to the system along the $z$-axis ($\theta
=0$), the condensate in different parameter regions behave quite differently. In region $A$, the system can be mapped onto an easy-plane anisotropic particle with the transverse $xy$-plane being the easy-plane. The ground state is $G=\left\vert N,m\right\rangle $ with $m$ depends on the field strength linearly, with steps. Region $B$ corresponds to a uniaxial anisotropic magnetic spin model with the easy axis $z$. The presence of the external magnetic field simply removes the two-fold degeneracy and forces the atoms into the fully polarized state $G=\left\vert N,N\right\rangle $. The ground state in Region $C$ is changed into $G=\sum_{l\geqslant
m_{0}}g_{l}\left\vert l,m_{0}\right\rangle $ while $m_{0}$ increases with the field strength.
Now we check the situation when a transverse field is applied along the $x$-axis, i.e., $\theta =\pi /2$. Due to the easy plane anisotropy in Region $A$, the ground state of the condensate is fully polarized, however, in this case along the $x$-axis, $G=\left\vert N,0\right\rangle _{m_{x}=N}$. The situation in Region $B$ is more interesting because the ground state here $%
G=\sum_{m}g_{m}\left\vert N,m\right\rangle $ is two-fold degenerate and it provides another example that can exhibit macroscopic quantum tunneling of magnetization. Stepwise magnetization curve will appear in Region $C$ - each step means the breaking of one spin singlet pair.
For clarity, we choose two of above models which admit extensive study of tunneling of magnetization, i.e., Region $A$ with a longitudinal field and Region $B$ with a transverse field. The dipolar spinor condensate thus provides another platform for the investigation of macroscopic quantum phenomena.
Macroscopic Quantum Oscillation of Magnetization
================================================
We first consider the spinor dipolar condensate under longitudinal field along $z$-axis in Region $A$, in which case the transverse $xy$-plane corresponds to an easy-plane anisotropy. After dropping the unimportant $%
\widehat{n}_{0}$ and constant $\mathbf{\hat{L}}^{2}$ terms, the effective Hamiltonian can be obtained$$H_{LA}=3c\hat{L}_{z}^{2}-B^{\prime }\hat{L}_{z},$$ where $c>0$. The model is precisely the same as that for a ferromagnetic particle [@Garg; @Kou] with easy-plane anisotropy and a magnetic field along hard axis. The Hamiltonian is exactly diagonal in terms of the eigenstate $\widehat{L}_{z}$ and with the eigenvalue $E_{m}=3cm^{2}-B^{%
\prime }m$. For zero temperature the magnetization increases stepwise as a consequence of the fact that $m$ take only integer values. This model, on the other hand, provides a perfect manifestation of the $\Theta $ vacuum effect originating from the oscillating dependence of thermodynamic properties of the system on the “vacuum angle" [@KriveRoz]. The concept of the $\Theta $ vacuum was developed mainly for the models of modern quantum field theory [@Rajaraman], but also in condensed media the nonperturbative vacuum is not a mathematical abstraction. The vacuum angle is nothing but the factor with which the total time derivative enters the Lagrangian. For Aharonov-Bohm problem in conductors with charge density waves, $\Theta $ is the normalized magnetic flux [@Bogachek]. In the Josephson junction of mesoscopic sizes, the vacuum angle depends on the voltage applied to the junction [@Krive]. We see shortly the magnetic field enters the Lagrangian and plays the role of vacuum angle in our spinor dipolar condensate system.
We express the partition function as a spin coherent state path integral for large number of atoms $N\gg 1$$$Z=Tr\exp \left( -\beta H_{LA}\right) =\int D\left\{ \mu \left( \mathbf{n}%
\right) \right\} \exp \left( -S_{E}\right) ,$$where the measure of the integration is decomposed into $D\left\{
\mu \left( \mathbf{n}\right) \right\} =\prod_{k=1}^{N-1}\left( N\sin
\theta _{k}d\phi _{k}d\theta _{k}/2\pi \right) $. The semiclassical approximation of the partition function turns out to be the transition amplitude between two spin configurations conneted by periodic orbits with fixed imaginary time period $ \beta $. Following the usual procedure [@Pereromov], we represent the the state vector of the system as coherent states and slice the integral into $\mathcal{N}$ identical pieces of length $\epsilon =\beta
/\mathcal{N}$ . Inserting complete sets of states gives $$Z=\left\langle \mathbf{n}_{F}\right\vert \exp \left( -\beta
H_{LA}\right) \left\vert \mathbf{n}_{I}\right\rangle
=\prod\limits_{k=1}^{\mathcal{N} -1}\int D\left\{ \mu _{k}\left(
\mathbf{n}\right) \right\}
\prod\limits_{k=0}^{\mathcal{N}-1}\left\langle
\mathbf{n}_{k+1}\right\vert (1-\epsilon H_{LA})\left\vert
\mathbf{n}_{k}\right\rangle$$After some algebraic evaluation and finally passing to the time continuum limit $\mathcal{N}\longrightarrow \infty $ we obtain the Euclidean action in imaginary time $\tau =it$ as (dots now denote $\tau $-derivatives)$$S_{E}=\int_{0}^{\beta \hbar }d\tau \lbrack iN\dot{\phi}(1-\cos \theta
)+3cN(N+1)\cos ^{2}\theta -B^{\prime }N\cos \theta ]$$with $\beta =1/k_{B}T$ and $T$ the temperature. Integrating over $\cos
\theta $ we map the magnetic system onto a particle problem with Lagrangian$$\mathcal{L}=\frac{m_{eff}\dot{\phi}^{2}}{2}+i\Theta
\dot{\phi},\label{lag}$$where the effective mass $m_{eff}=1/6c$ and $\Theta =N\left( 1-B^{\prime
}/6cN\right) $. This Lagrangian is exactly the one for $\Theta $ vacuum of the non-Abelian gauge field in references [@Krive; @Rajaraman]. We noticed that the second term of $\mathcal{L}$ is the total imaginary time derivative and has no effect on the classical equation of motion, while it indeed alerts the canonical momentum into $\Pi _{\phi }=m_{eff}\dot{\phi}+i\Theta $. In order to minimize the Euclidean action $S_{E}$, we try to find the classical configuration, that is, the periodic instanton solution under the boundary condition $\phi _{n}\left( \tau +\beta \right) =\phi _{n}+2\pi n$. The result is $\phi _{n}=2\pi n\tau /\beta $ and the Euclidean action for this solution is $S_{E}=s_{0}n^{2}+i2n\pi \Theta $, where $n$ is the winding number characterizing homotopically nonequivalent classes and $s_{0}=\pi
^{2}k_{B}T/3c.$ The Euclidean functional integral of the partition function contains thus an additional summation over the homotopic number and detailed calculation leads to$$Z=\sum_{n=-\infty }^{\infty }Z_{n}=\vartheta _{3}\left[ \Theta ,\exp (-s_{0})%
\right] ,$$where $\vartheta _{3}\left( v,q\right) $ is the Jacobi theta function oscillating with $\Theta $. By means of the well known asymptotics of the Jacobi theta function, the ground state energy can be shown clearly oscillating with $\Theta $, i.e. the external magnetic field $B$ $$E_{0}=-k_{B}T\ln Z=-\frac{(B^{\prime })^{2}}{12c}+\frac{1}{2m_{eff}}%
\{\{\Theta \}\}^{2},$$where $\{\{x\}\}$ is the difference between $x$ and its nearest integer. According to this, the external magnetic field induces quantum oscillations in the dipolar spinor condensate. The period of oscillation is shown to be $%
\delta B=6c_{d}^{\prime }/g\mu _{B}$ (see Figure 2).
The topological term in the Lagrangian (\[lag\]) leads to the oscillation behavior of our system. We emphasize here the ground state (or in the language of quantum field theory, the instanton vacuum) of the condensate acquires a vacuum angle owing to the presence of the external magnetic field, which breaks the symmetry and changes the topology of the system. In a charge density wave ring-shaped conductor placed in an external vector potential field the magnetic susceptibility and the electrical conductivity oscillate as a function of the flux [@Bogachek], while the voltage applied on the Josephson junction induces the oscillation of the effective capacitance of the junction [@Krive]. In our system of investigation the macroscopic quantum effect manifests itself by the oscillation of the effective magnetic momentum $M=-k_{B}T\partial \ln Z/\partial B$ as a function of the applied magnetic field. The magnetization curve at zero temperature is stepwise due to the macroscopic quantum oscillation of the effective magnetic moment and the period of oscillation depends on the strength of the dipolar interaction $c_{d}^{\prime }$ uniquely. We show this oscillation period in Figure 2, together with the mathematical function $\{\{x\}\}$. The functional integral approach presented here becomes necessary when environmental friction or dissipation is included, which amounts to the introduction into the Euclidean Lagrangian of an additional term describing the non-local interaction of the instantons [@CL]. This is, however, beyond the scope of this paper. It is interesting to estimate the modulation period in the typical laboratory experiment on spinor condensates. For a condensate with $N\sim 5\times 10^{5}$ sodium atoms $^{23}$Na and density $\rho \sim 10^{14}cm^{-3}$ [@Davis] we obtain the regular interval of magnetic field $\delta B\simeq
1.4Gauss$. This oscillation period can be as small as $1.5\times
10^{-3}Gauss$ for $ 2\times 10^{4}$ rubidium atoms $^{87}$Rb with density $2.6\times 10^{12}cm^{-3}$ as in the first experimental achievement of BEC in JILA [@Anderson] and can be as large as $10.5Gauss$ for $5\times 10^{4}$ chromium atoms $^{52}$Cr with density $10^{14}cm^{-3}$ as in the latest dipolar condensate experiments in Stuttgart [@Griesmaier; @Stuhler]. Moreover, it can be adjusted flexibly by changing the trapping potential geometry.
Quantum Tunneling of Magnetization between two Local Minima
===========================================================
Now we prepare the system properly in Region $B$ and apply a transverse field along the $x$-axis to the condensate. Again we drop the constant terms and are left with the following effective Hamiltonian$$H_{TB}=-3d\widehat{L}_{z}^{2}-B^{\prime }\hat{L}_{x}$$where $d=\left\vert c\right\vert $. The model describes a quantum spin system with the easy-axis anisotropy while the external field is along $x$-axis. This model has been extensively studied in the context of spin tunneling. Classically under the influence of a weak transverse field along the $x$ direction, the two energy minima move away from the zero filed positions ($+z$ or $-z$) and towards $x$-axis while remaining in the $xz$ plane. For $0\leq B^{\prime }\leq 6dN$, they are located at $\gamma
_{-}=\arcsin \left( B^{\prime }/6dN\right) $ and $\gamma _{+}=\pi -\theta
_{-}$, respectively, with the angle $\gamma $ between $\mathbf{\hat{L}}$ and $z$-axis. The degeneracy is removed when $B^{\prime }\geq B_{sat}^{\prime
}=6dN$, where the system is completely polarized by the external field and the two minima merge along $x$-axis. Quantum mechanically, the degeneracy is lifted before the magnetic field reaches $B_{sat}^{\prime }$ due to the magnetization tunneling. A well-known consequence of the tunneling between two degenerate states is the lifting of their degeneracy: The two new eigenstates are a symmetric and an antisymmetric superposition of the original states characterized by an energy difference (or tunneling splitting) $\Delta E_{0}$ inversely proportional to the tunneling rate. The quantity of interest to determine the occurrence of tunneling is therefore this energy difference between the two lowest eigenstates of the Hamiltonian.
To calculate analytically this energy splitting, we use the effective potential method [@Zaslavskii] which maps the spin system onto a particle system and the result can be easily obtained with the periodic instanton method. The Schrödinger equation $H_{TB}\left\vert \Psi
\right\rangle =E\left\vert \Psi \right\rangle $ in the $\hat{L}_{z}$ representation takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
2\left( E+3dm^{2}\right) C_{m}+B^{\prime }\sqrt{\left( N-m\right) \left(
N+m+1\right) }C_{m+1} && \notag \\
+B^{\prime }\sqrt{\left( N+m\right) \left( N-m+1\right) }C_{m-1}=0 &&
\label{she}\end{aligned}$$where $m=-N,-N+1,\cdots N$ and $C_{m}=0$ for $|m|>N$.
Let us introduce the generating function, $$\Phi =\sum_{m=-N}^{N}\frac{C_{m}}{\sqrt{\left( N-m\right) !\left( N+m\right)
!}}\exp \left( mx\right) .$$Multiplying equation (\[she\]) by a factor $\exp \left( mx\right) /\sqrt{%
\left( N-m\right) !\left( N+m\right) !}$ and summing all terms with $-N\leq
m\leq N$, we can transform the equation (\[she\]) into $$3d\Phi ^{\prime \prime }-B^{\prime }\sinh x\Phi ^{\prime }+\left(
E+B^{\prime }N\cosh x\right) \Phi =0.$$
In order to remove the first derivative term, let us define a new function $%
\Psi =\Phi \exp (-\frac{1}{2}B^{\prime }\cosh x)$. When we replace $\Phi $ with $\Psi $, the new Schrödinger equation can be written after dividing by $N^{2}$ in the form$$N^{-2}\Psi ^{\prime \prime }+\Psi \left( \kappa -U\right) =0,$$where the corresponding parameter $\kappa $ describe the dimensionless energy $\kappa =E/3dN^{2}$, and $U=(a\cosh x-1)^{2}-a^{2}$ is the effective potential well with $a=B^{\prime }/6dN$.
The value $N^{-1}$ plays the role of the Planck constant $\hbar $, the potential takes the form of a double well for $a<1$, i.e., for external magnetic field not exceeding the saturation value $B_{sat}^{\prime }=6dN$. The two local minima thus play the role of the degenerate classical states and the energy splitting of the lower states takes the following form according to [@Weiss]$$\Delta E_{n}=\Delta E_{0}q^{n}/n!$$with the splitting for the ground state$$\Delta E_{0}=\sqrt{\hbar \omega /\pi }C\exp (-S/\hbar ).$$Here $S_{E}$ is the Euclidean action evaluated along the trajectory from the left minimum $x_{-}=-\cosh ^{-1}\left( 1/a\right) $ to the right $%
x_{+}=\cosh ^{-1}\left( 1/a\right) $, $\omega =\sqrt{1-a^{2}}$ is the small oscillator frequency near the bottom of potential well $x_{\pm }$. The asymptotic form of the instanton trajectory determined the constant $C$ and $%
q=C^{2}/2\hbar \omega $. For the potential $U$ we have$$S_{E}=\ln \left( \frac{1+\sqrt{1-a^{2}}}{a}\right) -\sqrt{1-a^{2}}.$$Including the prefactor we have finally$$\Delta E_{0}=\frac{24d}{\sqrt{\pi }}N^{3/2}\frac{(1-a^{2})^{5/4}a^{2N}}{(1+%
\sqrt{1-a^{2}})^{2N}}\exp \left[ \left( 2S_{E}N+1\right) \sqrt{1-a^{2}}%
\right] . \label{de}$$
Experimentally this level splitting can be measured by means of the resonance measurement developed by Awschalom [@Awschalom]. Tunneling between two degenerate orientations of magnetization leads to the splitting of the “non-tunneling” ground state energy level into two levels separated by $\Delta E_{0}$. Correspondingly a very weak ac field of frequency $\Delta
E_{0}/\hbar $ will induce transitions between the two levels, which should result in the resonant absorption of the energy of the field. The atoms in the condensate are utterly identical and we do not have the problem of distribution of particle sizes and shapes. The level splitting eq. (\[de\]) is expressed in units of $c_{2}^{\prime }$. It is easily shown that for the sodium condensate in [@Davis] the dipole-dipole interaction, i.e., the anisotropic energy in our model, is estimated as $c_{d}^{\prime
}=1.69\times 10^{5}Hz$ or $11.5\mu K$, a quantity much smaller than the anisotropy energy of molecular magnets $Mn_{12}Ac$ or $Fe_{8}$ [@Hennion]. The level splitting can be greatly enhanced by a smaller number of atoms in the condensate and also by a stronger dipolar-dipolar interaction. Taking, as an example, sodium atoms ($N=38$) under an external field of $%
a=0.6$, we have $\Delta E_{0}^{\prime }=1.14\times 10^{2}Hz$. For the condensate of $^{52}Cr$, the anisotropic energy is enhanced to $%
c_{d}^{\prime }=2.44\times 10^{6}Hz$ or $\allowbreak 166\mu K$. For $N=39,$ we have $\Delta E_{0}^{\prime }=3.15\times 10^{2}Hz$. The level splitting remains in the same magnitude order because it depends very sensitively on the total number of atoms. These data are easily accessible in the present ultracold atom experiments.
Summary
=======
Inspired by the macroscopic quantum tunneling in the magnetic system, we have investigated the macroscopic quantum tunneling in the dipolar spinor condensates at zero temperature and obtained some interesting results by analyzing different phase areas with applied external fields. We found that the ground state energy and the effective magnetic moment oscillate with the external magnetic field in Region $A$ under a longitudinal field and the oscillating period depends on the strength of the dipolar interaction as $%
\delta B=6c_{d}^{\prime }/g\mu _{B}$. This model provides a condensed media realization of the $\Theta $ vacuum in quantum field theory. The model in Region $B$ with a transverse field provides an example where quantum tunneling of magnetization occurs between two local minima. We estimated the level splitting to be at the reach of current ultracold atom experiments.
Acknowledgments
===============
This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under grant No. 90203007, Shanxi Province Youth Science Foundation under grant No. 20051001. YZ was also partially supported by Academy of Finland. We thank W.-D. Li, Y.-H. Nie and S.-P. Kou for useful discussions.
[99]{} T.-L. Ho, Phys. Rev. Lett. **81**, 742 (1998); T. Ohmi and K. Machida, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **67,** 1822 (1998).
D. M. Stamper-Kurn, M. R. Andrews, A. P. Chikkatur, S. Inouye, H. -J. Miesner, J. Stenger, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. **80**, 2027 (1998); J. Stenger, S. Inouye, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, H. -J. Miesner, A. P. Chikkatur, W. Ketterle, Nature (London) **396**, 345 (1998);
H. Schmaljohann, M. Erhard, J. Kronjäger, M. Kottke, S. van Staa, L. Cacciapuoti, J. J. Arlt, K. Bongs, and K. Sengstock, Phys. Rev. Lett. **92**, 040402 (2003); M.-S. Chang, C. D. Hamley, M. D. Barrett, J. A. Sauer, K.M. Fortier, W. Zhang, L. You, and M. S. Chapman, Phys. Rev. Lett. **92**, 140403 (2004); T. Kuwamoto, K. Araki, T. Eno, and T. Hirano, Phys. Rev. **A69**, 063604 (2004); J. M. Higbie, L. E. Sadler, S. Inouye, A. P. Chikkatur, S. R. Leslie, K. L. Moore, V. Savalli, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**, 050401 (2005); M.-S. Chang, Q. Qin, W. Zhang, L. You and M. S. Chapman, Nature Physics **1**, 111 (2005)
H. Pu, S. Raghavan, and N. P. Bigelow, Phy. Rev. A. **61**, 023602 (2000); T.-L Ho and S. K. Yip, Phys. Rev. Lett. **84**, 4031 (2000); C. K. Law, H. Pu, and N. P. Bigelow, Phys. Rev. Lett.** 81**, 5257 (1998); M. Koashi and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. Lett. **84**, 1066 (2000).
S. Yi, and L. You, Phys. Rev. **A61**, 041604 (2000); S. Yi, and L. You, Phys. Rev. **A63**,053607 (2001)
K. Góral, K. Rzazewski, and T. Pfau, Phys. Rev. **A61**, 051601 (2000).
S. Yi, L. You, and H. Pu, Phys. Rev. Lett. **93**, 040403 (2004). S. Yi and H. Pu, unpublished.
R. Cheng, J.-Q. Liang, and Y. Zhang, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. **38**, 2569 (2005).
H. Pu, W. Zhang, and P. Meystre, Phys. Rev. Lett. **87**, 140405 (2001); W. Zhang, H. Pu, C. Search, and P. Meystre, Phys. Rev. Lett. **88**, 060401 (2002); K. Gross, C. P. Search, H. Pu, W. Zhang, and P. Meystre Phys. Rev. **A66**, 033603 (2002).
A. Griesmaier, J. Werner, S. Hensler, J. Stuhler and T. Pfau, Phys. Rev. Lett. **94**, 160401 (2005).
J. Stuhler, A. Griesmaier, T. Koch, M. Fattori, T. Pfau, S. Giovanazzi, P. Pedri, and L. Santos, Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**,** **150406 (2005).
A. Garg, Phys. Rev. **B51**, 15161 (1993).
S. P. Kou, J. Q. Liang, Y. B. Zhang, and F. C. Pu, Phys. Rev. **B59**, 11792 (1999).
S. Yi, Ö. E. Müstecaplioğlu, C. P. Sun, and L. You, Phys. Rev. **A66**, 011601 (2002).
I. V. Krive, and A. S. Rozhavsky, Theor. Math. Phys. **89**, 1069 (1991).
R. Rajaraman, *Solitons and Instantons* (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982).
E. N. Bogachek, I. V. Krive, I. O. Kulik, and A. S. Rozhavsky, Phys. Rev. **B42**, 7614 (1990).
I. V. Krive, and A. S. Rozhavsky, Int. J. Mod. Phys. **B6**, 1255 (1992).
A. Pereromov, *Generalized Cohernet States and Their Applications* (Springer, Berlin, 1986).
A. O. Caldeira and A. Leggett, Phys. Rev. Lett. **46**, 211 (1981); Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) **149**, 374 (1983).
O. B. Zaslavskii, Phy. Lett. A. **145**, 471 (1990).
U. Weiss and W. Haeffner, Phys Rev **D27**, 2916 (1983).
K. B. Davis, M.-O. Mewes, M. R. Andrews, N. J. van Druten, D. S. Durfee, D. M. Kurn, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. **75**, 3969 (1995).
M. H. Anderson, J. R. Ensher, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman, E. A. Cornell, Science **269**, 198 (1995).
D. D. Awschalom, M. A. McCord, and G. Grinstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. **65**, 783 (1990).
H. Hennion, L. pardi, I. Mirebeau and E. Suard, Phys. Rev. **B56**, 8819 (1997); C. Sangregorio, T. Ohm, C. Paulsen, R. Sessoli and D. Gatteschi, Phys. Rev. Lett. **78**, 4645 (1997).
Figure Captions:
Figure 1: (Color online) Magnetic phase diagram of dipolar spinor condensate parametrized in the $c_{2}^{\prime }$-$c_{d}^{\prime }$ plane. Corresponding ground states are shown for zero external field. The two tunneling models studied in this paper are in phase $A$ with a longitudinal field and phase $B$ with a transverse field.
Figure 2: The mathematical function $\{\{x\}\}$ and the oscillation of the magnetization with period $\delta B$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'This paper introduces a new lifelong learning solution where a single model is trained for a sequence of tasks. The main challenge that vision systems face in this context is catastrophic forgetting: as they tend to adapt to the most recently seen task, they lose performance on the tasks that were learned previously. Our method aims at preserving the knowledge of the previous tasks while learning a new one by using autoencoders. For each task, an under-complete autoencoder is learned, capturing the features that are crucial for its achievement. When a new task is presented to the system, we prevent the reconstructions of the features with these autoencoders from changing, which has the effect of preserving the information on which the previous tasks are mainly relying. At the same time, the features are given space to adjust to the most recent environment as only their projection into a low dimension submanifold is controlled. The proposed system is evaluated on image classification tasks and shows a reduction of forgetting over the state-of-the-art.'
author:
- |
Amal Rannen Triki [^1] [^2] Rahaf Aljundi$^{ \ast}$ Mathew B. Blaschko Tinne Tuytelaars\
KU Leuven\
KU Leuven, ESAT-PSI, iMinds, Belgium\
[firstname.lastname@esat.kuleuven.be]{}
bibliography:
- 'egbib.bib'
title: Encoder Based Lifelong Learning
---
Introduction
============
Intelligent agents are able to perform remarkably well on individual tasks. However, when exposed to a new task or a new environment, such agents have to be retrained. In this process, they learn the specificity of the new task but tend to loose performance on the tasks they have learned before. For instance, imagine an agent that was trained to localize the defects on a set of factory products. Then, when new products are introduced and the agent has to learn to detect the anomalies in these new products, it faces the risk of forgetting the initial recognition task. This phenomenon is known as [*catastrophic forgetting*]{} [@mccloskey1989catastrophic; @ratcliff1990connectionist; @mcclelland1995there; @french1999catastrophic; @goodfellow2013empirical]. It occurs when the datasets or the tasks are presented to the model separately and sequentially, as is the case in a lifelong learning setup [@silver2002task; @silver2013lifelong; @rusu2016progressive].
The main challenge is to make the learned model adapt to new data from a similar or a different environment [@pentina2015lifelong], without losing knowledge on the previously seen task(s). Most of the classical solutions for this challenge suffer from important drawbacks. Feature extraction (as in [@donahue2014decaf]), where the model / representation learned for the old task is re-used to extract features from the new data without adapting the model parameters, is highly conservative for the old task and suboptimal for the new one. Fine-tuning (as in [@girshick2014rich]), adapts the model to the new task using the optimal parameters of the old task as initialization. As a result, the model is driven towards the newly seen data but forgets what was learned previously. Joint training (as in [@caruana1998multitask]) is a method where the model is trained jointly on previous and current tasks data. This solution is optimal for all tasks, but requires the presence of all the data at the same time. Such a requirement can be hard to meet, especially in the era of big data.
To overcome these drawbacks without the constraint of storing data from the previously seen tasks, two main approaches can be found in the literature. The first, presented in [@li2016learning], proposes a way to train convolutional networks, where a shared model is used for the different tasks but with separate classification layers. When a new task is presented, a new classification layer is added. Then, the model is fine-tuned on the data of the new task, with an additional loss that incorporates the knowledge of the old tasks. This loss tries to keep the previous task predictions on the new data unchanged. Such a solution reduces the forgetting but is heavily relying on the new task data. As a consequence, it suffers from a build-up of errors when facing a sequence of tasks [@aljundi2016expert]. The work presented recently in [@kirkpatrick2016overcoming] tackles the problem in a different way. Rather than having a data-oriented analysis, they consider the knowledge gained in the model itself, and transfer it from one task to another in a Bayesian update fashion. The method relies on approximating the weight distribution after training the model on the new task. A Gaussian distribution, for which the mean is given by the optimal weights for the first task, and the variance given by the diagonal of the Fisher information matrix is used as an approximation. Such a solution is based on a strong principle and gives interesting results. However, it requires to store a number of parameters that is comparable to the size of the model itself.
In this work, we propose a compromise between these two methods. Rather than heavily relying on the new task data or requiring a huge amount of parameters to be stored, we introduce the use of autoencoders as a tool to preserve the knowledge from one task while learning another. For each task, an undercomplete autoencoder is trained after training the task model. It captures the most important features for the task objective. When facing a new task, this autoencoder is used to ensure the preservation of those important features. This is achieved by defining a loss on the reconstructions made by the autoencoder, as we will explain in the following sections. In this manner, we only restrict a subset of the features to be unchanged while we give the model the freedom to adapt itself to the new task using the remaining capacity. Figure \[fig:Global\_model\] displays the model we propose to use.
Below, we first give a short description of the most relevant related work in Sec. \[Sec:Related\]. Then, in Sec \[Sec:Main\], we describe how to use the autoencoders to avoid catastrophic forgetting and motivate our choice by a short analysis that relates the proposed objective to the joint training scheme. In Sec. \[Sec:Exp\], we describe the experiments that we conducted, report and discuss their results before concluding in Sec. \[Sec:Conclusion\].
Related work {#Sec:Related}
============
Our end goal is to train a single model that can perform well on multiple tasks, with tasks learned sequentially. This problem is at the intersection of **Joint training** (or multitask training) and **Lifelong learning**. Standard multi-task learning [@caruana1998multitask] aims to learn jointly from the data of the multiple tasks and uses inductive bias [@mitchell1980need] in order to integrate the knowledge from the different domains in a single model. However, it requires the presence of data from all the tasks during training. In a lifelong learning scenario, on the other hand, tasks are treated in a sequential manner. The aim is then to exploit the knowledge from previous tasks while learning a new one. This knowledge is used to
preserve the performance on the previously seen data,
improve this knowledge using inductive bias [@mitchell1980need] from the new task data, and
act as a regularizer for the new task, which can be beneficial for the performance.
[*In this work we aim at preserving the knowledge of the previous tasks and possibly benefiting from this knowledge while learning a new task, without storing data from previous tasks.* ]{}
Despite its potential benefits, this problem is under explored. **Learning without forgetting** (LwF), introduced in [@li2016learning], proposes to preserve the previous performance through the knowledge distillation loss introduced in [@hinton2015distilling]. They consider a shared convolutional network between the different tasks in which only the last classification layer is task specific. When encountering a new task, the outputs of the existing classification layers given the new task data are recorded. During training, these outputs are preserved through a modified cross-entropy loss that softens the class probabilities in order to give a higher weight to the small outputs. More details about this loss and the method can be found in Sec. \[Sec:LWF\]. This method reduces the forgetting, especially when the datasets come from related manifolds. Nevertheless, it has been shown by **iCaRL: Incremental Classifier and Representation Learning** [@rebuffi2016icarl] that LwF suffers from a build up of errors in a sequential scenario where the data comes from the same environment. Similarly, **Expert-gate** [@aljundi2016expert] shows that the LwF performance drops when the model is exposed to a sequence of tasks drawn from different distributions. [@rebuffi2016icarl] proposes to store a selection of the previous tasks data to overcome this issue – something we try to avoid. The goal in [@aljundi2016expert] is to obtain experts for different tasks (instead of a single joint model shared by all tasks). They suggest a model of lifelong learning where experts on individual tasks are added to a network of models sequentially. The challenge then is to decide which expert to launch based on the input. Interestingly, they also use undercomplete autoencoders – in their case to capture the context of each task based on which a decision is made on which task the test sample belongs to. [*In this work, we build on top of LwF but reduce the cumulated errors using under-complete autoencoders learned on the optimal representations of the previous tasks.*]{}
Even more recently, another interesting solution to train shared models without access to the previous data, somewhat similar in spirit to our work, has been proposed in [@kirkpatrick2016overcoming], in the context of reinforcement learning. The main idea of this method, called **Elastic weight consolidation**, is to constrain the weights $W_i$ while training for a second task with an additional loss $\sum_i \frac{\lambda}{2} F_i(W_i - W^*_{1,i})$ where $W^*_{1,i}$ are the optimal weights of the first task, and $F_i$ the diagonal terms of their Fisher information matrix. The use of the Fisher matrix prevents the weights that are important for the first task to change much. In our point of view, this method, despite its success, has two drawbacks. First, the method keeps the weights in a neighborhood of one possible minimizer of the empirical risk of the first task. However, there could be another solution that can give a better compromise between the two tasks. Second, it needs to store a large number of parameters that grows with the total number of weights and the number of tasks. For these reasons, [*rather than constraining the weights, we choose to constrain the resulting features, enforcing that those that are important for the previous tasks do not change much*]{}. By constraining only a sub-manifold of the features, we allow the weights to adjust so as to optimize the features for the new task, while preserving those that ensure a good performance on the previous tasks.
Overcoming forgetting with autoencoders {#Sec:Main}
=======================================
In this work, we consider the problem of training a supervised deep model that can be useful for multiple tasks, in the situation where at each stage the data fed to the network come always from one single task, and the tasks enter in the training scenario successively. The best performance for all the tasks simultaneously is achieved when the network is trained on the data from all the considered tasks at the same time (as in joint training). This performance is of course limited by the capacity of the used model, and can be considered an upper bound to what can be achieved in a lifelong learning setting, where the data of previous tasks is no longer accessible when learning a new one.
Joint training
--------------
In the following, we will use the notations $\mathcal{X}^{(t)}$ (model input) and $\mathcal{Y}^{(t)}$ (target) for the random variables from which the dataset of the task $t$ is sampled, and $X_i^{(t)}$ and $Y_i^{(t)}$ for the data samples. When we have access to the data from all $\mathcal{T}$ tasks jointly, the network training aims to control the statistical risk: $$\sum_{t=1}^\mathcal{T} \mathbb{E}_{(\mathcal{X}^{(t)},\mathcal{Y}^{(t)})}[\ell(f_t(\mathcal{X}^{(t)}),\mathcal{Y}^{(t)})],
\label{eq:StatRisk}$$ by minimizing the empirical risk: $$\sum_{t=1}^\mathcal{T} \frac{1}{N_t} \sum_{i=1}^{N_t} \ell(f_t(X_i^{(t)}),Y_i^{(t)}),
\label{eq:EmpRisk}$$ where $N_t$ is the number of samples and $f_t$ the function implemented by the network for task $t$. For most of the commonly used models, we can decompose $f_t$ as $T_t\circ T \circ F$ where:
- $F$ is a feature extraction function (e.g. Convolutional layers in ConvNets)
- $T_t\circ T$ is a task operator. It can be for example a classifier or a segmentation operator. $T$ is shared among all tasks, while $T_t$ is task specific. (e.g. in ConvNets, $T_t$ could be the last fully-connected layer, and $T$ the remaining fully-connected layers.)
The upper part of Figure \[fig:Global\_model\] gives a scheme of this general model. For simplicity, we will focus below on two-task training before generalizing to a multiple task scenario in section \[Sec:Proc\].
Shortcomings of Learning without Forgetting {#Sec:LWF}
-------------------------------------------
As a first step, we want to understand the limitations of LwF [@li2016learning]. In that work, it is suggested to replace in Eq $ \ell(T_1\circ\,T\circ\,F(\mathcal{X}^{(1)}),~\mathcal{Y}^{(1)}) $ with $ \ell(T_1\circ\,T\circ\,F(\mathcal{X}^{(2)}), \\ T^*_1\circ\,T^* \circ\,F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(2)})) $, where $T^*_1\circ\,T^* \circ\,F^*$ is obtained from training the network on the first task. If we suppose that the model has enough capacity to integrate the knowledge of the first task with a small generalization error, then we can consider that $$\mathbb{E}_{(\mathcal{X}^{(1)})}[\ell(T_1\circ\,T\circ\,F(\mathcal{X}^{(1)}),T^*_1\circ\,T^* \circ\,F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(1)}))]
\label{eq:LossApprox}$$ is a reasonable approximation of $\mathbb{E}_{(\mathcal{X}^{(1)},\mathcal{Y}^{(1)})}[\ell(T_1\circ\,T\circ\,F(\mathcal{X}^{(1)}),\mathcal{Y}^{(1)})]$. However, in order to be able to compute the measure using samples from $\mathcal{X}^{(2)}$, further conditions need to be satisfied.
In other terms, if we consider that $T_1\circ\,T\circ\,F$ tries to learn an encoding of the data in the target space $\mathcal{X}^{(1)}$, then one can say that the loss of information generated by the use of $\mathcal{X}^{(2)}$ instead of $\mathcal{X}^{(1)}$ is a function of the Kullback-Leibler divergence of the two related probability distributions, or equivalently of their cross-entropy. Thus, if the two data distributions are related, then LwF is likely to lead to high performance. If the condition of the relatedness of the data distributions fails, there is no direct guarantee that the use of $\ell(T_1\circ\,T\circ\,F(\mathcal{X}^{(2)}),T^*_1\circ\,T^* \circ\,F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(2)})) $ will not result in an important loss of information for the first task. Indeed, it has been shown empirically in [@aljundi2016expert] that the use of significantly different data distributions may result in a significant decrease in performance for LwF.
If $\ell$ is continuous with respect to its two variables, and if $T_1, T_1^*, T, T^*, F$ and $F^*$ are continuous, then for any vector norm $\| \cdot \|$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\forall \epsilon > 0,\exists \eta > 0,\\
&\|\mathcal{X}^{(1)}-\mathcal{X}^{(2)}\| \le \eta \Rightarrow|\ell(T_1\circ\,T\circ\, F(\mathcal{X}^{(1)}),\mathcal{Y}^{(1)}) - \\
&\ell(T_1\circ\,T\circ\,F(\mathcal{X}^{(2)}), T^*_1\circ\,T^* \circ\,F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(2)}))| \le \epsilon.\end{aligned}$$
Furthermore, if we have Lipschitz continuity for all functions, the second inequality holds for $\eta$ being a linear function of $\epsilon$. A proof and more details are available in the appendix. The value of the bound on the loss difference depends on both the properties of the model functions and on the capacity of the model. Note that the condition of continuity on which this lemma is based is not restrictive in practice. Indeed, most of the commonly used functions in deep models satisfy this condition (e.g. sigmoid, ReLU).
LwF is based on the knowledge distillation loss introduced in [@hinton2015distilling] to reduce the gap resulting from the use of different distributions. In this work, we build on top of the LwF method. In order to make the used approximation less sensitive to the data distributions, we see an opportunity in controlling $\|T_1\circ\,T\circ\,F(\mathcal{X}^{(1)})-T_1\circ\,T\circ\,F(\mathcal{X}^{(2)})\|$. Under mild conditions about the model functions, namely Lipschitz continuity, this control allows us to use $T_1\circ\,T\circ\,F(\mathcal{X}^{(2)})$ instead of $T_1\circ\,T\circ\,F(\mathcal{X}^{(1)})$ to better approximate the first task loss in Eq. . Note that the condition of continuity on which this observation is based is not restrictive in practice. Indeed, most of the commonly used functions in deep models satisfy this condition (e.g. sigmoid, ReLU).
Our main idea is to learn a submanifold of the representation space $F(\mathcal{X}^{(1)})$ that contains the most informative features for the first task. Once this submanifold is identified, if the projection of the features $F(\mathcal{X}^{(2)})$ onto this submanifold do not change much during the training of a second task, then two consequences follow:
$F(\mathcal{X}^{(2)})$ will stay informative for the first task during the training, and
at the same time there is room to adjust to the second task as only its projection in the learned submanifold is controlled.
Figure \[fig:preserve\_feat\] gives a simplified visualization of this mechanism. In the next paragraphs, we propose a method to learn the submanifold of informative features for a given task using autoencoders.
Informative feature preservation
--------------------------------
When beginning to train the second task, the feature extractor $F^*$ of the model is optimized for the first task. A feature extraction type of approach would keep this operator unchanged in order to preserve the performance on the previous task. This is, however, overly conservative, and usually suboptimal for the new task. Rather than preserving *all* the features during training, our main idea is to preserve only the features that are the most informative for the first task while giving more flexibility for the other features in order to improve the performance on the second task. An autoencoder [@bourlard1988auto] trained on the representation of the first task data obtained from an optimized model can be used to capture the most important features for this task.
### Learning the informative submanifold with Autoencoders {#Sec:AE}
An autoencoder is a neural network that is trained to reconstruct its input [@Goodfellow-et-al-2016-Book]. The network operates a projection $r$ that can be decomposed in an encoding and a decoding function. The optimal weights are usually obtained by minimizing the mean $\ell_2$ distance between the inputs and their reconstructions. If the dimension of the code is smaller than the dimension of the input (i.e. if the autoencoder is undercomplete), the autoencoder captures the submanifold that represents the best the structure of the input data. More precisely, we choose to use a two-layer network with a sigmoid activation in the hidden layer: $r(x) = W_{dec}\sigma(W_{enc}x). $ Figure \[fig:AE\] shows a general scheme of such an autoencoder.
Here, our aim is to obtain through the autoencoder a sub-manifold that captures the information that is not only important to reconstruct the features (output of the feature extraction operator $F^*$) of the first task, but also important for the task operator ($T^*_1\circ T^*$). The objective is: $$\begin{aligned}
\arg\min_{r} \mathbb{E}_{(\mathcal{X}^{(1)},\mathcal{Y}^{(1)})}[ &\lambda\|r(F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(1)}))- F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(1)})\|_2 \label{eq:LossAE}\\
&+ \ell(T_1^*\circ T^*(r(F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(1)}))),\mathcal{Y}^{(1)}) ],
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\ell$ is the loss function used to train the model on the first task data. $\lambda$ is a hyper-parameter that controls the compromise between the two terms in this loss. In this manner, the autoencoder represents the variations that are needed to reconstruct the input and at the same time contain the information that is required by the task operator.
### Representation control with separate task operators {#Sec:intuition}
To explain how we use these autoencoders, we start with the simple case where there is no task operator shared among all tasks (i.e., $T = \emptyset$). The model is then composed of a common feature extractor $F$, and a task specific operator for each task $T_t$. Each time a new task is presented to the model, the corresponding task operator is then optimized. However, in order to achieve the aim of lifelong learning, we want to also update the feature extractor without damaging the performance of the model on the previously seen tasks.
In a two task scenario, after training the first task, we have $T_1^*$ and $F^*$ optimized for that task. Then, we train an undercomplete autoencoder using $F^*(X_i^{(1)})$ minimizing the empirical risk corresponding to . The optimal performance for the first task, knowing that the operator $T_1$ is kept equal to $T_1^*$, is obtained with $F$ equal to $F^*$.
Nevertheless, preventing $F$ from changing will lead to suboptimal performance on the second task. The idea here is to keep only the projection of $F$ into the manifold represented by the autoencoder ($r\circ~F$) unchanged. The second term of Eq. explicitly enforces $r$ to represent the submanifold needed for good performance on task 1. Thus, controlling the distance between $r\circ F$ and $r\circ F^*$ will preserve the necessary information for task 1. From the undercompleteness of the encoder, $r$ projects the features into a lower dimensional manifold, and by controlling only the distance between the reconstructions, we give the features flexibility to adapt to the second task variations (cf. Figure \[fig:preserve\_feat\]).
### Representation control with shared task operator {#Sec:Shared}
We now consider the model presented in Figure \[fig:Global\_model\] where a part of the task operator is shared among the tasks as in the setting used in LwF [@li2016learning]. This is clearly a preferrable architecture in a lifelong learning setting, as the memory increase when adding a new task is much lower. Our main idea is to start from the loss used in the LwF method and add an additional term coming from the idea presented in Sec. \[Sec:intuition\]. Thus, in a two task scenario, in addition to the loss used for the second task, we propose to use two constraints:
1. The first constraint is the knowledge distillation loss ($\ell_{dist}$) used in [@li2016learning]. If $
\hat{\mathcal{Y}} := T_1\circ T\circ F(\mathcal{X}^{(2)})
$ and $
\mathcal{Y}^* = T^*_1\circ T^*\circ F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(2)})
$ then: $$\ell_{dist}(\hat{\mathcal{Y}} ,\mathcal{Y}^*) = -\langle \mathcal{Z}^*,\log \hat{\mathcal{Z}}\rangle$$ where $\log$ is operated entry-wise and $$\mathcal{Z}^*_i = \frac{\mathcal{Y}_i^{*1/\theta}}{\sum_j\mathcal{Y}_j^{*1/\theta}} \text{ and } \hat{\mathcal{Z}}_i = \frac{\hat{\mathcal{Y}}_i^{1/\theta}}{\sum_j\hat{\mathcal{Y}}_j^{1/\theta}}$$ The application of a high temperature $\theta$ increases the small values of the output and reduces the weight of the high values. This mitigates the influence of the use of different data distributions.
2. The second constraint is related to the preservation of the reconstructions of the second task features ($r\circ F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(2)}) $). The goal of this constraint is to keep $r\circ F$ close to $r\circ F^*$ as explained in Sec. \[Sec:intuition\].
For the second constraint, rather than controlling the distance between the reconstructions, we will here constrain the codes $\sigma(W_{enc}\cdot )$. From sub-multiplicity of the Frobenius norm, we have: $$\|r(x_1) - r(x_2)\|_2 \le \|W_{dec}\|_F\|\sigma(W_{enc}x_1) - \sigma(W_{enc}x_2)\|_2. \nonumber$$ The advantage of using the codes is their lower dimension. As the codes or reconstructions need to be recorded before beginning the training on the second task, using the codes will result in a better usage of the memory.
Finally, the objective for the training of the second task is the following: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{R} &= \mathbb{E}[\ell(T_2\circ T\circ F(\mathcal{X}^{(2)}), \mathcal{Y}^{(2)}) )\nonumber \\
&+ \ell_{dist}(T_1\circ T\circ F(\mathcal{X}^{(2)}), T_1^*\circ T^*\circ F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(2)}) ) \nonumber \\
& + \frac{\alpha}{2} \| \sigma(W_{enc}F(\mathcal{X}^{(2)})) - \sigma(W_{enc}F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(2)})) \|_2^2] \label{eq:CodeLoss}.\end{aligned}$$ The choice of the parameter $\alpha$ will be done through model selection. An analysis of this objective is given in the appendix, giving a bound on the difference between $\mathbb{E}[\ell(T_2\circ~T\circ~F(\mathcal{X}^{(2)}),\mathcal{Y}^{(2)}))
+ \ell(T_1\circ T\circ F(\mathcal{X}^{(2)}), T_1^*\circ T^*\circ F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(2)}) )]$ and the statistical risk in a joint-training setting . It shows that effectively controls this bound.
Training procedure {#Sec:Proc}
------------------
The proposed method in Sec. \[Sec:Shared\] generalizes easily to a sequence of tasks. An autoencoder is then trained after each task. Even if the needed memory will grow linearly with the number of tasks, the memory required by an autoencoder is a small fraction of that required by the global model. For example, in the case of AlexNet as a base model, an autoencoder comprises only around 1.5% of the memory.
In practice, the empirical risk is minimized: $$\begin{aligned}
R_N&= \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \Biggl( \ell(T_T\circ T\circ F(X_i^{(\mathcal{T})}), Y_i^{(\mathcal{T})}) \nonumber \\
&+ \sum_{t=1}^{\mathcal{T}-1} \ell_{dist}(T_t\circ T\circ F(X_i^{(\mathcal{T})}), T_t^*\circ T^*\circ F^*(X_i^{(\mathcal{T})}) ) \nonumber \\
& +\sum_{t=1}^{\mathcal{T}-1}\frac{\alpha_t}{2} \| \sigma(W_{enc,t}F(X_i^{(\mathcal{T})})) - \sigma(W_{enc,t}F^*(X_i^{(\mathcal{T})})) \|_2^2\Biggr). \label{eq:MultiEmp}\end{aligned}$$ The training is done using stochastic gradient descent (SGD) [@bottou2010large]. The autoencoder training is also done by SGD but with an adaptive gradient method, AdaDelta [@zeiler2012adadelta] which alleviates the need for setting the learning rates and has nice optimization properties. Algorithm \[algo\] shows the main steps of the proposed method.
**[Input]{}** : $F^*$ shared feature extractor; $T^*$: shared task operator; $\left\{T_t\right\}_{t=1..\mathcal{T}-1}$ previous task operators; $\left\{W_{enc,t}\right\}_{t=1..\mathcal{T}-1}$ previous task encoders; $(X^{(\mathcal{T})}, Y^{(\mathcal{T})})$ training data and ground truth of the new task $\mathcal{T}$; $\alpha_t$ and $\lambda$ //hyper parameters **[Initialization]{}** :
$Y_t^* = T_t^*\circ T^*\circ F^*(X^{(\mathcal{T})})$ //record task targets $C_t^* = \sigma(W_{enc,t}F^*(X^{(\mathcal{T})}))$ //record new data codes $T_\mathcal{T} \leftarrow$ Init($|Y^{(\mathcal{T})}|$) // initialize new task operator
**[Training]{}** : $\hat{Y_t} = T_t\circ T\circ F(X^{(\mathcal{T})})$ // task outputs $\hat{C_t} = \sigma(W_{enc,t}F(X^{(\mathcal{T})}))$ //current codes $ T_t^*, T^*, F^* \leftarrow \arg\min_{T_t, T, F}[\ell(\hat{Y_{\mathcal{T}}} , Y^{(\mathcal{T})}) ) $ $+ \sum_{t=1}^{\mathcal{T}-1} \ell_{dist}(\hat{Y_t}, Y_t^* ) +\sum_{t=1}^{\mathcal{T}-1}\frac{\alpha_t}{2} \| \hat{C_t} - C_t^*\|^2]$ $(W_{enc,\mathcal{T}},W_{dec,\mathcal{T}}) \leftarrow$ autoencoder( $T_\mathcal{T}^*, T^*, F^*,$ $X^{(\mathcal{T})}, Y^{(\mathcal{T})}; \lambda$ ) // minimizes Eq.
Experiments {#Sec:Exp}
===========
=0.11cm
----------------------------- ------- --------- ------- --------- ------- ---------- -------- --------- ------- --------- ------- --------- -------- --------
Task 1 Task 2
Finetuning 48.0% (-9%) 65.0% (ref) 41.3% (-15.7%) 59.0% (ref) 50.8% (-6.2%) 86.4% (ref) -10.3% (ref)
Feature extraction 57.0% (ref) 60.6% (-4.4%) 57.0% (ref) 51.6% (-7.4%) 57.0% (ref) 84.6% (-1.8%) (ref) -4.5%
LwF 55.4% (-1.6%) 65.0% (-0%) 54.4% (-2.6%) 58.9% (-0.1%) 55.6% (-1.4%) 85.9% (-0.5%) -1.9% -0.2%
[**Ours**]{} 56.3% (-0.7%) 64.9% (-0.1%) 55.3% (-1.7%) 58.2% (-0.8%) 56.5% (-0.5%) 86.2% (-0.2%) -1.0% -0.4 %
[**Ours**]{} - separate FCs 57.0% (-0%) 65.9% (+0.9%) 57.0% (-0%) 57.7% (-1.3%) 56.5% (-0.5%) 86.4% (-0%) -0.2% -0.1 %
----------------------------- ------- --------- ------- --------- ------- ---------- -------- --------- ------- --------- ------- --------- -------- --------
We compare our method against the state-of-the-art and several baselines on image classification tasks. We consider sets of 2 and 3 tasks learned sequentially, in two settings: 1) when the first task is a large dataset, and 2) when the first task is a small dataset.
#### Architecture
We experiment with AlexNet [@krizhevsky2012imagenet] as our network architecture due to its widespread use and similarity to other popular architectures. The feature extraction block $F$ corresponds to the convolutional layers. By default, the shared task operator $T$ corresponds to all but the last fully connected layers (i.e., $fc6$ and $fc7$), while the task-specific part $T_i$ contains the last classification layer ($fc8$). During the training, we used an $\alpha$ of $10^{-3}$ for ImageNet and $10^{-2}$ for the rest of the tasks. Note that this parameter sets the trade off between the allowed forgetting on the previous task and the performance on the new task.
For the autoencoders, we use a very shallow architecture, to keep their memory footprint low. Both the encoding as well as the decoding consist of a single fully connected layer, with a sigmoid as non-linearity in between. The dimensionality of the codes is 100 for all datasets, except for ImageNet where we use a code size of 300. The size of the autoencoder is 3MB, compared to 250MB for the size of the network model. The training of the autoencoders is done using AdaDelta as explained in Sec. \[Sec:Proc\]. During training of the autoencoders, we use a hyperparameter $\lambda$ (cf. Eq. ) to find a compromise between the reconstruction error and the classification error. $\lambda$ is tuned manually in order to allow the convergence of the code loss and the classification loss on the training data. Figure \[fig:AE\_loss\] shows the evolution of these losses for the training and validation samples of ImageNet during the training of an autoencoder based on the $conv5$ features extracted with AlexNet. In our experiments, $\lambda$ is set to $10^{-6}$ in all cases.
![Training of AlexNet based autoencoder for ImageNet - The objective makes the code loss *and* the classification loss decrease. The training is stopped when we observe a convergence of the classification loss. []{data-label="fig:AE_loss"}](images/ae_imagenet.pdf){width="40.00000%" height="4cm"}
#### Datasets {#Sec:dataset}
We use multiple datasets of moderate size: MIT *Scenes* [@quattoni2009recognizing] for indoor scene classification (5,360 samples), Caltech-UCSD *Birds* [@WelinderEtal2010] for fine-grained bird classification (5,994 samples) and Oxford *Flowers* [@Nilsback08] for fine-grained flower classification (2,040 samples). We excluded Pascal VOC as it is very similar to ImageNet, with subcategories of some of the VOC labels corresponding to ImageNet classes. These datasets were also used in both [@aljundi2016expert] and [@li2016learning].
For the scenario based on a large initial dataset, we start from ImageNet (LSVRC 2012 subset) [@russakovsky2015imagenet], which has more than 1 million training images. For the small dataset scenario, we start from Oxford *Flowers*, which has only 2,040 training and validation samples.
The reported results are obtained with respect to the test sets of Scenes, Birds and Flowers, and on the validation set of ImageNet. As in LwF [@li2016learning], we need to record the targets for the old tasks before starting the training procedure for a new task. Here, we perform an offline augmentation with 10 variants of each sample (different crops and flips). This setting differs slightly from what has been done in [@li2016learning], which explains the higher performance on the individual tasks in our experiments. We therefore compare against a stronger baseline than the accuracies reported in [@li2016learning].
#### Compared Methods
We compare our method (**Ours**) with Learning without Forgetting (**LwF**) [@li2016learning], which represents the current state-of-the-art. Additionally, we consider two baselines: **Finetuning**, where each model (incl. $F$ and $T$) is learned for the new task using the previous task model as initialization, and **Feature extraction**, where the weights of the previous task model ($F$ and $T$) are fixed and only the classification layer ($T_t$) is learned for each new task. Further, we also report results for a variant of our method, **Ours - separate FCs** where we only share the representation layers ($F$) while each task has its own fully connected layers (i.e., $T = \emptyset$ and $T_i = \{fc6-fc7-fc8\}$). This variant aims at finding a universal representation for the current sequence of tasks while allowing each task to have its own fully connected layers. With less sharing, the risk of forgetting is reduced, at the cost of a higher memory consumption and less regularization for new tasks. Note that in this case the task autoencoders can be used at test time to activate only the fully connected layers of the task that a test sample belongs to, in a similar manner to what was done in [@aljundi2016expert].
#### Setups {#sec:setup}
We consider sequences of 2 and 3 tasks. In the [**Two Tasks**]{} setup, we are given a model trained on one previously seen task and then add a second task to learn. This follows the experimental setup of LwF [@li2016learning]. In their work, all the tested scenarios start from a large dataset, ImageNet. Here we also study the effect of starting from a small dataset, Flowers.[^3] Further, we also consider a setup, involving [**Three Tasks**]{}. First, we use a sequence of tasks starting from ImageNet, i.e. ImageNet $\rightarrow$ Scenes $\rightarrow$ Birds. Additionally, we consider Flowers as a first task in the sequence Flowers $\rightarrow$ Scenes $\rightarrow$ Birds. Note that this is different from what was conducted in [@li2016learning] where the sequences were only composed of splits of one dataset i.e. one task overall.
=0.11cm
----------------------------- ------- ---------- ------- --------- -------- ---------- -------- --------- -------- -------
Task 1 Task 2
Finetuning 61.6% (-24.8%) 63.9% (ref) 66.6% (-19.8%) 57.5% (ref) -22.3% (ref)
Feature extraction 86.4% (ref) 59.6% (-4.3%) 86.4% (ref) 48.6% (-8.9%) (ref) -6.6%
LwF 83.7% (-2.7%) 62.2% (-1.7%) 82.0 % (-4.4%) 52.2 % (-5.3%) -3.6% -3.5%
[**Ours**]{} 84.9% (-1.5%) 62.3% (-1.6%) 83.0% (-3.4%) 52.0 % (-5.5%) -2.4% -3.5%
[**Ours**]{} - separate FCs 86.4% (-0%) 63.0% (-0.9%) 85.4% (-1.0%) 55.1% (-2.4%) -0.5% -1.6%
----------------------------- ------- ---------- ------- --------- -------- ---------- -------- --------- -------- -------
=0.11cm
ImageNet Scenes Birds Average Acc.
-------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- --------------
Finetuning 37.5% 45.6% **58.1**% 47.2%
LwF 53.3% 63.5% 57.2 % 58.0%
[**Ours**]{} **54.9**% **64.7**% 56.9% **58.8**%
: Classification accuracy for the Three Tasks scenario starting from ImageNet. **Ours** achieves the best trade off between the tasks in the sequence with less forgetting to the previous tasks.[]{data-label="tab:res_seq_imgnet"}
=0.11cm
Flowers Scenes Birds Average Acc.
-------------- --------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------
Finetuning 51.2% 48.1% [**58.5%**]{} 51.6%
LwF 81.1% 59.1% 52.3% 64.1%
[**Ours**]{} [**82.8%**]{} [**61.2 %**]{} 51.2% [**65.0%**]{}
: Classification accuracy for the Three Tasks scenario starting from Flowers. **Ours** achieves the best trade off between the tasks in the sequence with less forgetting to the previous tasks.[]{data-label="tab:res_seq_flower"}
#### Results
Table \[tab:res\_twotasks\_imagenet\] shows, for the different compared methods, the achieved performance on the Two Tasks scenario with ImageNet as the first task. While **Finetuning** is optimal for the second task, it shows the most forgetting of the first task. The performance on the second task is on average comparable for all methods except for **Feature extraction**. Since the **Feature extraction** baseline doesn’t allow the weights of the model to change and only optimizes the last fully connected layers, its performance on the second task is suboptimal and significantly lower than the other methods. Naturally the performance of the previous task is kept unchanged in this case. **Ours - separate FCs** shows the best compromise between the two tasks. The performance of the first task is highly preserved and at the same time the performance of the second task is comparable or better to the methods with shared FCs. This variant of our method has a higher capacity as it allocates separate fully connected layers for each task, yet its memory consumption increases more rapidly as tasks are added. Our method with a complete shared model **Ours** systematically outperforms the **LwF** method on the previous task and on average achieves a similar performance on the second task.
When we start from a smaller dataset, Flowers, the same trends can be observed, but with larger differences in accuracy (Table \[tab:res\_twotasks\_flower\]). The performance on the second task is lower than that achieved with ImageNet as a starting point for all the compared methods. This is explained by the fact that the representation obtained from ImageNet is more meaningful for the different tasks than what has been finetuned for Flowers. Differently from the ImageNet starting case, **Ours - separate FCs** achieves a considerably better performance on the second task than **Ours** and **LwF** while preserving the previous task performance. **Finetuning** shows the best performance on the second task while suffering from severe forgetting on the previous task. Indeed the pair of tasks here is of a different distribution and finding a compromise between the two is a challenging problem. As in the previous case **Ours** reduces the forgetting of **LwF** while achieving a similar average performance on the second task.
Overall, the **Ours-separate FCs** achieves the best performance on the different pairs of tasks. However, it requires allocating seprate fully connected layers for each task which requires a lot of memory. Thus, for the sequential experiments we focus on the shared model scenario. In Table \[tab:res\_seq\_imgnet\] we report the performance achieved by **Ours**, **LwF** and **Finetuning** for the sequence of ImageNet $\rightarrow$ Scenes $\rightarrow$ Birds. As expected the **Finetuning** baseline suffers from severe forgetting on the previous tasks. The performance on ImageNet (the first task) drops from 57% to 37.5% after finetuning on the third task. As this baseline does not consider the previous tasks in its training procedure it has the advantage of achieving the best performance on the last task in the sequence, as expected.
**Ours** continually reduces forgetting compared to **LwF** on the previous tasks while showing a comparable performance on the new task in the sequence. For example, **Ours** achieves 54.9% on ImageNet compared to 53.3% by LwF. Similar conclusions can be drawn regarding the sequential scenario starting from Flowers as reported in Table \[tab:res\_seq\_flower\].
![Distance between the representation obtained during training of the Birds task given Flowers samples and the original representation for Flowers network. Starting from the Scenes network trained using our method after Flowers.[]{data-label="fig:dis"}](images/dis.pdf){width="28.00000%"}
#### Behavior Analysis {#sec:analysis}
To examine the effect of our representation control over the learning process, we perform an analysis on the distance between the representation obtained over the learning procedure and the one that is optimal for the first task. We use Flower $\rightarrow$ Scenes$\rightarrow$ Birds as a test case and compute the distance for each epoch between the current features of the Flowers dataset $F(\mathcal{X}^1)$ and that obtained by the initial Flowers network $F^*(\mathcal{X}^1)$, as shown in Figure \[fig:dis\]. In the beginning of the training, the leading term in Eq. is the loss related to the new task $\mathcal{T}$. Thus, in the first stage, the model is driven towards optimizing the performance of the most recent task. This results in a quick loss of performance for the previous tasks, and an increase in the other loss terms of the objective. Then, the second stage kicks in. In this stage, all the terms of Eq. contribute and the model is pushed towards recovering its performance for the previous tasks while continuing improving for the most recent one. Gradually, $F(\mathcal{X}^1)$ gets again closer to $F^*(\mathcal{X}^1)$, until a new equilibrium is reached.
Conclusions and future work {#Sec:Conclusion}
===========================
Strategies for efficient lifelong learning is still an open research problem. In this work we tackled the problem of learning a sequence of tasks using only the data from the most recent environment, aiming at obtaining a reasonable performance on the whole sequence. Existing works consider solutions to preserve the knowledge of the previous tasks either by keeping the corresponding system predictions unchanged during training of the new task, or by keeping the model parameters in a neighborhood of the sequence of the previous optimal weights. While the first suffers from the difference in the task distributions, the second needs to store a large number of parameters. The solution presented here reduces forgetting of earlier tasks by controlling the distance between the representations of the different tasks. Rather than preserving the optimal weights of the previous tasks, we propose an alternative that preserves the features that are crucial for the performance in the corresponding environments. Undercomplete autoencoders are used to learn the submanifold that represents these important features. The method is tested on image classification problems, in sequences of two or three tasks, starting either from a small or a large dataset. An improvement in performance over the state-of-the-art is achieved in all the tested scenarios. Especially, we showed a better preservation of the old tasks.
Despite the demonstrated improvements, this work also identifies possible further developments. A direction that is worth exploring is to use the autoencoders as data generators rather than relying on the new data. This would give a stronger solution in the situation where the new data does not represent previous distributions well.
Analysis of the main method
===========================
In this section, we present a detailed analysis of the main contribution of the paper and demonstrate its theoretical grounding.
The following derivations are based on the hypothesis that all the functions involved in the model training are Lipschitz continuous. The most commonly used functions such as sigmoid, ReLU or linear functions satisfy this condition. It is also the case for the most commonly used loss functions, e.g. softmax, logistic, or hinge losses. Note that squared and exponential losses are not Lipschitz continuous, but this is not a significant limitation as such losses are less frequently applied in practice due to their sensitivity to label noise.
We say that a function $f$ is Lipschitz continuous if and only if there exist a constant $K$ such that: $$\forall (x,y), \|f(x) - f(y)\| \le K \|x-y\|$$
Relation between Encoder based Lifelong Learning and joint training
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the sequel, we use the same notation as in the main paper. In a two-task scenario, we propose to use the following objective to train a network using only the data from the second task: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{R} &= \mathbb{E}[\ell(T_2\circ T\circ F(\mathcal{X}^{(2)}), \mathcal{Y}^{(2)}) )\nonumber \\
&+ \ell_{dist}(T_1\circ T\circ F(\mathcal{X}^{(2)}), T_1^*\circ T^*\circ F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(2)}) ) \nonumber \\
& + \frac{\alpha}{2} \| \sigma(W_{enc}F(\mathcal{X}^{(2)})) - \sigma(W_{enc}F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(2)})) \|_2^2] \label{eq:CodeLoss}.\end{aligned}$$ In the ideal case where we can keep in memory data from the first task, the best solution is to train the network jointly by minimizing the following objective: $$\mathbb{E}[\ell(T_2\circ T\circ F(\mathcal{X}^{(2)}), \mathcal{Y}^{(2)}) )] + \mathbb{E}[\ell(T_1\circ T\circ F(\mathcal{X}^{(1)}), \mathcal{Y}^{(1)}) ) ]
\label{eq:StatRisk}$$
The difference between and $\mathbb{E}[\ell(T_2\circ~T\circ~F(\mathcal{X}^{(2)}),\mathcal{Y}^{(2)}))
+ \ell(T_1\circ T\circ F(\mathcal{X}^{(2)}), T_1^*\circ T^*\circ F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(2)}) )]$ can be controlled by the independent minimization of the knowledge distillation loss and five terms: , , , , and .
From Lipschitz continuity, we deduce that the difference between and $\mathbb{E}[\ell(T_2\circ~T\circ~F(\mathcal{X}^{(2)}),\mathcal{Y}^{(2)})) + \ell(T_1\circ T\circ F(\mathcal{X}^{(2)}), T_1^*\circ T^*\circ F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(2)}) )]$ is bounded, and we can write for any vector norm $\|.\|$: $$\begin{aligned}
| \ell(T_1\circ T\circ & F(\mathcal{X}^{(1)}), \mathcal{Y}^{(1)}) \nonumber\\
&- \ell(T_1\circ T\circ F(\mathcal{X}^{(2)}), T_1^*\circ T^*\circ F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(2)}) )| \nonumber\\
&\le K_1 \|F(\mathcal{X}^{(1)})-F(\mathcal{X}^{(2)})\|\label{eq:FeatDist}\\
& + K_2\| \mathcal{Y}^{(1)}- T^*_1\circ T^* \circ F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(2)})\|\label{eq:TargetDist}.\end{aligned}$$ is related to the classification error on the first task. Indeed, using the triangle inequality, we can write: $$\begin{aligned}
\| \mathcal{Y}^{(1)}&- T^*_1\circ T^* \circ F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(2)})\| \nonumber\\
&\le \| \mathcal{Y}^{(1)}- T^*_1\circ T^* \circ F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(1)})\| \label{eq:LossT1} \\
&+ \| T^*_1\circ T^* \circ F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(1)})- T^*_1\circ T^* \circ F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(2)})\| \label{eq:DistTarget}\end{aligned}$$ Note that all the terms on the right hand side of the inequality do not change during training of task 2, and thus cannot be controlled during the second training phase. Moreover, depends only on the capacity of the network and is therefore not influenced by the encoder based lifelong learning scheme. is the result of using $\mathcal{X}^{(2)}$ instead of $\mathcal{X}^{(1)}$. In order to reduce the effect of this shift, we use the knowledge distillation loss [@hinton2015distilling] as in the Learning without Forgetting (LwF) method [@li2016learning].
On the other hand, expression is bounded as well (using again the triangle inequality): $$\begin{aligned}
\|F(\mathcal{X}^{(1)})-F(\mathcal{X}^{(2)})\| &\le
\| F(\mathcal{X}^{(1)}) - F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(1)}) \| \label{eq:X1Feat} \\
&+ \| F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(1)}) - r\circ F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(1)}) \| \label{eq:AEloss}\\
&+ \| r\circ F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(1)}) - r\circ F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(2)}) \|\label{eq:rec1-rec2} \\
&+ \| r\circ F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(2)}) - r\circ F(\mathcal{X}^{(2)}) \|\label{eq:rec2*-rec2}\\
&+ \| r\circ F(\mathcal{X}^{(2)}) - F(\mathcal{X}^{(2)})\|\label{eq:recErrX2}.\end{aligned}$$
This bound generalizes trivially to the expected value of the loss, which finishes the proof.
Analyzing each of these terms individually, we see that our training strategy effectively controls the difference with the joint training risk:
- is minimized through the autoencoder (AE) training and does not change during training of task 2.
- does not change during training of task 2. Moreover, $\|~r\circ~F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(1)})~-~r\circ~F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(2)})\|$ measures the distance between two elements of the manifold that the AE represents. As the use of weight decay during training the task model makes the weights small, the projection of data into the feature space is contractive. Through our experiments, we observed that $r$ is also contractive. As a result, this distance is significantly smaller than $\|\mathcal{X}^{(1)} - \mathcal{X}^{(2)}\|$. The experiment in Sec. \[Sec:ExpEncoderDist\] supports this observation.
- **is controlled during the training thanks to the second constraint we propose to use**.
- is the part of the features that we propose to relax in order to give space for the model to adjust to the second task as explained in Sec. 3.3 in the main text. Indeed, if we control this distance, the features are forced to stay in the manifold related to the first task. This will result in a stronger conservation of the first task performance, but the training model will face the risk of not being able to converge for the second task.
- is a term that we cannot access during training. However, we observed that this distance is either decreasing or first increasing then decreasing during the training. An explanation of this behavior is that in the beginning $\ell(T_2\circ~T\circ~F(\mathcal{X}^{(2)}),\mathcal{Y}^{(2)}))$ may have a bigger influence on the objective, however, after decreasing the loss for the second task, $ \ell(T_1\circ~T\circ~F(\mathcal{X}^{(2)}),T_1^*\circ~T^*\circ~F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(2)}))$ and $\|\sigma(W_{enc}F(\mathcal{X}^{(2)}))~-~\sigma(W_{enc}F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(2)}))\|_2$ tend to push $F$ towards $F^*$. Figure 5 in the main text, and the paragraph “Behavior analysis" support this observation.
This derivation motivates the code distance that we propose to use. It also elucidates the sources of possible divergence from joint-training.
Empirical study: $F$ and $r$ are contractive {#Sec:ExpEncoderDist}
--------------------------------------------
This experiment aims to show empirically that $\| \mathcal{X}^{(1)} - \mathcal{X}^{(2)} \|$ is significantly larger than $\| r\circ F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(1)}) - r\circ F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(2)}) \|$ using the $\ell_2$ norm. To have empirical evidence for this observation, we conducted the following experiment:
1. First, we generate random inputs for the model from two different distributions. We use normal distributions with uniformly distributed means and variances.
2. Then, we compute the features of these inputs (output of $F$).
3. These features are fed to the AE to compute the reconstructions.
4. The mean squared error (MSE) between the samples, the features and the reconstructions are stored.
5. This procedure is repeated for several trials. Each time a different pair of distributions is used. Finally, the mean of the obtained MSE is computed.
We repeat this experiment twice. In the first instance, the mean and variance of the Gaussian distributions are generated in a way to have relatively small distances between the samples, and in the second we force the samples to have bigger distance. Tables \[Tab:F\_r\_contractive\_flowers\] and \[Tab:F\_r\_contractive\_imagenet\] show the results of this experiment. The numbers in Table \[Tab:F\_r\_contractive\_flowers\] are computed using AlexNet fine-tuned on Flowers dataset, and the AE trained as explained in Sec. 3.3 (in the main text) on the features of Flowers extracted using AlexNet convolutional layers after convergence. We report in this table the mean MSE and the error bars obtained with 50 generated samples from 500 different pairs of Gaussian distributions. The numbers in Table \[Tab:F\_r\_contractive\_imagenet\] are computed similarly but from the AlexNet and the AE related to ImageNet. In all cases, the difference between the samples is many orders of magnitude larger than the difference between the reconstructions indicating that the mapping is indeed contractive, and the residual error from this step is minimal.
Samples Features Reconstructions
-------- ------------- ------------- -----------------
Exp. 1 229.98 33.05 0.21
$\pm 0.065$ $\pm 0.066$ $\pm 0.0024$
Exp. 2 10176.54 106.60 0.21
$\pm 41.17$ $\pm 0.32$ $\pm 0.0027$
: Showing that $F$ and $r$ are contractive: Mean MSE of 50 samples from random Gaussian distribution, of their corresponding features and reconstructions over 500 trails - The main model and the AE are trained on Flowers dataset. As we move from left to right in the table, the entries in the columns decrease significantly verifying that the mappings are contractive.[]{data-label="Tab:F_r_contractive_flowers"}
Samples Features Reconstructions
-------- -------------- ------------- -----------------
Exp. 1 230.02 9.48 1.55
$\pm 0.063 $ $\pm 0.022$ $\pm 0.01$
Exp. 2 10173.11 61.29 2.12
$\pm 41.35 $ $\pm 0.18$ $\pm 0.013$
: Showing that $F$ and $r$ are contractive: Mean MSE of 50 samples from random Gaussian distribution, of their corresponding features and reconstructions over 500 trails - The main model and the AE are trained on Imagenet dataset. As we move from left to right in the table, the entries in the columns decrease significantly verifying that the mappings are contractive.[]{data-label="Tab:F_r_contractive_imagenet"}
Multiple task scenario
----------------------
Each time a task is added, a new source of divergence from the joint-training objective is added. The difference with grows with $\mathcal{T}$. Indeed, at each step, an extra irreducible $\|r\circ F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(\mathcal{T}-1)}) - r\circ F^*(\mathcal{X}^{(\mathcal{T})})\|$ is added. Moreover, for each task, the autoencoders of the previous tasks are trained using the corresponding feature extractors. The remaining difference between the two losses that is neither directly controlled nor decreasing while training the model can be expressed as follows (for a constant $K$): $$\begin{aligned}
K\Biggl(&\sum_{t=2}^\mathcal{T} \|r_{t-1}\circ F^{(*,t-1)}(\mathcal{X}^{(t-1)}) - r_{t-1}\circ F^{(*,t-1)}(\mathcal{X}^{(t)})\| \label{eq:RecsDistances} \\
& + \sum_{t=2}^{\mathcal{T}} \|r_{t-1}\circ F(\mathcal{X}^{(\mathcal{T})}) - F(\mathcal{X}^{(\mathcal{T})})\| \label{eq:UncontrolledDistances}\\
& + \sum_{t=1}^{\mathcal{T}-2} \|r_{t}\circ F^{(*,\mathcal{T}-1)}(\mathcal{X}^{(t)}) - r_t\circ F^{(*,t)}(\mathcal{X}^{(t)})\|\Biggr)\label{eq:FeatsDistances},\end{aligned}$$
where $F^{(*,t)}$ is the feature extraction operator after training the model on the task $t$ data. As observed for , expressions and remain small and the conclusion of the experiment in Sec. \[Sec:ExpEncoderDist\] holds also for these distances. Therefore, their effect on the growth of the difference with joint-training is minimal. In contrast to the other terms, as for , controlling may prevent the network from converging for the new task. Thus, relaxing these distances is an important degree of freedom for our method.
Additional experiments
======================
The experiments in this section aim to show that the success of the proposed method is independent of the chosen model. For this purpose, we train VGG-verydeep-16 [@simonyan2014very] in a two-task image classification scenario and compare our method against the state-of-the-art (LwF) [@li2016learning].
#### Tested scenario
We test our method and LwF on a two-task scenario starting from ImageNet (LSVRC 2012 subset) [@russakovsky2015imagenet] (more than 1 million training images) then training on MIT *Scenes* [@quattoni2009recognizing] for indoor scene classification (5,360 samples). The showed results are obtained on the test data of Scenes and the validation data of ImageNet.
#### Architecture
{width="70.00000%"}
We experiment with VGG-verydeep-16 [@simonyan2014very] due to its popularity and success in many image classification tasks. The feature extraction block $F$ corresponds to the convolutional layers. Note that this architecture has feature extractor twice as deep as AlexNet [@krizhevsky2012imagenet] (used in the main text). As for the experiments conducted using AlexNet, the shared task operator $T$ corresponds to all but the last fully connected layers (i.e., $fc6$ and $fc7$), while the task-specific part $T_i$ contains the last classification layer ($fc8$). The used hyperparameters are the same as in the main text: same $\alpha$ ($10^{-3}$) for the training of our method, and same $\lambda$ ($10^{-6}$) for the autoencoder training. The used architecture for the autoencoder is also similar to the main text (2-layers with a sigmoid non-linearity in between) with a code of 300 entries. Figure \[fig:VGG\_AE\_loss\] shows the evolution of the code error and the classification error during the training of the autoencoder on ImageNet features extracted using VGG-verydeep-16.
#### Autoencoder size
To illustrate the growth of the size of the autoencoder with the size of the model, we show in Table \[tab:AE\_size\] the memory required by AlexNet and VGG-verydeep-16 while training for Scenes after ImageNet, along with the autoencoder input length (Feature size) and the memory required by the autoencoder during training with our method. Naturally, the autoencoder size grows with the feature length, but remains very small comparing with the size of the global model.
Model Size Feature size Autoencoder size
--------- -------- -------------- ------------------
AlexNet 449 MB 9216 10 MB (2.2%)
VGG 1.1 GB 25088 28 MB (2.5%)
: Size of the used autoencoders compared to the size of the models during training. The model size corresponds to the required memory during training. The feature size corresponds to the length of the feature extractor output.[]{data-label="tab:AE_size"}
#### Results: Method behavior comparison
Figure \[fig:MethodCompare\] shows the evolution of the model performance for both tasks, ImageNet and Scenes, when trained with our method (red curves) and with LwF (blue curves).
Our method shows a better preservation of the performance on ImageNet. Even if the classification error grows for both methods, it increases slower in our case. After 20 epochs, the performance on ImageNet is 1% higher using our method.
The test and train errors on Scenes highlight an interesting characteristic of our method. The use of the code loss on top of LwF appears to act as a regularizer for the training on Scenes. Our method shows a slightly higher training error, and a better generalization. VGG-verydeep-16 is a large model, and the risk of overfitting while training on a small dataset like Scenes is higher than for AlexNet. A stronger regularization (using a higher value of $\alpha$) may thus result in an improvement of the behavior of our method.
#### Conclusion
From this experiment, we observe that the convergence of the autoencoder training and the improvement observed over LwF are not dependent on the used architecture. Moreover, the additional memory required by our method remains small with respect to the size of the global model.
[^1]: Amal Rannen Triki and Rahaf Aljundi contributed equally to this work and listed in alphabetical order.
[^2]: Amal Rannen Triki is also affiliated with Yonsei University.
[^3]: Due to the small size of the Flowers dataset, we use a network pretrained on ImageNet as initialization for training the first task model. The main difference hence lies in the fact that in this case we do not care about forgetting ImageNet.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Direct photon flow is measured by subtracting the contribution of decay photon flow from the measured inclusive photon flow via the double ratio $R_{\rm \gamma}$, which defines the excess of direct over decay photons. The inclusive photon sample is affected by a modest contamination from different background sources, which is often ignored in measurements. However, due to the sensitivity of the direct photon measurement even a residual contamination may significantly bias the extracted direct photon flow. In particular, for measurements using photon conversions, which are very powerful at low transverse momentum, these effects can be substantial. Assuming three different types of correlated background contributions we demonstrate using the Therminator2 event generator that the impact of the contamination on the magnitude of direct photon flow can be on the level of $50\%$, even if the purity of the inclusive photon sample is about $97\%$. Future measurements should attempt to account for the contamination by measuring the background contributions and subtracting them from the inclusive photon flow.'
author:
- 'F. Bock'
- 'C. Loizides'
- 'T. Peitzmann'
- 'M. Sas'
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
date: ', '
title: |
Impact of residual contamination\
on inclusive and direct photon flow
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Heavy-ion collisions at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) produce a state of matter where quarks and gluons are deconfined. This state of hot dense matter, the Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP) is predicted by numerical solutions of Quantum Chromodynamics [@Bhattacharya:2014ara]. One way to study the properties of the QGP is by measuring direct photons. Direct photons, i.e. all photons excluding those from hadronic decays, are produced during every stage of the collision evolution. They can be categorized in two regimes governed by different production mechanisms, which to a large extent coincide with specific transverse momentum ranges [@Kapusta:1991qp]. Prompt direct photons are produced in hard scatterings of incoming partons, dominating the direct photon spectrum at higher transverse momenta (${\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}}{\,{\buildrel > \over {_\sim}}\,}4$ [GeV/$c$]{}). Thermal direct photons are emitted during the hot QGP and hadron gas phases and dominate at lower transverse momenta (${\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}}{\,{\buildrel < \over {_\sim}}\,}4$ [GeV/$c$]{}). Since photons interact only weakly with the strongly coupled medium they provide unique information of the produced system allowing one to deduce the initial temperature of the QGP from calculations.
Direct photon spectra at low ${\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}}$ have been measured by the WA98 [@Aggarwal:2000th], PHENIX [@Adare:2008ab; @Adare:2009qk; @Adare:2014fwh] and ALICE [@Adam:2015ldab] collaborations using direct (real photon) and indirect (virtual photon) detection techniques. In the direct approach one usually measures the ratio of inclusive photons over those from decays, quantified with the double ratio $$\label{rg}
{\ensuremath{R_{\rm \gamma}}}= \frac{{\ensuremath{N^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}}{{\ensuremath{N^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dec}}}}}}} = {\left(\frac{{\rm d}{\ensuremath{N^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}/{\rm d}{\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}}}{{\rm d}{\ensuremath{N^{\rm{\pi^{0}}}}}/{\rm d}{\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}}}\right)}\left/{\left(\frac{{\rm d}{\ensuremath{N^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dec}}}}}}/{\rm d}{\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}}}{{\rm d}{\ensuremath{N^{\rm{\pi^{0}}}}}/{\rm d}{\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}}}\right)_{\rm MC}}\right.\,,$$ in which correlated systematic uncertainties approximately cancel. The direct photon spectra are simply given by the difference of ${\ensuremath{N^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{N^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dec}}}}}}$, expressed as ${\ensuremath{N^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dir}}}}}}=\left(1-1/{\ensuremath{R_{\rm \gamma}}}\right){\ensuremath{N^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}$. At low ${\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}}$, an enhancement of direct photons by $10$–$20$% is observed in central AA collisions, not seen in pp or dAu collisions [@Aggarwal:2000th; @Adare:2008ab; @Adare:2009qk; @Adare:2014fwh; @Adam:2015ldab].
Similarly, an azimuthal anisotropy (a.k.a. elliptic flow) of direct photons can be quantified by subtracting the decay from the inclusive photon flow weighted by their respective abundances, ${\ensuremath{N^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dir}}}}}}{\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dir}}}}}}={\ensuremath{N^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}{\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}-{\ensuremath{N^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dec}}}}}}{\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dec}}}}}}$, which can be expressed via ${\ensuremath{R_{\rm \gamma}}}$ as $$\label{v2directform}
{\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dir}}}}}}= \frac{{\ensuremath{R_{\rm \gamma}}}{\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}- {\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dec}}}}}}}{{\ensuremath{R_{\rm \gamma}}}-1}\,.$$ Measurements by the PHENIX [@Adare:2011zr; @Adare:2015lcd] and ALICE [@Lohner:2012ct] collaborations reported a suprisingly large azimuthal anisotropy of direct photons, comparable to that of hadrons. These observations suggest that the photon production occurs at later stages of the collision when the collective flow of the system is fully developed, while the temperature and, hence, the corresponding thermal photon rates are already reduced. Indeed, it is a challenge for models to simultaneously describe the observed direct photon yields and azimuthal anisotropy at low ${\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}}$, which is referred to as “the direct photon puzzle”, and has lead to a large amount of recent theoretical effort to resolve the puzzle [@Shen:2013vja; @Shen:2013cca; @Chatterjee:2013naa; @Linnyk:2013wma; @vanHees:2014ida; @Monnai:2014kqa; @McLerran:2014hza; @Campbell:2015jga; @McLerran:2015mda; @Paquet:2015lta; @Holt:2015cda; @Vovchenko:2016ijt].
Experimentally, the measurement of direct photons has also been continuously further scrutinized. In particular, there has been significant effort to improve the understanding of the systematic uncertainties by measuring photons with different reconstruction techniques, using calorimeters [@Adare:2008ab; @Adare:2009qk; @Adam:2015ldab], photon conversions [@Adam:2015ldab], and a combination of both [@Adare:2014fwh].
Since ${\ensuremath{R_{\rm \gamma}}}$ is close to 1, and the inclusive and decay photon flow are similar in magnitude, the extracted direct photon flow is extremely sensitive to small corrections to ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}$. In order to access the sensitivity of the ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dir}}}}}}$ measurement to a remaining contamination from a hadronic background, we use a parameterization of the ALICE preliminary data [@Lohner:2012ct] and the event generator Therminator2 [@Chojnacki:2011hb] to model the residual background. We demonstrate that even neglecting a small contamination in the measured ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}$ can lead to significant changes of ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dir}}}}}}$. The article is devided into the following sections: In [Sec. \[sec:imp\]]{} we briefly recall the measurement of ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}$, with particular emphasis on the purity. In [Sec. \[sec:bgk\]]{} we discuss a realistic model for simulating a residual contamination in ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}$. In [Sec. \[sec:res\]]{} we present and discuss the effects of subtracting various contributions of the residual background on ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dir}}}}}}$. In [Sec. \[sec:sum\]]{} we conclude with a short summary.
Inclusive photon flow measurement and purity {#sec:imp}
============================================
The elliptic flow of the inclusive photon sample has been measured by reconstructing photons in calorimeters [@Adare:2011zr] and via the photon conversion [@Adare:2015lcd; @Lohner:2012ct] method. In both cases, one attempts to have a clean photon sample free from major contributions of background sources, and thus the photon purity has been maximized. For photons reconstructed with a calorimeter one expects that the impurities arise from single misidentified particles (e$^{\pm}$, ${\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}^{\pm,0}$, ${\ensuremath{\rm n}}$, …). For photons reconstructed from conversions into electron-positron pairs one expects a combinatorial background from misidentified pairs (e$^{-}$+e$^{+}$, ${\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}^{\pm}$+e$^{\mp}$, ${\ensuremath{\rm K}}^{\pm}$+$e^{\mp}$, ${\ensuremath{\rm p}}^{\pm}$+e$^{\mp}$, …). These background sources potentially carry elliptic flow and thus may affect the measured ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}$.
To be able to correct for the residual contamination one needs to know the $v_2$ of the various background sources. The $v_2$ for different contributions is additive, so one generally has ${\ensuremath{N^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, tot}}}}}}{\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, tot}}}}}}= {\ensuremath{N^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}{\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}+ {\ensuremath{N^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, bkg}}}}}}{\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, bkg}}}}}}$. Experimentally, one can not obtain an inclusive photon sample with $100$% purity, i.e. $0$% contamination ($c$), which implies that ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, tot}}}}}}\neq {\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}$. However, if $c={\ensuremath{N^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, bkg}}}}}}/\left({\ensuremath{N^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}+{\ensuremath{N^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, bkg}}}}}}\right)$ and ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, bkg}}}}}}$ are known, the ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}$ can be corrected using $$\label{v2correction}
{\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}= \frac{{\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, tot}}}}}}-\sum_{i=0}^{n}{{\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, bkg}}}, i}}}{\ensuremath{c^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, bkg}}}, i}}}}}{1- \sum_{i=0}^{n}{{\ensuremath{c^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, bkg}}}, i}}}}}\,,$$ where $i$ denotes all possible background sources ($1\le i\le n$), which have to be estimated separately. If $c_{i}=0$, there is no correction, as expected. However, if at least one $c_{i}>0$, there will be a correction depending on the purity and the strength of the respective ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, bkg}}}, i}}}$. For photons reconstructed via conversion electrons, typical values for $c$ at low ${\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}}$ are about $5$% [@Lohner:2013blo] and $1$% [@Adare:2014fwh]. In the case of the PHENIX calorimeter-based measurement [@Adare:2011zr] the contamination of $20$% from hadrons at low ${\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}}$ was already subtracted using [Eq. \[v2correction\]]{}, with ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, bkg}}}}}}$ replaced by the measured hadron $v_2$, and an uncertainy of about $2$% was assigned. It is important to realize that due to the small value of ${\ensuremath{R_{\rm \gamma}}}$ even a small change in ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}$ has a large effect on ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dir}}}}}}$, since it gets amplified by a factor of $5$–$10$, as can be seen from [Eq. \[v2directform\]]{}.
![ALICE preliminary results for ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dec}}}}}}$ (left panel) and ${\ensuremath{R_{\rm \gamma}}}$ (right panel) measured using the photon conversion method in $0$–$40$% PbPb collisions at ${\ensuremath{\sqrt{s_{\scriptscriptstyle{{\rm NN}}}}}}=2.76$ TeV. The data are parametrized by a 3rd order polynomial for $v_2$ and 2nd order polynomial for ${\ensuremath{R_{\rm \gamma}}}$ to reduce the effect of fluctuations. The data points are from figure 4 in [Ref. [@Lohner:2012ct]]{} and 5 in [Ref. [@Wilde:2012wc]]{}, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:ALICEInput"}](img/01_ALICE_toy_input){width="0.95\linewidth"}
In the following, we mostly concentrate on studies of measurements using photon conversion for two reasons: i) Photon conversion measurements have a large impact at low ${\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}}$, where the signals related to possible thermal production are expected to be strongest. ii) The effect of contamination is enhanced in a pair measurement compared to that of single particles. To study the impact of the inclusive photon impurities on direct photon flow, the ALICE preliminary results [@Lohner:2012ct; @Wilde:2012wc] are used as input to the calculation together with a model for ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, bkg}}}}}}$ discussed further below. The preliminary results for ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dec}}}}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{R_{\rm \gamma}}}$, shown in [Fig. \[fig:ALICEInput\]]{}, have been measured using the photon conversion method in Pb-Pb collisions at ${\ensuremath{\sqrt{s_{\scriptscriptstyle{{\rm NN}}}}}}=2.76$ TeV for $0$–$40$% centrality. In order to reduce the effect of fluctuations in the subsequent calculation, the data are parametrized by a 3rd order polynomial for ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dec}}}}}}$ and 2nd order polynomial for ${\ensuremath{R_{\rm \gamma}}}$, respectively. The contamination of the inclusive photon sample at low ${\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}}$ is about 5% [@Lohner:2013blo], strongly depending on ${\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}}$ and centrality.
Model of the inclusive photon flow background {#sec:bgk}
=============================================
In order to illustrate the effect that the purity correction from [Eq. \[v2correction\]]{} may have on the inclusive and direct photon $v_2$, we construct a toy model for ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, bkg}}}}}}$. We assume that ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, bkg}}}}}}$ gets a contribution from charged pion flow, since in the photon conversion method the electrons are selected using ${\rm d}E/{\rm d}x$ information of the TPC. In particular at low ${\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}}$, the selection regions for electrons and pions overlap, and thus there are pions being misidentified as electrons. Since pions carry a $v_2$, a fake photon reconstructed from a ${\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}^{\pm}$+e$^{\mp}$ pair will do so as well. The same argument holds for kaons and protons and their combinations. In addition, one also would expect a non-trivial effect from background e$^{+}$+e$^{-}$ pairs. For the ALICE preliminary measurement the largest contribution to the combinatorial background are the e$^{+}$+e$^{-}$, closely followed by combinations of ${\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}^{\pm}$+e$^{\mp}$. These contributions only show a mild transverse momentum dependence, while others contribute mainly below $2$ [GeV/$c$]{}, like ${\ensuremath{\rm p}}$+$e^{\pm}$, ${\ensuremath{\rm K}}^{\pm}$+e$^{\mp}$, ${\ensuremath{\rm p}}$+${\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}^{\pm}$, due to the crossing points of the respective particles with the electron ${\rm d}E/{\rm d}x$ expectation. At high transverse momenta on the other hand charged pions are misidentified as electrons more often and thus the ${\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}^+$+${\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}^-$ contributions plays a larger role [@Wilde:2015thesis]. In reality, these contributions to the inclusive photon sample and their $v_2$ should be measured in data (or estimated using detector simulations) and subtracted.
![Single particle $v_2$ as a function of ${\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}}$ for ${\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}$, ${\ensuremath{\rm K}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\rm p}}$ calculated using Therminator2 [@Chojnacki:2011hb] and compared to the measured data [@Abelev:2014pua] for $0$–$40$% PbPb collisions at ${\ensuremath{\sqrt{s_{\scriptscriptstyle{{\rm NN}}}}}}=2.76$ TeV. Fits to both sets of results are also included. For the experimental data the fit uses a 3rd order polynomial (dashed line) and for Therminator2 a 5th order polynomial (continous line).[]{data-label="fig:v2singleflow"}](img/02_Therminator2_vs_data_comparison_single_1 "fig:"){width="0.329\linewidth"} ![Single particle $v_2$ as a function of ${\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}}$ for ${\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}$, ${\ensuremath{\rm K}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\rm p}}$ calculated using Therminator2 [@Chojnacki:2011hb] and compared to the measured data [@Abelev:2014pua] for $0$–$40$% PbPb collisions at ${\ensuremath{\sqrt{s_{\scriptscriptstyle{{\rm NN}}}}}}=2.76$ TeV. Fits to both sets of results are also included. For the experimental data the fit uses a 3rd order polynomial (dashed line) and for Therminator2 a 5th order polynomial (continous line).[]{data-label="fig:v2singleflow"}](img/02_Therminator2_vs_data_comparison_single_2 "fig:"){width="0.329\linewidth"} ![Single particle $v_2$ as a function of ${\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}}$ for ${\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}$, ${\ensuremath{\rm K}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\rm p}}$ calculated using Therminator2 [@Chojnacki:2011hb] and compared to the measured data [@Abelev:2014pua] for $0$–$40$% PbPb collisions at ${\ensuremath{\sqrt{s_{\scriptscriptstyle{{\rm NN}}}}}}=2.76$ TeV. Fits to both sets of results are also included. For the experimental data the fit uses a 3rd order polynomial (dashed line) and for Therminator2 a 5th order polynomial (continous line).[]{data-label="fig:v2singleflow"}](img/02_Therminator2_vs_data_comparison_single_3 "fig:"){width="0.329\linewidth"}
![Pair $v_2$ as a function of ${\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}}$ simulated with Therminator2 (symbols) and derived from single-particle $v_2$ using a simple coalescence model. The pair $v_2$ is calculated for ${\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}+ {\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}$, ${\ensuremath{\rm K}}+ {\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\rm p}}+ {\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}$ systems and parametrized by a 3rd order polynomial. The Therminator2 calculations are performed either without any opening angle cut (open symbols) or with a cut of $\pi / 16$ (filled symbols). The coalescence type estimates use as input a parametrization of either the data (dotted line) or of the single particle results from Therminator2 (dashed line).[]{data-label="fig:v2backgroundflow"}](img/03_Therminator2_vs_data_comparison_1 "fig:"){width="0.329\linewidth"} ![Pair $v_2$ as a function of ${\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}}$ simulated with Therminator2 (symbols) and derived from single-particle $v_2$ using a simple coalescence model. The pair $v_2$ is calculated for ${\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}+ {\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}$, ${\ensuremath{\rm K}}+ {\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\rm p}}+ {\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}$ systems and parametrized by a 3rd order polynomial. The Therminator2 calculations are performed either without any opening angle cut (open symbols) or with a cut of $\pi / 16$ (filled symbols). The coalescence type estimates use as input a parametrization of either the data (dotted line) or of the single particle results from Therminator2 (dashed line).[]{data-label="fig:v2backgroundflow"}](img/03_Therminator2_vs_data_comparison_2 "fig:"){width="0.329\linewidth"} ![Pair $v_2$ as a function of ${\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}}$ simulated with Therminator2 (symbols) and derived from single-particle $v_2$ using a simple coalescence model. The pair $v_2$ is calculated for ${\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}+ {\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}$, ${\ensuremath{\rm K}}+ {\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\rm p}}+ {\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}$ systems and parametrized by a 3rd order polynomial. The Therminator2 calculations are performed either without any opening angle cut (open symbols) or with a cut of $\pi / 16$ (filled symbols). The coalescence type estimates use as input a parametrization of either the data (dotted line) or of the single particle results from Therminator2 (dashed line).[]{data-label="fig:v2backgroundflow"}](img/03_Therminator2_vs_data_comparison_3 "fig:"){width="0.329\linewidth"}
Instead, here, we simulate the possible pair background using the event generator Therminator2 [@Chojnacki:2011hb] in Pb-Pb collisions ${\ensuremath{\sqrt{s_{\scriptscriptstyle{{\rm NN}}}}}}=5.02$ TeV for $0$–$40$% centrality, employing (2+1)-dimensional boost-invariant hydrodynamics. The reaction plane is known from the generator output, and the particle $v_2$ can be calculated using the 3-momentum vectors. The single-particle $v_2$ results for ${\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}$, ${\ensuremath{\rm K}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\rm p}}$ are shown in [Fig. \[fig:v2singleflow\]]{} and compared to the measured data [@Abelev:2014pua] for $0$–$40$% PbPb collisions at ${\ensuremath{\sqrt{s_{\scriptscriptstyle{{\rm NN}}}}}}=2.76$ TeV. The model reproduces the data reasonably well. Only for kaons at larger ${\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}}$ substantial differences are observed.
Since without detector material the simulation does not contain converted electrons, we can only calculate the contributions from the pair $v_2$ for ${\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}+{\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}$, ${\ensuremath{\rm K}}+{\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\rm p}}+{\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}$ systems by summing up the 3-vectors of the two particles. It can be assumed, that at least a fraction of the initial ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{\pi^{0}}}}$, from which most electron will originate, will be carried by the electrons. Thus in order to obtain a first estimate on the possible effects, we take the ${\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}+{\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}$ contribution as a reasonable approximation for the $e^{+}$+$e^{-}$ contribution as well, though it will most likely underestimate the strength of the $v_{2}$ at low ${\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}}$. The pair $v_2$ results from the Therminator2 simulations are shown in [Fig. \[fig:v2backgroundflow\]]{}, for pairs without any requirement on the opening angle $\psi$ and with a cut of $\psi < \pi/16$. The latter cut is applied to mimic the conversion photon selection. As expected, a significant pair $v_2$ develops for both cases, and the values increase for the smaller opening angle. The effect observed resembles that caused by the coalescence mechanism [@Voloshin:2002wa; @Molnar:2003ff]. Stricter cuts on the opening angle select two particles, which are closer in phase space. In the construction of the pair the ${\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}}$ of the single particles are combined. For small $\psi$ this is equivalent to the sum. As a result, the pairs carry a stronger correlation at a higher ${\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}}$, similar to coalescence models.
The behaviour suggests that one might use the simple analytical scaling predicted by naïve coalescence models to calculate the pair $v_2$. Following this idea, we calculate the pair $v_2$ estimated from measured $\pi$, ${\ensuremath{\rm K}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\rm p}}$ $v_2$ data [@Abelev:2014pua] as $v_2^{a+b}({\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}})=v^{a}_{2}({\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}}/2)+v_2^{b}({\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}}/2)$ for particle species $a$ and $b$. In addition, we have also applied the same summation to the single particle $v_2$ generated by Therminator2. For this purpose, the $v_2$ results were parameterized by a 3rd order polynomial for the experimental data and by a 5th order polynomial for Therminator2, as shown in [Fig. \[fig:v2singleflow\]]{}.
The results for pair $v_2$ obtained by the two coalescence-like estimates are also shown in [Fig. \[fig:v2backgroundflow\]]{}. The estimates of the pair $v_2$ from coalescence are found to be qualitatively similar, with the pair $v_2$ obtained using the parameterization from the data having a steeper increase with ${\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}}$ than the ones from Therminator2. For the purpose of this study the Therminator2 model provides a reasonable description, despite the fact that the model does not perfectly describe the data. For the following analysis, we use the parameterization of pair $v_2$ coefficients from Therminator2 with an opening angle cut of $\psi < \pi/16$, when applying the contamination correction in [Eq. \[v2correction\]]{}.
![Results of ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}$ (top left panel) and ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dir}}}}}}$ (bottom left panel) using [Eq. \[v2correction\]]{} to correct for $\pi + \pi$, $K + \pi$ and $p + \pi$ contamination with $c=3\%$. The deviations (in %) from the uncorrected ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dir}}}}}}$ are shown in the corresponding panels on the right.[]{data-label="fig:v2Comparison"}](img/04_inclusive_toy_333 "fig:"){width="0.43\linewidth"} ![Results of ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}$ (top left panel) and ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dir}}}}}}$ (bottom left panel) using [Eq. \[v2correction\]]{} to correct for $\pi + \pi$, $K + \pi$ and $p + \pi$ contamination with $c=3\%$. The deviations (in %) from the uncorrected ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dir}}}}}}$ are shown in the corresponding panels on the right.[]{data-label="fig:v2Comparison"}](img/05_inclusive_toy_333_ratio "fig:"){width="0.43\linewidth"}\
![Results of ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}$ (top left panel) and ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dir}}}}}}$ (bottom left panel) using [Eq. \[v2correction\]]{} to correct for $\pi + \pi$, $K + \pi$ and $p + \pi$ contamination with $c=3\%$. The deviations (in %) from the uncorrected ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dir}}}}}}$ are shown in the corresponding panels on the right.[]{data-label="fig:v2Comparison"}](img/06_direct_toy_333 "fig:"){width="0.43\linewidth"} ![Results of ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}$ (top left panel) and ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dir}}}}}}$ (bottom left panel) using [Eq. \[v2correction\]]{} to correct for $\pi + \pi$, $K + \pi$ and $p + \pi$ contamination with $c=3\%$. The deviations (in %) from the uncorrected ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dir}}}}}}$ are shown in the corresponding panels on the right.[]{data-label="fig:v2Comparison"}](img/07_direct_toy_333_ratio "fig:"){width="0.43\linewidth"}\
![Results of ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}$ (top left panel) and ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dir}}}}}}$ (bottom left panel) using [Eq. \[v2correction\]]{} to correct for $\pi + \pi$ with $c=1$, $3$ and $5$%. The deviations (in %) from the uncorrected ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dir}}}}}}$ are shown in the corresponding panels on the right.[]{data-label="fig:v2ComparisonPions"}](img/08_inclusive_toy_531 "fig:"){width="0.43\linewidth"} ![Results of ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}$ (top left panel) and ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dir}}}}}}$ (bottom left panel) using [Eq. \[v2correction\]]{} to correct for $\pi + \pi$ with $c=1$, $3$ and $5$%. The deviations (in %) from the uncorrected ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dir}}}}}}$ are shown in the corresponding panels on the right.[]{data-label="fig:v2ComparisonPions"}](img/09_inclusive_toy_531_ratio "fig:"){width="0.43\linewidth"}\
![Results of ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}$ (top left panel) and ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dir}}}}}}$ (bottom left panel) using [Eq. \[v2correction\]]{} to correct for $\pi + \pi$ with $c=1$, $3$ and $5$%. The deviations (in %) from the uncorrected ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dir}}}}}}$ are shown in the corresponding panels on the right.[]{data-label="fig:v2ComparisonPions"}](img/10_direct_toy_531 "fig:"){width="0.43\linewidth"} ![Results of ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}$ (top left panel) and ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dir}}}}}}$ (bottom left panel) using [Eq. \[v2correction\]]{} to correct for $\pi + \pi$ with $c=1$, $3$ and $5$%. The deviations (in %) from the uncorrected ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dir}}}}}}$ are shown in the corresponding panels on the right.[]{data-label="fig:v2ComparisonPions"}](img/11_direct_toy_531_ratio "fig:"){width="0.43\linewidth"}\
Results {#sec:res}
=======
In this section, the inclusive photon flow ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}$ shown in [Fig. \[fig:ALICEInput\]]{} is corrected using [Eq. \[v2correction\]]{} for different assumptions of ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, bkg}}}}}}$, shown in [Fig. \[fig:v2backgroundflow\]]{}, and purity. The direct photon flow ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dir}}}}}}$ is calculated for the uncorrected and background corrected ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}$ using [Eq. \[v2directform\]]{}.
[Fig. \[fig:v2Comparison\]]{} illustrates the effect of background $v_2$ corrections on inclusive and direct photon flow for different assumptions on the type of background. A ${\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}}$ independent inclusive photon sample purity of 97% is assumed, i.e. a contamination of $c=3$% originating from ${\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}+{\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}$, ${\ensuremath{\rm K}}+{\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\rm p}}+{\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}$ pair $v_2$, respectively, is considered. As may be expected, the effects on inclusive photon $v_2$ are moderate, between $+2$% and $-8$%. The effect on the direct photon flow, however, is considerable, between $+60$% and up to $-90$% depending on ${\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}}$ and the type of background. The differences for the different particle species contributing to the background are again rather moderate, obviously because the differences between the assumed pair $v_2$ are also rather small.
A straightforward next step is the study of the dependence of the correction on the strength of the contamination, as shown in [Fig. \[fig:v2ComparisonPions\]]{}. Here, only the shape of the ${\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}+{\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}$ pair $v_2$ is used as ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, bkg}}}}}}$, but different levels of contamination of $c=1$, $3$ and $5$%, respectively, are assumed. This leads to slightly stronger effects, in particular for $c = 5$%. For inclusive photon $v_2$ effects are between $+2$% and $-10$%, for direct photons between $+50$% and up to $-120$%. For $c=3$% and restricting to about $3$ [GeV/$c$]{} the effect on ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dir}}}}}}$ is about $50$%.
In our calculations the shift from the correction is positive at low ${\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}}$ and becomes negative at high ${\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}}$. We do not want to attribute too much significance to these features, as they depend crucially on details of the pair $v_2$ values used for correction, and the systematic uncertainty on those estimates is considerable. For example, if in reality the pair $v_2$ would be similar to the estimate of coalescence from data, shown in [Fig. \[fig:v2backgroundflow\]]{}, then the correction would imply a reduction of the ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, inc}}}}}}$, and hence the ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dir}}}}}}$, everywhere. Precise estimates require to measure the pair $v_2$ in data, which is beyond the scope of this article.
Summary {#sec:sum}
=======
ALICE preliminary $v_2$ results ([Fig. \[fig:ALICEInput\]]{}) for inclusive and direct photons reconstructed from conversion electron and positron pairs are used to study the effect of a possible contamination of the inclusive photon sample. The event generator Therminator2, which employs (2+1)-dimensional boost-invariant hydrodynamics to describe the single-particle $v_2$ coefficients ([Fig. \[fig:v2singleflow\]]{}), is used to model the elliptic flow of the possible pair background in the photon conversion sample ([Fig. \[fig:v2backgroundflow\]]{}). The effect on inclusive and direct photon $v_2$ of 3% contamination from ${\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}+{\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}$, ${\ensuremath{\rm K}}+{\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\rm p}}+{\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}$ pairs ([Fig. \[fig:v2Comparison\]]{}) and for varying contamination from ${\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}+{\ensuremath{\rm \pi}}$ pairs ([Fig. \[fig:v2ComparisonPions\]]{}) has been studied. While the effect on the inclusive photon $v_2$ is moderate, between $+2$% to $-10$%, the effect on the direct photon flow is considerable, between $+40$% and up to $-120$% depending on $c$ and ${\ensuremath{p_{\rm T}}}$. For $c=3$% and restricting to about $3$ [GeV/$c$]{} the effect on ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, dir}}}}}}$ is about $50$%. Below $2$ [GeV/$c$]{} the considered shape of ${\ensuremath{v_{2}^{{\ensuremath{{\rm \gamma, bkg}}}}}}$ did not lead to a decrease of the direct $v_2$, however the correlated background originating from pairs with at least one e$^{\pm}$ has not been simulated. Our calculations demonstrate that it is important to correct the inclusive photon sample as precisely as possible for even small impurities.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The work of F. Bock and C. Loizides is supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Physics, under contract number DE-AC02-05CH11231. The work of M. Sas and T. Peitzmann is supported in part by the Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie (FOM), Netherlands.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- |
Ruotian Luo\
TTI-Chicago\
[rluo@ttic.edu]{}
- |
Ning Zhang\
Vaitl Inc.\
[ning@vaitl.ai]{}
- |
Bohyung Han\
Seoul National University\
[bhhan@snu.ac.kr]{}
- |
Linjie Yang\
ByteDance AI Lab\
[linjie.yang@bytedance.com]{}
bibliography:
- 'egbib.bib'
title: 'Context-Aware Zero-Shot Recognition'
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We classify almost homogeneous normal varieties of Albanese codimension $1$, defined over an arbitrary field. We prove that such a variety has a unique normal equivariant completion. Over a perfect field, the group scheme of automorphisms of this completion is smooth, except in one case in characteristic $2$, and we determine its (reduced) neutral component.'
author:
- 'Bruno Laurent [^1]'
title: Almost homogeneous varieties of Albanese codimension one
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
The varieties equipped with an action of an algebraic group and having a dense orbit are said to be almost homogeneous. Their classification is a challenging problem, for which one usually restricts to some subclasses of varieties. This can be done for example by imposing conditions on the acting groups: if we only take algebraic tori, then we get the so-called toric varieties, which have been intensively studied for the past fifty years. Instead of giving restrictions of the groups, we can also require some geometric conditions on the varieties.
For a smooth complex projective variety $X$, by Hodge symmetry the birational invariants $\dim H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X)$ and $\dim H^0(X,\Omega_X^1)$ are equal, and their common value is called the irregularity (for a curve, this is the genus). It is also the dimension of the Albanese variety ${\mathrm{Alb}(X)}$, which is an abelian variety with a universal morphism $X \to {\mathrm{Alb}(X)}$. Over an arbitrary field, these three integers make sense but they need not be equal. Nonetheless the dimension of the Albanese variety “behaves well” with respect to group actions, this is why we introduce the new invariant $\dim X - \dim {\mathrm{Alb}(X)}$, which we call the Albanese codimension.
If $X$ is a smooth projective curve of genus $g$ then ${\mathrm{Alb}(X)}$ is the Jacobian of $X$, so the Albanese codimension is $1-g$, which can be arbitrarily negatively large. However, if $X$ is an almost homogeneous variety then this is a non-negative integer. The case of Albanese codimension $0$ is easy: then the almost homogeneous varieties are homogeneous and are exactly the torsors under an abelian variety (see Proposition \[prop\_codim0\]). In this article, we focus on normal almost homogeneous varieties of Albanese codimension $1$, defined over an arbitrary field.
On the one hand, a central idea when studying algebraic varieties $X$ endowed with an action of an algebraic group $G$ is to find equivariant morphisms to “simpler” varieties. One of the main tools is the structure of equivariant morphisms to a homogeneous space: an equivariant morphism $X \to G/H$ makes $X$ be an associated fiber bundle (see [@BRI_anv Sect. 2.5] or Proposition \[prop\_assoc\_fiber\_bundle\]). If $X$ is almost homogeneous then the Albanese map $X \to {\mathrm{Alb}(X)}$ is an example of such a morphism, and in our situation its fibers have dimension $1$.
On the other hand, we can look for an equivariant completion $\overline{X}$ of $X$. In the article [@AHI2], and in the setting of smooth complex varieties and complex linear algebraic groups, Dmitry Ahiezer studied the case when the boundary $\overline{X} \setminus X$ is the union of homogeneous divisors. He proved that if such a completion $\overline{X}$ exists, then it is unique up to isomorphism. We obtain an analogous result in Proposition \[prop\_uniqueness\_completion\], for normal varieties and smooth connected algebraic groups over an arbitrary field.
Being of Albanese codimension $1$ has an interpretation in terms of completions: over an algebraically closed field, if a normal variety $X$ is almost homogeneous (and not proper) then its Albanese codimension is $1$ if and only if $X$ admits a normal equivariant completion $\overline{X}$ such that the complement of the open orbit consists of the union of homogeneous divisors which are abelian varieties (see Proposition \[prop\_equiv\_divhom\_Alb\]).
Even over an arbitrary field, we can be more precise about the equivariant completions.
\[theo\_unique\_compl\] Let $X$ be a normal variety of Albanese codimension $1$ and let $G$ be a smooth connected algebraic group. If $X$ is almost homogeneous under an action of $G$ then $X$ has a unique normal equivariant completion $\overline{X}$. Moreover $\overline{X}$ is projective and regular, and the boundary $\overline{X} \setminus X$ consists of zero, one or two (disjoint) $G$-homogeneous divisors.
In [@AHI1], Ahiezer proved that for a complex homogeneous variety $X$ under the action of a complex linear algebraic group (with no assumption on the Albanese codimension), the boundary $\overline{X} \setminus X$ has at most two connected components. If there are exactly two components then they are homogeneous; but one of them can be an isolated point, like for the standard action of ${\mathrm{GL}}_2$ on ${\mathbf{P}}^2$. Ahiezer also described the variety obtained by removing one of these components, and in particular the open orbit $X$ is a ${\mathbf{G}}_m$-torsor over some homogeneous projective variety $Y$. Then $X$ is the complement of the zero section of a linearized line bundle $\mathcal{L}$ over $Y$: for example, for the action of ${\mathrm{GL}}_2$ on ${\mathbf{P}}^2$, we have $X = {\mathbf{A}}^2 \setminus \{0\}$, the ${\mathbf{G}}_m$-torsor structure is given by the standard map ${\mathbf{A}}^2 \setminus \{0\} \to {\mathbf{P}}^1$ and $X$ is the completion of the zero section of the tautological line bundle on ${\mathbf{P}}^1$. Moreover $\overline{X}' = {\mathbf{P}}(\mathcal{L} \oplus \mathcal{O}_Y)$ is also a smooth equivariant completion and the boundary $\overline{X}' \setminus X$ consists of two homogeneous divisors. In [@AHI2], Ahiezer also studied the case where the boundary is one homogeneous divisor. In this situation, the completion is again a homogeneous fibration. We will recover this in our setting.
When trying to classify almost homogeneous varieties under a group, the simplest case to look at is when the variety is the group acting on itself by translations. Over a perfect field, a theorem of Claude Chevalley states that every smooth connected algebraic group $G$ sits in a unique exact sequence $1 \to H \to G \to A \to 1$ where $H$ is a smooth connected linear group and $A$ is an abelian variety (see [@CON]). The quotient $G \to A$ is the Albanese morphism. Therefore, $G$ has Albanese codimension $1$ if and only if it is an extension of an abelian variety by a smooth connected linear group of dimension $1$ (that is, a form of the multiplicative group ${\mathbf{G}}_m$ or the additive group ${\mathbf{G}}_a$).
Over an imperfect field, Chevalley’s theorem does not hold anymore. This leads to the notion of pseudo-abelian varieties, introduced by Burt Totaro: these are the smooth connected groups such that every smooth connected normal affine subgroup is trivial. Chevalley’s theorem implies that over a perfect field, every pseudo-abelian variety is an abelian variety. Over any imperfect field, Michel Raynaud first constructed in [@SGA3 Exp. XVII, Prop. C.5.1] counterexamples of large dimension, as Weil restrictions of abelian varieties. Totaro then found new classes of counterexamples, of arbitrary dimension, where the Albanese variety is an elliptic curve (see [@TOT Cor. 6.5]). In particular, there exist pseudo-abelian varieties of Albanese codimension $1$. Totaro also proved that every pseudo-abelian variety can be written as $(A \times H) / K$ where $A$ is an abelian variety, $K$ is a (commutative) finite subgroup scheme of $A$ and $H$ is an extension of a smooth connected unipotent group by $K$ (see [@TOT Lemma 6.2] for a precise statement). However, to the best of our knowledge, pseudo-abelian varieties are not fully classified, even in dimension $2$. Still, over an arbitrary field, we can give the following description (see Theorem \[theo\_class\_section\]).
Every smooth connected algebraic group of Albanese codimension $1$ is commutative. Moreover, $G$ is such a group if and only if one of the following cases holds:
1. The group $G$ is given by an extension $0 \to T \to G \to A \to 0$ where $T$ is a form of the multiplicative group ${\mathbf{G}}_m$ and $A$ is an abelian variety. In particular $G$ is a semi-abelian variety.
2. There exist a form $U$ of the additive group ${\mathbf{G}}_a$ and an abelian variety $A$ such that $G$ is given by an extension $0 \to U \to G \to A \to 0$.
3. The group $G$ is a pseudo-abelian variety such that we have an exact sequence $0 \to {\mathbf{G}}_{a,\overline{k}} \to G_{\overline{k}} \to B \to 0$ where $B$ is an abelian variety.
Our first examples of almost homogeneous varieties of Albanese codimension $1$ are some groups acting on themselves. By Theorem \[theo\_unique\_compl\], they admit a normal equivariant completion such that the boundary consists of homogeneous divisors. The variety obtained by possibly removing some divisors of the boundary is also almost homogeneous and of Albanese codimension $1$. The following theorem states that those are, up to the existence of a $k$-rational point, all the varieties we are interested in.
\[theo\_description\] Let $X$ be a normal variety of Albanese codimension $1$ and let $G$ be a smooth connected algebraic group acting faithfully on $X$. If $X$ is almost homogeneous then there exist a smooth connected subgroup $G' \leq G$ of Albanese codimension $1$ and a $G'$-stable open subscheme $X' \subseteq X$ which is a $G'$-torsor.
The normal $G$-equivariant completion of $X$ is the normal $G'$-equivariant completion of $X'$. Hence $X$ is obtained from the completion of a $G'$-torsor by removing some divisors of the boundary, and the acting group $G$ can be larger than $G'$. The possibilities for $G$ will be given in Theorem \[theo\_class\_section\].
It follows from the classification that, over an algebraically closed field, every proper normal almost homogeneous variety of Albanese codimension $1$ is the projectivization of a vector bundle of rank $2$ over the Albanese variety. In dimension $2$, we get a ruled surface over an elliptic curve. The automorphism group of a ruled surface was determined by Masaki Maruyama in [@MAR], by using explicit computations with coordinates. We give an analogous result in Theorem \[theo\_aut\], with a different approach. It turns out that, except in one case which only occurs in characteristic $2$, the automorphism group is smooth. The neutral component is then the expected one. The description of the full automorphism group is still an open problem.
The article is organized as follows. In Section \[sect\_preliminaries\] we recall some general results on the Albanese morphism. In particular, we prove that the Albanese codimension is invariant under algebraic field extensions (Proposition \[prop\_Albcodim\_field\_ext\]), and that the Albanese variety of a normal almost homogeneous variety is the Albanese variety of the dense orbit (Proposition \[prop\_Alb\_qhom\]). The equivariant completions of normal almost homogeneous varieties $X$ are studied in Section \[sect\_completion\]. Section \[sect\_class\] is dedicated to the classification in the case of Albanese codimension $1$. Finally, Section \[sect\_aut\] deals with the automorphism group of the completions.
#### Notations and conventions
We fix a base field $k$ and an algebraic closure $\overline{k}$. For all $k$-schemes $X$ and field extensions $K/k$, the base change $X \times_k \operatorname{Spec}K$ will be denoted by $X_K$.
All morphisms between $k$-schemes are morphisms over $k$. A variety over $k$ is a separated scheme of finite type over $\operatorname{Spec}k$ which is geometrically integral. A curve is a variety of dimension $1$. An algebraic group over $k$ is a group scheme of finite type over $\operatorname{Spec}k$. A subgroup of an algebraic group is a (closed) subgroup scheme.
For a proper variety $X$, we denote by ${\mathbf{Aut}_{X}}$ its group scheme of automorphisms. This is a group scheme locally of finite type, representing the functor which associates with every $k$-scheme $S$ the abstract group $\operatorname{Aut}_{S\textrm{-sch}}(X \times S)$ (see [@MO Th. 3.7]).
A variety $X$ is homogeneous under the action of a smooth connected algebraic group $G$ if and only if the abstract group $G(\overline{k})$ acts transitively on the set $X(\overline{k})$. If $X$ has a $k$-rational point $x$ then, equivalently, $X$ is isomorphic to $G / G_x$ where $G_x$ is the isotropy group of $x$
It is convenient to have a definition of homogeneity for schemes which may not be geometrically irreducible or geometrically reduced (for example, divisors on a variety). Let $Y$ be an integral scheme of finite type over $k$ and let $G$ be a smooth connected algebraic group acting on $Y$. We say that $Y$ is homogeneous if for every irreducible component $Z$ of $Y_{\overline{k}}$, the abstract group $G(\overline{k})$ acts transitively on $Z(\overline{k})$. This means that the reduced subscheme $Z_{\textrm{red}}$ is a homogeneous variety.
If $X$ is a variety equipped with an action of an algebraic group $G$ then an equivariant completion of $X$ is a proper variety $\overline{X}$ equipped with an action of $G$ on $\overline{X}$ and an equivariant open immersion $X \hookrightarrow \overline{X}$.
If $\mathcal{E}$ is a quasi-coherent sheaf on a base scheme $S$ then we can consider the Grothendieck projectivization $\pi : {\mathbf{P}}(\mathcal{E}) = \operatorname{Proj}(\operatorname{Sym}\mathcal{E}) \to S$. With this convention, the sections $\sigma : S \to {\mathbf{P}}(\mathcal{E})$ of $\pi$ are in bijective correspondence with the invertible sheaves $\mathcal{L}$ on $S$ equipped with a surjective morphism $\mathcal{E} \twoheadrightarrow \mathcal{L}$; the bijection is given by $\sigma \mapsto \sigma^* \mathcal{O}_{{\mathbf{P}}(\mathcal{E})}(1)$.
#### Acknowledgments
I gratefully thank Michel Brion and Stefan Schröer for very useful discussions and suggestions. This work was partially supported by the research training group *GRK 2240 Algebro-geometric Methods in Algebra, Arithmetic and Topology*.
Preliminaries on the Albanese variety {#sect_preliminaries}
=====================================
The Albanese morphism of a projective complex manifold is a well-known object. In [@SerreAlb], Jean-Pierre Serre proved its existence in the context of algebraic varieties over an algebraically closed field. Over an arbitrary field, we have the following.
[@WIT App. A], [@ACMV Th. A.5] Let $X$ be a variety. There exist an abelian variety ${\mathrm{Alb}_0(X)}$, a ${\mathrm{Alb}_0(X)}$-torsor ${\mathrm{Alb}_1(X)}$ and a morphism ${a_{X}} : X \to {\mathrm{Alb}_1(X)}$ satisfying the following universal property:
We call ${\mathrm{Alb}_0(X)}$ the Albanese variety of $X$ and ${a_{X}}$ the Albanese morphism.
The formation of ${\mathrm{Alb}_0(X)}$, ${\mathrm{Alb}_1(X)}$ and ${a_{X}}$ commutes with separable algebraic field extensions, as well as with finite products of algebraic varieties.
1. If $X$ has a $k$-rational point $x$ then the $k$-rational point ${a_{X}}(x)$ of ${\mathrm{Alb}_1(X)}$ induces an isomorphism ${\mathrm{Alb}_0(X)} \to {\mathrm{Alb}_1(X)}$. In this case, the Albanese variety is simply denoted by ${\mathrm{Alb}(X)}$, we have ${a_{X}}(x) = 0$ and the universal property becomes:
2. For regular varieties, the Albanese variety is a birational invariant (this follows from Weil’s extension theorem, see [@BLR 8.4 Cor. 6]). Proposition \[prop\_Alb\_qhom\] will give an analogous result for normal almost homogeneous varieties.
3. If $G$ is a smooth connected algebraic group acting on $X$ then it follows from the universal property of ${a_{G \times X}}$ that there exists a unique action of $G$ on ${\mathrm{Alb}_1(X)}$ such that ${a_{X}}$ is $G$-equivariant. Moreover, this action comes from the group morphism ${a_{G}} : G \to {\mathrm{Alb}(G)}$ and a unique action of ${\mathrm{Alb}(G)}$ on ${\mathrm{Alb}_1(X)}$.
Let $A$ be an abelian variety, let $\mathcal{E}$ be a locally free sheaf of finite rank $r \geq 1$ on $A$ and let $\pi : X = {\mathbf{P}}(\mathcal{E}) \to A$. Since $X$ is locally isomorphic to the trivial projective bundle and every morphism from ${\mathbf{P}}^{r-1}$ to an abelian variety is trivial, we see that $\pi$ is the Albanese morphism of $X$.
The formation of the Albanese variety commutes with separable algebraic field extensions, but this it not true for arbitrary algebraic field extensions. Indeed, if $G$ is a pseudo-abelian variety but not an abelian variety then the kernel of the Albanese morphism $G \to {\mathrm{Alb}(G)}$ is not smooth, while the kernel of $G_{\overline{k}} \to {\mathrm{Alb}(G_{\overline{k}})}$ is smooth (this follows from Proposition \[prop\_Rosenlicht\_decomp\]). In general, let $X$ be a variety and let $k'/k$ be a field extension. The universal property of the Albanese variety applied to $({a_{X}})_{k'} : X_{k'} \to {\mathrm{Alb}_1(X)}_{k'}$ gives a group morphism ${\varphi}: {\mathrm{Alb}_0(X_{k'})} \to {\mathrm{Alb}_0(X)}_{k'}$. In [@ACMV Lemma A.15], Jeffrey Achter, Sebastian Casalaina-Martin and Charles Vial give a precise description of ${\varphi}$ when $k'/k$ is a finite and purely inseparable extension; in this case, ${\varphi}$ is surjective and its kernel if connected. Actually, we can show that this kernel is infinitesimal.
\[prop\_Albcodim\_field\_ext\] Let $X$ be a variety and let $k'/k$ be an algebraic field extension. The natural morphism ${\mathrm{Alb}_0(X_{k'})} \to {\mathrm{Alb}_0(X)}_{k'}$ is a purely inseparable isogeny. In particular, $\dim {\mathrm{Alb}_0(X)}$ is invariant under algebraic field extensions.
We prove that we can assume that $k'/k$ is finite and purely inseparable, in order to use the result of Achter, Casalaina-Martin and Vial. The fact that the kernel is finite then follows from a simple argument.
Since the constructions commute with separable field extensions, we first can assume that $k'/k$ is purely inseparable and that $X$ has a $k$-rational point. Indeed, we start by taking the separable closure $k''$ of $k$ in $k'$. Since the extension $k''/k$ is separable, the morphism ${\mathrm{Alb}_0(X_{k''})} \to {\mathrm{Alb}_0(X)}_{k''}$ is an isomorphism. After extension of scalars, we get the isomorphism ${\mathrm{Alb}_0(X_{k''})}_{k'} \to {\mathrm{Alb}_0(X)}_{k'}$. Then ${\varphi}$ is the composed morphism ${\mathrm{Alb}_0(X_{k'})} \to {\mathrm{Alb}_0(X_{k''})}_{k'} \to {\mathrm{Alb}_0(X)}_{k'}$ (by uniqueness in the universal property), so that it suffices to show that ${\mathrm{Alb}_0(X_{k'})} \to {\mathrm{Alb}_0(X_{k''})}_{k'}$ is a purely inseparable isogeny. Hence we can replace $k$ with $k''$ and assume that $k'/k$ is purely inseparable. In this situation, the ring $K = k' \otimes_k k_s$ is a field, the extension $K/k'$ is separable and $K/k_s$ is purely inseparable. Let $\psi : {\mathrm{Alb}_0(X_K)} = {\mathrm{Alb}_0(X_{k'})}_K \to {\mathrm{Alb}_0(X)}_K = ({\mathrm{Alb}_0(X)}_{k'})_K$ be the morphism deduced from ${\varphi}$ after extension of scalars, so that ${\varphi}$ is a purely inseparable isogeny if and only if so is $\psi$. Then $\psi$ is also the morphism given by the universal property of the Albanese variety. Thus we can replace $k$ and $k'$ with $k_s$ and $K$.
We now reduce to the case where $k'/k$ is finite. Let $k_0/k$ be a finite subextension of $k'/k$ such that ${\mathrm{Alb}(X_{k'})}$ and ${a_{X_{k'}}} : X_{k'} \to {\mathrm{Alb}(X_{k'})}$ are defined over $k_0$: we have an abelian variety $A$ defined over $k_0$ and a morphism $f : X_{k_0} \to A$ such that $A_{k'} = {\mathrm{Alb}(X_{k'})}$ and the morphism deduced from $f$ after extension of scalars is ${a_{X_{k'}}}$. Then $f$ is the Albanese morphism of $X_{k_0}$, because by the universal property of ${a_{X_{k_0}}}$ the morphism $f$ factorizes as $X_{k_0} \to {\mathrm{Alb}(X_{k_0})} \to A$, and by construction after extension of scalars to $k'$ the morphism ${\mathrm{Alb}(X_{k_0})} \to A$ becomes an isomorphism so it is already an isomorphism over $k_0$. Moreover, ${\varphi}$ is deduced from the morphism ${\mathrm{Alb}(X_{k_0})} \to {\mathrm{Alb}(X)}_{k_0}$.
Therefore, we can assume that $k'/k$ is a finite (and purely inseparable). By [@ACMV Lemma A.15], ${\varphi}$ is surjective with connected kernel. It remains to show that this kernel is finite. By [@BRI_commut Lemma 3.10], there exist an abelian variety $B$ defined over $k$ and a purely inseparable isogeny $u : {\mathrm{Alb}(X_{k'})} \to B_{k'}$. But it follows from [@ACMV Lemma A.15] again that this isogeny factorizes as ${\mathrm{Alb}(X_{k'})} \stackrel{{\varphi}}{\to} {\mathrm{Alb}(X)}_{k'} \to B_{k'}$, so $\ker {\varphi}$ is a subgroup of $\ker u$.
The Albanese variety of a homogeneous variety can be easily described. We first need a result on algebraic groups.
\[prop\_Rosenlicht\_decomp\][@BRI_structure Th. 3.2.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.4 and 5.1.1] Let $G$ be a smooth connected algebraic group.
1. There exists a smallest normal subgroup ${G_{\textrm{aff}}}$ such that the quotient $G / {G_{\textrm{aff}}}$ is an abelian variety. The Albanese morphism of $G$ is the quotient morphism $ G \to G / {G_{\textrm{aff}}}$. The subgroup ${G_{\textrm{aff}}}$ is affine and connected, and its formation commutes with algebraic separable field extensions. If the base field $k$ is perfect then ${G_{\textrm{aff}}}$ is smooth.
2. There exists a smallest normal subgroup ${G_{\textrm{ant}}}$ such that the quotient $G / {G_{\textrm{ant}}}$ is affine. The subgroup ${G_{\textrm{ant}}}$ is anti-affine (that is, $\mathcal{O}({G_{\textrm{aff}}}) = k$), smooth, connected and central in $G$, and its formation commutes with arbitrary field extensions.
3. We have the Rosenlicht decomposition $G = {G_{\textrm{ant}}} \cdot {G_{\textrm{aff}}}$.
\[prop\_Alb\_hom\][@BRI_nonaffine Sect. 3] Let $X$ be a variety which is homogeneous under the action of a smooth connected algebraic group $G$. If $X$ has a $k$-rational point $x$ then ${\mathrm{Alb}(X)} = G / ({G_{\textrm{aff}}} \cdot G_x)$ and the Albanese morphism is the quotient morphism $X \simeq G / G_x \to G / ({G_{\textrm{aff}}} \cdot G_x)$.
\[prop\_Alb\_qhom\] Let $X$ be a variety which is almost homogeneous under the action of a smooth connected algebraic group $G$, and let $U$ be a $G$-stable open subscheme of $X$.
1. The natural morphisms ${\mathrm{Alb}_1(U)} \to {\mathrm{Alb}_1(X)}$ and ${\mathrm{Alb}_0(U)} \to {\mathrm{Alb}_0(X)}$ are surjective.
2. The Albanese codimension of $X$ is non-negative, and is greater or equal to that of $U$.
3. If moreover $X$ normal then ${\mathrm{Alb}_1(U)} \to {\mathrm{Alb}_1(X)}$ and ${\mathrm{Alb}_0(U)} \to {\mathrm{Alb}_0(X)}$ are isomorphisms.
It suffices to treat the case where $U$ is the open orbit, so that ${a_{U}}$ is surjective. Let $i : U \to X$ be the inclusion. By the universal property of ${a_{U}}$, there exists a unique morphism ${\mathrm{Alb}_1(i)}$ such that the square
(m)\[matrix of math nodes, row sep=2.5em, column sep=2.5em, text height=1.5ex, text depth=0.25ex, minimum width=3em, anchor=base, ampersand replacement=&\] [U & X\
[\_1(U)]{} & [\_1(X)]{}\
]{}; (m-1-1) edge node\[above\] [$i$]{}(m-1-2); (m-1-1) edge node\[left\] [${a_{U}}$]{}(m-2-1); (m-2-1) edge node\[below\] [${\mathrm{Alb}_1(i)}$]{}(m-2-2); (m-1-2) edge node\[right\] [${a_{X}}$]{}(m-2-2);
is commutative and a unique group morphism ${\mathrm{Alb}_0(i)} : {\mathrm{Alb}_0(U)} \to {\mathrm{Alb}_0(X)}$ such that ${\mathrm{Alb}_1(i)}$ is equivariant. Since the different constructions commute with separable field extensions, we can assume that $U$ has a $k$-rational point $x$, and simply write ${\mathrm{Alb}(U)}$, ${\mathrm{Alb}(X)}$ and ${\mathrm{Alb}(i)}$.
The image of ${\mathrm{Alb}(U)} \to {\mathrm{Alb}(X)}$ is an abelian subvariety $A$ of ${\mathrm{Alb}(X)}$. Since $U$ is scheme-theoretically dense in $X$ and ${a_{U}}$ is surjective, $A$ is the scheme-theoretic image of ${a_{X}}$. Then the restriction $X \to A$ satisfies the universal property of the Albanese map, so $A = {\mathrm{Alb}(X)}$. Hence ${\mathrm{Alb}(U)} \to {\mathrm{Alb}(X)}$ is indeed surjective and $\dim X - \dim {\mathrm{Alb}(X)} \geq \dim U - \dim {\mathrm{Alb}(U)} \geq 0$.
The statement for a normal $X$ is given in the proof of [@BRI_nonaffine Th. 3] when the base field is algebraically closed. Using results of the article [@BRI_anv], we see that it remains valid over an arbitrary field. For the seek of completeness, we recall the arguments. It suffices to show that the rational map $X \dashrightarrow {\mathrm{Alb}(U)}$ induced by ${a_{U}} : U \to {\mathrm{Alb}(U)}$ is defined everywhere, because it is easily checked that it is then a morphism satisfying the universal property of ${a_{X}}$. The variety $X$ is normal so by [@BRI_anv Th. 1] it is covered by $G$-stable quasi-projective open subsets (which contain $U$). Hence we can assume that $X$ is quasi-projective. Since the composed map $X \dashrightarrow {\mathrm{Alb}(U)} \xrightarrow{{\mathrm{Alb}(i)}} {\mathrm{Alb}(X)}$ is defined everywhere, by a version of Zariski’s Main Theorem it suffices to prove that the morphism ${\mathrm{Alb}(i)}$ is finite.
The action of $G$ on $U$ induces a group morphism $f_0 : {\mathrm{Alb}(G)} \to {\mathrm{Alb}(U)}$ such that the square
(m)\[matrix of math nodes, row sep=2.5em, column sep=2.5em, text height=1.5ex, text depth=0.25ex, minimum width=3em, anchor=base, ampersand replacement=&\] [G U & U\
[(U)]{} [(U)]{} & [(U)]{}\
]{}; (m-1-1) edge (m-1-2); (m-1-1) edge node\[left\] [$f_0 \times {a_{U}}$]{}(m-2-1); (m-2-1) edge (m-2-2); (m-1-2) edge node\[right\] [${a_{U}}$]{}(m-2-2);
is commutative (where the bottom morphism is the group law of ${\mathrm{Alb}(U)}$). Similarly, we have a group morphism $f : {\mathrm{Alb}(G)} \to {\mathrm{Alb}(X)}$, and it agrees with the composed morphism ${\mathrm{Alb}(G)} \xrightarrow{f_0} {\mathrm{Alb}(U)} \xrightarrow{{\mathrm{Alb}(i)}} {\mathrm{Alb}(X)}$. The morphism $f_0$ is the quotient $\dfrac{G}{{G_{\textrm{aff}}}} \to \dfrac{G}{{G_{\textrm{aff}}} \cdot G_x}$ so its kernel $\dfrac{{G_{\textrm{aff}}} \cdot G_x}{{G_{\textrm{aff}}}} \simeq \dfrac{{G_{\textrm{aff}}}}{{G_{\textrm{aff}}} \cap G_x}$ is affine (as a quotient of ${G_{\textrm{aff}}}$) and proper (as a subgroup of ${\mathrm{Alb}(G)}$) hence it is finite. So $f_0$ is a finite morphism. The key point is that $f$ is finite too, and this is given by [@BRI_anv Cor. 3]. Therefore ${\mathrm{Alb}(i)}$ has finite kernel, and as expected it is a finite morphism.
In particular, the Albanese torsor ${\mathrm{Alb}_1(X)}$ is homogeneous under an action of $G$ and the Albanese morphism $X \to {\mathrm{Alb}_1(X)}$ is surjective and equivariant. We will often use this in the sequel, together with Proposition \[prop\_assoc\_fiber\_bundle\].
\[prop\_codim0\] Let $X$ be a variety of Albanese codimension $0$ and let $G$ be a smooth connected algebraic group. Then $X$ is almost homogeneous under a faithful action of $G$ if and only if $G$ is an abelian variety and $X$ is a $G$-torsor.
Assume that $X$ is almost homogeneous. We can assume that $k$ is algebraically closed, so that the open orbit is isomorphic to $G / G_x$ for some $x \in X(k)$. The Albanese variety of $X$ is then $G / ({G_{\textrm{aff}}} \cdot G_x)$. By assumption, we have $\dim G_x = \dim {G_{\textrm{aff}}} \cdot G_x$. Taking the neutral components, we get $\dim (G_x)^\circ = \dim {G_{\textrm{aff}}} \cdot (G_x)^\circ$, so that $(G_x)_{\textrm{red}}^\circ = {G_{\textrm{aff}}} \cdot (G_x)_{\textrm{red}}^\circ$. Hence ${G_{\textrm{aff}}}$ is a subgroup of the smooth connected group $(G_x)_{\textrm{red}}^\circ$, and in particular a subgroup of $G_x$. But ${G_{\textrm{aff}}}$ is a normal subgroup of $G$ and $G$ acts faithfully on $G/G_x$, so ${G_{\textrm{aff}}}$ is trivial. Therefore $G$ is an abelian variety. As the action is faithful, the subgroup $G_x$ is trivial. The open orbit is thus a proper variety (isomorphic to $G$), so it is closed in $X$ and it is the whole $X$.
Equivariant completions {#sect_completion}
=======================
We recall an important observation on equivariant morphisms to homogeneous spaces. We will apply it to the Albanese morphism in order to study the completions of almost homogeneous varieties.
\[prop\_assoc\_fiber\_bundle\][@BRI_anv Sect. 2.5] Let $X$ be a variety and let $G$ be an algebraic group acting on $X$. Let $f : X \to G/H$ be a $G$-equivariant morphism where $H$ is a subgroup of $G$. Let $C = f^{-1}(0)$ be the fiber at the base point of $G/H$. Then the square
(m)\[matrix of math nodes, row sep=2.5em, column sep=2.5em, text height=1.5ex, text depth=0.25ex, minimum width=3em, anchor=base, ampersand replacement=&\] [G C & G\
X & G/H\
]{}; (m-1-1) edge node\[above\] [$\operatorname{pr}_{1}$]{}(m-1-2); (m-1-1) edge (m-2-1); (m-2-1) edge node\[below\] [$f$]{}(m-2-2); (m-1-2) edge (m-2-2);
is cartesian, where the left arrow is the restriction of the action $G \times X \to X$. We say that $X$ is the associated fiber bundle and we denote it by $X = G \stackrel{H}{\times} C$.
Moreover, if $M$ is an ample $H$-linearized line bundle on $C$ then $L = G \stackrel{H}{\times} M$ exists and is an $f$-ample $G$-linearized line bundle on $X$.
Let $X$ be a normal variety of Albanese codimension $1$, which is almost homogeneous under the action of a smooth connected algebraic group $G$. Then $X$ has a $G$-linearizable line bundle which is ample relatively to ${a_{X}} : X \to {\mathrm{Alb}_1(X)}$. In particular $X$ is quasi-projective.
By extending scalars to some finite separable algebraic field extension $k'/k$ if necessary, we can assume that the open orbit has a $k$-rational point $x$. Indeed, we can adapt the arguments of [@BRI_anv Lemma 2.10]. Assume that $L'$ is a linearizable line on $X_{k'}$ which is ample relatively to ${a_{X_{k'}}} : X_{k'} \to {\mathrm{Alb}_1(X_{k'})} = {\mathrm{Alb}_1(X)}_{k'}$. Consider the norm $L = N_{k'/k}(L')$. By [@BRI_anv Lemma 2.2] this is a linearizable line bundle on $X$. Moreover, by [@EGA II, Prop. 4.6.13.ii and Prop. 6.6.1], $L$ is ample relatively to ${a_{X}}$.
The Albanese variety is ${\mathrm{Alb}(X)} = G/H$ where $H = {G_{\textrm{aff}}} \cdot G_x$. Let $C= {a_{X}}^{-1}(0)$ be the fiber at the base point of $G/H$. The main idea of the proof is that, since $C$ has dimension $1$, it has an ample line bundle. In order to use Proposition \[prop\_assoc\_fiber\_bundle\], we need an $H$-linearizable line bundle. The situation would be nice if $C$ were normal because, as $H$ is an affine algebraic group, some power of any line bundle on $C$ would be linearizable. Hence, our goal is to reduce to the case where $C$ is normal. This is done by reducing to the case where $H$ is smooth.
For $n \geq 0$, we denote by $G_n$ the kernel of the iterated Frobenius morphism $F^n : G \to G^{(p^n)}$. We have $H_n = H \cap G_n$ and, for $n$ large enough, the quotient $H/H_n$ is smooth (see [@SGA3 Exp. VII A, Prop. 8.3]). By [@BRI_anv Lemma 2.5], there exists a categorical quotient $f : X \to X/G_n$ which is finite, and $X/G_n$ is a normal variety. Moreover, by [@BRI_anv Lemma 2.8], there exists a unique action of $G/G_n$ on $X/G_n$ such that $f$ is equivariant with respect to $G \to G/G_n$. If $L'$ is an ample line bundle on $X/G_n$ then, since $f$ is affine, the pullback $L = f^* L'$ is an ample line bundle on $X$. Moreover, the morphism $f$ is equivariant so the pullback of a $G/G_n$ linearization of $L'$ is a $G$-linearization of $L$.
The morphism ${a_{X}} : X \to \dfrac{G}{H}$ is $G$-equivariant so it factorizes as a $G/G_n$-equivariant morphism $b : X/G_n \to \left(\dfrac{G}{H}\right)/G_n \simeq \dfrac{G}{H \cdot G_n} \simeq \dfrac{G/G_n}{H/H_n}$. We have $\dim \dfrac{G/G_n}{H/H_n} = \dim \dfrac{G}{H} = \dim X-1 = \dim (X/G_n) - 1$ so the fiber $b^{-1}(0)$ has dimension $1$. Therefore, we can assume that $H$ is smooth.
Then the morphism $G \to G/H$ is smooth (see [@BRI_structure Prop. 2.6.5]) so by base change the morphism $G \times C \to X$ is smooth too. Since $X$ is a normal variety, $G \times C$ is normal too, as well as $C$ (see [@EGA IV4, Prop. 17.3.3]). Finally, let $M$ be an ample line bundle on $C$. By [@BRI_anv Lemma 2.9 and Prop. 2.12], there exists some power of $M$ which is $H$-linearizable and we can use Proposition \[prop\_assoc\_fiber\_bundle\].
This enables us to consider equivariant completions of $X$. Indeed, we can use the following general result, which is a direct consequence of [@BRI_anv Th. 2].
Every normal quasi-projective variety, equipped with an action of a smooth connected algebraic group, admits a normal equivariant completion.
\[prop\_uniqueness\_completion\] Let $X$ be a normal variety and let $G$ be a smooth connected algebraic group acting on $X$. If $\overline{X}$ is a normal equivariant completion of $X$ such that the boundary $\overline{X} \setminus X$ is the union of $G$-homogeneous divisors then $\overline{X}$ is unique up to isomorphism. Moreover if $X$ is regular then so is $\overline{X}$.
The proof of Proposition \[prop\_uniqueness\_completion\] follows an idea of Ahiezer, given in [@AHI2] in the setting of complex algebraic varieties. We need the two following well-known lemmas, for which we found no suitable reference.
Let $Y$ and $Y'$ be varieties, let $G$ be a smooth connected algebraic group acting on $Y$ and $Y'$, and let $f : Y \dashrightarrow Y'$ be an equivariant rational map. The domain of definition of $f$ is a $G$-stable open subscheme of $Y$.
We set $U = \operatorname{dom}(f)$. We denote by $\alpha : G \times Y \to Y$ and $\alpha' : G \times Y' \to Y'$ the two actions, and by $\iota : G \to G$ the inverse map. We want to prove $\alpha^{-1}(U) = G \times U$. Since $f$ is equivariant, the two rational maps $\operatorname{id}_G \times f : G \times Y \dashrightarrow G \times Y'$ and $$\left\{\begin{array}[c]{ccccccc}G \times Y & \xrightarrow{(\operatorname{id}_G,\alpha)} & G \times Y & { \mathrel{ \mathpalette{{ \sbox0{$\ifxi\scriptstyle\scriptscriptstyle\else\scriptstyle\fi@r\m@th$} \sbox2{$\ifxi\scriptstyle\scriptscriptstyle\else\scriptstyle\fi@\operatorname{id}_G \times fr\m@th$} \sbox4{$i\dabar@\m@th$} \dimen@=\wd0 \ifdim\wd2 >\dimen@
\dimen@=\wd2 \fi
\count@=2 \def\da@bars{\dabar@\dabar@} \@whiledim\count@\wd4<\dimen@\do{ \advance\count@\@ne
\expandafter\def\expandafter\da@bars\expandafter{ \da@bars
\dabar@
} } \mathrel{} \mathrel{ \mathop{\da@bars}\limits
\ifx\\#1\\ \else
_{\copy0} \fi
\ifx\\#2\\ \else
^{\copy2} \fi
} \mathrel{\da}}ghtarrow{\,}{}}{} }} & G \times Y' & \xrightarrow{\operatorname{id}_G \times (\alpha' \circ (\iota, \operatorname{id}_Y))} & G \times Y' \\ (g,y) & \xmapsto{\hphantom{(\operatorname{id}_G,\alpha)}} & (g,gy) & {\mathrel{\mapstochar{ \mathrel{ \mathpalette{{ \sbox0{$\ifxi\scriptstyle\scriptscriptstyle\else\scriptstyle\fi@r\m@th$} \sbox2{$\ifxi\scriptstyle\scriptscriptstyle\else\scriptstyle\fi@\hphantom{\operatorname{id}_G \times f}r\m@th$} \sbox4{$i\dabar@\m@th$} \dimen@=\wd0 \ifdim\wd2 >\dimen@
\dimen@=\wd2 \fi
\count@=2 \def\da@bars{\dabar@\dabar@} \@whiledim\count@\wd4<\dimen@\do{ \advance\count@\@ne
\expandafter\def\expandafter\da@bars\expandafter{ \da@bars
\dabar@
} } \mathrel{} \mathrel{ \mathop{\da@bars}\limits
\ifx\\#1\\ \else
_{\copy0} \fi
\ifx\\#2\\ \else
^{\copy2} \fi
} \mathrel{\da}}ghtarrow{\,}{}}{} }}}} & (g,f(gy)) & \xmapsto{\hphantom{\operatorname{id}_G \times (\alpha' \circ (\iota, \operatorname{id}_Y))}} & (g,g^{-1} f(gy)) \end{array}\right.$$ agree, so they have the same domain of definition. On the one hand, the composite map $\operatorname{pr}_1 \circ (\operatorname{id}_G \times f) : G \times Y \to G$ is defined everywhere and agrees with $\operatorname{pr}_1 : G \times Y \to G$, so the domain of definition of $\operatorname{id}_G \times f$ is the one of $\operatorname{pr}_2 \circ (\operatorname{id}_G \times f) : G \times Y \dashrightarrow Y'$. Moreover $\operatorname{pr}_2 \circ (\operatorname{id}_G \times f) = f \circ \operatorname{pr}_2$. Hence by [@EGA IV4, Prop. 20.3.11 p242] we have $\operatorname{dom}(\operatorname{id}_G \times f) = \operatorname{dom}(\operatorname{pr}_2 \circ f) = \operatorname{pr}_2^{-1}(\operatorname{dom}(f)) = G \times U$. On the other hand, the morphism $\operatorname{id}_G \times (\alpha' \circ (\iota, \operatorname{id}_Y))$ is an automorphism so $\operatorname{dom}(\operatorname{id}_G \times f) = \operatorname{dom}((\operatorname{id}_G \times f) \circ (\operatorname{id}_G,\alpha)) = (\operatorname{id}_G,\alpha)^{-1} (\operatorname{dom}(\operatorname{id}_G \times f)) = (\operatorname{id}_G,\alpha)^{-1} (G \times U) = \alpha^{-1}(U)$.
Let $Y$ be a variety and let $G$ be a smooth connected algebraic group acting on $Y$. The regular locus of $Y$ is a $G$-stable open subscheme of $Y$.
We denote by $U = {Y_{\textrm{reg}}}$ the regular locus and by $\alpha : G \times Y \to Y$ the action. Since $\alpha$ is an open morphism, the image $V$ of $G \times U$ is a open subscheme of $Y$; it contains $U$ because the neutral element acts trivially. The restriction $\beta : G \times U \to V$ is flat since so is $\alpha$. The variety $G \times U$ is regular as $G$ is smooth and $U$ is regular (see [@EGA IV2, Prop. 6.8.5 p152]), ans so $V$ is regular too (see [@EGA IV2, Cor. 6.5.2 p143]). But $U$ is the largest regular open subscheme of $Y$, so $V = U$.
Assume that we have two such normal completions $\overline{X}$ and $\overline{X}'$. It suffices to show that the rational map $f : \overline{X} \dashrightarrow \overline{X}'$ induced by $\operatorname{id}: X \to X$ is defined everywhere (because so is the analogous map $f' : \overline{X}' \dashrightarrow \overline{X}$, hence $f' \circ f$ and $f \circ f'$ are morphisms defined everywhere which agree with $\operatorname{id}$ on $X$, so $f$ is an isomorphism). By assumption, $f$ is equivariant so its domain of definition $U$ is a $G$-stable open subscheme of $\overline{X}$ containing $X$. The variety $\overline{X}$ is normal and $\overline{X}'$ is proper, so $\operatorname{codim}_{\overline{X}} (\overline{X} \setminus U) \geq 2$. Then for every divisor $D$ in the boundary $\overline{X} \setminus X$ we have $U \cap D \neq \emptyset$, so $D \subseteq U$ because $D$ is homogeneous. Therefore $U = \overline{X}$.
Assume that $X$ is regular. Since the regular locus ${\overline{X}_{\textrm{reg}}}$ is a $G$-stable open subscheme of $\overline{X}$ containing $X$ and $\operatorname{codim}_{\overline{X}} (\overline{X} \setminus {\overline{X}_{\textrm{reg}}}) \geq 2$, the same argument shows that $\overline{X}$ is regular.
\[prop\_equiv\_divhom\_Alb\] Assume that $k$ is algebraically closed. Let $X$ be a non-proper variety and let $G$ be a smooth connected algebraic group acting faithfully on $X$ such that $X$ is homogeneous. Then the Albanese codimension of $X$ is $1$ if and only if there exists a normal equivariant completion $\overline{X}$ such that the boundary $\overline{X} \setminus X$ is the union of finitely many $G$-homogeneous divisors which are abelian varieties.
We first assume that such a $\overline{X}$ exists. In order to prove that the fibers of the Albanese morphism have dimension $1$, we will prove that the intersection of a fiber with a divisor in the boundary has codimension $1$ in the fiber, and that it consists of finitely many points.
We set $A = {\mathrm{Alb}(X)}$. If we choose $x \in X(k)$, by Propositions \[prop\_Alb\_hom\] and \[prop\_Alb\_qhom\] we have ${\mathrm{Alb}(\overline{X})} = A = G / ({G_{\textrm{aff}}} \cdot G_x)$ and the Albanese morphism ${a_{X}} : X \to A$ is the restriction of the $G$-equivariant morphism ${a_{\overline{X}}} : \overline{X} \to A$. We consider the fiber $\overline{C} = {a_{\overline{X}}}^{-1}(0)$ where $0$ is the neutral element of $A$. This is a closed subscheme of $\overline{X}$ which is stable under the action of ${G_{\textrm{aff}}} \cdot G_x$. The square
(m)\[matrix of math nodes, row sep=2.5em, column sep=2.5em, text height=1.5ex, text depth=0.25ex, minimum width=3em, anchor=base, ampersand replacement=&\] [G & G\
& A\
]{}; (m-1-1) edge node\[above\] [$\operatorname{pr}_{1}$]{}(m-1-2); (m-1-1) edge (m-2-1); (m-2-1) edge node\[below\] [${a_{\overline{X}}}$]{}(m-2-2); (m-1-2) edge (m-2-2);
is cartesian, where the left arrow is the restriction of the action $G \times \overline{X} \to \overline{X}$.
Let $D$ be a divisor in the boundary. Then $D \cap \overline{C}$ has codimension $1$ in $\overline{C}$: indeed the morphism $G \times \overline{C} \to \overline{X}$ is faithfully flat and $D$ has codimension $1$ in $\overline{X}$ so the scheme-theoretic preimage $G \times (D \cap \overline{C})$ has codimension $1$ in $G \times \overline{C}$ (see [@EGA IV2, Cor. 6.1.4]).
By assumption, the abstract group $({G_{\textrm{aff}}} \cdot G_x)(k)$ acts transitively on the set $D(k) \cap \overline{C}(k)$. But $D$ is an abelian variety so $\operatorname{Aut}_D^\circ = D$ ($D$ is an algebraic group acting on itself by translation), so the affine group ${G_{\textrm{aff}}}$ acts trivially on $D$. Moreover $\dim {G_{\textrm{aff}}} \cdot G_x = \dim {G_{\textrm{aff}}}$: by [@BRI_nonaffine Lemma 2.1] the group $G_x$ is affine so $(G_x)_{\textrm{red}}^\circ$ is a smooth connected affine group, hence its image in the abelian variety $G / {G_{\textrm{aff}}}$ is trivial. Then the set $D(k) \cap \overline{C}(k)$ consists of finitely many points and therefore $\dim \overline{C} = 1$. Conversely, assume that the Albanese codimension of $X$ is $1$. Let $\overline{X}$ be a normal equivariant completion. First, the fiber $\overline{C}$ is irreducible. Indeed, let $F$ be the closure of $C = {a_{X}}^{-1}(0)$ in $\overline{C}$. If $V = \overline{C} \setminus F$ is not empty then it is an open subscheme of $\overline{C}$. As the restriction $\alpha : G \times \overline{C} \to \overline{X}$ of the action is flat, the image $\alpha(G \times V)$ is a $G$-stable open subscheme of $\overline{X}$. Then $\alpha(G \times V)$ contains the open orbit $X$, which is impossible. So, as expected, $\overline{C}$ is supported by $F$ and is irreducible.
Hence the complement of $C$ in $\overline{C}$ consists of finitely many $k$-rational points. The boundary $\overline{X} \setminus X$ is the union of the orbits of those points under $G$. Such a point $y$ is fixed by ${G_{\textrm{aff}}}$, because its orbit under ${G_{\textrm{aff}}}$ is smooth, connected and contained in $\overline{C} \setminus C$. Because of the Rosenlicht decomposition $G = {G_{\textrm{ant}}} \cdot {G_{\textrm{aff}}}$, the orbit $D$ of $y$ under $G$ is the orbit under ${G_{\textrm{ant}}}$. The group ${G_{\textrm{ant}}}$ is commutative so $D$ carries a structure of a smooth connected algebraic group with neutral element $y$. Then the restriction $D \to A$ of ${a_{\overline{X}}}$ is a group morphism (see [@BRI_structure Prop. 4.1.4]). Moreover $A$ is $G$-homogeneous so the ($G$-equivariant) morphism $D \to A$ is surjective. Furthermore, the isotropy group $G_{y}$ contains ${G_{\textrm{aff}}}$ and is contained in ${G_{\textrm{aff}}} \cdot G_x$ but those two groups have the same dimension, so $\dim D = \dim G / G_{y} = \dim A$. Hence the morphism $D \to A$ is an isogeny and $D$ is an abelian variety.
We can now prove Theorem \[theo\_unique\_compl\], which we state again for the convenience of the reader.
Let $X$ be a normal variety of Albanese codimension $1$ and let $G$ be a smooth connected algebraic group. If $X$ is almost homogeneous under a faithful action of $G$ then $X$ has a unique normal equivariant completion $\overline{X}$. Moreover $\overline{X}$ is projective and regular, and the boundary $\overline{X} \setminus X$ consists of zero, one or two (disjoint) $G$-homogeneous divisors.
We may assume that the open orbit $X_0$ is not projective. Let $\overline{X}$ be a normal projective equivariant completion of $X$. We first assume that $k$ is algebraically closed. We saw in the proof of Proposition \[prop\_equiv\_divhom\_Alb\] that the boundary $\overline{X} \setminus X_0$ is the union of $G$-homogeneous divisors, which are the $G$-orbits of the points in $\overline{C} \setminus C_0$ (with the obvious notations). In particular $\overline{X}$ is unique and regular. Moreover the curve $C_0$ is homogeneous under the action of ${G_{\textrm{aff}}}$, so $\overline{C} \setminus C_0$ consists of at most two points (see [@LAU Th. 1.1]).
We now come back to an arbitrary field $k$. We set $Y = \overline{X}$ and denote by $\widetilde{Y_{\overline{k}}}$ the normalization of $Y_{\overline{k}}$. There exists a unique action of $G_{\overline{k}}$ on $\widetilde{Y_{\overline{k}}}$ such that the morphism $\widetilde{Y_{\overline{k}}} \to Y_{\overline{k}}$ is $G_{\overline{k}}$-equivariant. Then $\widetilde{Y_{\overline{k}}}$ is the unique normal equivariant completion of $X_{\overline{k}}$, so $\widetilde{Y_{\overline{k}}} \setminus (X_0)_{\overline{k}}$ consists of one or two $G_{\overline{k}}$-homogeneous divisors. Therefore $Y_{\overline{k}} \setminus (X_0)_{\overline{k}}$ also consists of one or two $G_{\overline{k}}$-homogeneous divisors, and $Y \setminus X_0$ consists of one or two $G$-homogeneous divisors.
Classification results {#sect_class}
======================
In this section, we classify the almost homogeneous normal varieties of Albanese codimension $1$. We first prove the Theorem \[theo\_description\] of the introduction.
\[theo\_orbit\_torsor\] Let $X$ be a normal variety of Albanese codimension $1$ and let $G$ be a smooth connected algebraic group acting faithfully on $X$. Then $X$ is almost homogeneous if and only if there exist a smooth connected subgroup $G' \leq G$ of Albanese codimension $1$ and a $G'$-stable open subscheme $X' \subseteq X$ which is a $G'$-torsor.
It suffices to prove that there exists a commutative smooth connected subgroup $G' \leq G$ under which $X$ is almost homogeneous. Indeed, in this case the open $G'$-orbit must be a $G'$-torsor (as the action is faithful) and hence the Albanese codimension of $G'$ is $1$. We can assume that $G$ is not commutative. Equivalently, the derived subgroup $D(G)$ (which is smooth and connected) is not trivial.
Let us first prove that $X$ is almost homogeneous under ${G_{\textrm{ant}}} \cdot D(G)$. It suffices to prove that $X_{\overline{k}}$ is almost homogeneous under $({G_{\textrm{ant}}} \cdot D(G))_{\overline{k}}$ and, since the formation of ${G_{\textrm{ant}}}$ and $D(G)$ commutes with field extensions, we can assume that $k$ is algebraically closed. Let $X_0$ be the open $G$-orbit in $X$, let $x \in X_0(k)$ and let $A = {\mathrm{Alb}(X)} = {\mathrm{Alb}(X_0)}$. The fiber $C = {a_{X_0}}^{-1}(0)$ is isomorphic to $({G_{\textrm{aff}}} \cdot G_x) / G_x \simeq {G_{\textrm{aff}}} / ({G_{\textrm{aff}}} \cap G_x)$ so it is a smooth curve. We have the Rosenlicht decomposition $G = {G_{\textrm{ant}}} \cdot {G_{\textrm{aff}}}$. Since ${\mathbf{Aut}_{A}}^\circ = A$ has no non-trivial smooth connected affine subgroup, the action of ${G_{\textrm{aff}}}$ on $A$ is trivial. Therefore $A$ is homogeneous under the action of ${G_{\textrm{ant}}}$ and $C$ is stable under the action of ${G_{\textrm{aff}}}$ (and in particular under the action of $D(G)$). If $D(G)$ fixes a point $y \in C(k)$ then it is contained in the isotropy group $G_y$, which is impossible since $D(G)$ is normal in $G$ and $G$ acts faithfully on $X_0 \simeq G / G_y$. So $D(G)$ has no fixed point in $C$, hence $C$ is homogeneous under the action of $D(G)$. Therefore $X_0$ is homogeneous under the action of ${G_{\textrm{ant}}} \cdot D(G)$
If $T$ is a non-trivial torus in $D(G)$ then we claim that $X$ is almost homogeneous under the commutative smooth connected subgroup ${G_{\textrm{ant}}} \cdot T$. Indeed, we can again assume that $k$ is algebraically closed. The action of $T$ on $C$ cannot be trivial, otherwise $T$ would act trivially on $X_0$, in contradiction with the faithfulness of the action of $G$ on $X_0$. As $C$ is a reduced curve, this implies that $T$ has an open orbit $U$ in $C$. By Proposition \[prop\_assoc\_fiber\_bundle\] the restriction ${G_{\textrm{ant}}} \times C \to X_0$ of the action is an open morphism, so that the image of ${G_{\textrm{ant}}} \times U$ is an open $({G_{\textrm{ant}}} \cdot T)$-orbit.
If $D(G)$ contains no non-trivial torus then it is a unipotent group. There exists an integer $i \geq 1$ such that the iterated derived subgroup $D^i(G)$ is non-trivial while $D^{i+1}(G) = 0$. Then $X$ is almost homogeneous under the commutative smooth connected subgroup ${G_{\textrm{ant}}} \cdot D^i(G)$.
Now we know what are the possible varieties, but we still have to determine all the acting groups $G$. For this, is suffices to focus on homogeneous varieties (by considering the open orbit).
\[lemma\_torsor\_or\_proj\] Let $X$ be a variety of Albanese codimension $1$ and let $G$ be a smooth connected algebraic group acting faithfully on $X$. If $X$ is homogeneous and $G$ is minimal for that property (that is, $G$ contains no smooth connected strict subgroup under which $X$ is homogeneous) then either $G$ is commutative and $X$ is a $G$-torsor, or $X$ is projective.
We can assume that $G$ is not commutative. We saw in the proof of Theorem \[theo\_orbit\_torsor\] that $X$ is then homogeneous under the action of ${G_{\textrm{ant}}} \cdot D(G)$. By minimality $G = {G_{\textrm{ant}}} \cdot D(G)$ and $D(D(G)) = D(G)$. In order to prove that $X$ is projective, we can assume that $k$ is algebraically closed. With the above notations, $C$ is a smooth curve homogeneous under $D(G)$. Moreover the action of $D(G)$ on $C$ is faithful because its kernel is normal in $D(G)$, but $G = {G_{\textrm{ant}}} \cdot D(G)$ and ${G_{\textrm{ant}}}$ is central in $G$, so this kernel is normal in $G$. Therefore $C \simeq {\mathbf{P}}^1$ (see [@LAU Th. 1.1]). We have the cartesian square
(m)\[matrix of math nodes, row sep=2.5em, column sep=2.5em, text height=1.5ex, text depth=0.25ex, minimum width=3em, anchor=base, ampersand replacement=&\] [G C & G\
X & A\
]{}; (m-1-1) edge node\[above\] [$\operatorname{pr}_{1}$]{}(m-1-2); (m-1-1) edge (m-2-1); (m-2-1) edge node\[below\] [${a_{X}}$]{}(m-2-2); (m-1-2) edge (m-2-2);
Then ${a_{X}}$ is proper because so is $\operatorname{pr}_1 : G \times C \to G$. Hence $X$ is a proper variety. Since it is quasi-projective (as we have $X \simeq G / G_x$) the variety $X$ is even projective.
A theorem of Armand Borel and Reinhold Remmert in the setting of Kähler manifolds, and of Carlos Sancho de Salas in the setting of algebraic varieties, states that over an algebraically closed field a projective variety is homogeneous under its automorphism group if and only if it is isomorphic to the product of an abelian variety and a (rational) variety which is homogeneous under a semisimple group of adjoint type (see [@SAN th. 5.2]). In our situation, we have the following analogous result.
\[prop\_case\_proj\] Let $X$ be a projective variety of Albanese codimension $1$ and let $G$ be a smooth connected algebraic group acting faithfully on $X$. Then $X$ is homogeneous under the action of $G$ if and only if there exist an abelian variety $A$, an $A$-torsor $A_1$ and a smooth projective conic $C$ such that $X \simeq A_1 \times C$ and $G = {\mathbf{Aut}_{X}}^\circ \simeq A \times {\mathbf{Aut}_{C}}^\circ$. We have $A_1 = {\mathrm{Alb}_1(X)}$ and $A = {\mathrm{Alb}_0(X)}$, and ${\mathbf{Aut}_{C}}$ is a form of ${\mathrm{PGL}}_2$.
We use again the above notations. Let us first assume that $k$ is algebraically closed. We will prove $G = A \times D(G)$, $A = {G_{\textrm{ant}}}$ and $D(G) = {G_{\textrm{aff}}} = {\mathrm{PGL}}_2$. The action of $D(G)$ on $C$ is faithful and $C = {\mathbf{P}}^1$ is homogeneous, so $D(G) = {\mathrm{PGL}}_2$. Similarly ${G_{\textrm{aff}}}$ acts faithfully on $C$ so ${G_{\textrm{aff}}}$ is a subgroup of $\operatorname{Aut}_C = {\mathrm{PGL}}_2$ containing $D(G)$, and then $D(G) = {G_{\textrm{aff}}}$. The subgroup ${G_{\textrm{ant}}} \cap D(G)$ is central in $D(G)$, but the (scheme-theoretic) center of ${\mathrm{PGL}}_2$ is trivial. Therefore $G = {G_{\textrm{ant}}} \times D(G)$. Let us take $x \in C(k)$. As above, the group scheme ${G_{\textrm{aff}}} \cdot G_x$ acts on $C$ and this action is faithful, so ${G_{\textrm{aff}}} \cdot G_x = {G_{\textrm{aff}}}$. Hence $A = G / ({G_{\textrm{aff}}} \cdot G_x) = {G_{\textrm{ant}}}$, $X = A \times C$ and $G = A \times {\mathrm{PGL}}_2 = \operatorname{Aut}_X^\circ$.
We now come back to an arbitrary field $k$. We still have $G = {G_{\textrm{ant}}} \times D(G)$ because the formation of ${G_{\textrm{ant}}}$ and $D(G)$ commutes with field extensions. The subgroup ${G_{\textrm{ant}}}$ is an abelian variety and we denote it again by $A$. Let $K/k$ be a finite separable extension such that there exists $x \in X(K)$. Then the isotropy group $G_{K,x}$ is a subgroup of $D(G)_K$ so $X_K = A_K \times (D(G)_K / G_{K,x})$, but the quotient $(D(G)_K / G_{K,x})$ is a form of ${\mathbf{P}}^1$ with a $K$-rational point $x$, so we have $X_K = A_K \times {\mathbf{P}}^1_K$. The formation of the Albanese morphism ${a_{X}} : X \to {\mathrm{Alb}_1(X)}$ commutes with separable extensions so we get the first projection ${a_{X,K}} : X_K \to A_K$. We also have the second projection $\operatorname{pr}_2 : X_K \to {\mathbf{P}}^1_K$. The anticanonical bundle satisfies $\omega_{X_K}^{-1} = \left( {a_{X,K}}^*\omega_{A_K}^{-1}\right) \otimes \left(\operatorname{pr}_2^* \omega_{{\mathbf{P}}^1_K}^{-1} \right) = \operatorname{pr}_2^* \omega_{{\mathbf{P}}^1_K}^{-1}$ so it is generated by global sections and defines a morphism $X_K \to {\mathbf{P}}^2_K$, which is the composite $X_K \xrightarrow{\operatorname{pr}_2} {\mathbf{P}}^1_K \xrightarrow{i_K} {\mathbf{P}}^2_K$ where $i_K$ is the closed immersion defined by the bundle $\omega_{{\mathbf{P}}^1_K}^{-1} = \mathcal{O}_{{\mathbf{P}}^1_K}(2)$. Thus $\omega_X^{-1}$ is generated by global sections and defines a morphism $X \to {\mathbf{P}}^2_k$. Denoting by $C$ its scheme-theoretic image, this morphism factorizes as $X \xrightarrow{p} C \xrightarrow{i} {\mathbf{P}}^2_k$, and $\operatorname{pr}_2$ and $i_K$ are deduced from $p$ and $i$ after scalar extension. The curve $C$ is a smooth projective conic embedded in ${\mathbf{P}}^2_k$ by $\omega_C^{-1}$. Since $({a_{X,K}},\operatorname{pr}_2) : X_K \to A_K \times {\mathbf{P}}^1_K$ is an isomorphism, so is $({a_{X}},p) : X \to {\mathrm{Alb}_1(X)} \times C$.
\[theo\_class\_section\] Let $X$ be a variety of Albanese codimension $1$ and let $G$ be a smooth connected algebraic group. Then $X$ is homogeneous under a faithful action of $G$ if and only if one of the following cases holds:
1. The group $G$ is a semi-abelian variety (that is, it is given by an extension $0 \to T \to G \to A \to 0$ where $T$ is a form of the multiplicative group ${\mathbf{G}}_m$ and $A$ is an abelian variety) and $X$ is a $G$-torsor.
2. There exist a form $U$ of the additive group ${\mathbf{G}}_a$ and an abelian variety $A$ such that $G$ is given by an extension $0 \to U \to G \to A \to 0$ and $X$ is a $G$-torsor.
3. \[case\_pseudo\_abelian\] The group $G$ is a pseudo-abelian variety such that we have an exact sequence $0 \to {\mathbf{G}}_{a,\overline{k}} \to G_{\overline{k}} \to B \to 0$ where $B$ is an abelian variety, and $X$ is a $G$-torsor.
4. There exist an abelian variety $A$ and an $A$-torsor $A_1$ such that $X = A_1 \times {\mathbf{A}}^1$ and $G = A \times ({\mathbf{G}}_a \rtimes {\mathbf{G}}_m)$.
5. There exist an abelian variety $A$, an $A$-torsor $A_1$ and a form $C$ of ${\mathbf{P}}^1$ such that $X = A_1 \times C$ and $G = \operatorname{Aut}_X^\circ = A \times \operatorname{Aut}_C$.
The above varieties are indeed homogeneous. Conversely, let us assume that $X$ is homogeneous under a faithful action $\alpha : G \times X \to X$. If $X$ is projective then the classification is given by Proposition \[prop\_case\_proj\]. We assume from now on that $X$ is not projective, so that $G$ contains a commutative smooth connected subgroup $H$ such that $X$ is a $H$-torsor.
We first assume that $k$ is algebraically closed. We use the same notations as in the proof of Proposition \[prop\_equiv\_divhom\_Alb\]. By the same arguments as above, the smooth curve $C = {a_{X}}^{-1}(0)$ is ${G_{\textrm{aff}}}$-stable, the actions of ${G_{\textrm{aff}}}$ and ${H_{\textrm{aff}}}$ are faithful, and $C$ is a ${H_{\textrm{aff}}}$-torsor. Since ${H_{\textrm{aff}}}$ is a commutative smooth connected algebraic group, we have ${H_{\textrm{aff}}} = {\mathbf{G}}_m$ or ${\mathbf{G}}_a$. Moreover we have an exact sequence $0 \to {H_{\textrm{aff}}} \to H \to A \to 0$. If ${H_{\textrm{aff}}} = {\mathbf{G}}_m$ then the largest smooth connected algebraic group acting faithfully on $C \simeq {\mathbf{A}}^1_*$ is ${\mathbf{G}}_m$ so ${G_{\textrm{aff}}} = {\mathbf{G}}_m$, hence $G = {G_{\textrm{ant}}} \cdot {G_{\textrm{aff}}}$ is commutative (because ${G_{\textrm{ant}}}$ is a central subgroup of $G$) and $G = H$. We now assume that ${H_{\textrm{aff}}} = {\mathbf{G}}_a$. Similarly, we have ${G_{\textrm{aff}}} = {\mathbf{G}}_a$ or ${\mathbf{G}}_a \rtimes {\mathbf{G}}_m$. If ${G_{\textrm{aff}}} = {\mathbf{G}}_a$ then $G = H$. If ${G_{\textrm{aff}}} = {\mathbf{G}}_a \rtimes {\mathbf{G}}_m$ then ${G_{\textrm{ant}}} \cap {G_{\textrm{aff}}}$ is a central subgroup of ${G_{\textrm{aff}}}$, so it is trivial. Hence $G = {G_{\textrm{ant}}} \times {G_{\textrm{aff}}}$, which implies $H = A \times {H_{\textrm{aff}}}$ and $G = A \times {G_{\textrm{aff}}}$.
We now come back to an arbitrary field $k$. If we have an exact sequence $0 \to {\mathbf{G}}_{m,\overline{k}} \to G_{\overline{k}} \to B \to 0$ where $B$ is an abelian variety then $G_{\overline{k}}$ is a semi-abelian variety, so by [@BRI_structure lemma 5.4.3], $G$ is already a semi-abelian variety and we have an exact sequence $0 \to T \to G \to A \to 0$ where $T$ is a form of ${\mathbf{G}}_m$ and $A$ is an abelian variety such that $A_{\overline{k}} = B$.
Assume that we have an exact sequence $0 \to {\mathbf{G}}_{a,\overline{k}} \to G_{\overline{k}} \to B \to 0$ where $B$ is an abelian variety. Let $N$ be the largest affine smooth connected normal subgroup of $G$. If $N$ is trivial then $G$ is a pseudo-abelian variety. If $N$ is not trivial then $N_{\overline{k}}$ is an affine smooth connected normal subgroup of $G_{\overline{k}}$ so for dimension reasons we have $N_{\overline{k}} = {\mathbf{G}}_{a,\overline{k}}$. The quotient $A = G/N$ is an abelian variety because it is so over $\overline{k}$.
We finally assume $G_{\overline{k}} = B \times ({\mathbf{G}}_{a,\overline{k}} \rtimes {\mathbf{G}}_{m,\overline{k}})$ where $B$ is an abelian variety. Let $N$ be as above. The quotient $Q = G / N$ is a pseudo-abelian variety and hence sits in a unique exact sequence $0 \to A' \to Q \to U \to 0$ where $A'$ is an abelian variety and $U$ is a commutative unipotent group (see [@TOT th. 2.1]). Let $p$ be the composite morphism $G \to Q \to U$. Then $p_{\overline{k}}(A_{\overline{k}})$ is a smooth connected subgroup of $U_{\overline{k}}$ and it is a proper algebraic group (as a quotient of $A_{\overline{k}}$) so it is trivial. Moreover $p_{\overline{k}}({\mathbf{G}}_{a,\overline{k}} \rtimes {\mathbf{G}}_{m,\overline{k}})$ is trivial because ${\mathbf{G}}_{a,\overline{k}} \rtimes {\mathbf{G}}_{m,\overline{k}}$ has no non-trivial unipotent quotient. Hence $U$ is trivial and $Q = A'$ is an abelian variety. Because of the exact sequence $1 \to N_{\overline{k}} \to G_{\overline{k}} \to A_{\overline{k}}' \to 0$ we have $N_{\overline{k}} = {\mathbf{G}}_{a,\overline{k}} \rtimes {\mathbf{G}}_{m,\overline{k}}$. The subgroup $N \cap {G_{\textrm{ant}}}$ is trivial (since it is so after extension to $\overline{k}$) so for dimension reasons we have $G = {G_{\textrm{ant}}} \cdot N = {G_{\textrm{ant}}} \times N$. The group ${G_{\textrm{ant}}}$ is an abelian variety and, by Lemma \[lemma\_forms\_GaGm\], we already have $N = {\mathbf{G}}_a \rtimes {\mathbf{G}}_m$.
Let $K/k$ be a finite separable extension such that $X$ admits a $K$-rational point $x$. The isotropy group of $x$ is of the form $\{1\} \times M$ where $M$ is a subgroup of $N_K$. Then $X_K = A_K \times (N_K / M)$ and $N_K/M$ is a form of ${\mathbf{A}}^1_K$ which is a torsor under the subgroup ${\mathbf{G}}_{a,K}$ of $N_K$ (because it is so after extension to $\overline{k}$), so we already have $N_K / M = {\mathbf{A}}^1_K$.
The formation of the Albanese morphism ${a_{X}} : X \to {\mathrm{Alb}_1(X)}$ commutes with separable extensions and the formation of the affinization morphism $p : X \to \operatorname{Spec}\mathcal{O}(X)$ commutes with arbitrary extensions. The morphism deduced from $p$ after extension of scalars is the projection $\operatorname{pr}_2 : X_K \to {\mathbf{A}}^1_K$, so $\operatorname{Spec}\mathcal{O}(X) = {\mathbf{A}}^1_k$ because $K/k$ is separable. Since $({a_{X,K}},\operatorname{pr}_2) : X_K \to A_K \times {\mathbf{A}}^1_K$ is an isomorphism, so is $({a_{X}},p) : X \to {\mathrm{Alb}_1(X)} \times {\mathbf{A}}^1_k$.
1. The abelian variety $A$ appearing in the group $G$ is the Albanese variety of $X$.
2. If $G$ is a semi-abelian variety given by an exact sequence $1 \to T \to G \to A \to 0$ where $T$ is a form of ${\mathbf{G}}_m$ then, by definition of ${G_{\textrm{aff}}}$, we have ${G_{\textrm{aff}}} = T$. Since $G = {G_{\textrm{ant}}} \cdot {G_{\textrm{aff}}}$ and ${G_{\textrm{ant}}}$ is central, the group $G$ is commutative. We set $\Gamma = \operatorname{Gal}(k_s / k)$ and denote by $\Lambda \simeq {\mathbf{Z}}$ the $\Gamma$-module of characters of $T$. The Barsotti-Weil formula gives $\operatorname{Ext}^1(A,T) \simeq \operatorname{Hom}_{gp}^\Gamma(\Lambda,\widehat{A}(k_s))$ where $\widehat{A} = \operatorname{Pic}^\circ(A)$ is the dual abelian variety (see [@BRI_structure prop. 5.4.10]). If $T = {\mathbf{G}}_m$ then $\operatorname{Ext}^1(A,{\mathbf{G}}_m) \simeq \widehat{A}(k)$. If $T$ is a non-trivial form of ${\mathbf{G}}_m$ then there exists a Galois extension $K/k$ of degree $2$ such that $T_K \simeq {\mathbf{G}}_{m,K}$; writing $\Gamma = \{\operatorname{id},\sigma\}$, we have $\operatorname{Ext}^1(A,T) \simeq \operatorname{Hom}_{gp}^{\{\operatorname{id},\sigma\}}({\mathbf{Z}},\widehat{A}(K)) \simeq \{x \in \widehat{A}(K) \mid \sigma(x) = -x \}$.
3. If we have an exact sequence $0 \to {\mathbf{G}}_a \to G \to A \to 0$ then, as above, $G$ is commutative. Such exact sequences are classified by $\operatorname{Ext}^1(A,{\mathbf{G}}_a) \sim H^1(A,\mathcal{O}_A)$ (see [@OORT ch. III, 17.6, rem.]). In case $A$ is an elliptic curve $E$, we have $\omega_E = \mathcal{O}_E$ so, by Serre duality, $\operatorname{Ext}^1(E,{\mathbf{G}}_a) \simeq k$; therefore there exists, up to isomorphism, a unique group $G$ given by such an exact sequence and not isomorphic to the direct product $E \times {\mathbf{G}}_a$ (it is the universal vector extension of $E$).
4. The case \[case\_pseudo\_abelian\] of the theorem can only occur over an imperfect field. If $G$ is a pseudo-abelian variety then the Albanese map is not so well-behaved since its fibers may be non-reduced. We recall the example given in [@BRI_anv Rem. 3.4]. Let $U$ be a form of ${\mathbf{G}}_a$ over an imperfect field. There exists an extension $0 \to \alpha_p \to H \to U \to 0$ such that $H$ contains no non-trivial smooth connected subgroup. If $E$ is a supersingular elliptic curve then the kernel of the Frobenius morphism $F : E \to E^{(p)}$ is $\alpha_p$. The group $G = E \stackrel{\alpha_p}{\times} H$ is a pseudo-abelian variety. By construction, we have the exact sequence $0 \to H \to G \to E^{(p)} \to 0$. The quotient $G \to E^{(p)}$ is the Albanese morphism.
Let $X$ be a variety of Albanese codimension $1$ and let $G$ be a smooth connected algebraic group. If $X$ is almost homogeneous under a faithful action of $G$, if $X$ has a $k$-rational point and if $G$ is not a pseudo-abelian variety (in particular if $k$ is perfect) then the group ${G_{\textrm{aff}}}$ is smooth, $X$ is the associated fiber bundle $G \stackrel{{G_{\textrm{aff}}}}{\times} C$ where $C$ is the fiber at the neutral element of the Albanese morphism of $X$, and the unique normal equivariant completion of $X$ is the associated fiber bundle $G \stackrel{{G_{\textrm{aff}}}}{\times} \overline{C}$ where $\overline{C}$ is the regular completion of the curve $C$.
Everything is clear, except the last statement. In every case we have ${G_{\textrm{aff}}} \cdot G_x = {G_{\textrm{aff}}}$, so that we have the cartesian square
(m)\[matrix of math nodes, row sep=2.5em, column sep=2.5em, text height=1.5ex, text depth=0.25ex, minimum width=3em, anchor=base, ampersand replacement=&\] [G & G\
& A = G / [G\_]{}\
]{}; (m-1-1) edge node\[above\] [$\operatorname{pr}_{1}$]{}(m-1-2); (m-1-1) edge (m-2-1); (m-2-1) edge node\[below\] [${a_{\overline{X}}}$]{}(m-2-2); (m-1-2) edge (m-2-2);
where $\overline{C}$ is the fiber of ${a_{\overline{X}}}$ at the base point of $A$. The quotient morphism $G \to A$ is smooth because the subgroup ${G_{\textrm{aff}}}$ is smooth. So the morphism $G \times \overline{C} \to \overline{X}$ is smooth. Moreover $\overline{X}$ is normal, so $G \times \overline{C}$ is normal too, and hence $\overline{C}$ is normal (see [@EGA IV2, Cor. 6.5.4 p143]). Therefore $\overline{C}$ is the regular completion of $C$.
It follows from the classification that if $G$ is neither a pseudo-abelian variety nor given by an extension $0 \to U \to G \to A \to 0$ where $U$ is a non-trivial form of ${\mathbf{G}}_a$ (these assumptions are satisfied if $k$ is perfect), then the regular completion of $C$ is ${\mathbf{P}}^1$. Moreover, the morphism ${a_{\overline{X}}} : \overline{X} \to A$ has sections. If $D$ is the divisor given by the image of such a section and $\mathcal{O}(D)$ is the associated invertible sheaf on $\overline{X}$, then $\mathcal{E} = ({a_{\overline{X}}})_* \mathcal{O}(D)$ is a locally free sheaf of rank $2$ on $A$. The natural morphism $({a_{\overline{X}}})^* \mathcal{E} = ({a_{\overline{X}}})^* ({a_{\overline{X}}})_* \mathcal{O}(D) \to \mathcal{O}(D)$ is surjective so it corresponds to a morphism $\overline{X} \to {\mathbf{P}}(\mathcal{E})$, which is an isomorphism (see [@HART Prop. V.2.2] for more details, where the arguments are given for surfaces but remain valid in any dimension).
\[theo\_class\_PE\] We assume that the field $k$ is perfect. Let $\overline{X}$ be a normal proper variety of Albanese codimension $1$ and having a $k$-rational point. Set $A = {\mathrm{Alb}(\overline{X})}$. Then $\overline{X}$ is almost homogeneous under a faithful action of a smooth connected algebraic group $G$ if and only if, up to isomorphism, we have $\overline{X} = {\mathbf{P}}(\mathcal{E})$ where one of the following cases holds:
1. We have $\mathcal{E} = \mathcal{O}_A \oplus \mathcal{O}_A$. In this case $\overline{X} = A \times {\mathbf{P}}^1$, and $G$ is isomorphic to $A \times {\mathbf{G}}_m$ or $A \times T$ (where $T$ is the form of ${\mathbf{G}}_m$ given as the centralizer of a separable point of degree $2$ on ${\mathbf{P}}^1$) or $A \times {\mathbf{G}}_a$ or $A \times ({\mathbf{G}}_a \rtimes {\mathbf{G}}_m)$ or $A \times {\mathrm{PGL}}_2$ with the natural action on $\overline{X}$.
2. There exists $\mathcal{L} \in \operatorname{Pic}^\circ(A) \setminus\{\mathcal{O}_A\}$ such that $\mathcal{E} = \mathcal{L} \oplus \mathcal{O}_A$. In this case, the group $G$ is given by a non-split exact sequence $0 \to {\mathbf{G}}_m \to G \to A \to 0$ and $\overline{X}$ is isomorphic to the (unique) normal equivariant completion of $G$.
3. The sheaf $\mathcal{E}$ is indecomposable and given by an exact sequence $0 \to \mathcal{O}_A \to \mathcal{E} \to \mathcal{O}_A \to 0$. In this case, the group $G$ is given by a non-split exact sequence $0 \to {\mathbf{G}}_a \to G \to A \to 0$ and $\overline{X}$ is isomorphic to the (unique) normal equivariant completion of $G$.
Assume first that $\overline{X}$ is almost homogeneous. The possibilities for the open orbit $X$ and the group $G$ are given by Theorem \[theo\_class\_section\]. The fiber $\overline{C}$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbf{P}}^1$ and $C$ is a homogeneous curve which is open in $\overline{C}$. In particular $C$ contains at least one $k$-rational point.
Assume that $G$ is given by an exact sequence $0 \to {\mathbf{G}}_m \to G \to A \to 0$ and $X = G$. The quotient $G \to A$ is a ${\mathbf{G}}_m$-torsor so there exists an invertible sheaf $\mathcal{L}$ on $A$ such that $G$ is the complement of the zero section in the line bundle corresponding to $\mathcal{L}$. Then $\mathcal{E} = \mathcal{L} \oplus \mathcal{O}_A$ has a natural $G$-linearization so the open immersion $G \hookrightarrow {\mathbf{P}}(\mathcal{E})$ is equivariant. By uniqueness of the normal equivariant completion, we have $\overline{X} = {\mathbf{P}}(\mathcal{E})$. It follows from [@SerreAGCF VII.16, th.6] that the line bundle corresponding to $\mathcal{L}$ is algebraically trivial, that is to say $\mathcal{L} \in \operatorname{Pic}^\circ(A)$.
Assume that $G$ is given by an exact sequence $0 \to T \to G \to A \to 0$ and $X = G$, where $T$ is a non-trivial form of ${\mathbf{G}}_m$. There exists a quadratic Galois extension $K/k$ such that $T_K \simeq {\mathbf{G}}_m$. We have $C = T$ and the complement of $C$ in $\overline{C}$ is a point with residue field $K$, so that the complement of $X$ in $\overline{X}$ is a unique irreducible divisor. After extending the scalars to $K$, we recover the situation of the former paragraph. The complement of $X_K$ in $\overline{X}_K$ is the union of the zero section and the section at infinity, and the Galois group $\operatorname{Gal}(K/k)$ exchanges those two sections, which forces $\mathcal{L}$ to be trivial. Hence $\overline{X}_K \simeq A_K \times {\mathbf{P}}^1$, and we already have $\overline{X} \simeq A \times {\mathbf{P}}^1$.
Assume that $G$ is given by an exact sequence $0 \to {\mathbf{G}}_a \to G \to A \to 0$ and $X = G$. We have a two-dimensional representation $V$ of ${\mathbf{G}}_a$ given by $\fonction{{\mathbf{G}}_a}{{\mathrm{GL}}_2}{t}{\begin{pmatrix} 1 & t \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}}$. The line spanned by the second vector of the canonical basis is the trivial representation $V_0$ of ${\mathbf{G}}_a$. The quotient $V / V_0$ is also the trivial representation, so that $V$ is an extension $0 \to V_0 \to V \to V_0 \to 0$. Then $G \stackrel{{\mathbf{G}}_a}{\times} V \to A$ is a vector bundle of rank $2$, corresponding to a $G$-linearized sheaf $\mathcal{E}$ given by an exact sequence $0 \to \mathcal{O}_A \to \mathcal{E} \to \mathcal{O}_A \to 0$. The action on $G \stackrel{{\mathbf{G}}_a}{\times} V$ yields an action on $G \stackrel{{\mathbf{G}}_a}{\times} {\mathbf{P}}(V) = {\mathbf{P}}(\mathcal{E})$ such that the open immersion $G = G \stackrel{{\mathbf{G}}_a}{\times} {\mathbf{G}}_a \hookrightarrow G \stackrel{{\mathbf{G}}_a}{\times} {\mathbf{P}}(V)$ is equivariant. By uniqueness of the normal equivariant completion, we have $\overline{X} = {\mathbf{P}}(\mathcal{E})$.
In the remaining cases we readily have $\overline{X} \simeq A \times {\mathbf{P}}^1$.
Conversely, let us show that is every case, the variety $\overline{X}$ is almost homogeneous. If $\mathcal{E} = \mathcal{O}_A \oplus \mathcal{O}_A$ then there is nothing to do.
If $\mathcal{E} = \mathcal{L} \oplus \mathcal{O}_A$ where $\mathcal{L} \in \operatorname{Pic}^\circ(A) \setminus\{\mathcal{O}_A\}$, then by [@SerreAGCF VII.16, th.6] again, the complement of the union of the two sections is an algebraic group $G$ which sits in an exact sequence $1 \to {\mathbf{G}}_m \to G \to A \to 0$ and the action of $G$ on itself extends to an action on $\overline{X}$.
Assume that the sheaf $\mathcal{E}$ is given by an exact sequence $0 \to \mathcal{O}_A \to \mathcal{E} \to \mathcal{O}_A \to 0$. Then the vector bundle $E$ over $A$ corresponding to $\mathcal{E}$ is unipotent so we can use the results of [@BSU Sect. 6.4], which we recall. The functor of ${\mathbf{G}}_m$-equivariant automorphisms of $E$ is represented by a group scheme ${\mathbf{Aut}_{E}}^{{\mathbf{G}}_m}$ locally of finite type. The smooth connected group $\mathcal{G} = {({\mathbf{Aut}_{E}}^{{\mathbf{G}}_m})_{\textrm{ant}}}$ acts transitively on $A$. Let $V$ be the fiber at $0$ of $E$, which is a two-dimensional vector space. The kernel $H$ of the morphism $\mathcal{G} \to A$ is unipotent (not necessarily reduced) and the action of $H$ on $V$ is a faithful linear representation. Then the vector bundle $E$ is identified with $\mathcal{G} \stackrel{H}{\times} V$. We can choose a basis of $V$ such that the image of $H$ is ${\mathrm{GL}}(V) \simeq {\mathrm{GL}}_2$ lies in $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & * \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} \simeq {\mathbf{G}}_a$. Hence there is an action of ${\mathbf{G}}_a$ on $V$ commuting with the action of $H$, so that we get a faithful action of ${\mathbf{G}}_a$ on $E$. By construction, the action of $\mathcal{G} \cdot {\mathbf{G}}_a \leq {\mathbf{Aut}_{E}}$ on $E$ induces an action on ${\mathbf{P}}(\mathcal{E}) = \mathcal{G} \stackrel{H}{\times} {\mathbf{P}}(V) $ with an open orbit.
Groups of automorphisms {#sect_aut}
=======================
In Theorem \[theo\_class\_PE\], we have considered almost homogeneous varieties of the form $\pi : \overline{X} = {\mathbf{P}}(\mathcal{E}) \to A$ and we already know the largest smooth connected group of ${\mathbf{Aut}_{\overline{X}}}$. We now determine whether ${\mathbf{Aut}_{\overline{X}}}$ is smooth or not, by computing the dimension of the Lie algebra $\operatorname{Lie}({\mathbf{Aut}_{\overline{X}}})$.
If $\mathcal{E}$ is an indecomposable sheaf given by an exact sequence $0 \to \mathcal{O}_A \to \mathcal{E} \to \mathcal{O}_A \to 0$ then the largest smooth connected group $G$ of ${\mathbf{Aut}_{\overline{X}}}$ sits in an exact sequence $0 \to {\mathbf{G}}_a \to G \to A \to 0$. Here we construct an example where $\dim \operatorname{Lie}({\mathbf{Aut}_{\overline{X}}}) = \dim A + 2$ (and not $\dim A + 1)$, so that ${\mathbf{Aut}_{\overline{X}}}$ is not smooth. We use the fact, which will be proved in Theorem \[theo\_aut\], that $\dim \operatorname{Lie}({\mathbf{Aut}_{\overline{X}}}) = \dim A + \dim H^0(A, \operatorname{Sym}^2 \mathcal{E})$.
We assume that the characteristic of $k$ is $p=2$. Assume moreover that there exists an abelian variety $B$ which sits in an exact sequence $0 \to H \to B \to A \to 0$ where $H$ is isomorphic to $\alpha_p$ or ${\mathbf{Z}}/p{\mathbf{Z}}$. Let ${\varphi}: H \to {\mathbf{G}}_a$ be an injective group morphism, so that $H$ is isomorphic to the subgroup of ${\mathbf{G}}_a$ given by the equation $x^p = \lambda x$ for some $\lambda \in k$. Let $V$ be the affine plane with a basis $(e_1,e_2)$. We consider the linear action of $H$ given by $h \mapsto \begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\varphi}(h) \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}$. Then the associated fiber bundle $E = B \stackrel{H}{\times} V$ is a unipotent vector bundle of rank $2$ over $B/H = A$, corresponding to an indecomposable sheaf given by an exact sequence $0 \to \mathcal{O}_A \to \mathcal{E} \to \mathcal{O}_A \to 0$. In this situation, $B$ is the anti-affine radical ${({\mathbf{Aut}_{E}}^{{\mathbf{G}}_m})_{\textrm{ant}}}$ of the group of ${\mathbf{G}}_m$-equivariant automorphisms of $E$. The vector bundle corresponding to $\operatorname{Sym}^2 \mathcal{E}$ is $\operatorname{Sym}^2 E = B \stackrel{H}{\times} \operatorname{Sym}^2 V$, hence we have $H^0(A, \operatorname{Sym}^2 \mathcal{E}) \simeq (\operatorname{Sym}^2 V)^H$. In the basis $(e_1 e_1, e_1 e_2, e_2 e_2)$, the action of $H$ on $\operatorname{Sym}^2 V$ is given by $h \mapsto \begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\varphi}(h) & {\varphi}(h)^2 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}$. Thus $(\operatorname{Sym}^2 V)^H = \operatorname{Vect}(e_1 e_1, \lambda e_1 e_2 - e_2 e_2)$ has dimension $2$.
\[theo\_aut\] Let $A$ be an abelian variety and let $\mathcal{E}$ be a locally free sheaf of rank $2$ on $A$ such that $\overline{X} = {\mathbf{P}}(\mathcal{E})$ is almost homogeneous under the action of a smooth connected group.
1. The group ${\mathbf{Aut}_{\overline{X}}}$ is smooth, except if $p=2$, the sheaf $\mathcal{E}$ is indecomposable and given by an exact sequence $0 \to \mathcal{O}_A \to \mathcal{E} \to \mathcal{O}_A \to 0$, and the kernel of ${({\mathbf{Aut}_{E}}^{{\mathbf{G}}_m})_{\textrm{ant}}} \to A$ is isomorphic to $\alpha_p$ or ${\mathbf{Z}}/p{\mathbf{Z}}$.
2. \[expected\_group\]If ${\mathbf{Aut}_{\overline{X}}}$ is smooth then ${\mathbf{Aut}_{\overline{X}}}^\circ$ is the expected group:
1. If $\mathcal{E} = \mathcal{O}_A \oplus \mathcal{O}_A$ then $\overline{X} = A \times {\mathbf{P}}^1$ and ${\mathbf{Aut}_{\overline{X}}}^\circ = A \times {\mathrm{PGL}}_2$.
2. If there exists $\mathcal{L} \in \operatorname{Pic}^\circ(A) \setminus\{\mathcal{O}_A\}$ such that $\mathcal{E} = \mathcal{L} \oplus \mathcal{O}_A$ then we have an exact sequence $0 \to {\mathbf{G}}_m \to {\mathbf{Aut}_{\overline{X}}}^\circ \to A \to 0$.
3. If $\mathcal{E}$ is indecomposable and given by an exact sequence $0 \to \mathcal{O}_A \to \mathcal{E} \to \mathcal{O}_A \to 0$ then we have an exact sequence $0 \to {\mathbf{G}}_a \to {\mathbf{Aut}_{\overline{X}}}^\circ \to A \to 0$.
3. If ${\mathbf{Aut}_{\overline{X}}}$ is not smooth then $\dim \operatorname{Lie}({\mathbf{Aut}_{\overline{X}}}) = \dim A + 2$.
We can assume that $\mathcal{E}$ is not isomorphic to $\mathcal{O}_A \oplus \mathcal{O}_A$ (up to tensoring by some invertible sheaf), otherwise there is nothing to do.
We want to compute $\dim \operatorname{Lie}({\mathbf{Aut}_{\overline{X}}})$. As we saw in Theorem \[theo\_class\_PE\], even when $k$ is not perfect, the largest smooth connected subgroup $G$ of ${\mathbf{Aut}_{\overline{X}}}$ has dimension $\dim A + 1$ (and the kernel of the natural morphism $G \to A$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbf{G}}_m$ or ${\mathbf{G}}_a$). In particular $\dim \operatorname{Lie}({\mathbf{Aut}_{\overline{X}}}) \geq \dim A + 1$, and ${\mathbf{Aut}_{\overline{X}}}$ is smooth if and only if the inequality is an equality.
We have $\dim \operatorname{Lie}({\mathbf{Aut}_{\overline{X}}}) = \dim H^0(\overline{X},T_{\overline{X}})$ where $T_{\overline{X}}$ is the tangent bundle. By definition, the relative tangent bundle $T_{\overline{X}/A}$ is given by the exact sequence $0 \to T_{\overline{X}/A} \to T_{\overline{X}} \to \pi^* T_A \to 0$. This gives an exact sequence $$0 \to H^0(\overline{X},T_{\overline{X}/A}) \to H^0(\overline{X},T_{\overline{X}}) \to H^0(\overline{X},\pi^* T_A).$$
The tangent bundle of an algebraic group is trivial so $H^0(\overline{X},\pi^* T_A) = H^0(A,T_A) \simeq \operatorname{Lie}(A)$. The morphism $\pi$ induces a group morphism ${\mathbf{Aut}_{\overline{X}}}^\circ \to {\mathbf{Aut}_{A}}^\circ = A$ and the arrow $H^0(\overline{X},T_{\overline{X}}) \to H^0(A,T_A)$ is identified with the differential of ${\mathbf{Aut}_{\overline{X}}}^\circ \to A$ (see [@BSU p. 54]). Since the restriction $G \to A$ is surjective with smooth kernel, this differential is surjective, thus $\dim \operatorname{Lie}({\mathbf{Aut}_{\overline{X}}}) = \dim A + \dim H^0(\overline{X},T_{\overline{X}/A})$. Moreover $H^0(\overline{X},T_{\overline{X}/A}) = H^0(A, \pi_*T_{\overline{X}/A})$, $T_{\overline{X}/A} \simeq \pi^*(\det \mathcal{E}^\vee) \otimes \mathcal{O}_{\overline{X}}(2)$ and $\pi_*T_{\overline{X}/A} \simeq \det \mathcal{E}^\vee \otimes \operatorname{Sym}^2 \mathcal{E}$ (see [@HART ex. III.8.4]).
Assume $\mathcal{E} = \mathcal{L} \oplus \mathcal{O}_A$ where $\mathcal{L} \in \operatorname{Pic}^\circ(A) \setminus\{\mathcal{O}_A\}$. We have $\pi_*T_{\overline{X}/A} \simeq \det \mathcal{E}^\vee \otimes \operatorname{Sym}^2 \mathcal{E} \simeq \mathcal{L}^\vee \otimes (\operatorname{Sym}^2 \mathcal{L} \oplus \mathcal{L} \oplus \mathcal{O}_A) \simeq \left(\mathcal{L}^\vee \otimes \operatorname{Sym}^2 \mathcal{L}\right) \oplus \mathcal{O}_A \oplus \mathcal{L}^\vee$. The canonical isomorphisms $\left(\mathcal{L}^\vee\right)^{\otimes 2} \otimes \operatorname{Sym}^2 \mathcal{L} \simeq \operatorname{Sym}^2 \left(\mathcal{L}^\vee \otimes \mathcal{L}\right) \simeq \mathcal{O}_A$ yield $\pi_* T_{\overline{X} / A} \simeq \mathcal{L} \oplus \mathcal{O}_A \oplus \mathcal{L}^\vee$. Finally, $\mathcal{L}$ and $\mathcal{L}^\vee$ are non-trivial elements of $\operatorname{Pic}^0(A)$ so the cohomology spaces $H^0(A,\mathcal{L})$ and $H^0(A,\mathcal{L}^\vee)$ vanish (see [@MUMab II.8.vii]). So as expected $\dim H^0(A,\pi_*T_{\overline{X}/A}) = 1$ and ${\mathbf{Aut}_{\overline{X}}}^\circ = G$.
Assume that the sheaf $\mathcal{E}$ is indecomposable and given by an exact sequence $0 \to \mathcal{O}_A \to \mathcal{E} \to \mathcal{O}_A \to 0$. We have $\pi_*T_{\overline{X}/A} \simeq \operatorname{Sym}^2 \mathcal{E}$. As in the proof of Theorem \[theo\_class\_PE\], we can use the results of [@BSU Sect. 6.4]. Let $E \to A$ be the vector bundle corresponding to $\mathcal{E}$ and let $V$ be the fiber of $E$ at $0$. The kernel $H$ of the surjective group morphism $\mathcal{G} = {({\mathbf{Aut}_{E}}^{{\mathbf{G}}_m})_{\textrm{ant}}} \to A$ is unipotent and the action of $H$ on $V$ is a faithful linear representation. Then the vector bundle $E$ is identified with $\mathcal{G} \stackrel{H}{\times} V$. The subgroup $H$ is not trivial, otherwise $E$ would be the trivial vector bundle $A \times V$. Let $(e_1,e_2)$ be a basis of $V$ and let ${\varphi}: H \to {\mathbf{G}}_a$ be an injective group morphism such that the action of $H$ on $V$ is given by $h \mapsto \begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\varphi}(h) \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}$. It follows from [@BRI_structure Prop. 5.5.1] that $H$ cannot be isomorphic to ${\mathbf{G}}_a$; in particular $H$ is finite and $\mathcal{G}$ is an abelian variety. The vector bundle corresponding to $\operatorname{Sym}^2 \mathcal{E}$ is $\operatorname{Sym}^2 E = \mathcal{G} \stackrel{H}{\times} \operatorname{Sym}^2 V$, hence we have $H^0(A, \operatorname{Sym}^2 \mathcal{E}) \simeq (\operatorname{Sym}^2 V)^H$. In the basis $(e_1 e_1, e_1 e_2, e_2 e_2)$, the action of $H$ on $\operatorname{Sym}^2 V$ is given by $h \mapsto \begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\varphi}(h) & {\varphi}(h)^2 \\ 0 & 1 & 2 {\varphi}(h) \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}$. If $p \neq 2$ then we readily have $(\operatorname{Sym}^2 V)^H = \operatorname{Vect}(e_1 e_1)$, so $\dim H^0(A,\pi_*T_{\overline{X}/A}) = 1$ and ${\mathbf{Aut}_{\overline{X}}}^\circ = G$. If $p = 2$ then the matrix becomes $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\varphi}(h) & {\varphi}(h)^2 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}$. Then $\dim (\operatorname{Sym}^2 V)^H = 1$ or $2$, depending on the existence of $\lambda$ and $\mu$ such that $\lambda {\varphi}(h) + \mu {\varphi}(h)^2 = 0$ for all $h$ (and we must have $\mu \neq 0$).
1. Assume that the field $k$ is perfect. Then $({\mathbf{Aut}_{X}}^\circ)_\mathrm{red}$ is the largest smooth connected subgroup of ${\mathbf{Aut}_{X}}$. Hence the point \[expected\_group\] of Theorem \[theo\_aut\] is always true if we replace ${\mathbf{Aut}_{X}}^\circ$ with $({\mathbf{Aut}_{X}}^\circ)_\mathrm{red}$.
2. If $\mathcal{E}$ is indecomposable and given by an exact sequence $0 \to \mathcal{O}_A \to \mathcal{E} \to \mathcal{O}_A \to 0$ then $\mathcal{G} = {({\mathbf{Aut}_{E}}^{{\mathbf{G}}_m})_{\textrm{ant}}}$ is an abelian variety isogenous to $A$ and the kernel $H$ of $\mathcal{G} \to A$ is contained in the $p$-torsion subgroup $\mathcal{G}[p]$ (as it is isomorphic to a subgroup of ${\mathbf{G}}_a$). Hence the smoothness of ${\mathbf{Aut}_{\overline{X}}}$ depends on the structure of $\mathcal{G}[p]$.
In particular, if $A$ is an elliptic curve then, over the separable closure $k_s$, the $p$-torsion subgroup is isomorphic to ${\mathbf{Z}}/p{\mathbf{Z}}\times \mu_p$ (ordinary case) or is a non-trivial extension of $\alpha_p$ by $\alpha_p$ (supersingular case). Since $\mathcal{E}$ is indecomposable, $H$ is not trivial so it is isomorphic to ${\mathbf{Z}}/p{\mathbf{Z}}$ or $\alpha_p$. Therefore, if $p=2$ we get $\dim \operatorname{Lie}({\mathbf{Aut}_{\overline{X}}}) = 3$ and ${\mathbf{Aut}_{\overline{X}}}$ is not smooth, thus recovering the result of [@MAR Lemma 10] for ruled surfaces over an elliptic curve.
Appendix
========
For $d \geq 1$, we denote by ${\mathbf{G}}_a \stackrel{d}{\rtimes} {\mathbf{G}}_m$ the semidirect product where the multiplicative group ${\mathbf{G}}_m$ acts on the additive group ${\mathbf{G}}_a$ with weight $d$.
\[lemma\_forms\_GaGm\] If $d \geq 1$ then the group ${\mathbf{G}}_a \stackrel{d}{\rtimes} {\mathbf{G}}_m$ has no non-trivial forms.
Let $G$ be a form of ${\mathbf{G}}_a \stackrel{d}{\rtimes} {\mathbf{G}}_m$. It suffices to prove that if this form is trivialized by a finite field extension which is separable or purely inseparable then we already have $G \simeq {\mathbf{G}}_{a,k} \stackrel{d}{\rtimes} {\mathbf{G}}_{m,k}$.
Assume that there exists a finite separable extension $K/k$ such that $G_K \simeq {\mathbf{G}}_{a,K} \stackrel{d}{\rtimes} {\mathbf{G}}_{m,K}$. The formation of the unipotent radical ${R_u(G)}$ commutes with separable extensions (see [@CGP prop. 1.1.9 p8]) and ${\mathbf{G}}_a$ has no non-trivial forms which are trivialized by a finite separable extension, so ${R_u(G)} \simeq {\mathbf{G}}_{a,k}$. Let $T$ be a maximal torus of $G$. Then $T_K$ is a maximal torus of $G_K$ (see [@CGP cor. A.2.6 p.475]), so $T$ is a form of ${\mathbf{G}}_m$. For dimension reasons, we have $G = {\mathbf{G}}_{a,k} \cdot T$. The intersection ${\mathbf{G}}_{a,k} \cap T$ is trivial because it is so after extension to $K$, so that $G$ is a semi-direct product ${\mathbf{G}}_{a,k} \rtimes T$.
The action of $T$ on ${\mathbf{G}}_{a,k}$ by conjugation gives, for every $k$-algebra $A$, a group morphism $T(A) \to \operatorname{Aut}_{A-gp}({\mathbf{G}}_{a,A})$, functorially in $A$. If $k$ has characteristic zero then $\operatorname{End}_{A-gp}({\mathbf{G}}_{a,A})$ is identified with $A$ where an element $\lambda \in A$ corresponds to the multiplication by $\lambda$; if $k$ has characteristic $p > 0$ then $\operatorname{End}_{A-gp}({\mathbf{G}}_{a,A})$ is identified with the non-commutative ring $A[F]$ (with multiplication determined by the rule $F \lambda = \lambda^p F$) where $F : \fonction{{\mathbf{G}}_{a,A}}{{\mathbf{G}}_{a,A}}{x}{x^p}$ is the Frobenius endomorphism (see [@DEM II, 3, prop. 4.4 p.196]). Moreover the invertible elements of $A[F]$ are the invertible elements of $A$. Therefore, since $T$ acts non-trivially on ${\mathbf{G}}_{a,k}$ (otherwise $G$ would be commutative), the action gives a non-trivial morphism $T \to {\mathbf{G}}_{m,k}$. Hence $T$ has a non-trivial character over $k$, so $T = {\mathbf{G}}_{m,k}$. The weight of the action is invariant under field extensions, so we have $G \simeq {\mathbf{G}}_{a,k} \stackrel{d}{\rtimes} {\mathbf{G}}_{m,k}$.
Assume that there exists a finite purely inseparable extension $K/k$ such that $G_K \simeq {\mathbf{G}}_{a,K} \stackrel{d}{\rtimes} {\mathbf{G}}_{m,K}$. As above, a maximal torus $T$ of $G$ is a form of ${\mathbf{G}}_m$ , which is trivialized by $K/k$. Since the extension is purely inseparable, we have $T \simeq {\mathbf{G}}_{m,k}$. The quotient variety $G/T$ is a form of ${\mathbf{A}}^1$ and the kernel of the action of $G$ on this quotient is the subgroup $\mu_d$ of $T$.
Let us show that $G/T \simeq {\mathbf{A}}^1_k$. Every form of ${\mathbf{A}}^1$ which is trivialized by a separable extension is trivial, so we may assume that $k$ is separably closed. If for every $k$-rational point $x$ of $G/T$ the orbit morphism $T \to G/T$ were constant then, for $t \in T(k)$, the scheme $Z$ of the fixed points of $t$ (that is, the closed subscheme of $G/T$ representing the functor which associates with every $k$-scheme $S$ the set $\{x \in (G/T)(S) \mid tx=x\}$) would satisfy $Z(k) = (G/T)(k)$. But $G/T$ is reduced and hence $(G/T)(k)$ is dense in $G/T$, so we would have $Z = G/T$, in contradiction with the non-triviality of the action of $T$ on $G/T$. Thus, we can choose $x$ such that the orbit morphism is non-constant. This morphism extends to a non-constant morphism ${\mathbf{P}}^1_k \to \widehat{G/T}$ where $\widehat{G/T}$ is the regular completion of the curve $G/T$. Lüroth’s theorem implies $\widehat{G/T} \simeq {\mathbf{P}}^1_k$. Therefore we have ${\mathbf{A}}^1_k \setminus \{0\} = Tx \subsetneq G/T \subsetneq {\mathbf{P}}^1_k$, so $G/T \simeq {\mathbf{A}}^1_k$.
The action of $G$ on $G/T \simeq {\mathbf{A}}^1_k$ extends to an action on the regular completion ${\mathbf{P}}^1_k$ fixing the complement $\infty$ of ${\mathbf{A}}^1_k$. It corresponds to a morphism $f : G \to {\mathbf{Aut}_{{\mathbf{P}}^1_k,\infty}} \simeq {\mathbf{G}}_{a,k} \rtimes {\mathbf{G}}_{m,k}$ whose kernel is equal to $\mu_d$. After extension to $K$, it becomes $f_K : \fonction{{\mathbf{G}}_{a,K} \stackrel{d}{\rtimes} {\mathbf{G}}_{m,K}}{{\mathbf{G}}_{a,K} \rtimes {\mathbf{G}}_{m,K}}{(a,t)}{(a,t^d)}$. Let $U = f^{-1}({\mathbf{G}}_{a,k})$. Then $U_K = f_K^{-1}({\mathbf{G}}_{a,K})$ is the subgroup ${\mathbf{G}}_{a,K}$ of ${\mathbf{G}}_{a,K} \stackrel{d}{\rtimes} {\mathbf{G}}_{m,K}$. So $U$ is a normal subgroup of $G$, the subgroup $U \cap T$ is trivial and we have $G = U \cdot T$. Moreover the kernel of the morphism $U \to {\mathbf{G}}_{a,k}$ induced by $f$ is $U \cap \mu_d$, which is trivial. So $U \simeq {\mathbf{G}}_{a,k}$ and, as above, $G \simeq {\mathbf{G}}_{a,k} \stackrel{d}{\rtimes} {\mathbf{G}}_{m,k}$.
[SGA3]{}
Jeffrey Achter, Sebastian Casalaina-Martin, Charles Vial, [*A functorial approach to regular homomorphisms*]{}, arXiv 1911.09911.
Dmitry Ahiezer, [*Dense orbits with two ends*]{}, Math. USSR Izv. [**11**]{} (1977), no. 2, 293–307.
Dmitry Ahiezer, [*Equivariant completions of homogeneous algebraic varieties by homogeneous divisors*]{}, Ann. Glob. Analysis and Geometry [**1**]{} (1983), no. 1, 49–78.
Siegfried Bosch, Werner Lütkebohmert, Michel Raynaud, [*Néron models*]{}, Ergebnisse Math. Grenzg. (3) [**21**]{}, Springer, Berlin, 1990.
Michel Brion, [*Some basic results on actions of non-affine algebraic groups*]{}, Symmetry and Spaces, Progr. Math. [**278**]{}, Birkhäuser, 2009, 1–20.
Michel Brion, [*Some structure theorems for algebraic groups*]{}, Proc. Symp. Pure Math. [**94**]{}, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2017, 53–125.
Michel Brion, [*Commutative Algebraic groups up to Isogeny*]{}, Documenta Math. [**22**]{} (2017), 679–725.
Michel Brion, [*Algebraic group actions on normal varieties*]{}, Trans. Moscow Math. Soc. [**78**]{} (2017), 85–107.
Michel Brion, Preena Samuel, V. Uma, [*Lectures on the structure of algebraic groups and geometric applications*]{}, CMI Lecture series in mathematics [**1**]{}, Hindustan Book Agency, 2013.
Brian Conrad, Ofer Gabber, Gopal Prasad, [*Pseudo-reductive groups*]{}, New Mathematical Monographs [**26**]{}, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2015.
Brian Conrad, [*A modern proof of Chevalley’s theorem on algebraic groups*]{}, J. Ramanujan Math. Soc. [**17**]{} (2002), no. 1, 1–18.
Michel Demazure, Pierre Gabriel, [*Groupes algébriques*]{}, Masson, Paris, 1970.
Alexander Grothendieck, Jean Dieudonné, [*Éléments de géométrie algébrique. I Le langage des schémas*]{}, Publ. Math. I.H.É.S. [**4**]{} (1960), 5–228; [*II Étude globale élémentaire de quelques classes de morphismes*]{}, ibid. [**8**]{} (1961), 5–222; [*IV Étude locale des schémas et des morphismes de schémas, Seconde partie*]{}, ibid. [**24**]{} (1965), 5–231; [*Quatrième partie*]{}, ibid. [**32**]{} (1967), 5–361.
Robin Hartshorne, [*Algebraic geometry*]{}, Graduate Texts in Mathematics [**52**]{}, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997.
Bruno Laurent, [*Almost homogeneous curves over an arbitrary field*]{}, Transf. Groups [**24**]{} (2019), no. 3, 845–886.
Masaki Maruyama, [*On automorphism groups of ruled surfaces*]{}, J. Math. Kyoto Univ. [**11**]{} (1971), no. 1, 89–112.
Hideyuki Matsumura, Frans Oort, [*Representability of group functors and automorphisms of algebraic schemes*]{}, Invent. Math. [**41**]{} (1967), no. 1, 1–25.
David Mumford, [*Abelian varieties*]{}, Oxford University Press, 1974.
Frans Oort, [*Commutative group schemes*]{}, Lecture Notes in Mathematics [**15**]{}, Springer, Berlin, 1966.
Carlos Sancho de Salas, [*Complete homogeneous varieties: structure and classification*]{}, Trans. AMS [**355**]{} (2003).
Jean-Pierre Serre, [*Morphismes universels et variété d’Albanese*]{}, Séminaire C. Chevalley, t4 1958/1959, Exp. 10, École Normale Supérieure, Paris, 1960.
Jean-Pierre Serre, [*Algebraic groups and class fields*]{}, Graduate Texts in Mathematics [**117**]{}, Springer, New-York, 1988.
Michel Demazure, Alexander Grothendieck, [*Schémas en groupes (SGA3). Tome 1 : Propriétés générales des schémas en groupes*]{}, Documents Mathématiques [**7**]{}, Soc. Math. France, Paris, 2011.
Burt Totaro, [*Pseudo-abelian varieties*]{}, A. Scient. Éc. Norm. Sup. 4e série [**46**]{} (2013), 693–721.
Olivier Wittenberg, [*On Albanese torsors and the elementary obstruction*]{}, Math. Ann. [**340**]{} (2008), 805–838.
[^1]: Mathematisches Institut, Heinrich-Heine-Universität, 40204 Düsseldorf, Germany [Bruno.Laurent@hhu.de](Bruno.Laurent@hhu.de)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we consider three minimization problems, namely quadratic, $\rho$-convex and quadratic fractional programing problems. The quadratic problem is considered with quadratic inequality constraints with bounded continuous and discrete mixed variables. The $\rho$-convex problem is considered with $\rho$-convex inequality constraints in mixed variables. The quadratic fractional problem is studied with quadratic fractional constraints in mixed variables. For all three problems we reformulate the problem as a mathematical programming problem and apply standard Karush Kuhn Tucker necessary conditions. Then, for each problem, we provide local necessary optimality condition. Further, for each problem a Lagrangian multiplier sufficient optimality condition is provided to identify global minimizer among the local minimizers. For the quadratic problem underestimation of a Lagrangian was employed to obtain the desired sufficient conditions. For the $\rho$-convex problem we obtain two sufficient optimality conditions to distinguish a global minimizer among the local minimizers, one with an underestimation of a Lagrangian and the other with a different technique. A global sufficient optimality condition for the quadratic fractional problem is obtained by reformulating the problem as a quadratic problem and then utilizing the results of the quadratic problem. Examples are provided to illustrate the significance of the results obtained.'
address:
- '$^{\dagger}$ Department of mathematics and Statistics, University of Jaffna, Thirunelveli, Sri Lanka.'
- '$^{\ddagger}$ Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Concordia University, 1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd. West, Montreal, Quebec, H3G 1M8, Canada.'
author:
- |
B. Muraleetharan$^{\dagger}$, S. Selvarajan$^{\dagger}$, S. Srisatkunarajah$^{\dagger}$ and\
K. Thirulogasanthar$^{\ddagger}$
title: 'Lagrange Multiplier Local Necessary and Global Sufficiency Criteria for Some Non-Convex Programming Problems'
---
[^1]
Introduction {#sec_intro}
============
In classical Calculus, method of Lagrange multiplier provides first order necessary condition for optimization problems with equality constraints. Celebrated Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) conditions, published in 1951, generalize the Lagrange multiplier approach to Mathematical Programming problems with both equality and inequality constraints [@KKT]. Solutions of constrained convex optimization problems have been long studied and to such a problem a local extrema is a global one [@Par; @pr]. However, the non-convex optimization problems pose NP-hard challenges. Since local necessary optimality conditions play an important role in identifying local minimizers, recently, attempts have been made to formulate local optimality conditions, analogous to KKT conditions, to non-linear programming problem with bounded variables/box constraints. A common optimization problem in many real-world applications is to identify and locate a global minimizer of functions of several variables with bounds on the variables [@fp]. Non-convex quadratic optimization problems have numerous applications such as electronic circuit design, computational chemistry, combinatorial optimization and many more. See, for example, [@fp] and the many references therein.\
In this work we consider the mathematical programming model problem: $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{(MP)~~}~~\min_{x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}} f_{0}(x)&~&~\\
\mbox{s.t.~~}~~ f_{j}(x) &\leq0,& ~~\forall~j\in\{1,2,3,\cdots,m\}\\
x_{i} \in [u_{i},v_{i}],&i\in I & \mbox{-\,Continuous variable}\\
x_{i} \in \{u_{i},v_{i}\},&i\in J ;& \mbox{-\,Discrete variable},
\end{aligned}$$ where $I\cap J=\phi$, $I\cup J=\{1,2,3,\cdots,n\}$. We study three particular cases: $f_{j}:j=0,1,2,\dots,m$ are quadratic functions, are $\rho-$convex functions and are quadratic fractional functions.\
Characterizing global solutions to constrained non-convex problems that exhibit multiple local extrema has been limited to a few classes of problems [@Beck; @Hor; @SriJaya1; @Jey; @Jey2; @Pi], to name a few. Sufficient global optimality condition has been studied for a quadratic optimization problem with binary constraints in [@Beck; @Pi]. For a quadratic optimal function global optimality conditions were developed in [@Jey2; @Pe]. In [@Li] the authors considered non-convex minimization of a twice differentiable function with quadratic inequality constraints and obtained necessary condition for a global minimizer. They have also studied the same optimization problem with only the box constraints and obtained necessary and sufficient conditions for a global minimizer. In addition they have obtained necessary and sufficient conditions for a quadratic objective function with only the box constraints. However, in this article, in some sense as a unification of box and bivalent constraints considered to a quadratic minimization problem, we provide local necessary and sufficient condition for a quadratic minimization problem with quadratic, box and discrete variable constraints altogether, that is, we consider the problem MP when $f_{j}:j=0,1,2,\dots,m$ are quadratic functions (see P1) . We also provide sufficient condition for the same problem to distinguish the global minimizer among the local minimizers. There is also another reason for studying this problem at first, which is the results obtained in this quadratic problem put a platform in obtaining the sufficient condition for fractional optimization problem with fractional constraints.\
In [@Wu] sufficient global optimality condition for weakly convex minimization problems with weakly convex inequality and equality constraints, using abstract convex analysis theory, has been obtained. However, in obtaining such conditions they have used the so-called $(L, X)$-subdifferentials. In this note, we consider the problem MP when $f_{j}:j=0,1,2,\dots,m$ are $\rho$-convex functions (see P2) and we obtain verifiable sufficiency condition for locating the global minimizer among the local minimizers. Further, the conditions we derive are different from the one given in [@Wu] and easy to verify. In addition, in our optimization problem we have mixed variables, namely continuous and discrete and obtain a sufficient condition in a verifiable semi-definite matrix form, which itself makes our problem different from the one considered in [@Wu].\
Constrained fractional programing problems have a wide range of applications such as signal processing, communications, location theory etc. [@Lo; @Oh]. In [@Sa] the authors have studied a quadratic fractional optimization problem with strictly convex quadratic constraints using Newton’s algorithm. In [@Za] a quadratic fractional optimization problem has been studied with two quadratic convex constraints using the classical Dinkelbach approach with no global convergence guarantee. In [@Ab], using the conditional gradient method the ratio of two convex functions over a closed and convex set has been studied numerically. In this article we consider the problem MP when $f_{j}:j=0,1,2,\dots,m$ are quadratic fractional functions (see P3). For this problem, we first provide local necessary conditions and then obtain a verifiable sufficient condition for identifying global minimizer among the local ones. In this regard, our problem generalizes the cases considered in [@Sa; @Za] and [@Ab] in a considerable way.
Preliminaries
=============
Notations:
----------
We shall begin with the notations and definitions. For the problem (MP), let $$\Delta=\{x=(x_{i})\in\mathbb{R}^{n}~|~x_{i}\in[u_{i},v_{i}], ~i\in I\},$$ $$D=\{x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}~|~x_{i}\in[u_{i},v_{i}], i\in I~~\mbox{~and~}~~x_{i}\in\{u_{i},v_{i}\}, i\in J\},$$ where $I\cap J=\phi$, $I\cup J=\{1,2,3,\cdots,n\}$, and $$\tilde{D}=\{x\in D~|~f_{j}(x)\leq 0,~~\forall~j\in\{1,2,3,\cdots,m\}~\}:~\mbox{~~feasible set}.$$ Now for $\lambda=(\lambda_{j})\in\mathbb{R}^{m}_{+}$, define the Lagrangian $L(\cdot,\lambda)$ of (MP) by $$\label{lag_MP}
L(x,\lambda):=f_{0}(x)+\sum_{j=1}^{m}\lambda_{j}f_{j}(x);~~x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}.$$ By taking $\lambda_{0}=1$ the Lagrangian of (MP) can be written as $$L(x,\lambda)=\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}f_{j}(x).$$ For $\overline{x}\in D$ and $i\in \{1,2,3,\cdots,n\}$, define $$\label{eq4}
\chi_{i}(\overline{x}):=\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
-1 & \mathrm{if}\ \overline{x}_i=u_i \\
~~~~\,\,\,1 & \mathrm{if}\ \overline{x}_i=v_i\\
\nabla L(\overline{x},\lambda)_{i} & \mathrm{if}\ \overline{x}_i\in (u_i ,v_i ).
\end{array}\right.$$ For a symmetric matrix $A$, $A\succeq0$ means that $A$ is positive semi-definite, and $A\succ0$ means that $A$ positive definite.
[@JeySriHuy] A quadratic function $\ell:\mathbb{R}^{n}\longrightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is said to be a minimizing quadratic *under-estimator* of a function $f:\mathbb{R}^{n}\longrightarrow\mathbb{R}$ at $\overline{x}$ over a set $\Omega$, if for each $x\in\Omega$ $$f(x)-f(\overline{x})\geq \ell(x)-\ell(\overline{x})\geq0.$$
Let $$\label{mu}
\mu_j=\inf_{\Vert x \Vert =1} \frac{-1}{2}x^TA_jx,$$ be the first eigenvalue of $\displaystyle{\frac{-A_j}{2}},$ where $A_{j}=(a_{st}^{(j)})$ is an $n\times n$ symmetric matrix, for all $j\in\{0,1,2,3,\cdots,m\}$.
[@J-P] A function $f: C \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^n \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ from a convex subset $C$ of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ into ${\mathbb{R}}$ is said to be **convex**, if $\forall x_1,\;x_2\in C$ and $\forall \lambda \in [0,1],$ $$\label{w1}
f(x_1+(1-\lambda)x_2 )\le \lambda f(x_1) + (1-\lambda) f(x_2).$$
A function $f: C \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^n \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ from a convex subset $C$ of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ into ${\mathbb{R}}$ is said to be **$\rho$- convex**, if there exists $\rho \in {\mathbb{R}}$ such that $\forall x_1,\;x_2\in C$ and $\forall \lambda \in [0,1],$ $$\label{w1}
f(x_1+(1-\lambda)x_2 )\le \lambda f(x_1) + (1-\lambda) f(x_2) -\rho \lambda (1-\lambda) \Vert x_1-x_2 \Vert.$$
Condition $(\ref{w1})$ is equivalent to say that $f(x)-\rho \Vert x \Vert^2$ is a convex function over $C$.
The following proposition gives a fundamental result.
\[p1\] For each $j\in\{0,1,2,3,\cdots,m\}$, we have $$\mu_j=\inf_{\Vert x \Vert =1} \frac{-1}{2}x^TA_jx=\inf_{x\neq0}\frac{-1}{~2}\frac{x^TA_jx}{\|x\|^{2}}.$$
Let $j\in\{0,1,2,3,\cdots,m\}$ and $x\in\tilde{D}$ with $x\neq0$, then $\displaystyle\left\|\frac{x}{\|x\|}\right\|=1$. Therefore $$\inf_{\Vert x \Vert =1} \frac{-1}{~2}x^TA_jx\leq\frac{-1}{~2}\left(\frac{x}{\|x\|}\right)^TA_j\left(\frac{x}{\|x\|}\right)=\frac{-1}{~2}\,\frac{x^TA_jx}{\|x\|^{~2}},~~\forall\,x\in\tilde{D}\smallsetminus\{0\}.$$ Thus $$\label{ine1}
\inf_{\Vert x \Vert =1} \frac{-1}{2}x^TA_jx\leq\inf_{x\neq0} \frac{-1}{~2}\frac{x^TA_jx}{\|x\|^{2}}.$$ On the other hand let $x\in\tilde{D}$ with $\|x\|=1$, then $$\frac{-1}{~2}x^TA_jx=\frac{-1}{~2}\,\frac{x^TA_jx}{\|x\|^{2}}\geq\inf_{x\neq0} \frac{-1}{~2}\frac{x^TA_jx}{\|x\|^{2}}.$$ Therefore $$\label{ine2}
\inf_{\Vert x \Vert =1} \frac{-1}{~2}x^TA_jx\geq\inf_{x\neq0} \frac{-1}{~2}\frac{x^TA_jx}{\|x\|^{2}}.$$ From (\[ine1\]) and (\[ine2\]), the result follows.
The following proposition describes the character of constraint and objective functions.
\[p2\] The function $$g_{j}(x)=f_j(x)-\frac{1}{2}x^TA_jx$$ is $\mu_j$-convex, for all $j\in\{0,1,2,3,\cdots,m\}$, where $\mu_j$ is given by (\[mu\]).
Let $j\in\{0,1,2,3,\cdots,m\}$ and by the above Proposition (\[p1\]), we have $$\mu_j=\inf_{x\neq0}\frac{-1}{~2}\frac{x^TA_jx}{\|x\|^{2}}.$$ Therefore $$x^T\mu_jx=\mu_j\|x\|^{2}\leq\frac{-1}{~2}x^TA_jx,~~\forall\,x\in\tilde{D}\smallsetminus\{0\}$$ and it trivially follows for $x=0$. So $$-\frac{1}{2}x^TA_jx-x^T\mu_jx\geq0,~~\forall\,x\in\tilde{D}.$$ That is, the quadratic form $\displaystyle-\frac{1}{2}x^TA_jx-x^T\mu_jx$ is positive semi-definite. So $$\displaystyle f_j(x)-\frac{1}{2}x^TA_jx-\mu_j\|x\|^{2}$$ is convex, as $f_j(x)$ is convex. Hence $$g_{j}(x)=f_j(x)-\frac{1}{2}x^TA_jx$$ is $\mu_j$-convex.
The following proposition is essential to derive the sufficient global optimality condition.
\[p3\] If $h:C\subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^n\;\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ is $\rho$-convex over $C$ then $$h(x)-h(\bar{x})\ge \rho \Vert x-\bar{x} \Vert^2 + (\nabla h(x))^T(x-\bar{x}),~~\forall\,x,\bar{x} \in C.$$
Let $x,\;\bar{x} \in C.$ Then $$h(x)-h(\bar{x})= (h(x)-\rho \Vert x\Vert^2)-(h(\bar{x})-\rho \Vert \bar{x}\Vert^2) +\rho \Vert x\Vert^2-\rho \Vert \bar{x} \Vert^2.$$ Convexity of $h(x)-\rho \Vert x\Vert$ yields $$(h(x)-\rho \Vert x\Vert^2)-(h(\bar{x})-\rho \Vert \bar{x}\Vert^2) \ge (\nabla h (\bar{x})-2\rho\bar{x})^T(x-\bar{x}).$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
h(x)-h(\bar{x}) &\ge&
(\nabla h (\bar{x})-2\rho\bar{x})^T(x-\bar{x})+\rho \Vert x\Vert^2-\rho \Vert \bar{x} \Vert^2\\
&= &\rho \Vert x-\bar{x} \Vert^2 + (\nabla h(x))^T(x-\bar{x}).
\end{aligned}$$ Hence the conclusion follows.
Karush Kuhn Tucker (KKT) Necessary Conditions:
----------------------------------------------
First we recall the standard Karush Kuhn Tucker (KKT) conditions [@KKT] for the following Mathematical Programing Problem: $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{(MPP)~~}~~\min_{x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}} f(x)&~& \\
\mbox{s.t.~~}~~ c_{i}(x) &=&0,~~\forall~i\in E\\
c_{i}(x) &\geq&0,~~\forall~i\in I;
\end{aligned}$$ where $E$ and $I$ are some finite index sets and the objective function $f$ and the constraints $c_i$ are continuously differentiable. The point $x$ is called a *regular point* of (MPP) if and only if the set $\{\nabla c_{i}(x),~\mid~i\in\Lambda(x)\}$ is linearly independent; where $\Lambda(x)=\{i\in E\cup I~\mid~c_{i}(x)=0\}$.\
: If a regular point $\overline{x}$ is a local minimizer of (MPP), then there exist multipliers $\lambda_{i},~i\in E\cup I$ such that
- $\displaystyle\nabla_{x} L(\overline{x},\lambda)=\nabla f(\overline{x})-\sum_{i\in E\cup I}\lambda_{i}\nabla c_{i}(x)=0$
- $c_{i}(x)=0,~~\mbox{~for~}~i\in E,~~c_{i}(x)\geq0,~~\mbox{~for~}~~i\in I$
- $\lambda_{i}\geq0,~~\mbox{~for~}~~i\in I$
- $\lambda_{i}c_{i}(x)=0,~~\mbox{~for~}~~i\in E\cup I$.
The above four conditions are known as Karush Kuhn Tucker (KKT) necessary conditions for (MPP).
General Necessary Conditions for Local Minimizers
-------------------------------------------------
In this section analogous KKT necessary condition for model problem (MP) consisting of mixed bound variables, is obtained by reformulating (MP) into a standard Mathematical Programming Problem (MPM). The following lemma is the key to obtain such KKT condition.
\[lem1\] If $\overline{x}\in\tilde{D}$ is a local minimizer of (MP), then following optimality condition holds: $$\label{lcl1}
\nabla_{x} L(\overline{x},\lambda)(x-\overline{x})\geq 0, ~\forall\,x\in\Delta;$$ where $\lambda=(\lambda_j)\in\mathbb{R}^m$ and $\lambda_j:\,j=1,2,3,\cdots,m$ are the Lagrangian multipliers associated with $\overline{x}\in\tilde{D}$.
The problem (MP) can be reformulated as a Mathematical Programming Problem (referred: model problem-modified) as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{(MPM)~~}~~\min_{x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}} f_{0}(x)&~&~\\
\mbox{s.t.~~}~~ f_{j}(x) &\leq0,& ~~\forall~j\in\{1,2,3,\cdots,m\}\\
(x_{i}-u_{i})(x_{i}-v_{i})&\leq 0,& ~i\in I \\
(x_{i}-u_{i})(x_{i}-v_{i})&=0,& ~i\in J.
\end{aligned}$$ For $(\lambda,\mu,\nu)\in\mathbb{R}^{m}\times\mathbb{R}^{|I|}\times\mathbb{R}^{|J|}$, define the Lagrangian $L^{\ast}(\cdot,\lambda,\mu,\nu)$ of (MPM) by $$\label{lag_MMP}
L^{\ast}(x,\lambda,\mu,\nu):=\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}f_{j}(x)+\sum_{i\in I}\mu_{i}(x_{i}-u_{i})(x_{i}-v_{i})+\sum_{i\in J}\nu_{i}(x_{i}-u_{i})(x_{i}-v_{i})$$ for all $x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$, where $\lambda_{0}=1$. Now suppose that, $\overline{x}\in\tilde{D}$ is a local minimizer of (MP), then trivially we have $\overline{x}$ is a local minimizer of (MPM). By applying the Kuhn-Tucker conditions for (MPM), we have there exists $(\lambda,\mu,\nu)\in\mathbb{R}^{n}\times\mathbb{R}^{|I|}\times\mathbb{R}^{|J|}$ such that\
- $\nabla_{x}L^{\ast}(\overline{x},\lambda,\mu,\nu)=0$\
- - $f_{j}(\overline{x})\leq0$, for all $j\in\{1,2,3,\cdots,m\}$
- $(\overline{x}_{i}-u_{i})(\overline{x}_{i}-v_{i})\leq 0$, for all $i\in I$
- $(\overline{x}_{i}-u_{i})(\overline{x}_{i}-v_{i})= 0$, for all $i\in J$\
- - $\lambda_{j}\geq 0$, for all $j\in\{1,2,3,\cdots,m\}$
- $\mu_{i}\geq 0$, for all $i\in I$
- $\nu_{i}\geq 0$, for all $i\in J$\
- - $\lambda_{j} f_{j}(\overline{x})=0$, for all $j\in\{1,2,3,\cdots,m\}$
- $\mu_{i}(\overline{x}_{i}-u_{i})(\overline{x}_{i}-v_{i})= 0$, for all $i\in I$
- $\nu_{i}(\overline{x}_{i}-u_{i})(\overline{x}_{i}-v_{i})= 0$, for all $i\in J$.\
Now $\nabla_{x}L^{\ast}(\overline{x},\lambda,\mu,\nu)=0$ splits into $$\left[\nabla_{x}\left(\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}f_{j}(x)\right)+\nabla_{x}\left(\sum_{i\in I}\mu_{i}(x_{i}-u_{i})(x_{i}-v_{i})\right)+\nabla_{x}\left(\sum_{i\in J}\nu_{i}(x_{i}-u_{i})(x_{i}-v_{i})\right)\right]_{x=\overline{x}}=0.$$ That is, if $k\in I$, then $$\nabla_{x}\left(L(\overline{x},\lambda)\right)_{k}+\mu_{k}(\overline{x}_{k}-u_{k})+\mu_{k}(\overline{x}_{k}-v_{k})=0.$$ Multiplying both side of this equation by $(x_{k}-\overline{x}_{k})$, and using the Kuhn-Tucker Conditions (2), (3) and (4), we get, for each $k\in I$, $$(\nabla_{x} L(\overline{x},\lambda))_{k}(x_{k}-\overline{x}_{k})\geq 0,$$ for all $x=(x_{i})\in\Delta$. Hence the conclusion follows.
For all three programing problems considered in this note we shall assume that the linear independence constraint qualification is satisfied.
The Quadratic Programming Problem
=================================
The aim of this section is to derive necessary local optimality condition and sufficient global optimality condition to identifying global minimizers among the local minimizers of the following non-convex quadratic programming problem with mixed variables ($P_1$): $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{($P_1$)~~}~~\min_{x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}} f_{0}(x)&=&\min_{x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}} \frac{1}{2}x^{T}A_{0}x+a_{0}^{T}x+c_{0} \\
\mbox{s.t.~~}~~ f_{j}(x) &=&\frac{1}{2}x^{T}A_{j}x+a_{j}^{T}x+c_{j}\leq 0,~~\forall~j\in\{1,2,3,\cdots,m\}\\
&&x_{i} \in [u_{i},v_{i}], ~i\in I \\
&&x_{i} \in \{u_{i},v_{i}\}, ~i\in J ;\end{aligned}$$ where $I\cap J=\phi$, $I\cup J=\{1,2,3,\cdots,n\}$, $A_{j}=(a_{st}^{(j)})$ is an $n\times n$ symmetric matrix, for all $j\in\{0,1,2,3,\cdots,m\}$, $a_{j}=(a_{r}^{(j)})\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$, $c_{j}\in\mathbb{R}$ and $u_{i},v_{i}\in\mathbb{R}$ with $u_{i}<v_{i},$ for all $i\in \{1,2,3,\cdots,n\}$.\
The Lagrangian of ($P_1$) becomes as $$\label{lag}L(x,\lambda)=\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left(\frac{1}{2}x^{T}A_{j}x+a_{j}^{T}x+c_{j}\right),$$ where $\lambda_0=1$ and $\lambda_j\in\mathbb{R}^+$. Model problem ($P_1$) differs from standard quadratic programming problem (MP) because it allows a set of constraints which are of box constraints in continuous variables and in discrete variables. Model problem ($P_1$) appear in numerous application including electronic circuit design and computational chemistry and combinatorial optimization [@fp; @mmr]. ($P_1$) covers for instance bivalent optimization problems where $u_{i}=0,~v_{i}=1$ for all $i\in J$ and $I=\emptyset$ and box constraints problems where $J=\emptyset$.
Necessary Conditions for Local Minimizers
-----------------------------------------
Using the above Lemma (\[lem1\]) analogous KKT necessary condition for a local minimizer of ($P_1$) is provided in the following theorem. This result will be used to identify global minimizers in the next subsection.
\[TlcQP\] If $\overline{x}\in\tilde{D}$ is a local minimizer of ($P_1$), then $$\label{lcl2QP}
\chi_{i}(\overline{x})\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})_{i}\leq0,~~\forall\,i\in I;$$ where $\lambda_{j}\in\mathbb{R}^+; j=1,2,3,\cdots,m$ are the Lagrangian multipliers associated with $\overline{x}\in\tilde{D}$, $\lambda_0=1$, and $\chi_{i}(\overline{x})$ as in (\[eq4\]).
Suppose that, $\overline{x}\in\tilde{D}$ is a local minimizer of ($P_1$).\
First we shall show that, for each $i\in I$, $$\label{eq1QP}
\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})_{i}(t-\overline{x}_{i})\geq0,~~\forall\,t\in[u_{i},v_{i}].$$ For: let $i\in I$ and $t\in[u_{i},v_{i}]$ and define the vector $x=(x_{k})\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ such that $$x_{k}:=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
t & \mathrm{if}\ k=i \\
\overline{x}_{k} & \mathrm{if}\ k\neq i.\\
\end{array}\right.$$ Then clearly $x\in\Delta=\{x=(x_{i})\in\mathbb{R}^{n}~|~x_{i}\in[u_{i},v_{i}], ~i\in I\}$. Hence by the Lemma (\[lem1\]), we have $$\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})_{i}(t-\overline{x}_{i})\geq0,~~\forall\,t\in[u_{i},v_{i}].$$ Let $i\in I$ arbitrary.\
**Case-1:** If $\overline{x}_{i}=u_{i}$, then choose $t=v_{i}$. From (\[eq1QP\]), we have
$\displaystyle\chi_{i}(\overline{x})\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})_{i}\leq0$ as $\chi_{i}(\overline{x})=-1$ and $(v_i-\overline{x}_i)>0$.
**Case-2:** If $\overline{x}_{i}=v_{i}$, then choose $t=u_{i}$. From (\[eq1QP\]), we have
$\displaystyle\chi_{i}(\overline{x})\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})_{i}\leq0$ as $\chi_{i}(\overline{x})=1$ and $(v_i-\overline{x}_i)<0$.
**Case-3:** If $\overline{x}_i\in (u_{i} ,v_{i} )$, then on the one hand, choose $t=u_{i}$. From (\[eq1QP\]), we have $$\label{eq2QP}
\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})_{i}\leq0.$$ On the other hand, choose $t=v_{i}$, the from (\[eq1QP\]), we have $$\label{eq3QP}
\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})_{i}\geq0.$$ From (\[eq2QP\]) and (\[eq3QP\]), we have $$\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})_{i}=0.$$ Thus $$\displaystyle\chi_{i}(\overline{x})\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})_{i}=\left(\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})_{i}\right)^{2}=0$$ as $\displaystyle\chi_{i}(\overline{x})=\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})_{i}=0.$ Hence by the summary of all above three cases, the optimality condition (\[lcl2QP\]) follows.
Sufficient Global Optimality Conditions
---------------------------------------
In this section a useful sufficient global optimality condition is presented for a local minimizer to be a Global minimizer for ($P_1$). We establish such criteria by under-estimating the objective function by the Lagrangian of the problem ($P_1$).
The following theorem enables us to have sufficient condition for the global minimizers. To establish this theorem, we show that the Lagrangian $L(x,\lambda)$ is a minimizing under-estimator of the objective function $f_{0}$ at the local minimizer $\overline{x}$ over the set $\tilde{D}$ under desired conditions.
\[tscq\] Let $\overline{x}\in\tilde{D}$ be a local minimizer, $\lambda_{j}\in\mathbb{R}^{+};~j\in \{1,2,\cdots,m\}$ be the Lagrangian multipliers associated with $\overline{x}\in\tilde{D}$ and $\lambda_{0}=1$. If $$\label{SCQP}
\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[A_{j}-\mathrm{diag}\left(2\chi_{1}(\overline{x})\frac{(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})_{1}}{(v_{1}-u_{1})},
\cdots,2\chi_{n}(\overline{x})\frac{(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})_{n}}{(v_{n}-u_{n})}\right)\right]\succeq0,\vspace{-0.1cm}$$ then $\overline{x}$ is a global minimizer of ($P_1$). Moreover, if $$\label{SC1QP}
\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[A_{j}-\mathrm{diag}\left(2\chi_{1}(\overline{x})\frac{(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})_{1}}{(v_{1}-u_{1})},
\cdots,2\chi_{n}(\overline{x})\frac{(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})_{n}}{(v_{n}-u_{n})}\right)\right]\succ0,\vspace{-0.1cm}$$ then $\overline{x}$ is a unique global minimizer of ($P_1$).
Let $\overline{x}\in\tilde{D}$ be a local minimizer and take, for each $i\in \{1,2,3,\cdots,n\}$ and $j\in \{0,1,2,\cdots,m\}$, $$q_{i}^{(j)}=2\chi_{i}(\overline{x})\frac{(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}.$$ Now from the Kuhn-Tucker conditions for ($P_1$), we have there exists $\lambda_{j}\in\mathbb{R}^{+};~j\in \{0,1,2,\cdots,m\}$ with $\lambda_{0}=1$ such that $f_{0}(\overline{x})= L(\overline{x},\lambda)$ as $\lambda_jf_j(\overline{x})=$, for all $j=1,2,3,\cdots,m$ and $$f_{0}(x)\geq f_0(x)+\sum_{j=1}^{m}\lambda_jf_j(x)= L(x,\lambda),~~\forall\,x \in\tilde{D}$$ as $\lambda_jf_j(x)\leq0$ for all $x \in\tilde{D}$ and $j=1,2,3,\cdots,m.$ So we have $$\label{eq1QP2}
f_{0}(x)-f_{0}(\overline{x})\geq L(x,\lambda)-L(\overline{x},\lambda),~~\forall\,x \in\tilde{D}.$$Now for any $x \in\tilde{D}$, $$\begin{aligned}
L(x,\lambda)-L(\overline{x},\lambda)&=&\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[\left(\frac{1}{2}x^{T}A_{j}x+a_{j}^{T}x+c_{j}\right)-
\left(\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^{T}A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j}^{T}\overline{x}+c_{j}\right)\right]\\
&=&\sum_{j=0}^{m}\frac{1}{2}\lambda_{j}\left[(x-\overline{x})^{T}A_{j}(x-\overline{x})+2(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})^{T}(x-\overline{x})\right]\\
&=&\sum_{j=0}^{m}\frac{1}{2}\lambda_{j}(x-\overline{x})^{T}[A_{j}-
\mathrm{diag}(q_{1}^{(j)},q_{2}^{(j)},\cdots,q_{n}^{(j)})](x-\overline{x})\\
&&+\sum_{j=0}^{m}\frac{1}{2}\lambda_{j}(x-\overline{x})^{T}\mathrm{diag}
(q_{1}^{(j)},q_{2}^{(j)},\cdots,q_{n}^{(j)})(x-\overline{x})\\
&&+\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})^{T}(x-\overline{x}).\end{aligned}$$ Thus $$\begin{aligned}
L(x,\lambda)-L(\overline{x},\lambda)&=&\sum_{j=0}^{m}\frac{1}{2}\lambda_{j}(x-\overline{x})^{T}[A_{j}-
\mathrm{diag}(q_{1}^{(j)},q_{2}^{(j)},\cdots,q_{n}^{(j)})](x-\overline{x})\\
&&+\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[\sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{1}{2}q_{i}^{(j)}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})^{2}+(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})_{i}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})\right].\end{aligned}$$ From the condition (\[SCQP\]), we have $[A_{j}-\mathrm{diag}(q_{1}^{(j)},q_{2}^{(j)},\cdots,q_{n}^{(j)})]\succeq0$. Thus, for all $x \in\tilde{D}$, $$\sum_{j=0}^{m}\frac{1}{2}\lambda_{j}(x-\overline{x})^{T}[A_{j}-
\mathrm{diag}(q_{1}^{(j)},q_{2}^{(j)},\cdots,q_{n}^{(j)})](x-\overline{x})\geq0.$$ Therefore $$L(x,\lambda)-L(\overline{x},\lambda)\geq\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[\sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{1}{2}q_{i}^{(j)}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})^{2}+(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})_{i}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})\right],$$ for all $x \in\tilde{D}$. Now using the optimality condition (\[lcl2QP\]), we show that $$\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[\sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{1}{2}q_{i}^{(j)}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})^{2}+(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})_{i}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})\right]\geq0,$$ for all $x \in\tilde{D}$. For let $x=(x_{i})\in\tilde{D}$ arbitrarily.\
**Case-1:** If $\overline{x}_{i}=u_{i}$, then (\[lcl2QP\]) gives $\displaystyle\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})_{i}\geq0$. Now $$\begin{aligned}
~&&\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[\frac{1}{2}q_{i}^{(j)}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})^{2}+(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})_{i}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})\right]\\
&=&\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[(-1)\frac{(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})^{2}+(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})_{i}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})\right]\\
&=&(x_{i}-u_{i})\left[\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\frac{(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}\right]\left(1-\frac{(x_{i}-u_{i})}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}\right).
$$ Therefore $$\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[\frac{1}{2}q_{i}^{(j)}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})^{2}+(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})_{i}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})\right]$$ is non-negative, if $i\in I$ and is equal to $0$, if $i\in J$.\
**Case-2:** If $\overline{x}_{i}=v_{i}$, then (\[lcl2QP\]) gives $\displaystyle\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})_{i}\leq0$ and in a similar method of Case-1, we will have $$\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[\frac{1}{2}q_{i}^{(j)}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})^{2}+(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})_{i}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})\right]$$ is non-negative, if $i\in I$ and is equal to $0$, if $i\in J$.\
**Case-3:** If $\overline{x}_{i}\in(u_{i},v_{i})$ and $i\in I$, then $\displaystyle\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})_{i}=0$ and so $\displaystyle\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}q_{i}^{(j)}=0$. Thus $$\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[\frac{1}{2}q_{i}^{(j)}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})^{2}+(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})_{i}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})\right]=0.$$ The summary of the above all three cases gives us that $$\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[\sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{1}{2}q_{i}^{(j)}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})^{2}+(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})_{i}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})\right]\geq0.$$ Thereby $$f_{0}(x)-f_{0}(\overline{x})\geq L(x,\lambda)-L(\overline{x},\lambda)\geq0,$$ for all $x \in\tilde{D}$ and so $L(x,\lambda)$ is a minimizing under-estimator of $f_{0}$. Hence $\overline{x}\in\tilde{D}$ is a Global minimizer of ($P_1$). If the condition (\[SC1QP\]) holds, then we can show that $$f_{0}(x)-f_{0}(\overline{x})\geq L(x,\lambda)-L(\overline{x},\lambda)>0,$$ for all $x \in\tilde{D}$. Therefore the uniqueness immediately follows.
Now we shall illustrate the sufficiency criteria given by above Theorem.
Consider the following quadratic non-convex minimization problem ($E_1$): $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{($E_1$)~~}~~\min_{(x_1,x_2)^\intercal\in\mathbb{R}^{2}} f\begin{pmatrix}
x_1 \\ x_2
\end{pmatrix}&=&\min_{(x_1,x_2)^\intercal\in\mathbb{R}^{2}} x_1^2+x_2^2-4x_1x_2-8x_1-8x_2+32 \\
\mbox{s.t.~~}~~ g\begin{pmatrix}
x_1 \\ x_2
\end{pmatrix} &=&x_1^2+x_1x_2-x_1+3x_2-12\leq 0,\\
&&x_1\in [-2,2],\\
&&x_2\in \{-2,2\}.\end{aligned}$$ We can write $f\begin{pmatrix}
x_1 \\ x_2
\end{pmatrix}$ and $g\begin{pmatrix}
x_1 \\ x_2
\end{pmatrix}$ in the form of $$f(\mathbf{x})=\dfrac{1}{2}\mathbf{x}^\intercal A_0\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{a}_0^\intercal\mathbf{x}+c_0\mbox{~~and~~}g(\mathbf{x})=\dfrac{1}{2}\mathbf{x}^\intercal A_1\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{a}_1^\intercal\mathbf{x}+c_1$$ respectively, where $\mathbf{x}=\begin{pmatrix}
x_1 \\ x_2
\end{pmatrix}$, $A_0=\begin{bmatrix}
~\,\,2 & -4\\ -4 & ~\,\,2
\end{bmatrix}$, $A_1=\begin{bmatrix}
2 & 1\\ 1 & 0
\end{bmatrix}$, $\mathbf{a}_0=\begin{pmatrix}
-8 \\ -8
\end{pmatrix}$, $\mathbf{a}_1=\begin{pmatrix}
-1 \\ ~\,\,3
\end{pmatrix}$, $c_0=32$ and $c_1=-12$. Let $u_1=u_2=-2$ and $v_1=v_2=2$. The Lagrangian of ($E_1$) is $$\label{lagE1}
L(\mathbf{x},\lambda,\mu,\nu)=x_1^2+x_2^2-4x_1x_2-8x_1-8x_2+32+\lambda(x_1^2+x_1x_2-x_1+3x_2-12)+\mu(x_1^2-4)+\nu(x_2^2-4).$$ Applying the KKT conditions for ($E_1$) we get
- $\dfrac{\partial L(\mathbf{x},\lambda,\mu,\nu)}{\partial x_1}=(2x_1-4x_2-8)+\lambda(2x_1+x_2-1)+2\mu x_1=0$,
- $\lambda,\mu\geq0$, $x_1^2+x_1x_2-x_1+3x_2-12\leq 0$, $(x_1^2-4)\leq0$,
- $\lambda(x_1^2+x_1x_2-x_1+3x_2-12)=0$,
- $\mu(x_1^2-4)=0$,
- $\nu=0$ and $x_2=-2$ or $x_2=2$.
**Case 1:** $\lambda=0$ and $\mu=0$. In this case either $x_1=4$ or $x_1=10$, but this contradicts with the condition $(x_1^2-4)\leq0$, so there is no solution to KKT in this case.\
\
**Case 2:** $\lambda=0$ and $x_1^2-4=0$. In this case for both values $x_1=\pm2$, $\mu<0$. This violates the rule $\mu\geq0$ and there is no solution to KKT in this case.\
\
**Case 3:** $(x_1^2+x_1x_2-x_1+3x_2-12)=0$ and $\mu=0$. In this case, if $x_2=2$, $x_1\in\{-3,2\}$ and if $x_2=-2$, $x_1\in\{-3,6\}$. Therefore the possible value for the pair $(x_1, x_2)$ is $(x_1,x_2)=(2,2)$. The solution, in this case, is $(x_1,x_2,\lambda,\mu,\nu)=(2,2,12/5,0,0)$.\
\
**Case 4:** $(x_1^2+x_1x_2-x_1+3x_2-12)=0$ and $x_1^2-4=0$. In this case, these two equations are satisfied by only one pair $(x_1,x_2)=(2,2)$ and it repeats the solution of case 3.
Therefore, the problem ($E_1$) has a unique local minimizer $\overline{\mathbf{x}}=(2,2)^\intercal$ and the Lagrange multiplier $\lambda=\dfrac{12}{5}$. Notice that the linear independence constraint qualification is satisfied in this problem ($E_1$). Further, direct calculation shows that the global optimality condition (\[SC1QP\]) is satisfied, and therefore $\overline{\mathbf{x}}=(2,2)^\intercal$ is the unique global minimizer.
Let us see another example, which illustrates the significance of the optimality conditions.
Consider the following quadratic non-convex minimization problem ($E_2$): $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{($E_2$)~~}~~\min_{(x_1,x_2)^\intercal\in\mathbb{R}^{2}} f\begin{pmatrix}
x_1 \\ x_2
\end{pmatrix}&=&\min_{(x_1,x_2)^\intercal\in\mathbb{R}^{2}} -x_1^2-x_2^2-x_1x_2+x_1\\
\mbox{s.t.~~}~~ g\begin{pmatrix}
x_1 \\ x_2
\end{pmatrix} &=&x_1^2+x_2^2-2\leq 0,\\
&&x_1\in [-1,1],\\
&&x_2\in \{-1,1\}.\end{aligned}$$ We can write $f\begin{pmatrix}
x_1 \\ x_2
\end{pmatrix}$ and $g\begin{pmatrix}
x_1 \\ x_2
\end{pmatrix}$ in the form of $$f(\mathbf{x})=\dfrac{1}{2}\mathbf{x}^\intercal A_0\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{a}_0^\intercal\mathbf{x}+c_0\mbox{~~and~~}g(\mathbf{x})=\dfrac{1}{2}\mathbf{x}^\intercal A_1\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{a}_1^\intercal\mathbf{x}+c_1$$ respectively, where $\mathbf{x}=\begin{pmatrix}
x_1 \\ x_2
\end{pmatrix}$, $A_0=\begin{bmatrix}
-2 & -1\\ -1 & -2
\end{bmatrix}$, $A_1=\begin{bmatrix}
2 & 0\\ 0 & 2
\end{bmatrix}$, $\mathbf{a}_0=\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\ 0
\end{pmatrix}$, $\mathbf{a}_1=\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\ 0
\end{pmatrix}$, $c_0=0$ and $c_1=-2$. Let $u_1=u_2=-1$ and $v_1=v_2=1$. The Lagrangian of ($E_2$) is $$\label{lagE2}
L(\mathbf{x},\lambda,\mu,\nu)=-x_1^2-x_2^2-x_1x_2+x_1+\lambda(x_1^2+x_2^2-2)+\mu(x_1^2-1)+\nu(x_2^2-1).$$ Apply the KKT conditions for ($E_2$). Then we have
- $\dfrac{\partial L(\mathbf{x},\lambda,\mu,\nu)}{\partial x_1}=(-2x_1-x_2+1)+2\lambda x_1+2\mu x_1=0$,
- $\lambda,\mu\geq0$, $x_1^2+x_2^2-2\leq 0$, $(x_1^2-4)\leq0$,
- $\lambda(x_1^2+x_2^2-2)=0$,
- $\mu(x_1^2-1)=0$,
- $\nu=0$ and $x_2=-1$ or $x_2=1$.
**Case 1:** $\lambda\ne0$ or $\mu\ne0$. In this case, there are two sets of solutions $\{(x_1,x_2,\lambda,\mu,0)~\mid~x_1=\pm1, x_2=1,\lambda+\mu=1~~\mbox{and}~~\lambda,\mu\geq0\}$ and $\{(-1,-1,\lambda,\mu,0)~\mid~\lambda+\mu=2~~\mbox{and}~~\lambda,\mu\geq0\}$ to KKT, for the problem ($E_2$).\
\
**Case 2:** $\lambda=0$ and $\mu=0$. In this case, there are two solutions $(x_1,x_2,\lambda,\mu,0)=(1,-1,0,0,0)$ and $(0,1,0,0,0)$.
Let $\overline{\mathbf{x}}_1=(1,1)^\intercal,\overline{\mathbf{x}}_2=(-1,1)^\intercal,\overline{\mathbf{x}}_3=(-1,-1)^\intercal,\overline{\mathbf{x}}_4=(1,-1)^\intercal$ and $\overline{\mathbf{x}}_5=(0,1)^\intercal$. Direct calculations show that $\overline{\mathbf{x}}_3=(-1,-1)^\intercal$ satisfies the condition (\[SC1QP\]). Other local minimizers do not satisfy any of the two conditions (\[SCQP\]) or (\[SC1QP\]) for all $\lambda\in[0,2]$. Therefore, the point $\overline{\mathbf{x}}_3=(-1,-1)^\intercal$ is the unique global minimizer.
$\rho$-Convex Programing Problem
================================
Development of global optimality conditions to identify global minimizers of various classes of non-convex problems has been the recent trend in non-linear optimization. In similar manner in this section we intend to distinguish local and global minimizers for the following $\rho-$convex model problem. $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{($P_2$)~~}~~\min_{x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}} g_{0}(x)&=&\min_{x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}} f_{0}(x)-\frac{1}{2}x^{T}A_{0}x \\
\mbox{subject to~~}~~ g_{j}(x) &=&f_{j}(x)-\frac{1}{2}x^{T}A_{j}x\leq 0,~~\forall~j\in\{1,2,3,\cdots,m\}\\
&&x_{i} \in [u_{i},v_{i}], ~i\in I \\
&&x_{i} \in \{u_{i},v_{i}\}, ~i\in J ;\end{aligned}$$ where $I\cap J=\phi$, $I\cup J=\{1,2,3,\cdots,n\}$, for each $j\in\{0,1,2,3,\cdots,m\}$, the function $f_j:{\mathbb{R}}^n \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ is convex and $A_{j}=(a_{st}^{(j)})$ is an $n\times n$ symmetric matrix, and $u_{i},v_{i}\in\mathbb{R}$ with $u_{i}<v_{i},$ for all $i\in \{1,2,3,\cdots,n\}$.\
Recent research displays the development of conditions necessary or sufficient for characterizing global minimizers of smooth functions with bounded mixed variables (see [@jrwbox] and other references therein). However, a drawback of this development is that the conditions were neither based on local optimality conditions nor expressed in terms of local minimizers. A verifiable sufficient global optimality condition is established in this paper by refining the method of proof developed in [@jls], and by incorporating the local optimality conditions. Such developed condition is a useful criterion for distinguishing global minimizers among the local minimizers.
Local necessary optimality condition for ($P_2$)
------------------------------------------------
Using the Lemma (\[lem1\]), analogous KKT necessary condition for a local minimizer of ($P_2$) is obtained in the following theorem. This result will be used to identify global minimizers in the next section.
\[TlcRC\] If $\overline{x}\in\tilde{D}$ is a local minimizer of ($P_2$), then $$\label{lcl2RC}
\chi_{i}(\overline{x})\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}\leq0,~~\forall\,i\in I;$$ where $\lambda_{j}\in\mathbb{R}^+; j=1,2,3,\cdots,m$ are the Lagrangian multipliers associated with $\overline{x}\in\tilde{D}$ and $\lambda_0=1$.
Suppose that, $\overline{x}\in\tilde{D}$ is a local minimizer of ($P_2$).\
First we shall show that, for each $i\in I$, $$\label{eq1RC}
\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}(t-\overline{x}_{i})\geq0,~~\forall\,t\in[u_{i},v_{i}].$$ For: let $i\in I$ and $t\in[u_{i},v_{i}]$ and define the vector $x=(x_{k})\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ such that $$x_{k}:=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
t & \mathrm{if}\ k=i \\
\overline{x}_{k} & \mathrm{if}\ k\neq i.\\
\end{array} \right.$$ Then clearly $x\in\Delta=\{x=(x_{i})\in\mathbb{R}^{n}~|~x_{i}\in[u_{i},v_{i}], ~i\in I\}$. Hence by the Lemma (\[lem1\]), we have $$\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}(t-\overline{x}_{i})\geq0,~~\forall\,t\in[u_{i},v_{i}].$$ Let $i\in I$ arbitrary.\
**Case-1:** If $\overline{x}_{i}=u_{i}$, then choose $t=v_{i}$. From (\[eq1RC\]), we have $$\chi_{i}(\overline{x})\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}\leq0.$$ **Case-2:** If $\overline{x}_{i}=v_{i}$, then choose $t=u_{i}$. From (\[eq1RC\]), we have $$\chi_{i}(\overline{x})\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}\leq0.$$ **Case-3:** If $\overline{x}_i\in (u_{i} ,v_{i} )$, then on the one hand, choose $t=u_{i}$. From (\[eq1RC\]), we have $$\label{eq2RC}
\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}\leq0.$$ On the other hand, choose $t=v_{i}$, the from (\[eq1RC\]), we have $$\label{eq3RC}
\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}\geq0.$$ From (\[eq2RC\]) and (\[eq3RC\]), we have $$\chi_{i}(\overline{x})=\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}=0.$$ Thus $$\chi_{i}(\overline{x})\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}=\left(\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}\right)^{2}=0.$$ Hence by the summary of all above three cases, the optimality condition (\[lcl2RC\]) follows.
The Lemma (\[lem1\]) gives us, for given local minimizer $\overline{x}\in\tilde{D}$ the set $$\left\{\frac{(\nabla L(\overline{x},\lambda))^{T}(x-\overline{x})}{\|x-\overline{x}\|^{2}}~\mid ~x \in \tilde{D} ~\mbox{~with~}~x\neq\overline{x}\right\}$$ is bounded below by 0. Hence, $$\inf\left\{\frac{(\nabla L(\overline{x},\lambda))^{T}(x-\overline{x})}{\|x-\overline{x}\|^{2}}~\mid ~x \in \tilde{D} ~\mbox{~with~}~x\neq\overline{x}\right\}~\mbox{~exists.~}~$$
A Sufficiency Global Optimality Condition
------------------------------------------
The following theorem provides sufficient condition for the global minimizers. But unfortunately this condition might not be readily verifiable as it involved with another minimization problem.
\[tsc\] Let $\overline{x}\in\tilde{D}$ be a local minimizer of ($P_2$) and $\lambda_{0}=1$. Suppose that $\lambda_{j}\in\mathbb{R}^{+};~j\in \{1,2,\cdots,m\}$ are the Lagrangian multipliers associated with $\overline{x}\in\tilde{D}$ as given in the Lemma (\[lem1\]) and $\mu_{j}\in{\mathbb{R}}$ are the first eigenvalues of the symmetric matrices $A_{j}$, for all $j\in\{0,1,2,\cdots,m\}$. If $$\label{SC}
\sum_{j=0}^m\lambda_j\mu_j\geq-\inf_{x\neq\overline{x}}\frac{(\nabla L(\overline{x},\lambda))^{T}(x-\overline{x})}{\|x-\overline{x}\|^{2}},$$ then $\overline{x}$ is a global minimizer of ($P_2$).
Let $\overline{x} \in \tilde{D}$ be a local minimizer of ($P_2$). Now for any $x \in \tilde{D}$, $$\begin{aligned}
g_0(x)-g_0(\bar x) &\ge& g_0(x)+\sum_{j=1}^{m}\lambda_jg_j(x,\lambda)-g_0(\bar{x})\\
&=&L(x,\lambda)-g_0(\bar{x})-\sum_{j=1}^{m}\lambda_jg_j(\bar{x},\lambda)\\
&=&L(x,\lambda)-L(\bar{x},\lambda)
\end{aligned}$$ and we have from the Proposition (\[p2\]) the Lagrangian $$\displaystyle L(x,\lambda)=\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left(f_j(x)-\frac{1}{2}x^TA_jx\right)$$ is $\rho-$convex, as $L(x,\lambda)-\rho\|x\|^{2}$ is a convex function; where $\displaystyle \rho=\sum_{j=0}^m\lambda_j\mu_j$. Hence by the proposition (\[p3\]) we have $$\label{sceq1RC*}
L(x,\lambda)-L(\bar{x},\lambda)\ge \rho \Vert x-\bar{x} \Vert^2 + (\nabla L(\bar{x},\lambda))^T (x-\bar{x}).$$ Thus $$\label{sceq1RC**}
g_0(x)-g_0(\bar x) \ge \rho \Vert x-\bar{x} \Vert^2 + (\nabla L(\bar{x},\lambda))^T (x-\bar{x}),~~\forall\, x \in \tilde D.$$ The condition (\[SC\]) implies, $$\rho=\sum_{j=0}^m\lambda_j\mu_j\geq -\frac{(\nabla L(\overline{x},\lambda))^{T}(x-\overline{x})}{\|x-\overline{x}\|^{2}},$$ for all $x \in \tilde{D}$ with $x\neq\overline{x}$. Therefore we have $$\rho \Vert x-\bar{x} \Vert^2 + (\nabla L(\bar{x},\lambda))^T (x-\bar{x})\geq0,~~\forall\, x \in \tilde D$$ and so $$g_0(x)-g_0(\bar x)\geq0,~~\forall\, x \in \tilde D.$$ Hence the theorem follows.
The following verifiable sufficient global optimality condition is the main result of this section which provides sufficiency criterion for a local minimizer to be a global minimizer for ($P_2$).
A verifiable sufficient optimality conditions for ($P_2$)
---------------------------------------------------------
\[tsc1\] Let $\overline{x}\in\tilde{D}$ be a local minimizer of ($P_2$) and $\lambda_{0}=1$. Suppose that $\lambda_{j}\in\mathbb{R}^{+};~j\in \{1,2,\cdots,m\}$ are the Lagrangian multipliers associated with $\overline{x}\in\tilde{D}$ as given in the Lemma (\[lem1\]) and $\mu_{j}\in{\mathbb{R}}$ are the first eigenvalues of the symmetric matrices $\displaystyle-\frac{1}{2}A_j$, for all $j\in\{0,1,2,\cdots,m\}$. If $$\label{SC1RC}
\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left[\frac{\chi_{i}(\overline{x})(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}\right]\leq\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\mu_{j},$$ then $\overline{x}$ is a global minimizer of ($P_2$).
Let $\overline{x} \in \tilde{D}$ be a local minimizer of ($P_2$). Now for any $x \in \tilde{D}$, $$\begin{aligned}
g_0(x)-g_0(\bar x) &\ge& g_0(x)+\sum_{j=1}^{m}\lambda_jg_j(x)-g_0(\bar{x})\\
&=&L(x,\lambda)-g_0(\bar{x})-\sum_{j=1}^{m}\lambda_jg_j(\bar{x})\\
&=&L(x,\lambda)-L(\bar{x},\lambda)
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
L(x,\lambda)-L(\bar{x},\lambda)&=& \sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[\left(f_j(x)-\frac{1}{2}x^TA_jx\right)-\left(f_j(\overline{x})-\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^TA_j\overline{x}\right)\right]\\
&=& \sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left(f_j(x)-f_j(\overline{x})\right)- \sum_{j=0}^{m}\frac{1}{2}\lambda_{j}\left(x^TA_jx-\overline{x}^TA_j\overline{x}\right)\\
&=& \sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left(f_j(x)-f_j(\overline{x})\right)-\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[\frac{1}{2}(x-\overline{x})^{T}A_{j}(x-\overline{x})+(A_{j}\overline{x})^{T}(x-\overline{x})\right].
\end{aligned}$$ But for all $j\in\{0,1,2,\cdots,m\}$, the convexity of $f_{j}$ implies $$f_{j}(x)-f_{j}(\bar{x})\ge (\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x}))^T(x-\bar{x}),~~\forall\,x \in \tilde{D}$$ and from the definition of $\mu_{j}$ we have $$-\frac{1}{2}(x-\overline{x})^{T}A_{j}(x-\overline{x})\ge\mu_{j}\|x-\overline{x}\|^{2},~~~\forall\,x \in \tilde{D}.$$ Thus for all $x \in \tilde{D}$, $$\begin{aligned}
L(x,\lambda)-L(\bar{x},\lambda)&\ge& \sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left( (\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x}))^T(x-\bar{x})\right)\\
&&+\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[\mu_{j}\|x-\overline{x}\|^{2}-(A_{j}\overline{x})^{T}(x-\overline{x})\right]\\
&=&\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}[(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x}))-A_{j}\overline{x})^{T}(x-\overline{x})+\mu_{j}\|x-\overline{x}\|^{2}].\\
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
L(x,\lambda)-L(\bar{x},\lambda)&\ge&\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left[(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x}))-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})+\mu_{j}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})^{2}\right]\\
&=&\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left[(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x}))-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})+\frac{\chi_{i}(\overline{x})(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})^{2}\right]\\
&&+\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left[\mu_{j}-\frac{\chi_{i}(\overline{x})(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}\right](x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ The condition (\[SC1RC\]), gives that $$\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left[\mu_{j}-\frac{\chi_{i}(\overline{x})(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}\right](x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})^{2}\ge0,~~\forall\,x \in \tilde{D}.$$ Now for any $x=(x_{i})\in\tilde{D}$ and for all $i\in\{1,2,\cdots,n\}$, $$\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x}))-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})+\frac{\chi_{i}(\overline{x})(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})^{2}\right]\ge0.$$ To see this, let $x=(x_{i})\in\tilde{D}$ and $i\in\{1,2,\cdots,n\}$.\
**Case-1:** If $\overline{x}_{i}=u_{i}$, then by (\[lcl2RC\]), we have $\displaystyle\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}\geq0,~~\forall\,i\in I$. Now $$\begin{aligned}
~&&\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x}))-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})+\frac{\chi_{i}(\overline{x})(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})^{2}\right]\\
&=&\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})+(-1)\frac{(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})^{2}\right]\\
&=&(x_{i}-u_{i})\left[\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}\right]\left(1-\frac{(x_{i}-u_{i})}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}\right).
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $$\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x}))-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})+\frac{\chi_{i}(\overline{x})(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})^{2}\right]$$ is non-negative, if $i\in I$ and is equal to $0$, if $i\in J$.\
**Case-2:** If $\overline{x}_{i}=v_{i}$, then by (\[lcl2RC\]), $\displaystyle\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}\leq0,~~\forall\,i\in I$ and in a similar method of Case-1, we will have $$\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x}))-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})+\frac{\chi_{i}(\overline{x})(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})^{2}\right]$$ is non-negative, if $i\in I$ and is equal to $0$, if $i\in J$.\
**Case-3:** If $\overline{x}_{i}\in(u_{i},v_{i})$ and $i\in I$, then by (\[lcl2RC\]), $\displaystyle\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}=0$. Thus $$\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x}))-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})+\frac{\chi_{i}(\overline{x})(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})^{2}\right]=0.$$ The summary of the above all three cases gives us that $$\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left[(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x}))-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})+\frac{\chi_{i}(\overline{x})(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})^{2}\right]\geq0.$$ Thereby $$f_{0}(x)-f_{0}(\overline{x})\geq L(x,\lambda)-L(\overline{x},\lambda)\geq0,$$ for all $x \in\tilde{D}$. Hence $\overline{x}\in\tilde{D}$ is a global minimizer of ($P_2$).
The next theorem provide another sufficient condition in terms of given data, for a local minimizer to be a global minimizer of ($P_2$).
\[tsc2\] Let $\overline{x}\in\tilde{D}$ be a local minimizer of ($P_2$) and $\lambda_{0}=1$. Suppose that $\lambda_{j}\in\mathbb{R}^{+};~j\in \{1,2,\cdots,m\}$ are the Lagrangian multipliers associated with $\overline{x}\in\tilde{D}$ as given in the lemma (\[lem1\]). If $$\label{SC2RC}
\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[A_{j}+\mathrm{diag}\left(2\chi_{1}(\overline{x})\frac{(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{1}}{(v_{1}-u_{1})},
\cdots,2\chi_{n}(\overline{x})\frac{(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{n}}{(v_{n}-u_{n})}\right)\right]\preceq0,$$ then $\overline{x}$ is a global minimizer of ($P_2$).
Let $\overline{x}\in\tilde{D}$ be a local minimizer and take, for each $i\in \{1,2,3,\cdots,n\}$ and $j\in \{0,1,2,\cdots,m\}$, $$q_{i}^{(j)}=2\chi_{i}(\overline{x})\frac{(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}.$$ Now from the Kuhn-Tucker conditions for (MP), we have there exists $\lambda_{j}\in\mathbb{R}^{+};~j\in \{0,1,2,\cdots,m\}$ with $\lambda_{0}=1$ such that $f_{0}(\overline{x})= L(\overline{x},\lambda)$ and $$f_{0}(x)\geq L(x,\lambda),~~\forall\,x \in\tilde{D}.$$ So we have $$\label{eq1RC2}
f_{0}(x)-f_{0}(\overline{x})\geq L(x,\lambda)-L(\overline{x},\lambda),~~\forall\,x \in\tilde{D}.$$ Now for any $x \in\tilde{D}$, $$\begin{aligned}
L(x,\lambda)-L(\overline{x},\lambda)&=&\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[\left(f_j(x)-\frac{1}{2}x^TA_jx\right)-\left(f_j(\overline{x})-\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^TA_j\overline{x}\right)\right]\\
&=& \sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left(f_j(x)-f_j(\overline{x})\right)- \sum_{j=0}^{m}\frac{1}{2}\lambda_{j}\left(x^TA_jx-\overline{x}^TA_j\overline{x}\right)\\
&=& \sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left(f_j(x)-f_j(\overline{x})\right)-\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[\frac{1}{2}(x-\overline{x})^{T}A_{j}(x-\overline{x})+(A_{j}\overline{x})^{T}(x-\overline{x})\right].\\
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
L(x,\lambda)-L(\overline{x},\lambda)&\geq&\sum_{j=0}^{m}-\frac{1}{2}\lambda_{j}\left[(x-\overline{x})^{T}A_{j}(x-\overline{x})+(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})^{T}(x-\overline{x})\right]\\&=&\sum_{j=0}^{m}-\frac{1}{2}\lambda_{j}(x-\overline{x})^{T}[A_{j}+
\mathrm{diag}(q_{1}^{(j)},q_{2}^{(j)},\cdots,q_{n}^{(j)})](x-\overline{x})\\
&&+\sum_{j=0}^{m}\frac{1}{2}\lambda_{j}(x-\overline{x})^{T}\mathrm{diag}
(q_{1}^{(j)},q_{2}^{(j)},\cdots,q_{n}^{(j)})(x-\overline{x})\\
&&+\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})^{T}(x-\overline{x})\\
&=&\sum_{j=0}^{m}-\frac{1}{2}\lambda_{j}(x-\overline{x})^{T}[A_{j}+
\mathrm{diag}(q_{1}^{(j)},q_{2}^{(j)},\cdots,q_{n}^{(j)})](x-\overline{x})\\
&&+\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[\sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{1}{2}q_{i}^{(j)}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})^{2}+(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})\right].\\\end{aligned}$$ From the condition (\[SC2RC\]), we have $[A_{j}+\mathrm{diag}(q_{1}^{(j)},q_{2}^{(j)},\cdots,q_{n}^{(j)})]\preceq0$. Thus, for all $x \in\tilde{D}$, $$\sum_{j=0}^{m}-\frac{1}{2}\lambda_{j}(x-\overline{x})^{T}[A_{j}+
\mathrm{diag}(q_{1}^{(j)},q_{2}^{(j)},\cdots,q_{n}^{(j)})](x-\overline{x})\geq0.$$ Therefore $$L(x,\lambda)-L(\overline{x},\lambda)\geq\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[\sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{1}{2}q_{i}^{(j)}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})^{2}+(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})\right],$$ for all $x \in\tilde{D}$. Now our claim is $$\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[\sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{1}{2}q_{i}^{(j)}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})^{2}+(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})\right]\geq0,$$ for all $x \in\tilde{D}$, and it follows from the necessary local optimality condition (\[lcl2RC\]).\
For let $x=(x_{i})\in\tilde{D}$ arbitrarily.\
**Case-1:** If $\overline{x}_{i}=u_{i}$, then we have $\displaystyle\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}\geq0$. Now $$\begin{aligned}
~&&\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[\frac{1}{2}q_{i}^{(j)}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})^{2}+(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})\right]\\
&=&\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[(-1)\frac{(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})^{2}+(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})\right]\\
&=&(x_{i}-u_{i})\left[\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\frac{(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}\right]\left(1-\frac{(x_{i}-u_{i})}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}\right).
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $$\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[\frac{1}{2}q_{i}^{(j)}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})^{2}+(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})\right]$$ is non-negative, if $i\in I$ and is equal to $0$, if $i\in J$.\
**Case-2:** If $\overline{x}_{i}=v_{i}$, then $\displaystyle\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}\leq0$ and in a similar method of Case-1, we will have $$\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[\frac{1}{2}q_{i}^{(j)}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})^{2}+(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})\right]$$ is non-negative, if $i\in I$ and is equal to $0$, if $i\in J$.\
**Case-3:** If $\overline{x}_{i}\in(u_{i},v_{i})$ and $i\in I$, then $\displaystyle\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}=0$ and so $\displaystyle\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}q_{i}^{(j)}=0$. Thus $$\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[\frac{1}{2}q_{i}^{(j)}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})^{2}+(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})\right]=0.$$ The summary of the above all three cases gives us that $$\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[\sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{1}{2}q_{i}^{(j)}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})^{2}+(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})\right]\geq0.$$ Thereby $$f_{0}(x)-f_{0}(\overline{x})\geq L(x,\lambda)-L(\overline{x},\lambda)\geq0,$$ for all $x \in\tilde{D}$. Hence $\overline{x}\in\tilde{D}$ is a global minimizer of ($P_2$).
Consider the following quadratic weakly convex minimization problem ($E_3$): $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{($E_3$)~~}~~\min_{(x_1,x_2)^\intercal\in\mathbb{R}^{2}} g_0\begin{pmatrix}
x_1 \\ x_2
\end{pmatrix}&=&\min_{(x_1,x_2)^\intercal\in\mathbb{R}^{2}} (1+x_1)^4+x_1^2+x_2^2-4x_1x_2+6x_1+6x_2 \\
\mbox{s.t.~~}~~ g_1\begin{pmatrix}
x_1 \\ x_2
\end{pmatrix}&=&(1+x_2)^4+x_1^2+x_2^2-2\leq 0,\\
&&x_1\in [-1,1],\\
&&x_2\in \{-1,1\}.
\end{aligned}$$ We can write $g_0\begin{pmatrix}
x_1 \\ x_2
\end{pmatrix}$ and $g_1\begin{pmatrix}
x_1 \\ x_2
\end{pmatrix}$ in the form $$g_0(\mathbf{x})=f_0(\mathbf{x})-\dfrac{1}{2}\mathbf{x}^\intercal A_0\mathbf{x}\mbox{~~and~~}g_1(\mathbf{x})=f_1(\mathbf{x})-\dfrac{1}{2}\mathbf{x}^\intercal A_1\mathbf{x}$$ respectively, where $\mathbf{x}=\begin{pmatrix}
x_1 \\ x_2
\end{pmatrix}$, $A_0=\begin{bmatrix}
-2 & ~\,\,4\\ ~\,\,4 & -2
\end{bmatrix}$, $A_1=\begin{bmatrix}
-2 & ~\,\,0\\ ~\,\,0 & -2
\end{bmatrix}$, and $f_0(\mathbf{x})=(1+x_1)^4+6x_1+6x_2$, $f_1(\mathbf{x})=(1+x_2)^4-2$ are convex functions. Let $u_1=u_2=-1$ and $v_1=v_2=1$. The Lagrangian of ($E_3$) is $$\label{lagE3}
L(\mathbf{x},\lambda,\mu,\nu)=[(1+x_1)^4+x_1^2+x_2^2-4x_1x_2+6x_1+6x_2]+\lambda((1+x_2)^4+x_1^2+x_2^2-2)+\mu(x_1^2-1)+\nu(x_2^2-1).$$ Apply the KKT conditions for ($E_3$). Then, we get
- $\dfrac{\partial L(\mathbf{x},\lambda,\mu,\nu)}{\partial x_1}=[4(1+x_1)^3+2x_1-4x_2+6]+2\lambda x_1+2\mu x_1=0$,
- $\lambda,\mu\geq0$, $(1+x_2)^4+x_1^2+x_2^2-2\leq 0$, $(x_1^2-1)\leq0$,
- $\lambda((1+x_2)^4+x_1^2+x_2^2-2)=0$,
- $\mu(x_1^2-1)=0$,
- $\nu=0$ and $x_2=-1$ or $x_2=1$.
There are infinitely many solutions $\{(-1,-1,\lambda,\mu,0)~\mid~\lambda+\mu=4~~\mbox{and}~~\lambda,\mu\geq0\}$ of KKT for the problem ($E_3$). Notice that the linear independence constraint qualification is satisfied in this problem, for $\mathbf{x}=(-1,-1)^\intercal$. Direct calculations show that the first eigenvalues of $-\frac{1}{2}A_0$ and $-\frac{1}{2}A_1$ are $\mu_0=3\mbox{~~and~~}\mu_1=1$ respectively. One can directly see that the global optimality conditions (\[SC1RC\]) and (\[SC2RC\]) are satisfied for all $\lambda\in[0,4]$. Therefore, $\mathbf{x}=(-1,-1)^\intercal$ is the global minimizer.
Let $\overline{x}\in\tilde{D}$ be a local minimizer of ($P_2$) and $\lambda_{0}=1$. Suppose that $\lambda_{j}\in\mathbb{R}^{+};~j\in \{1,2,\cdots,m\}$ are the Lagrangian multipliers associated with $\overline{x}\in\tilde{D}$ as given in the lemma (\[lem1\]) and $\mu_{j}\in{\mathbb{R}}$ are the first eigenvalues of the symmetric matrices $A_{j}$, for all $j\in\{0,1,2,\cdots,m\}$, then the condition (\[SC\]) implies (\[SC1RC\]) and the condition (\[SC1RC\]) implies (\[SC2RC\]). That is, $$\sum_{j=0}^m\lambda_j\mu_j\geq-\inf_{x\neq\overline{x}}\frac{(\nabla L(\overline{x},\lambda))^{T}(x-\overline{x})}{\|x-\overline{x}\|^{2}}\Longrightarrow\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left[\frac{\chi_{i}(\overline{x})(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}\right]\leq\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\mu_{j}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left[\frac{\chi_{i}(\overline{x})(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}\right]\leq\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\mu_{j}\\
&\Longrightarrow&\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[A_{j}+\mathrm{diag}\left(2\chi_{1}(\overline{x})\frac{(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{1}}{(v_{1}-u_{1})},
\cdots,2\chi_{n}(\overline{x})\frac{(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{n}}{(v_{n}-u_{n})}\right)\right]\preceq0\end{aligned}$$ For,let $\overline{x}\in\tilde{D}$ be a local minimizer of ($P_2$). Suppose that $$\sum_{j=0}^m\lambda_j\mu_j\geq-\inf_{x\neq\overline{x}}\frac{(\nabla L(\overline{x},\lambda))^{T}(x-\overline{x})}{\|x-\overline{x}\|^{2}}.$$ Then $$\label{eq1RC3}
\sum_{j=0}^m\lambda_j\mu_j\geq-\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}(\nabla L(\overline{x},\lambda))_{i}
(x-\overline{x})_{i}}{\sum_{i=1}^{n}(x_{i}-\overline{x}_{i})^{2}},~~\forall\,x=(x_{i})\in\tilde{D}~~\mbox{~with~}~~x\neq\overline{x}.$$ Now let $i\in \{1,2,\cdots,n\}$ and $t\in[u_{i},v_{i}]$ with $t\neq\overline{x}_{i}$ and define the vector $x=(x_{k})\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ such that $$x_{k}:=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
t & \mathrm{if}\ k=i \\
\overline{x}_{k} & \mathrm{if}\ k\neq i.\\
\end{array}\right.$$ Then clearly $x\neq\overline{x}$ and (\[eq1RC3\]) splits into $$\sum_{j=0}^m\lambda_j\mu_j\geq-\frac{(\nabla L(\overline{x},\lambda))_{i}
}{(t-\overline{x}_{i})}.$$ That is, for each $i\in \{1,2,\cdots,n\}$, $$\label{eq1RC4}
\sum_{j=0}^m\lambda_j\mu_j\geq-\frac{(\nabla L(\overline{x},\lambda))_{i}
}{(t-\overline{x}_{i})},~~\forall\,t\in[u_{i},v_{i}]~~\mbox{~with~}~~t\neq\overline{x}_{i}.$$ **Case-1:** If $\overline{x}_{i}=u_{i}$, then choosing $t=v_{i}$ and by the local optimality condition (\[lcl2RC\]), we have $$\displaystyle (\nabla L(\overline{x},\lambda))_{i}=\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}\geq0$$ as $\chi_{i}(\overline{x})=-1$ and $$-\frac{(\nabla L(\overline{x},\lambda))_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}=\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\frac{\chi_{i}(\overline{x})(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})
-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}\leq0,~~\forall\,i\in \{1,2,\cdots,n\}.$$ Thus $$\sum_{j=0}^m\lambda_j\mu_j\geq\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\frac{\chi_{i}(\overline{x})(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})
-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}\geq\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left[\frac{\chi_{i}(\overline{x})(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}\right].$$ **Case-2:** If $\overline{x}_{i}=v_{i}$, then choosing $t=u_{i}$ and by the local optimality condition (\[lcl2RC\]), we have $$\displaystyle (\nabla L(\overline{x},\lambda))_{i}=\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}\leq0$$ as $\chi_{i}(\overline{x})=1$ and $$-\frac{(\nabla L(\overline{x},\lambda))_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}=\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\frac{\chi_{i}(\overline{x})(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})
-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}\leq0,~~\forall\,i\in \{1,2,\cdots,n\}.$$ Thus $$\sum_{j=0}^m\lambda_j\mu_j\geq\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\frac{\chi_{i}(\overline{x})(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})
-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}\geq\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left[\frac{\chi_{i}(\overline{x})(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}\right].$$ **Case-3:** If $\overline{x}_{i}\in(u_{i},v_{i})$ and $i\in I$, then by the local optimality condition (\[lcl2RC\]), we have $$\left(\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}\right)^{2}\leq0$$ as $\chi_{i}(\overline{x})=\displaystyle\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}$. That is, $$\nabla L(\overline{x},\lambda)=\left(\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}\right)=0.$$ Thus (\[eq1RC4\]) implies $$\sum_{j=0}^m\lambda_j\mu_j\geq0=\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\frac{\chi_{i}(\overline{x})(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})
-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}=\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left[\frac{\chi_{i}(\overline{x})(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}\right].$$ Summing up all three above cases, the first implication follows.\
Now we see the second implication, for suppose that $$\label{eq1RC5}
\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left[\frac{\chi_{i}(\overline{x})(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}\right]\leq\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\mu_{j}.$$ Let $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
&&x^{T}\left(\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[A_{j}+\mathrm{diag}\left(2\chi_{1}(\overline{x})\frac{(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{1}}{(v_{1}-u_{1})},
\cdots,2\chi_{n}(\overline{x})\frac{(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{n}}{(v_{n}-u_{n})}\right)\right]\right)x\\
&=&\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[x^{T}A_{j}x+x^{T}\mathrm{diag}\left(2\chi_{1}(\overline{x})\frac{(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{1}}{(v_{1}-u_{1})},
\cdots,2\chi_{n}(\overline{x})\frac{(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{n}}{(v_{n}-u_{n})}\right)x\right]\\
&\leq&\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[-2\mu_{j}\|x\|^{2}+x^{T}\mathrm{diag}\left(2\chi_{1}(\overline{x})\frac{(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{1}}{(v_{1}-u_{1})},
\cdots,2\chi_{n}(\overline{x})\frac{(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{n}}{(v_{n}-u_{n})}\right)x\right]\\
&=&-2\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left[\mu_{j}-\frac{\chi_{i}(\overline{x})(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}\right]x_{i}^{2}\\
&=&-2\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left[\mu_{j}-\sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{\chi_{i}(\overline{x})(\nabla f_{j}(\overline{x})-A_{j}\overline{x})_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}\right]x_{i}^{2}\\
&\leq&0.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore the second implication holds. Hence the remark follows.
Quadratic Fractional Programming Problem
========================================
In this section, results of problem ($P_1$) have been extended for the following quadratic fractional programming model problem with both continuous and discrete variables: $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{($P_3$)~~}~~\min_{x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}}s(x)=\min_{x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}} \frac{f_{0}(x)}{g_{0}(x)}&=&\min_{x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}} \frac{\frac{1}{2}x^{T}A_{0}x+a_{0}^{T}x+c_{0}}{\frac{1}{2}x^{T}B_{0}x+b_{0}^{T}x+d_{0}}\\
\mbox{subject to~~}~~\frac{f_{j}(x)}{g_{j}(x)} &=&\frac{\frac{1}{2}x^{T}A_{j}x+a_{j}^{T}x+c_{j}}{\frac{1}{2}x^{T}B_{j}x+b_{j}^{T}x+d_{j}}\leq e_j,~~\forall~j\in\{1,2,3,\cdots,m\}\\
&&x_{i} \in [u_{i},v_{i}], ~i\in I \\
&&x_{i} \in \{u_{i},v_{i}\}, ~i\in J ;\end{aligned}$$ where $I\cap J=\phi$, $I\cup J=\{1,2,3,\cdots,n\}$, for each $j\in\{0,1,2,3,\cdots,m\}$, $A_{j}=(a_{st}^{(j)})$, $B_{j}=(b_{st}^{(j)})$ are $n\times n$ symmetric matrices, $a_{j}=(a_{r}^{(j)}),b_{j}=(b_{r}^{(j)})\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$, $c_{j},d_{j}, e_j\in\mathbb{R}$, and $u_{i},v_{i}\in\mathbb{R}$ with $u_{i}<v_{i},$ for all $i\in \{1,2,3,\cdots,n\}$.\
Now for $\lambda=(\lambda_{j})\in\mathbb{R}^{m}_{+}$, define the Lagrangian $L(\cdot,\lambda)$ of ($P_3$) by $$\label{lag_MPQF}
L(x,\lambda):=\frac{f_{0}(x)}{g_{0}(x)}+\sum_{j=1}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left( \frac{f_{j}(x)}{g_{j}(x)}-e_j\right) ;~~x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}.$$ That is, $$\label{lagQF}L(x,\lambda)=\frac{\frac{1}{2}x^{T}A_{0}x+a_{0}^{T}x+c_{0}}{\frac{1}{2}x^{T}B_{0}x+b_{0}^{T}x+d_{0}}+\sum_{j=1}^{m}\lambda_{j}\left(\frac{\frac{1}{2}x^{T}A_{j}x+a_{j}^{T}x+c_{j}}{\frac{1}{2}x^{T}B_{j}x+b_{j}^{T}x+d_{j}}-e_j\right).$$ For $\overline{x}\in D$ and $i\in \{1,2,3,\cdots,n\}$, define $$\label{eq1QF}
\tilde{\chi}_{i}(\overline{x}):=\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
-1 & \mathrm{if}\ \overline{x}_i=u_i \\
+1 & \mathrm{if}\ \overline{x}_i=v_i\\
c\nabla L(\overline{x},\lambda)_{i} & \mathrm{if}\ \overline{x}_i\in (u_i ,v_i );
\end{array}\right.$$ where $c=\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^{T}B_{0}\overline{x}+b_{0}^{T}\overline{x}+d_{0}$. Assume for each $x\in D$, $g_j(x)>0$, if $j\in I_P\cup\{0\}$ and $g_j(x)<0$, if $j\in I_N$, where $I_P\cap I_N=\phi$ and $I_P\cup I_N=\{1,2,3,\cdots m\}$. Let $$\xi_j:=\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
+1 & \mathrm{if}\ j\in I_P\cup\{0\} \\
-1 & \mathrm{if}\ j\in I_N.
\end{array}\right.$$ Suppose that, $\overline{x}\in\tilde{D}$ is a local minimizer of ($P_3$). Now we formulate a quadratic programming problem ($P_3^\ast$) by preserving the local and global minimizers of the original fractional programming problem ($P_3$) as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{($P_3^\ast$)~~}~~\min_{x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}} \mathfrak{h}_{0}(x)&=&\min_{x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}} \frac{1}{2}x^{T}\mathfrak{Q}_0x+\mathfrak{q}_{0}^{T}x+\mathfrak{r}_{0} \\
\mbox{s.t.~~}~~ \mathfrak{h}_{j}(x) &=&\frac{1}{2}x^{T}\mathfrak{Q}_{j}x+\mathfrak{q}_{j}^{T}x+\mathfrak{r}_{j}\leq 0,~~\forall~j\in\{1,2,3,\cdots,m\}\\
&&x_{i} \in [u_{i},v_{i}], ~i\in I \\
&&x_{i} \in \{u_{i},v_{i}\}, ~i\in J ;\end{aligned}$$ where for each $j=0,1,2,\ldots,m$, $\mathfrak{Q}_{j}=\xi_j(A_j-e_jB_j)$, $\mathfrak{q}_{j}=\xi_j(a_j-e_jb_j)$, $\mathfrak{r}_{j}=\xi_j(c_j-e_jd_j)$, $e_0=s(\overline{x})$. One can easily see that $\mathfrak{h}_{0}(\overline{x})=0$ and for each $x\in D$, $$\label{lomin}
\mathfrak{h}_{0}(x)-\mathfrak{h}_{0}(\overline{x})=g_0(x)(s(x)-s(\overline{x})).$$ Hence $\overline{x}$ is a local minimizer of ($P_3$) if and only if $\overline{x}$ is a local minimizer of ($P_3^\ast$). Since $g_0(x)>0$, for all $x\in D$, we have from (\[lomin\]), $\overline{x}$ is a global minimizer of ($P_3$) if and only if $\overline{x}$ is a global minimizer of ($P_3^\ast$).\
The Lagrangian of ($P_3$) can be written as $$\mathfrak{L}(x,\lambda)=\mathfrak{h}_{0}(x)+\sum_{j=1}^{m}\lambda_{j}\mathfrak{h}_{j}(x).$$
\[LM\] If $\lambda=(\lambda_{j})\in\mathbb{R}^{m}_{+}$ is the Lagrange multiplier of ($P_3$) associated with $\overline{x}\in \tilde{D}$, then $\mu=(\mu_{j})$ is the Lagrange multiplier of ($P_3^\ast$), where $\mu_j=c\lambda_j(\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^{T}B_{j}\overline{x}+b_{j}^{T}\overline{x}+d_{j})^{-1}$, for all $j=1,2,3,\cdots,m$ and $c=\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^{T}B_{0}\overline{x}+b_{0}^{T}\overline{x}+d_{0}$.
Suppose that $\lambda=(\lambda_{j})\in\mathbb{R}^{m}_{+}$ is the Lagrange multiplier of ($P_3$) associated with $\overline{x}\in \tilde{D}$. To show $\lambda=(\lambda_{j})$ is the Lagrange multiplier of ($P_3^\ast$) associated with $\overline{x}\in \tilde{D}$, it suffices to obtain that the following two conditions are satisfied: $$\label{mfkkt1}
\mu_j\left( \frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^{T}\mathfrak{Q}_{j}\overline{x}+\mathfrak{q}_{j}^{T}\overline{x}+\mathfrak{r}_{j}\right)=0,~~\mbox{for all}~~j=1,2,3,\cdots,m\quad\text{and}$$ $$\label{mfkkt2}
\nabla \mathfrak{L}(\overline{x},\mu)=(\mathfrak{Q}_{0}\overline{x}+\mathfrak{q}_{0})+\sum_{j=1}^{m}\mu_j(\mathfrak{Q}_{j}\overline{x}+\mathfrak{q}_{j})=0.$$ Since $\lambda=(\lambda_{j})$ is the Lagrange multiplier of ($P_3$) associated with $\overline{x}\in \tilde{D}$, we have $$\label{fkkt1}
\lambda_j\left(\frac{\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^{T}A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j}^{T}\overline{x}+c_{j}}{\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^{T}B_{j}\overline{x}+b_{j}^{T}\overline{x}+d_{j}}-e_j\right)=0,~~\mbox{for all}~~j=1,2,3,\cdots,m$$ and $$\label{fkkt2}
\nabla L(\overline{x},\lambda)=\nabla\left( \frac{\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^{T}A_{0}\overline{x}+a_{0}^{T}\overline{x}+c_{0}}{\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^{T}B_{0}\overline{x}+b_{0}^{T}\overline{x}+d_{0}}\right) + \sum_{j=1}^{m}\lambda_{j}\nabla\left(\frac{\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^{T}A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j}^{T}\overline{x}+c_{j}}{\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^{T}B_{j}\overline{x}+b_{j}^{T}\overline{x}+d_{j}}-e_j\right) =0.$$ The condition (\[mfkkt1\]) trivially follows from (\[fkkt1\]). One can easily see that $$\mu_j\left(\frac{\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^{T}A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j}^{T}\overline{x}+c_{j}}{\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^{T}B_{j}\overline{x}+b_{j}^{T}\overline{x}+d_{j}}-e_j\right)=0,~~\mbox{for all}~~j=1,2,3,\cdots,m.$$ Then for any $i=1,2,3,\cdots,n$, $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla \mathfrak{L}(\overline{x},\mu)_i
&=&(\mathfrak{Q}_{0}\overline{x}+\mathfrak{q}_{0})_i+\sum_{j=1}^{m}\mu_j(\mathfrak{Q}_{j}\overline{x}+\mathfrak{q}_{j})_i\\
&=& (\mathfrak{Q}_{0}\overline{x}+\mathfrak{q}_{0})_i+\sum_{j=1}^{m}\mu_j\left[ (\mathfrak{Q}_{j}\overline{x}+\mathfrak{q}_{j})+\xi_j\left(\frac{\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^{T}A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j}^{T}\overline{x}+c_{j}}{\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^{T}B_{j}\overline{x}+b_{j}^{T}\overline{x}+d_{j}}-e_j\right)(B_{j}\overline{x}+b_{j})\right]_i \\
&=& (\mathfrak{Q}_{0}\overline{x}+\mathfrak{q}_{0})_i+\sum_{j=1}^{m}\mu_j\left[ (\mathfrak{Q}_{j}\overline{x}+\mathfrak{q}_{j})+\left(\frac{\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^{T}\mathfrak{Q}_{j}\overline{x}+\mathfrak{q}_{j}^{T}\overline{x}+\mathfrak{r}_{j}}{\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^{T}B_{j}\overline{x}+b_{j}^{T}\overline{x}+d_{j}}\right)(B_{j}\overline{x}+b_{j})\right]_i \\
&=&(A_0\overline{x}+a_0)_i+s(\overline{x})(B_0\overline{x}+b_0)_i \sum_{j=1}^{m}\mu_j(\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^{T}B_{j}\overline{x}+b_{j}^{T}\overline{x}+d_{j})\nabla\left[\frac{\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^{T}\mathfrak{Q}_{j}\overline{x}+\mathfrak{q}_{j}^{T}\overline{x}+\mathfrak{r}_{j}}{\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^{T}B_{j}\overline{x}+b_{j}^{T}\overline{x}+d_{j}}\right]_i\\
&=&c\nabla\left( \frac{\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^{T}A_{0}\overline{x}+a_{0}^{T}\overline{x}+c_{0}}{\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^{T}B_{0}\overline{x}+b_{0}^{T}\overline{x}+d_{0}}\right)_i + c\sum_{j=1}^{m}\lambda_j\nabla\left[\frac{\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^{T}\mathfrak{Q}_{j}\overline{x}+\mathfrak{q}_{j}^{T}\overline{x}+\mathfrak{r}_{j}}{\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^{T}B_{j}\overline{x}+b_{j}^{T}\overline{x}+d_{j}}\right]_i\\
&=&c\nabla L(\overline{x},\lambda)_i=0.\end{aligned}$$ This concludes the result.
Local necessary optimality condition for ($P_3$)
------------------------------------------------
In this section, we are going to derive a local necessary optimality condition for ($P_3$) as follows:
\[OPTCdn\] Let $\overline{x}\in\tilde{D}$ be a local minimizer of ($P_3$). Then $$\label{lcl2}
\tilde{\chi}_{i}(\overline{x})\left(\left[ \frac{(A_{0}\overline{x}+a_{0})_{i}-s(\overline{x})(B_{0}\overline{x}+b_{0})_{i}}{\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^{T}B_{0}\overline{x}+b_{0}^{T}\overline{x}+d_{0}}\right]+ \sum_{j=1}^{m}\xi_j\lambda_{j}\left[ \frac{(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})_{i}-e_j(B_{j}\overline{x}+b_{j})_{i}}{\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^{T}B_{j}\overline{x}+b_{j}^{T}\overline{x}+d_{j}}\right]\right)\leq0;$$ where $\lambda_{j}\in\mathbb{R}^+; j=1,2,3,\cdots,m$ are the Lagrangian multipliers associated with $\overline{x}\in\tilde{D}$.
We shall show that, for each $i\in I$, $$\label{eq1QF1}
\sum_{j=0}^{m}\mu_{j}(\mathfrak{Q}_{j}\overline{x}+\mathfrak{q}_{j})_{i}(t-\overline{x}_{i})\geq0,~~\forall\,t\in[u_{i},v_{i}];$$ where $\mu_0=1$. For: let $i\in I$ and $y\in[u_{i},v_{i}]$ and define the vector $x=(x_{k})\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ such that $$x_{k}:=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
t & \mathrm{if}\ k=i \\
\overline{x}_{k} & \mathrm{if}\ k\neq i.\\
\end{array}\right.$$ Then clearly $x\in\Delta=\{x=(x_{i})\in\mathbb{R}^{n}~|~x_{i}\in[u_{i},v_{i}], ~i\in I\}$. Hence by the Lemma (\[lem1\]), we have $$\sum_{j=0}^{m}\mu_{j}(\mathfrak{Q}_{j}\overline{x}+\mathfrak{q}_{j})_{i}(t-\overline{x}_{i})\geq0,~~\forall\,t\in[u_{i},v_{i}].$$ Let $i\in I$ arbitrarily.\
**Case-1:** If $\overline{x}_{i}=u_{i}$, then choose $t=v_{i}$. From (\[eq1QF\]), we have $$\tilde{\chi}_{i}(\overline{x})\sum_{j=0}^{m}\mu_{j}(\mathfrak{Q}_{j}\overline{x}+\mathfrak{q}_{j})_{i}\leq0.$$ **Case-2:** If $\overline{x}_{i}=v_{i}$, then choose $t=u_{i}$. From (\[eq1QF\]), we have $$\tilde{\chi}_{i}(\overline{x})\sum_{j=0}^{m}\mu_{j}(\mathfrak{Q}_{j}\overline{x}+\mathfrak{q}_{j})_{i}\leq0.$$ **Case-3:** If $\overline{x}_i\in (u_{i} ,v_{i} )$, then on the one hand, choose $t=u_{i}$. From (\[eq1QF\]), we have $$\label{eq2}
\sum_{j=0}^{m}\mu_{j}(\mathfrak{Q}_{j}\overline{x}+\mathfrak{q}_{j})_{i}\leq0.$$ On the other hand, choose $t=v_{i}$, the from (\[eq1QF\]), we have $$\label{eq3}
\sum_{j=0}^{m}\mu_{j}(\mathfrak{Q}_{j}\overline{x}+\mathfrak{q}_{j})_{i}\geq0.$$ From (\[eq2\]) and (\[eq3\]), we have $$\tilde{\chi}_{i}(\overline{x})=\nabla L(\overline{x},\lambda)_i=0.$$ Thus $$\tilde{\chi}_{i}(\overline{x})\sum_{j=0}^{m}\mu_{j}(\mathfrak{Q}_{j}\overline{x}+\mathfrak{q}_{j})_{i}=0.$$ Hence by the summary of all above three cases, we have $$\tilde{\chi}_{i}(\overline{x})\left(\sum_{j=0}^{m}\mu_{j}(\mathfrak{Q}_{j}\overline{x}+\mathfrak{q}_{j})_{i}\right)\leq0,~~\forall\,i\in I.$$ Therefore, since $c=\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^{T}B_{0}\overline{x}+b_{0}^{T}\overline{x}+d_{0}>0$ and $\mu_j=c\lambda_j(\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^{T}B_{j}\overline{x}+b_{j}^{T}\overline{x}+d_{j})^{-1}$, for all $j=1,2,3,\cdots,m$, it follows that, for each $i\in I$ $$\tilde{\chi}_{i}(\overline{x})\left(\left[ \frac{(A_{0}\overline{x}+a_{0})_{i}-s(\overline{x})(B_{0}\overline{x}+b_{0})_{i}}{\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^{T}B_{0}\overline{x}+b_{0}^{T}\overline{x}+d_{0}}\right]+ \sum_{j=1}^{m}\xi_j\lambda_{j}\left[ \frac{(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})_{i}-e_j(B_{j}\overline{x}+b_{j})_{i}}{\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^{T}B_{j}\overline{x}+b_{j}^{T}\overline{x}+d_{j}}\right]\right) \leq0.$$
Verifiable global sufficient optimality condition for ($P_3$)
-------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we derive a global sufficient optimality condition for ($P_3$) as follows:
Let $\overline{x}\in \tilde{D}$ is a local minimizer of ($P_3$) and $\lambda_{0}=1$. If $\lambda_{j}\in\mathbb{R}^{+};~j\in \{1,2,\cdots,m\}$ are the Lagrangian multipliers associated with $\overline{x}$ and $$\label{GSC}
\sum_{j=0}^{m}\left\lvert\dfrac{\lambda_j}{\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^{T}B_{j}\overline{x}+b_{j}^{T}\overline{x}+d_{j}}\right\rvert\{[A_j-\mathrm{diag}(N_1,\cdots,N_n)]-e_j[B_j-\mathrm{diag}(D_1,\cdots,D_n)]\}\succeq0,$$ where $N_i=2\tilde{\chi}_i(\overline{x})\dfrac{(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}$ and $D_i=2\tilde{\chi}_i(\overline{x})\dfrac{(B_{j}\overline{x}+b_{j})_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}$, for all $i\in\{1,2,3,\cdots,n\}$, then $\overline{x}$ is a global minimizer of ($P_3$).
Since $A_{j}=(a_{st}^{(j)})$ and $B_{j}=(b_{st}^{(j)})$ are $n\times n$ symmetric matrices, we have $\mathfrak{Q}_{j}=\xi_j(A_j-e_jB_j)$ is also a symmetric matrix. By applying Theorem (\[tscq\]) to ($P_3^\ast$), we have $$\label{SC1}
\sum_{j=0}^{m}\mu_{j}\left[\mathfrak{Q}_{j}-\mathrm{diag}\left(2\tilde{\chi}_{1}(\overline{x})\frac{(\mathfrak{Q}_{j}\overline{x}+\mathfrak{q}_{j})_{1}}{(v_{1}-u_{1})},
\cdots,2\tilde{\chi}_{n}(\overline{x})\frac{(\mathfrak{Q}_{j}\overline{x}+\mathfrak{q}_{j})_{n}}{(v_{n}-u_{n})}\right)\right]\succeq0$$ is a sufficient condition for $\overline{x}$ to be a global minimizers of ($P_3^\ast$). Thus (\[SC1\]) produces a sufficient optimality condition for ($P_3$) as well. We shall now reduce (\[SC1\]) into the desired form (\[GSC\]) by making the substitutions $\mathfrak{Q}_{j}=\xi_j(A_j-e_jB_j)$ and $\mathfrak{q}_{j}=\xi_j(a_j-e_jb_j)$ into (\[SC1\]). Since $c>0$, we get $$\sum_{j=0}^{m}\lambda_j\xi_j\left(\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^{T}B_{j}\overline{x}+b_{j}^{T}\overline{x}+d_{j}\right)
^{-1}\{[A_j-\mathrm{diag}(N_1,\cdots,N_n)]-e_j[B_j-\mathrm{diag}(D_1,\cdots,D_n)]\}\succeq0,$$ where $N_i=2\tilde{\chi}_i(\overline{x})\dfrac{(A_{j}\overline{x}+a_{j})_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}$ and $D_i=2\tilde{\chi}_i(\overline{x})\dfrac{(B_{j}\overline{x}+b_{j})_{i}}{(v_{i}-u_{i})}$, for all $i\in\{1,2,3,\cdots,n\}$. Since for each $j\in\{1,2,3,\cdots,m\}$, $$\xi_j\left(\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^{T}B_{j}\overline{x}+b_{j}^{T}\overline{x}+d_{j}\right)
^{-1}= \left\lvert\dfrac{1}{\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^{T}B_{j}\overline{x}+b_{j}^{T}\overline{x}+d_{j}}\right\rvert,$$ the global sufficient condition becomes $$\sum_{j=0}^{m}\left\lvert\dfrac{\lambda_j}{\frac{1}{2}\overline{x}^{T}B_{j}\overline{x}+b_{j}^{T}\overline{x}+d_{j}}\right\rvert\{[A_j-\mathrm{diag}(N_1,\cdots,N_n)]-e_j[B_j-\mathrm{diag}(D_1,\cdots,D_n)]\}\succeq0.$$ Hence the Theorem follows.
Let us illustrate the significance of the above optimality condition.
Consider the following quadratic non-convex minimization problem ($E_4$): $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{($E_4$)~~}~~\min_{(x_1,x_2)^\intercal\in\mathbb{R}^{2}} f\begin{pmatrix}
x_1 \\ x_2
\end{pmatrix}&=&\min_{(x_1,x_2)^\intercal\in\mathbb{R}^{2}} \frac{-x_1^2-x_2^2-x_1x_2+x_1}{x_2^2+1}\\
\mbox{s.t.~~}~~ g\begin{pmatrix}
x_1 \\ x_2
\end{pmatrix} &=&\frac{x_1^2+2x_2^2-1}{x_2^2+1}\leq 1,\\
&&x_1\in [-1,1],\\
&&x_2\in \{-1,1\}.
\end{aligned}$$ We can write $f\begin{pmatrix}
x_1 \\ x_2
\end{pmatrix}$ and $g\begin{pmatrix}
x_1 \\ x_2
\end{pmatrix}$ in the form $$f(\mathbf{x})=\frac{\dfrac{1}{2}\mathbf{x}^\intercal A_0\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{a}_0^\intercal\mathbf{x}+c_0}{\dfrac{1}{2}\mathbf{x}^\intercal B_0\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{b}_0^\intercal\mathbf{x}+d_0}\mbox{~~and~~}g(\mathbf{x})=\frac{\dfrac{1}{2}\mathbf{x}^\intercal A_1\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{a}_1^\intercal\mathbf{x}+c_1}{\dfrac{1}{2}\mathbf{x}^\intercal B_1\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{b}_1^\intercal\mathbf{x}+d_1}$$ respectively, where $\mathbf{x}=\begin{pmatrix}
x_1 \\ x_2
\end{pmatrix}$, $A_0=\begin{bmatrix}
-2 & -1\\ -1 & -2
\end{bmatrix}$, $A_1=\begin{bmatrix}
2 & 0\\ 0 & 4
\end{bmatrix}$, $\mathbf{a}_0=\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\ 0
\end{pmatrix}$, $\mathbf{a}_1=\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\ 0
\end{pmatrix}$, $B_0=B_1=\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0\\ 0 & 2
\end{bmatrix}$, $\mathbf{b}_0=\mathbf{b}_1=\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\ 0
\end{pmatrix}$, $c_0=0$, $c_1=-2$ and $d_0=d_1=1$. Let $u_1=u_2=-1$ and $v_1=v_2=1$. The Lagrangian of ($E_4$) is $$\label{lagE4}
L(\mathbf{x},\lambda,\mu,\nu)=\frac{-x_1^2-x_2^2-x_1x_2+x_1}{x_2^2+1}+\lambda\left(\frac{x_1^2+x_2^2-2}{x_2^2+1}\right)+\mu(x_1^2-1)+\nu(x_2^2-1).$$ Apply the KKT conditions for ($E_4$). Then,
- $\dfrac{\partial L(\mathbf{x},\lambda,\mu,\nu)}{\partial x_1}=\dfrac{-2x_1-x_2+1}{x_2^2+1}+\dfrac{2\lambda x_1}{x_2^2+1} +2\mu x_1=0$,
- $\lambda,\mu\geq0$, $\dfrac{x_1^2+x_2^2-2}{x_2^2+1}\leq 0$, $(x_1^2-4)\leq0$,
- $\lambda\left(\dfrac{x_1^2+x_2^2-2}{x_2^2+1}\right)=0$,
- $\mu(x_1^2-1)=0$,
- $\nu=0$ and $x_2=-1$ or $x_2=1$.
**Case 1:** $\lambda\ne0$ or $\mu\ne0$. In this case, there are two sets of solutions $\{(x_1,x_2,\lambda,\mu,0)~\mid~x_1=\pm1, x_2=1,\lambda+2\mu=1~~\mbox{and}~~\lambda,\mu\geq0\}$ and $\{(-1,-1,\lambda,\mu,0)~\mid~\lambda+2\mu=2~~\mbox{and}~~\lambda,\mu\geq0\}$ of KKT, for the problem ($E_4$).\
\
**Case 2:** $\lambda=0$ and $\mu=0$. In this case, there are two solutions $(x_1,x_2,\lambda,\mu,0)=(1,-1,0,0,0)$ and $(0,1,0,0,0)$.
Let $\overline{\mathbf{x}}_1=(1,1)^\intercal,\overline{\mathbf{x}}_2=(-1,1)^\intercal,\overline{\mathbf{x}}_3=(-1,-1)^\intercal,\overline{\mathbf{x}}_4=(1,-1)^\intercal$ and $\overline{\mathbf{x}}_5=(0,1)^\intercal$. Also notice that the linear independence constraint qualification is satisfied in this problem, for $\overline{\mathbf{x}}_i\,:i=1,2,3,\cdots,5$. Direct calculations show that $\overline{\mathbf{x}}_3=(-1,-1)^\intercal$ satisfies the condition (\[GSC\]) for all $\lambda\in[0,2]$. Other local minimizers do not satisfy the condition (\[GSC\]). So the point $\overline{\mathbf{x}}_3=(-1,-1)^\intercal$ is the global minimizer.
Conclusion
==========
The sufficient global optimality criteria presented in this paper are useful to distinguish global minimizers and local minimizers. A number of numerical schemes are already been available to locate local minimizers based on the KKT condition. Global optimization problems with mixed variables are inherently hard. In this context, the criteria developed in this paper to identify global minimizers among the local minimizers would be useful for computational purposes.
[XXXX]{} Beck, A., Teboulle, M., [*Global optimality conditions for quadratic optimization problems with binary constraints*]{}, SIAM J. Optim. [**11**]{} (1995), 179-188.
Bouhamidi, A., Bellalij, M., Enkhbat, R., Jbilou, K., Raydan, M., [*Conditional Gradient Method for Double-Convex Fractional Programming Matrix Problems*]{}, J. Optim. Theory Appl. [**176**]{} (2018), 163–177
Floudas, C.A., and Pardalos, P.M., *Optimization in computational chemistry and molecular biology: Local and global approaches*, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000.
Horst, R, Pardalos, P, [*Handbook of Global Optimization, Nonconvex Optimization and Its Applications*]{}, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (1995).
Jeyakumar, V., Srisatkunarajah, S., [*Lagrange multiplier necessary conditions for global optimality for non-convex minimization over a quadratic constraint via S-lemma*]{}, Optim. Lett. [**03**]{} (2009), 23-33.
Jeyakumar, V., Srisatkunarajah, S., Huy, N. Q., [*Unified Global Optimality Conditions for Smooth Minimization Problems with Mixed Variables*]{}, RAIRO-Oper. Res [**42**]{} (2008), 361-370.
V. Jeyakumar, G. M. Lee and S. Srisatkunarajah, [*Distinguishing a Global minimizers from local minimizers of Quadratic Minimization with Mixed Variables*]{}, *Pacific Journal of Optimization* **6** (2010), 65-74.
V. Jeyakumar, A. M. Rubinov and Z. Y. Wu, [*Sufficient global optimality constrains for non-convex quadratic minimization problems with box constraints*]{}, *J. Global Optim.*, **36** (2006), 461-468.
Jeyakumar, V, Srisatkunarajah, S, [*Lagrange multiplier necessary conditions for global optimality for non-convex minimization over a quadratic constraint via S-lemma*]{}, Optim. Lett. [**3**]{} (2009), 23-33.
Jeyakumar, V, Rubinov, A.M., Wu, Z.Y., [*Nonconvex quadratic minimization problems with quadratic constraints: global optimality conditions*]{}, Math. Program., Ser. A [**110**]{} (2007), 521-541.
Kuhn, H. W., Tucker,A. W. , [*Nonlinear Programming*]{}, [ Proceedings of the 2nd Berkeley Symposium]{}, University of California Press. (1951), 481-492.
Li, G., Wu, Z., Quan, J., [*Global optimality conditions for non-convex minimization problem with quadratic constrains*]{}, .Journal of Inequalities and Applications (2015), 2015:257.
Lo, A. W., and MacKinlay, A. C., [*Maximizing predictability in the stock and bond markets*]{}, Macroecon. Dyn [**1**]{} (1997), 102–134.
Marcia, R. F., Mitchell, J. C. and Rosen, J.B., [*Iterative convex quadratic approximation for global optimization in protein docking*]{}, *Comput. Optim. and Appl.,* **32** (2005), 285-297.
Ohlson, J. A., Ziemba, W. T., [*Optimal portfolio policies for an investor with a power utility function facing a log normal securities market*]{}, J. Financ. Quant. Anal., [**11**]{} (1976), 57–71.
Pardalos, P.M., Rosen, J.B., [*Constrained Global Optimization: Algorithms and Applications. Lecture Notes in Computer Sciences*]{}, vol. [**268**]{}, Springer, Berlin (1987).
Pardalos, P. and Romeijn, H., [*Handbook in Global Optimization*]{}, Kluwer Academic Publishers **2** Netherlands, 2002.
Peng, J. M,, Yuan, Y.X., [*Optimality conditions for the minimization of a quadratic with two quadratic constraints*]{}, SIAM J. Optim. [**7**]{} (1997), 579-594.
Pinar, M.C., [*Sufficient global optimality conditions for bivalent quadratic optimization*]{}, J. Optim. Theory Appl. [**122**]{} (2004), 433-440.
Salahi, M., Fallahi, S., [*On the quadratic fractional optimization with a strictly convex quadratic constraint*]{}, Kybernetika., [**51**]{} (2015), 293-308.
Glob. Optim. [**29**]{} (2004), 19–44.
Vial, J-P,[*Strong and Weak Convexity of Sets and Functions*]{}, Mathematics of Operations Research, **8** (1983), 231-259.
Wu, Z.Y., [*Sufficient global optimality conditions for weakly convex minimization problems*]{}, J. Glob. Optim., [**39**]{} (2007) , 427–440
Zhang, A. and Hayashi, S.H., [*Celis-Dennis-Tapia based approach to quadratic fractional programming problems with two quadratic constraints*]{}, Numer. Algebra Control. Optim. [**1**]{} (2011), 83–98.
[^1]: K. Thirulogasanthar would like to thank the FQRNT, Fonds de la Recherche Nature et Technologies (Quebec, Canada) for partial financial support under the grant number 2017-CO-201915. Part of this work was done while he was visiting the University of Jaffna to which he expresses his thanks for the hospitality.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Far-field *microwave power transfer* (MPT) will free wireless sensors and other mobile devices from the constraints imposed by finite battery capacities. Integrating MPT with wireless communications to support *simultaneous wireless information and power transfer* (SWIPT) allows the same spectrum to be used for dual purposes without compromising the quality of service. A novel approach is presented in this paper for realizing SWIPT in a broadband system where orthogonal frequency division multiplexing and transmit beamforming are deployed to create a set of parallel sub-channels for SWIPT, which simplifies resource allocation. Based on a proposed reconfigurable mobile architecture, different system configurations are considered by combining single-user/multi-user systems, downlink/uplink information transfer, and variable/fixed coding rates. Optimizing the power control for these configurations results in a new class of multi-user power-control problems featuring the *circuit-power constraints*, specifying that the transferred power must be sufficiently large to support the operation of the receiver circuitry. Solving these problems gives a set of power-control algorithms that exploit channel diversity in frequency for simultaneously enhancing the throughput and the MPT efficiency. For the system configurations with variable coding rates, the algorithms are variants of water-filling that account for the circuit-power constraints. The optimal algorithms for those configurations with fixed coding rates are shown to sequentially allocate mobiles their required power for decoding in ascending order until the entire budgeted power is spent. The required power for a mobile is derived as simple functions of the minimum signal-to-noise ratio for correct decoding, the circuit power and sub-channel gains.'
author:
- 'Kaibin Huang and Erik G. Larsson[^1]'
title: Simultaneous Information and Power Transfer for Broadband Wireless Systems
---
Power transmission, cellular networks, power control, energy harvesting, mobile communication.
Introduction
============
Microwave power transfer (MPT) refers to wirelessly transmitting energy from one place to another. Simultaneous wireless information and power transfer (SWIPT) refers to using the *same* emitted electromagnetic (EM) wavefield to transport both energy that is harvested at the receiver, and information that is decoded by the receiver.
In the past decades, much research effort has been directed towards developing MPT for replacing cables in long-distance power transfer either terrestrially [@Brown:RadioWPTHistory:1984] or from solar satellites to the earth [@Mcspadden:SpaceSolarPowerMicrowaveWPT:2002]. This has led to a series of breakthroughs in microwave technology including high-power microwave generators and, more importantly in the current context, the invention of *rectennas* (rectifying antennas) for efficient RF-to-DC conversion [@Brown:RadioWPTHistory:1984]. This technology has been applied to the design of helicopters and airplanes powered solely by microwaves [@Schlesak:MicrowavePoweredHiAltitudePlatform:1998]. Most prior research on MPT focuses on the design of compact and efficient rectennas or similar energy harvesters [@Brown:RadioWPTHistory:1984; @Le:FarFieldRFEnergyHarvesting:2008]. More recently there has been interest in the powering of low-power devices and even trickle-recharging of certain personal communications devices. There is already equipment available that does this [@P2110], by broadcasting omni-directionally with an RF power of about $1$ W, and harvesting several mW. With a massive transmitter array, power could be focused so that the harvested power is increased hundreds of times. The power levels involved are still small, much smaller than the emitted RF power by some cell phones (up to 2 W for GSM), so absorption by the human body does not appear to be a fundamental technological problem. Moreover, various safety precautions could be applied if deemed important.
With SWIPT, one and the same wave-field is used to transmit energy and information. This has several advantages. First, separate transmission of power and information by time division is suboptimal in terms of efficiently using the available power and bandwidth. SWIPT, by contrast, may exploit integrated transceiver designs. Second, with SWIPT, interference to the communication systems can be kept under control. This is especially important in multi-user systems with many potential receivers who would suffer from interference. By contrast, traditional microwave power transfer (MPT) relies on transmission of a single tone (and its unintended harmonics), which can interfere with communication links. Furthermore, MPT does not have any dedicated spectrum. Hence, as such, for use in existing bands, it *must* be integrated with communication solutions.
A key application of SWIPT that we foresee is to provide power to, and communicate with, sensors for which battery replacement is difficult or even impossible [@PikeReseach:WirelessPower:2012]. Radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags are one important example. RFID is already a very widely used technology, but its full potential is probably not fully exploited. A major limitation is the small range of RFID readers with constrained power. Another limitation is the ability of readers to correctly resolve different RFID tag returns that arrive at the receiver superimposed on one another. Many other applications, for example, in the chemical process industry, in environmental monitoring, in oil platforms and pipelines and in surveillance and national security applications require sensors with extreme reliability. Often these sensors transmit rather modest amounts of data, in some applications, only a few bits per hour. Typically the sensors are hard to access and therefore their batteries require long lifetimes and very low failure rates.
Making SWIPT work will require integration between multiantenna transmission, efficient energy harvesting, resource management and signal processing. In particular, theory and methods for massive MIMO [@RusekLarssonMarz:ScaleUpMIMO:2012] may become fundamental enablers for SWIPT. Enabling technology for realizing SWIPT in practice is the theme of this paper.
Prior Related Work
------------------
The concept of SWIPT, in a very basic form, has existed for a long time in applications like RFID and power-line communications. It was first studied from an information-theoretic perspective in [@Varshney:TransportInformationEnergy:2008] for a narrow-band noisy channel, and later in [@GroverSahai:ShannonTeslaWlssInfoPowerTransfer] for a frequency-selective channel. These papers characterized the fundamental trade-off between communication capacity and power harvested at the receiver. A similar trade-off was derived for a multi-user system in [@FoulSimeone:TransInfoEnergyMU]. From a communication theoretic point of view, the novel aspect here is the new constraint on the minimum received power representing the fixed circuit power consumption, called the *circuit-power constraint*, which results in the said fundamental tradeoff.
These aforementioned studies implicitly assumed that the received energy can be still harvested after passing through an information decoder, which is infeasible given the current state-of-the-art of electronic circuits. This motivated the design of practical SWIPT-enabled receivers that *split* the received microwave signal from each antenna and feed it to two separate circuits, one for information decoding and one for energy harvesting [@Zhang:MIMOBCWirelessInfoPowerTransfer; @ZhouZhang:WlessInfoPowrTransfer:RateEnergy:2012]. The corresponding capacity-and-energy tradeoffs are characterized for the multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO) channels with perfect transmitter channel state information (CSIT) [@Zhang:MIMOBCWirelessInfoPowerTransfer; @ZhouZhang:WlessInfoPowrTransfer:RateEnergy:2012] and further investigated for the case of imperfect CSIT [@XiangTao:RobustBeamformWIPT:2012]. An additional scenario considered in [@Zhang:MIMOBCWirelessInfoPowerTransfer] is broadcasting from a base station to two receivers taking turns for information decoding and energy harvesting, corresponding to *time-division-information-and-power transfer* (TD-IPT). This protocol simplifies the receiver design but compromises the efficiencies of MPT and IT since they cannot operate simultaneously. The systems considered in the aforementioned prior works share the common setting that a transmitter draws energy from a reliable source such as the electric grid and then delivers it to passive devices by MPT. A different scenario related to distributive networks such as sensor networks is one where devices exchange energy in addition to peer-to-peer communication. Transmission strategies are proposed in [@Simeone:InterativeTransferEnergyInfo:2012] for two devices to exchange information and energy based on TD-IPT over a two-way channel. The principle of energy sharing is also reflected in a relay system studied in [@GurakanUlukus:EnergyCooperation:2012] where a source node transfers energy to a relay node in return for its assistance in transmission. It is shown that jointly managing the energy queues at these nodes that both harvest energy from external sources can enhance the end-to-end throughput.
Realizing SWIPT in practice requires not only suitable hardware and physical-layer algorithms but also the support of an appropriate network architecture. One such architecture, proposed in [@HuangLau:EnableWPTCellularNetworks:2013], overlays a traditional cellular network with additional base stations dedicated for MPT to mobiles. Based on a stochastic-geometry network model and under a quality-of-service constraint for the data links, a tradeoff is derived between the densities of the base stations for MPT and those for IT, giving insight into the optimal network deployment.
A popular modulation method called *orthogonal frequency division multiplexing* (OFDM) divides a broadband channel into decoupled narrowband sub-channels. OFDM simplifies the channel equalization and multiple access \[facilitating *orthogonal frequency division multiple access* (OFDMA)\], which has motivated its adoption in modern communication standards such as 3GPP and WiFi [@GoldsmithBook:WirelessComm:05]. Designing SWIPT based on OFDM not only retains its existing advantages but also enables simultaneous wireless recharging of multiple devices. The current work represents a first attempt to develop a practical framework for OFDM-based SWIPT that features a practical mobile architecture and a matching set of power-control algorithms that exploit frequency diversity to enhance the efficiency of SWIPT. In parallel with our initial results in [@HuangLarsson:SIPTBroadbandChannel], an independent study on the same topic was reported in [@NgLo:MultiuserOFDMSInfoPowerTransfer]. The practicality of the SWIPT system proposed in [@NgLo:MultiuserOFDMSInfoPowerTransfer] seems to be limited in several respects. First, the use of a single-antenna base station for SWIPT leads to isotropic radiation of the transmission power and hence an extremely low MPT efficiency. This is the reason that beamforming is the primary technology for practical MPT solutions [@Brown:RadioWPTHistory:1984; @Mcspadden:SpaceSolarPowerMicrowaveWPT:2002; @Schlesak:MicrowavePoweredHiAltitudePlatform:1998]. Isotropic MPT also couples the multi-user MPT links and results in difficult power control problems [@NgLo:MultiuserOFDMSInfoPowerTransfer]. Second, the design in [@NgLo:MultiuserOFDMSInfoPowerTransfer] is based on the assumption that information decoding causes no loss in harvesting the total received energy. While this assumption is common (see, e.g., [@Varshney:TransportInformationEnergy:2008; @GroverSahai:ShannonTeslaWlssInfoPowerTransfer; @FoulSimeone:TransInfoEnergyMU]), we know of no compelling arguments for its practicality. Lastly, a sub-optimal TD-IPT protocol instead of SWIPT is adopted in [@NgLo:MultiuserOFDMSInfoPowerTransfer]. These drawbacks of existing approaches may be overcome by the SWIPT framework proposed in this paper.
Summary of Contributions and Organization
-----------------------------------------
This work assumes a noise-limited broadband system where a multi-antenna base station not only communicates with but also wirelessly powers the mobile devices. The broadband channel is partitioned into orthogonal sub-channels by OFDM and the base station transmits/receives one data stream per sub-channel. Streams are encoded with either *variable rates* adapted to the receive signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) or *fixed rates* for which successful decoding requires the receive SNRs to exceed a given threshold. The constraint and threshold are referred to as the *minimum-SNR constraint* and the *SNR threshold*, respectively. Assuming sparse scattering and perfect CSIT, the base station steers beams for different sub-channels towards associated mobiles, creating a set of parallel channels for SWIPT. Note that OFDM alone without beamforming can decouple only the IT links but not the MPT links. The transmission power for different sub-channels is controlled subject to a constraint on the total power. We consider both a single-user system where the mobile is assigned all sub-channels and a multi-user system where each mobile is assigned a single sub-channel based on OFDMA. Two practical scenarios for SWIPT are considered depending on if IT is in the downlink or the uplink direction. For SWIPT with downlink IT, the OFDM signal transmitted by the base station is used both for IT and for MPT. For SWIPT with uplink IT, MPT and IT are in the opposite directions where downlink MPT relies on the transmission of unmodulated tones [@Choi:FullDuplexWireless:2010], called *power tones*, and uplink data signals are OFDM modulated. In this scenario, the base station is assumed to support *full-duplex* SWIPT based on the same principle as proposed in [@Choi:FullDuplexWireless:2010]. More specifically, the antenna array at the base station is partitioned into two sub-arrays for transmit beamforming and receive combining and the cross-coupled power tones in the received uplink signal is perfectly canceled. This is viable since the base station has perfect knowledge of the phases and frequencies of the power tones.
A SWIPT-enabled mobile architecture is proposed that can be reconfigured according to the direction of the IT. The architecture consists of *dual* antennas, one information transceiver and one energy harvester. The harvester *continuously* converts incoming microwaves to DC power which is used to operate the mobile circuit and to supply transmission power for the uplink IT. This is feasible by using existing energy harvester designs such as those in [@ZhouZhang:WlessInfoPowrTransfer:RateEnergy:2012; @HuangLau:EnableWPTCellularNetworks:2013]. When configured for SWIPT with downlink IT, the outputs of the two antennas are combined and then split using a power splitter with an adjustable ratio to yield the inputs of the receiver and harvester, similarly to the designs in [@Zhang:MIMOBCWirelessInfoPowerTransfer; @ZhouZhang:WlessInfoPowrTransfer:RateEnergy:2012]. The power splitting ratio provides a degree-of-freedom for managing the received power for IT and MPT. When the architecture is reconfigured for SWIPT with uplink IT, the two antennas are separately attached to the transmitter and harvester and support full-duplex SWIPT in opposite directions. The mobile architecture is assumed to consume fixed circuit power, following practical models [@MiaoLi:CrossLayerOptimEnergyEffSurvey:2009]. Based on the transmission scheme and mobile architecture described earlier, algorithms for power control at the base station are designed for a comprehensive set of system configurations combining single-user/multi-user systems, downlink/uplink IT, and variable/fixed coding rates. The key features of the proposed algorithms are summarized in Table \[Tab:Algo\].
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. The system model is described in Section \[Section:System\]. The SWIPT-enabled mobile architecture is proposed in Section \[Section:Architecture\]. Based on the architecture, power-control algorithms are designed separately for the four scenarios combining single-user/multi-user systems and downlink/uplink IT in Sections \[Section:SU:DLIT\]–\[Section:MU:ULIT\]. Their performance is evaluated by simulation in Section \[Section:Simulation\], followed by concluding remarks in Section \[Section:Conclusion\].
[|c|c|m[1.5cm]{}|m[13.6cm]{}|]{} Rate & IT & \# of Users & Power-Control Algorithm\
\[4\][\*]{}[Var.]{} & DL & Single or Multiple & The problem of optimal power control is non-convex but can be approximated by the convex formulation of the classic multi-channel power control such that circuit power is accounted for in the constraints. This results in policies that are variants of water-filling.\
& \[4\][\*]{}[UL]{}&Single &
- *Downlink power control:* The optimal policy is to allocate the maximum power over the strongest sub-channel for maximizing the downlink-MPT efficiency.
- *Uplink power control:* At the mobile, part of the harvested power is used for operating the circuit and the remainder is used to maximize the uplink throughput by water-filling.
\
&& Multiple&
- *Downlink power control:* The key design technique is to treat power control as one that injects power into a set of *closed-loop* sub-channels, where the loss for each sub-channel combines the downlink-and-uplink propagation loss and the circuit-power consumption. Based on this technique, a sub-optimal algorithm is proposed that first schedules active mobiles using the criterion of maximum MPT efficiency and then allocates power by water filling with the water level depending on the circuit power.
- *Uplink power control:* Each mobile spends the maximum available power.
\
\[4\][\*]{}[Fixed]{} & DL & Single or Multiple & Under the the minimum-SNR constraint, the optimal power-control policy is shown to be one that sequentially allocates power to sub-channels in descending order of the corresponding channel gains, which is called *greedy channel inversion*.\
& \[4\][\*]{}[UL]{}& Single&
- *Downlink power control:* The optimal policy follows that for the variable-rate counterpart.
- *Uplink power control:* The optimal policy applies greedy channel inversion over the uplink sub-channels.
\
&& Multiple &
- *Downlink power control:* The optimal policy performs greedy channel inversion based on the effective gains of the said closed-loop sub-channels, which are derived as closed-form functions of the downlink/uplink sub-channel gains and circuit power.
- *Uplink power control:* Each mobile applies the maximum available power for uplink transmission.
\
\[Tab:Algo\]
![SWIPT in a broadband single-cell system where a base station serves passive mobiles based on OFDMA. Power is transferred from the base station to mobiles. Information transfer can be in either the downlink or uplink direction. []{data-label="Fig:System"}](figure1.pdf){width="8cm"}
System Model {#Section:System}
============
In the single-cell system as illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:System\], a multi-antenna base station communicates with and supplies power to $N$ mobiles in a sparse-scattering environment. IT takes place in either the downlink or uplink direction but the MPT is always from the base station to the mobiles. SWIPT uses a wide spectrum partitioned into $K$ sub-channels. For a single-user system ($N=1$), all sub-channels are assigned to a single mobile; for a multi-user system, each mobile is assigned one sub-channel ($N=K$). Note that the problem formulation for the case of assigning variable numbers of sub-channels to mobiles differs from the current one in having more complex circuit-power constraints, but the solution methods are similar. Ideally, the sub-channel assignments for the multi-user system should be jointly optimized with the power control (see, e.g., [@WonCheETAL:MultOFDMAdapSubc:Oct:99] for traditional OFDMA systems) but the optimal design for the current scenario seems intractable due to multi-user-circuit-power constraints. For tractability, we assume given sub-channel assignments and focus on the power control. Furthermore, time is slotted and it is assumed for simplicity that the energy storage of all mobiles are empty at the beginning of each slot. Consequently, the instantaneous power harvested by an active mobile is required to meet the circuit-power constraint. Relaxing the said assumption requires generalizing the homogeneous circuit-power constraint to heterogeneous ones, which requires only a straightforward extension of the current results.
Coding Rates
------------
Information streams are transmitted over separate sub-channels and independently encoded with either variable [@GoldsmithBook:WirelessComm:05] or fixed coding rates [@Ozarow:InfoTheoCellularMobile:1994]. Given variable coding rates and perfect CSIT, the rate of a stream is adapted to the receive SNR, denoted as $\SNR$, and given as $\log_2(1+\SNR)$. Alternatively, the coding rates can be fixed to $\log_2(1+\theta)$ where the constant $\theta > 0$ specifies the minimum receive SNR required for correct decoding.
Multi-Antenna Beamforming and Combining
---------------------------------------
We assume an environment with sparse scattering that is necessary for efficient MPT. For SWIPT with downlink IT, the antenna array at the base station is used to reduce the propagation loss by steering beams towards intended mobiles. Considering an arbitrary slot, let the vectors $\dot{\bh}_n$ and $\ddot{\bh}_n$ represent particular realizations of the $n$-th multiple-input-single-output (MISO) sub-channels from the base station to antenna $1$ and $2$ of the $n$-th mobile, respectively. Moreover, the transmit beamforming vector for the $n$-th sub-channel is denoted as $\bff_n$ and computed by estimating the mobile’s direction by training. The beamforming vectors $\{\bff_n\}$ are assumed given and their designs are outside the scope of this paper. Then the effective SISO-channel gains resulting from beamforming can be defined as $\dot{h}_n =
|\bff_n^\dagger\dot{\bh}_n|^2$ and $\ddot{h}_n =
|\bff_n^\dagger\ddot{\bh}_n|^2$.
For SWIPT with uplink IT, the antenna array at the BS is divided into two sub-arrays. These sub-arrays and the dual antennas at a particular mobile create a downlink MISO channel and an uplink single-input-multiple-output (SIMO) channel for supporting the full-duplex operation of SWIPT. Abusing the notation, let $\dot{\bh}_n$ denote the $n$-th downlink vector sub-channel and $\ddot{\bh}_n$ the $n$-th uplink vector sub-channel. Beamforming and maximum-ratio combining are applied at corresponding sub-arrays to enhance the MPT efficiency and the receive SNR of the uplink signal, respectively. Let $\dot{\bff}_n$ denote the transmit beamforming vector for the $n$-th downlink sub-channel and $\ddot{\bff}_n$ the combining vector for the $n$-th uplink sub-channel. The effective SISO channels in the opposite directions have the gains defined as $g'_n = |\dot{\bff}_n^\dagger\dot{\bh}_n|^2$ and $g_n =
|\ddot{\bff}_n^\dagger\ddot{\bh}_n|^2$.
Broadband Signals
-----------------
Consider SWIPT with downlink IT. For this scenario, the data-bearing signal transmitted by the base station is OFDM modulated as illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:Spectrum\](a). Due to either safety regulations or limitations of the base-station hardware, the powers allocated over the sub-channels, denoted as $\{P_n\}$, satisfy a power constraint: $$\label{Eq:PeakPwr:Const}
\sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K P_n \leq p_t$$ where $p_t > 0$ represents the maximum total transmission power. A mobile extracts information and energy from the same received signal using the receiver architecture discussed in the next section.
\
Next, consider SWIPT with uplink IT. As illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:Spectrum\](b), downlink MPT relies on the transmission of $K$ power tones at the centers of the corresponding sub-channels and their sum power satisfies the power constraint in . For a single-user system, the $K$ power tones are beamed by the base station to a mobile. Besides operating the circuit, the mobile uses part of the harvested power to enable uplink IT where the uplink data signal is OFDM modulated as shown in Fig. \[Fig:Spectrum\](b). For a multi-user system, the $K$ power tones are beamed to $K$ corresponding mobiles. The uplink transmission by the mobiles is based on OFDMA.
SWIPT-Enabled Mobile Architecture {#Section:Architecture}
=================================
\[Section:Mobile\]
In this section, we propose a dual-antenna mobile architecture as illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:Transceiver\] for supporting dual-mode SWIPT. The architecture comprises a transceiver and an energy harvester. The transceiver demodulates and decodes received data for downlink IT or encodes and modulates data for uplink IT. The energy harvester converts the input signal into DC power for operating the circuitry. The architecture can be reconfigured depending on whether the IT takes place in the uplink or downlink direction.
Consider the architecture configured for downlink IT. The antenna outputs are then coherently combined to enhance the received signal power (see Fig. \[Fig:Transceiver\]). The combiner output is split into inputs to the receiver and to the energy harvester [@ZhouZhang:WlessInfoPowrTransfer:RateEnergy:2012]. To be specific, the received signal is split using a power splitter that multiplies the signal with the adjustable factors $\sqrt{\beta}$ and $\sqrt{1-\beta}$, where $\beta \in [0, 1]$, in order to obtain the inputs to the receiver and the energy harvester, respectively. Consequently, the received power is divided into two parts of relative magnitudes $\beta$ and $(1-\beta)$. Let $\sigma^2_a$ and $\sigma_b^2$ represent the variances of the noise for a sub-channel, as accumulated in the path before and after the splitter, respectively. To simplify notation, we assume that the total noise has unit variance and thus $\sigma^2_a+ \sigma_b^2=1$. Using these definitions, the receive SNR for the $n$-th stream can be written as [@Zhang:MIMOBCWirelessInfoPowerTransfer] $$\label{Eq:SNR:DLIT}
\SNR_n = \frac{\beta P_n h_n }{\beta \sigma_a^2 + \sigma_b^2}$$ where $h_n = \dot{h}_n + \ddot{h}_n$ due to the maximum-ratio combining. Neglecting the small contributions from noise and beam sidelobes, and assuming lossless RF-to-DC conversion, the harvested power at a mobile is $(1-\beta) \sum_{n=1}^K P_n h_n$ for a single-user system and $(1-\beta) P_n h_n$ for a multi-user system where the mobile is assigned the $n$-th sub-channel.
![Reconfigurable mobile architecture that supports dual-mode SWIPT, namely, SWIPT with downlink or uplink IT. []{data-label="Fig:Transceiver"}](figure4.pdf){width="9cm"}
Next, for the mobile architecture configured for uplink IT, two antennas are separately attached to the transceiver and energy harvester to support the full-duplex operation of the information and power transfers in the opposite directions (see Fig. \[Fig:Transceiver\]). Under the assumption of unit noise variance, the receive SNR at the base station for the $n$-th stream is $\SNR_n = Q_n g_n$ where $Q_n$ represents the uplink-transmission power allocated to the $n$-th sub-channel. The harvested power at a mobile is $\sum_{n=1}^K P_n g'_n$ for the single-user system and $P_n
g'_n$ for the multi-user system when the mobile is assigned the $n$-th sub-channel.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that adding more antennas at a mobile enhances the received signal power by increasing the total antenna aperture as well as providing an array gain for the uplink transmission. Nevertheless, spatial multiplexing is difficult since a typical environment for efficient MPT has line-of-sight and the corresponding channel matrix is practically rank-one.
Power Control for Single-User SWIPT Systems with Downlink IT {#Section:SU:DLIT}
============================================================
Single-User Downlink IT with Variable Coding Rates
--------------------------------------------------
### Problem formulation
Given the receive SNR in , the downlink throughput, denoted as $C_v$, can be written as $$\label{Eq:Cap:SUDL:Var}
C_v \!=\! \l[\sum_{n=1}^K \log_2\! \l(\! 1 + \frac{\beta P_n h_n}{\beta \sigma^2_a \! +\! \sigma^2_b}\r)\r]I\l(\!(1\!-\!\beta) \sum_{n=1}^K P_n h_n \geq p_c\!\r)$$ where the indicator function $I(\mathcal{E})$ gives $1$ if the event $\mathcal{E}$ occurs and $0$ otherwise. The indicator function in represents the circuit power constraint. The problem of maximizing the throughput in by power control is formulated as: $$\text{({\bf P1})} \quad \begin{aligned}
\underset{\beta, \{P_n\}}{\text{max}}\quad & \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K \log\l(1 + \frac{\beta P_n h_n}{\beta \sigma^2_a + \sigma^2_b}\r)\\
\text{s.t.} \quad
& \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K P_n \leq p_t,\\
& (1-\beta) \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K P_n h_n \geq p_c, \\
&P_n \geq 0 \ \forall \ n, \\
& \beta \in [0, 1].
\end{aligned}\nn$$
### Solution
P1 is non-convex but can be approximated by a convex problem as follows. Since, by assumption, $\sigma^2_a+
\sigma_b^2=1$, the rate function in P1 is bounded as $$\label{Eq:Cap:SUDL:Var:Bnds}
\begin{aligned}
\log\l(1 + \beta P_n h_n\r) &\leq \log\l(1 + \frac{\beta P_n h_n}{\beta \sigma^2_a + \sigma^2_b}\r) \\
&\leq \log\l(1 + \frac{\beta P_n h_n}{\sigma^2_b}\r).
\end{aligned}$$ Approximating the objective function in P1 using the lower bound in yields $$\text{({\bf P1.1})} \quad \begin{aligned}
\underset{\beta, \{P_n\}}{\text{max}}\quad & \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K \log\l(1 + \beta P_n h_n\r) \\
\text{s.t.} \quad
&P_n \geq 0 \ \forall \ n, \\
& \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K P_n \leq p_t,\\
& (1-\beta) \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K P_n h_n \geq p_c, \\
& \beta \in [0, 1].
\end{aligned}\nn$$ The alternative approximation using the upper bound in has the same structure as P1.1 and hence is omitted for brevity. Moreover, both approximations give nearly optimal power control policies as showed by simulation. P1.1 is a convex problem and can be solved numerically by standard algorithms for convex optimization [@BoydBook]. In the remainder of this section, we investigate the structure of the power control policy that solves P1.1.
First, it is necessary to test the feasibility of powering the receiver given transmission power $p_t$. This requires computing the limit of the harvested power $p_{\max}$ by solving the following optimization problem: $$\text{({\bf P1.2})} \quad \begin{aligned}
\underset{\{P_n\}}{\text{max}}\quad & \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K P_n h_n\\
\text{s.t.} \quad
& \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K P_n \leq p_t,\\
&P_n \geq 0 \ \forall \ n. \\
\end{aligned}\nn$$ By inspecting P1.1, it is found that $p_{\max} = p_t\max_{n}h_n$. It follows that SWIPT is feasible if and only if $$\label{Eq:SU:Feasible}
p_t \geq \frac{p_c}{\max_{n}h_n}.$$
Next, given the feasibility condition in , fixing $\beta$ in P1.1 leads to $$\text{({\bf P1.3})} \quad \begin{aligned}
\underset{\{P_n\}}{\text{max}}\quad & \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K \log\l(1 + \beta P_n h_n\r)\\
\text{s.t.} \quad
& \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K P_n \leq p_t,\\
& (1-\beta)\sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K P_n h_n \geq p_c,\\
&P_n \geq 0 \ \forall \ n.
\end{aligned}\nn$$ P1.3 can be solved using the method of duality and the solution $\{\tilde{P}^*_n(\beta)\}$ is [@BoydBook] $$\label{Eq:Optm:Pwr:SU:DL:Var:a}
\tilde{P}^*_n(\beta) =\l\{\begin{aligned}
& \frac{1}{\lambda^*(\beta) - \mu^*(\beta) (1-\beta) h_n} - \frac{1}{\beta h_n}, &&n \in\mathcal{O}(\beta)\\
&0, && \text{otherwise}
\end{aligned}\r.$$ where the set $\mathcal{O}(\beta)$ is chosen to ensure $\{\tilde{P}_n^*(\beta)\}$ being non-negative, and the positive scalars $\lambda^*(\beta)$ and $\mu^*(\beta)$ are the Lagrange multipliers solving the dual problem – the unconstrained minimization of the following convex function [@BoydBook]: $$\label{Eq:Dual}\nn
\begin{aligned}
\sum\nolimits_{n\in\mathcal{O}(\beta)}\log(\lambda - \mu h_n) &+ \lambda\l(p_t + \frac{1}{\beta}\sum\nolimits_{n\in\mathcal{O}(\beta)}\frac{1}{h_n}\r) - \\
&\mu\l(\frac{p_c}{1-\beta} + \frac{|\mathcal{O}(\beta)|}{\beta}\r).
\end{aligned}$$ Note that the index set $\mathcal{O}(\beta)$ in can be obtained by repetitively removing from $\mathcal{O}(\beta)$ the index of the mobile corresponding to the smallest negative element of $\{\tilde{P}^*_n(\beta)\}$ and then recomputing $\lambda^*(\beta), \mu^*(\beta)$ and $\{\tilde{P}_n^*(\beta)\}$ till the set $\{\tilde{P}_n^*(\beta)\}$ contains only nonnegative elements. It follows from that there exists a $\beta^*\in[0, 1]$ such that the solution to P1.3, denoted as $\{\tilde{P}^*_n\}$, can be written as $$\label{Eq:Optm:Pwr:SU:DL:Var}
\tilde{P}^*_n = \l\{\begin{aligned}
& \frac{1}{\lambda^* - \mu^* (1-\beta^*) h_n} - \frac{1}{\beta^* h_n}, &&n \in\mathcal{O}\\
&0, && \text{otherwise}
\end{aligned}\r.$$ where $\lambda^* = \lambda^*(\beta^*)$, $\mu^* = \mu^*(\beta^*)$ and $\mathcal{O} = \mathcal{O}(\beta^*)$. As a result, the optimal power-control policy $\{P^*_n\}$ for the current case can be approximated as $P^*_n \approx \tilde{P}^*_n$ for all $n$. Simulation shows that such an approximation yields a throughput very close to the maximum possible. The power allocation in can be interpreted as water-filling in frequency with a water level that decreases with an increasing sub-channel gain or vice versa. This agrees with the intuition that less transmission power is required for turning on a receiver if the MPT loss is smaller. In contrast, the classic water-filling has a constant water level.
Single-User Downlink IT with Fixed Coding Rates
-----------------------------------------------
### Problem formulation
The downlink throughput, denoted as $C_f$, is proportional to the number of successfully transmitted streams. Specifically, using the receive SNR in , $C_f$ is written as $$\begin{aligned}
C_f = \log_2(1+\theta) &I\l((1-\beta) \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^KP_n h_n \geq p_c\r)\times\\
&\sum\nolimits_{n=1}^KI\l(\frac{\beta P_nh_n }{\beta\sigma_a^2 + \sigma_b^2}\geq \theta \r)
\end{aligned}\label{Eq:Rate:DL:SU:Share}$$ where the first indicator function represents the circuit-power constraint and the sum gives the number of correctly decoded streams. The problem of maximizing $C_f$ by power control is hence formulated as: $$\text{({\bf P2})} \qquad \begin{aligned}
\underset{\beta, \{P_n\}}{\text{max}}\quad & I\l((1-\beta) \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^KP_n h_n \geq p_c\r)\times\\
&\quad \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^KI\l(\frac{\beta P_nh_n }{\beta\sigma_a^2 + \sigma_b^2}\geq \theta \r)\\
\text{s.t.} \quad
& \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K P_n \leq p_t,\\
&P_n \geq 0 \ \forall \ n.
\end{aligned}\nn$$
### Solution
Solving P2 is equivalent to finding the maximum number of successfully transmitted streams, denoted as $k^*$ and derived as follows. First, rearrange the sequence of channel gains $\{h_n\}$ in descending order and denote the result as $\bar{h}_1, \bar{h}_n, \cdots, \bar{h}_K$. The corresponding transmission powers are $\bar{P}_1, \bar{P}_n, \cdots, \bar{P}_K$. This reordering can be represented by the permutation matrix $\boldsymbol{\Pi}_h$ such that $$[\bar{h}_1, \bar{h}_n, \cdots, \bar{h}_K]^T = \boldsymbol{\Pi}_h\times [h_1, h_n, \cdots, h_K]^T$$ where the superscript $T$ denotes the matrix transposition. Assume that $k$ streams are successfully transmitted. Let $\bar{P}_n^*(k)$ represent the power needed to successfully transmit the $n$-th stream such that the total power is minimized. To this end, it is desirable to transmit the streams over $k$ sub-channels with the largest channel gains, namely, $\{\bar{h}_1, \bar{h}_2, \cdots,
\bar{h}_k\}$. Therefore, considering the minimum-SNR constraint, $\{\bar{P}^*(k)\}$ solves the following optimization problem: $$\text{({\bf P2.1})} \quad \begin{aligned}
\underset{\{\bar{P}_n\}}{\text{min}}\quad & \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^k \bar{P}_n\\
\text{s.t.} \quad
& \bar{P}_n \geq \frac{\theta(\beta\sigma^2_a + \sigma^2_b)}{\beta \bar{h}_n}\ \forall \ 1\leq n\leq k,\\
& \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^k \bar{P}_n \bar{h}_n \geq \frac{p_c}{1-\beta },\\
&\beta \in [0, 1].
\end{aligned}\nonumber$$ Replacing the the inequality constraints in P2.1 results in an optimization problem with a smaller domain: $$\text{({\bf P2.2})} \quad \begin{aligned}
\underset{\{\bar{P}_n\}}{\text{min}}\quad & \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^k \bar{P}_n\\
\text{s.t.} \quad
& \bar{P}_n = \frac{\theta(\beta\sigma^2_a + \sigma^2_b)}{\beta \bar{h}_n}\ \forall \ 1\leq n\leq k, \\
& \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^k \bar{P}_n \bar{h}_n = \frac{p_c}{1-\beta }, \\
&\beta \in [0, 1].
\end{aligned}$$ Comparing P2.1 and P2.2 reveals that if the domain of P2.2 is nonempty, the solution to P2.2 must also solve P2.1. The existence of a solution for P2.2 can be tested by solving the system of linear equations from the equality constraints. As a result, $\beta$ satisfies the following quadratic equation: $$\label{Eq:Beta:Eq}
\beta^2 - c(k) \beta - d = 0$$ where the coefficients $c(k)$ and $d$ are $$\label{Eq:Beta:Eq:Coeff}
c(k) = 1 - \frac{\sigma_b^2}{\sigma_a^2} - \frac{p_c}{k \theta \sigma_a^2} , \qquad d = \frac{\sigma_b^2}{\sigma_a^2}.$$ Solving the equation in and choosing the positive root give the optimal value of $\beta$ for a given $k$, denoted as $\beta^*(k)$: $$\label{Eq:Beta:Op}
\beta^*(k) = \frac{c(k) + \sqrt{c^2(k) + 4d}}{2}.$$ Since the quadratic function on the left hand side of is negative for $\beta = 0$ and positive for $\beta
= 1$, $\beta^*(k)$ lies in the range $[0, 1]$ and hence is a valid value for the splitting ratio. This confirms the existence of a unique solution for P2.2 (equivalently P2.1) that follows from the equality constraints in P2.2 as $$\label{Eq:Power:Op:SU:UL:FixCode}
\bar{P}_n^*(k) = \frac{\theta\l[\beta^*(k)\sigma^2_a + \sigma^2_b\r]}{\beta^*(k) \bar{h}_n}$$ and the minimum transmission power for supporting $k$ streams is hence $\sum_{n=1}^k\bar{P}_n^*(k)$. In other words, the optimal policy performs greedy channel inversion.
We can now solve P2 by obtaining $k^*$ as the maximum value of $k$ under the power constraint from , which involves a simple search. To be specific $$\label{Eq:k:OP}
k^* = \max_k k,\qquad \text{subject to}\ \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^k\bar{P}_n^*(k)\leq p_t$$ with $\bar{P}_n^*(k)$ given in . Note that $k^* = 0$ if $\bar{P}_n^*(1) > p_t$ for which it is infeasible to transmit any stream. It follows from that the solution to P2, $\{P^*_n\}$ is given as $$\label{Eq:Power:Op:SU:UL:FixCode:a}
\begin{aligned}
&[P^*_1, P^*_2, \cdots, P^*_K]^T = \boldsymbol{\Pi}_h^{-1}\times \\
&\qquad [\bar{P}_1^*(k^*), \bar{P}_2^*(k^*), \cdots, \bar{P}_{k^*}^*(k^*), 0, \cdots, 0]^T.
\end{aligned}$$ The main results of this section are summarized in the following proposition.
*For the single-user SWIPT system with downlink IT and fixed coding rates, the optimal power-control policy $\{P^*_n\}$ is given in and the corresponding power-splitting ratio is $\beta^*(k^*)$ with $\beta^*(k)$ and $k^*$ given in and , respectively.*
Power Control for Single-User SWIPT Systems with Uplink IT {#Section:SU:ULIT}
==========================================================
Single-User Uplink IT with Variable Coding Rates
------------------------------------------------
### Problem formulation
Uplink transmission is feasible provided that the harvested power exceeds the circuit power: $
\sum_{n=1}^K P_n g'_n\geq p_t$. Under this condition, the total uplink transmission power is $(\sum_{n=1}^K P_n g'_n - p_c)$ that is allocated over sub-channels for maximizing the uplink throughput. In other words, the throughput for the current case can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\!\!\!\!\! R_v &\!=\! \l[\sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K \log_2\l(1 + Q_n g_n\r)\r]I\l(\sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K P_n g'_n \geq p_c\r) \label{Eq:Rate:UL:SU}\end{aligned}$$ where $\{P_n\}$ satisfies the power constraint in and $\{Q_n\}$ represents uplink power control subject to: $$\sum\nolimits_{n=1}^KQ_n \leq \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K P_n g'_n - p_c. \label{Eq:ULPwr:Const}$$ Using , the problem of maximizing the uplink throughput is formulated as $$\text{({\bf P3})} \quad \begin{aligned}
\underset{\{Q_n\}}{\text{max}}\quad & \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K \log\l(1 + Q_n g_n\r)\\
\text{s.t.} \quad
&\sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K Q_n \leq \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^KP_ng_n' - p_c, \\
&Q_n \geq 0 \ \forall \ n, \\
& \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K P_n g_n' \geq p_c,\\
& \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K P_n \leq p_t.
\end{aligned}\nn$$
### Solution
By inspecting P3, the optimization problem can be decomposed into two sub-problems: $$\text{({\bf P3.1})} \quad \begin{aligned}
\underset{\{P_n\}}{\text{max}}\quad & \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K P_n g_n'\\
\text{s.t.} \quad
& \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K P_n \leq p_t,\\
&P_n \geq 0 \ \forall \ n
\end{aligned}\nn$$ and $$\text{({\bf P3.2})} \quad \begin{aligned}
\underset{\{Q_n\}}{\text{max}}\quad & \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K \log\l(1 + Q_n g_n\r)\\
\text{s.t.} \quad
&\sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K Q_n \leq \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^KP_n^*g_n' - p_c, \\
&Q_n \geq 0 \ \forall \ n, \\
& \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K P_n^* g_n' \geq p_c
\end{aligned}\nn$$ where $\{P^*_n\}$ solves P3.1. The two problems have different objectives: That of P3.1 is to maximize the downlink transferred power and that of P3.2 is to maximize the uplink throughput. P3.1 is similar to P1.2 and it is straightforward to show that $$\label{MaxMPT:SU:VarRate}
P^*_n = \l\{
\begin{aligned}
&p_t, && g'_n = \max_k g'_k,\\
&0, && \text{otherwise}\\
\end{aligned}
\r.$$ and that the transferred power is $p_t \max_n g'_n$. It follows that the feasibility condition for the uplink transmission is $$\label{Eq:Feasible:UL:SU}
p_t \geq \frac{p_c}{\max_n g'_n}$$ which is similar to that in . Under this condition and given , P3.2 reduces to the classic multi-channel power control problem with the water-filling solution $\{Q^*\}$ given by $$\label{Eq:Pwr:SU:DLIT:Var}
Q^*_n = \eta - \frac{1}{g_n}, \qquad n \in \mathcal{A}$$ where the set $\mathcal{A}$ contains the indices of the uplink sub-channels assigned nonzero power, and $\eta$ is the water level chosen such that $\sum_{n\in \mathcal{A}} Q^*_n = p_t \max_n g'_n - p_c$. The solution to P3 is summarized in the following proposition.
\[Prop:SU:DLIT:Var\]
Single-User Uplink IT with Fixed Coding Rates
---------------------------------------------
### Problem formulation
Under the minimum-SNR and the circuit constraints, the uplink throughput is given as $$\!\! R_f = \log_2(1+\theta) I\l(\sum_{n=1}^KP_n g'_n \geq p_c\r)\sum_{n=1}^KI\l(Q_ng_n\geq \theta \r) \label{Eq:Rate:UL:SU:Share}$$ where the uplink transmission power $\{Q_n\}$ satisfies the same constraint as in for the case of variable coding rates. The problem of maximizing the throughput follows from as: $$\text{({\bf P4})} \quad \begin{aligned}
\underset{\{P_n\}}{\text{max}}\quad & I\l(\sum\nolimits_{n=1}^KP_n g'_n \geq p_c\r)\sum\nolimits_{n=1}^KI\l(Q_ng_n\geq \theta \r)\\
\text{s.t.} \quad
& \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K P_n \leq p_t,\\
&P_n \geq 0 \ \forall \ n.
\end{aligned}\nn$$
### Solution
Similar to P3, P4 can be decomposed into two sub-problems. The first sub-problem maximizes the transferred power in the downlink and is identical to P3.1. It follows that uplink transmission is feasible if and only if the condition in is satisfied, namely that $p_t \max_k g'_k \geq p_c$. Under this condition, the other sub-problem is to maximize the uplink throughput, more exactly: $$\text{({\bf P4.1})} \quad \begin{aligned}
\underset{\{Q_n\}}{\text{max}}\quad & \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^KI\l(Q_ng_n\geq \theta \r)\\
\text{s.t.} \quad
&\sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K Q_n \leq p_t \max_k g'_k - p_c,\\
&Q_n \geq 0 \ \forall \ n.
\end{aligned}\nn$$ It can be observed from P4.1 that the optimal power allocation should be again based on greedy channel inversion. Specifically, the optimal policy attempts to meet the minimum-SNR constraints of the streams following the descending order of their corresponding sub-channel gains $\{g_n\}$. To state the policy mathematically, let the sequence $\bar{g}_1, \bar{g}_2, \cdots, \bar{g}_K$ represent the values of $\{g_n\}$ sorted in descending order. Let $\boldsymbol{\Pi}_g$ represent the permutation matrix such that $$[\bar{g}_1, \bar{g}_2, \cdots, \bar{g}_K]^T = \boldsymbol{\Pi}_g\times [g_1, g_2, \cdots, g_K]^T.$$ Following the earlier discussion, the power allocated to the sub-channels with gains $\{\bar{g}_n\}$, denoted as $\{\bar{Q}^*_n\}$, is given as $$\label{Eq:Pwr:MUDLVarC:Order}
\bar{Q}^*_n = \l\{
\begin{aligned}
&\frac{\theta}{\bar{g}_n}, && 1\leq n \leq k^*\\
&0, && \text{otherwise}
\end{aligned}
\r.$$ where $k^*$, $1\leq k^*\leq K$, is the maximum number of uplink streams under the uplink-power constraint obtained from the first constraint in P4.1 as $$\sum\nolimits_{n=1}^{k^*}\bar{Q}^*_n \leq p_t \max_k g'_k - p_c. \label{Eq:ULPwr:Const:a}$$ The solution to P4 is summarized in the following proposition.
Power Control for Multi-User SWIPT Systems with Downlink IT {#Section:MU:DLIT}
===========================================================
Multi-User Downlink IT with Variable Coding Rates {#Section:DL:MU:VarCode}
-------------------------------------------------
### Problem formulation
Using the receive SNR in , the sum throughput is obtained as $$\tilde{C}_v = \sum_{n=1}^K \log_2\l(1 + \frac{\beta_n P_n h_n }{\beta_n \sigma^2_a + \sigma^2_b}\r)I((1-\beta_n) P_n h_n \geq p_c). \label{Eq:Rate:DL:MU}$$ In contrast to the single-user counterpart in having a single circuit-power constraint, the sum throughput in contains multi-user circuit-power constraints. The corresponding power-control problem is formulated as follows: $$\text{({\bf P5})} \begin{aligned}
\underset{\{\beta_n, P_n\}}{\text{max}} \ \ & \sum_{n=1}^K \log\l(\! 1 \! +\! \frac{\beta_n P_n h_n }{\beta_n \sigma^2_a + \sigma^2_b}\!\r)\! I((1\! -\! \beta_n) P_n h_n \geq p_c)\\
\text{s.t.} \ \
& \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K P_n \leq p_t, \\
&P_n \in\{0\}\cup \l[p_c/h_n, \infty\r)\quad \forall \ n, \\
& \beta_n \in [0, 1]\quad \forall \ n.
\end{aligned}\nn$$
### Solution
Like P1, P5 is non-convex but can be approximated by a convex problem by replacing the objective function by either the lower or upper bounds in . Both approximating problems have the same structure and yield practically the same solutions as P5, as shown by simulation. For brevity, we consider only the approximation of P5 using the lower bound in and hence solving the following problem: $$\text{({\bf P5.1})} \begin{aligned}
\underset{\{\beta_n, P_n\}}{\text{max}}\ \ & \sum_{n=1}^K \log\l(1 +\beta_n P_n h_n\r)I((1-\beta_n) P_n h_n \geq p_c)\\
\text{s.t.} \ \
& \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K P_n \leq p_t,\\
&P_n \in\{0\}\cup \l[p_c/h_n, \infty\r)\quad \forall \ n, \\
& \beta_n \in [0, 1]\quad \forall \ n.
\end{aligned}\nn$$ It can be observed from P5.1 that if $P_n h_n \geq p_c$, it is optimal to choose $\beta_n$ such that the input power to the energy harvester is $p_c$ since additional power contributes no throughput gain, corresponding to $\beta_n = 1 - p_c/(P_n h_n)$. Consequently, P5.1 can be rewritten as $$\text{({\bf P5.2})} \quad \begin{aligned}
\underset{\{P_n\}}{\text{max}} \quad & \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K \log\l(1 - p_c + P_n h_n\r)I(P_n h_n \geq p_c)\\
\text{s.t.} \quad
& \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K P_n \leq p_t, \\
&P_n \in\{0\}\cup \l[p_c/h_n, \infty\r)\quad \forall \ n.
\end{aligned}\nn$$ Let $\mathcal{B}$ denote the indices of the mobiles that meet their circuit-power constraints using the power allocation in the solution of P5. Given $\mathcal{B}$ and defining $T_n = P_n - p_c/h_n$, P5.2 can be simplified as $$\text{({\bf P5.3})} \quad \begin{aligned}
\underset{ \{T_n\}}{\text{max}}\quad & \sum\nolimits_{n\in \mathcal{B}} \log\l(1 + T_n h_n\r)\\
\text{s.t.} \quad
& \sum\nolimits_{n\in \mathcal{B}} T_n \leq p_t - p_c\sum\nolimits_{n\in\mathcal{B}} \frac{1}{h_n},\\
&T_n\geq 0 \quad \forall \ n\in\mathcal{B}.
\end{aligned}\nn$$ As the values of $\{h_n\mid n \in \mathcal{B}\}$ increase, the objective function in P5.3 increases and the first constraint is relaxed. It follows that with $L = |\mathcal{B}|$, P5.3 is equivalent to $$\text{({\bf P5.4})} \quad \begin{aligned}
\underset{\{\bar{T}_n\}}{\text{max}} \quad & \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^L \log\l(1 + \bar{T}_n \bar{h}_n\r)\\
\text{s.t.} \quad
& \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^L \bar{T}_n \leq p_t - p_c\sum\nolimits_{n=1}^L \frac{1}{\bar{h}_n}\\
&\bar{T}_n\geq 0 \quad \forall \ 1\leq n\leq L
\end{aligned}\nn$$ where $[\bar{T}_1, \bar{T}_2, \cdots, \bar{T}_K]^T =
\boldsymbol{\Pi}_h [T_1, T_2, \cdots, T_K]^T$. The form of P5.4 is similar to that of the traditional multi-channel power control problem with the key difference that the maximum of $\sum_{n=1}^L \bar{T}_n$ increases with decreasing $L$. The reason is that reducing the number of streams decreases the total circuit-power consumption of the system and thereby allows more power to be used for IT. Given $L$, combining the traditional water-filling method and the constant $\bar{T}^*_n = -
p_c/h_n$ if $n > L$ yields the solution to P5.4 as follows: $$\label{Eq:Power:MU:DL:Var}
\bar{T}^*_n = \l\{
\begin{aligned}
&\frac{p_t + (1 - p_c)\sum_{n=1}^{L}\frac{1}{\bar{h}_n}}{L} - \frac{1}{\bar{h}_n}, && 1\leq n \leq L, \\
&-\frac{p_c}{\bar{h}_n}, && \text{otherwise}.
\end{aligned}
\r.$$ The corresponding sum throughput is $$\tilde{C}^*_v(L) = \sum_{n=1}^{L}\log_2(\bar{h}_n) + \log_2\l(\frac{p_t + (1 - p_c)\sum_{n=1}^{L}\frac{1}{h_n}}{L}\r). \nn$$
Next, the number of streams $L$ is determined by a simple search. According to the traditional water-filling method, $L$ is chosen as $L= \ell_{\max}$ where $\ell_{\max}$ with $1\leq
\ell_{\max}\leq K$ is the largest integer such that $\l\{\bar{T}^*_n\mid 1\leq n \leq \ell_{\max}\r\}$ are positive. It is important to note that the traditional choice may not be optimal due to the aforementioned difference between the traditional method and P5.4. In other words, reducing the number of streams below $\ell_{\max}$ may result in a throughput gain. The optimal value of $L$, however, has no closed-form solution but can be obtained by a simple search over the range from $1$ to $\ell_{\max}$. To be specific, the value of $L$ that maximizes the sum throughput is given as $$\label{Eq:Comp:L}
L^* = \arg\max_{1\leq \ell \leq \ell_{\max}}\tilde{C}^*_v(\ell).$$ The above results are summarized in the following lemma.
\[Lem:ConvApprox\]*The solution for P5.1, denoted as $\{\tilde{P}^*_n\}$, is obtained from $\{\bar{T}^*_n\}$ in as $$\begin{aligned}
\l[\tilde{P}^*_1, \tilde{P}^*_2, \cdots, \tilde{P}^*_K\r]^T = &\boldsymbol{\Pi}_h^{-1} \Bigg\{\l[\bar{T}^*_1, \bar{T}^*_2, \cdots, \bar{T}^*_K\r]^T + \\
&\quad \l.\l[\frac{p_c}{\bar{h}_1}, \frac{p_c}{\bar{h}_2}, \cdots, \frac{p_c}{\bar{h}_K}\r]^T \r\}
\end{aligned}
\nn$$ with $\{\bar{T}^*_n\}$ in and the number of active mobiles optimized as in .*
Since P5.1 is a convex approximation of P5, the solution $\{P^*_n\}$ or equivalently the optimal power-control policy for the current case can be approximated as $P^*_n \approx \tilde{P}^*_n$ for all $n$, which is shown by simulation to be close-to-optimal.
Multi-User Downlink IT with Fixed Coding Rates
----------------------------------------------
### Problem formulation
Using the receive SNR in , the sum throughput is written as $$\tilde{C}_f \!=\! \log_2(1+\theta)\! \sum_{n=1}^K\! I\!\l( \frac{\beta_n P_nh_n }{\beta_n\sigma_a^2 + \sigma_b^2} \geq \theta \r)\!\! I(\!(1-\beta_n) P_n h_n \geq p_c) \nn$$ that differs from the single-user counterpart in by having the multi-user circuit-power constraints. The matching power-control problem can be formulated as $$\text{({\bf P6})} \begin{aligned}
\underset{\{\beta_n, P_n\}}{\text{max}}\ \ & \sum_{n=1}^KI\!\l(\frac{\beta_n P_nh_n }{\beta_n\sigma_a^2 + \sigma_b^2}\geq \theta \r)\! I\!\l((1-\beta_n) P_n h_n \geq p_c\r)\\
\text{s.t.} \ \
& \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K P_n \leq p_t,\\
&P_n \in\{0\}\cup \l[p_c/h_n, \infty\r)\quad \forall \ n, \\
& \beta_n \in [0, 1]\quad \forall \ n.
\end{aligned}\nn$$
### Solution
Replacing the inequalities in P6 with equalities has no effect on the solution. Hence, P6 can be rewritten as $$\text{({\bf P6})} \begin{aligned}
\underset{\{\beta_n, P_n\}}{\text{max}}\ \ & \sum_{n=1}^KI\!\l(\frac{\beta_n P_nh_n }{\beta_n\sigma_a^2 + \sigma_b^2}= \theta \r)\! I\!\l((1-\beta_n) P_n h_n = p_c\r)\\
\text{s.t.} \ \
& \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K P_n = p_t,\\
&P_n \geq 0 \ \forall \ n.
\end{aligned}\nn$$ The splitting ratio for the $n$-th mobile can be obtained by solving the following two linear equations: $$\frac{\beta_n P_nh_n }{\beta_n\sigma_a^2 + \sigma_b^2}= \theta, \qquad (1-\beta_n) P_n h_n = p_c. \nn$$ The resulting optimal value of $\{\beta_n\}$, which is identical for all mobiles and denoted as $\beta^*$, has a similar form as the single-user counterpart in : $$\label{Eq:Beta:Mu}
\beta_n = \tilde{\beta}^* = \frac{c(1) + \sqrt{c^2(1) + 4d}}{2}, \qquad \forall \ n$$ where the coefficients $c(1)$ and $d$ are as given in . With $\{\beta_n\}$ fixed as given in , it follows from inspecting P6 that the optimal power-control policy again performs greedy channel inversion, just like its single-user counterpart. The result is summarized in the following proposition.
*For the multi-user SWIPT system with downlink IT, the optimal power-control policy, represented by $\{P^*_n\}$, is given as $$\l[P^*_1, P^*_2, \cdots, P^*_K\r]^T = \boldsymbol{\Pi}_h^{-1}\l[\bar{P}^*_1, \bar{P}^*_2, \cdots, P^*_{K}\r]^T$$ where $$\bar{P}^*_n = \l\{
\begin{aligned}
&\frac{p_c}{(1-\tilde{\beta}^*) \bar{h}_n}, && 1\leq n \leq m_{\max}\\
&0, && \text{otherwise}.
\end{aligned}
\r.$$ The optimal splitting ratio $\tilde{\beta}^*$ is given by and $m_{\max}$, $1\leq m_{\max}\leq K$, is the largest integer such that the power constraint $$\frac{p_c}{1-\tilde{\beta}^*}\sum\nolimits_{n=1}^{m_{\max}}\frac{1}{\bar{h}_n} \leq p_t$$ is satisfied.*
Power Control for Multi-User SWIPT Systems with Uplink IT {#Section:MU:ULIT}
=========================================================
Multi-User Uplink IT with Variable Coding Rates
-----------------------------------------------
### Problem formulation
The sum throughput for the current case is given as $$\tilde{R}_v = \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K \log_2\l(1 + (P_ng'_n - p_c) g_n\r)I(P_n g'_n \geq p_c). \label{Eq:Rate:UL}$$ Note that the product $g_ng'_n$ in represents the combined loss due to propagation both in the downlink and in the uplink. This must be contrasted with the loss of only $h_n$ in the case of downlink IT \[see \]. The power-control problem is formulated using as $$\text{({\bf P7})} \quad \begin{aligned}
\underset{\{P_n\}}{\text{max}}\quad & \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K \log\l(1 + (P_ng'_n - p_c) g_n\r) I(P_n g'_n \geq p_c)\\
\text{s.t.} \quad
& \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K P_n \leq p_t, \\
&P_n \in \{0\}\cup\l(\frac{p_c}{g_n'}, \infty\r) \ \forall \ n.
\end{aligned}\nn$$
### Solution
To facilitate a compact exposition, we use the following definitions. Let $\bar{g}'_1, \bar{g}'_2, \cdots, \bar{g}'_K$ denote the downlink sub-channel gains $\{g'_n\}$ sorted in descending order and let $\boldsymbol{\Pi}'_g$ be the corresponding permutation matrix; that is, we have: $$[\bar{g}'_1, \bar{g}'_2, \cdots, \bar{g}'_K]^T = \boldsymbol{\Pi}'_g \times [g'_1, g'_2, \cdots, g'_K]^T.$$ Arranging the uplink sub-channel gains $\{g_n\}$ in the same way, i.e., $\bar{g}_1, \bar{g}_2, \cdots, \bar{g}_K$, gives $$[\hat{g}_1, \hat{g}_2, \cdots, \hat{g}_K]^T = \boldsymbol{\Pi}'_g \times [g_1, g_2, \cdots, g_K]^T.$$ The powers $\{\bar{P}_n\}$ are defined based on $\{P_n\}$ in a similar way. Using these definitions, P7 can be rewritten as $$\text{({\bf P7.1})} \quad \begin{aligned}
\underset{\{\bar{P}_n\}}{\text{max}}\quad & \sum_{n=1}^K \log\l(1 + (\bar{P}_n\bar{g}'_n - p_c) \hat{g}_n\r) I(\bar{P}_n \bar{g}'_n \geq p_c)\\
\text{s.t.} \quad
& \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K \bar{P}_n \leq p_t, \\
&\bar{P}_n \in \{0\}\cup\l(\frac{p_c}{\bar{g}_n'}, \infty\r) \ \forall \ n.
\end{aligned}\nn$$
Given that P7.1 is non-convex, a sub-optimal algorithm is proposed as follows. Assume that $k$ mobiles are active, that is, they harvest sufficient energy for meeting their circuit-power constraints; all others are allocated zero power. To maximize the MPT efficiency, the $k$ active mobiles are chosen to be those corresponding to the largest downlink sub-channel gains $\bar{g}'_1, \bar{g}'_2, \cdots, \bar{g}'_k$. This choice may not be overall optimal, however, since selecting a mobile with relative small downlink but sufficiently large uplink sub-channel gains can increase the throughput. Define $\bar{U}_n = \bar{P}_n - p_c/\bar{g}'_n$. Given the assumptions and choices made, the problem of maximizing the uplink sum throughput reduces to the standard multi-channel power control problem: $$\text{({\bf P7.1})} \quad \begin{aligned}
\underset{\{\bar{U}_n\}}{\text{max}}\ \ & \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^k \log\l(1 + \bar{U}_n \hat{g}_n\bar{g}'_n\r) \\
\text{s.t.} \quad
& \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^k \bar{U}_n \leq p_t - p_c \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^k \frac{1}{\bar{g}'_n}, \\
&\bar{U}_n \geq 0 \ \forall \ 1\leq n\leq k.
\end{aligned}\nn$$ This problem is solved by water-filling: $$\! \bar{U}^*_n(k) = \l\{
\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{k}\l(p_t - p_c\sum\nolimits_{n=1}^k \frac{1}{\bar{g}'_n }+\right.\\
&\quad \left. \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^k \frac{1}{\hat{g}_n\bar{g}'_n}\r) - \frac{1}{\hat{g}_n\bar{g}'_n}, &&1\leq n\leq k\\
&0, &&\text{otherwise}.
\end{aligned}
\r.\label{Eq:U}$$ The number of active mobile $k$ is optimized. Let $z_{\max}$, $1\leq z_{\max}\leq K$, be the maximum number of active mobiles such that the corresponding multi-user circuit-power constraints and the power constraint are satisfied: $$p_c\sum\nolimits_{n=1}^{z_{\max}} \frac{1}{\bar{g}'_n} \leq p_t.$$ For the same reason as discussed when solving P5.4, it may not be optimal to set the optimal value of $k$, denoted as $k^*$, as $k^* = z_{\max}$. Instead, $k^*$ can be found by testing the values $1, 2, \cdots, z_{\max}$. The above results are summarized in the following algorithm for computing a sub-optimal solution for P7.
\[Algo:MU:ULIT:Var\]
Algorithm $1$ sequentially performs the tasks of scheduling mobiles with high MPT efficiencies and maximizing the uplink sum rate of the scheduled mobiles by power control. The design exploits the fact that meeting the circuit power constraints is a prerequisite for IT and hence has high priority. Such a sequential algorithm provides a close-to-optimal solution as shown by simulation results in the sequel.
Multi-User Uplink IT with Fixed Coding Rates
--------------------------------------------
### Problem formulation
The sum throughput for the current scenario can be written as $$\tilde{R}_f = \log_2(1+\theta) \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K I\l( Q_ng_n \geq \theta \r)I(P_n g_n \geq p_c). \label{Eq:Rate:UL:MU:Share}$$ The corresponding formulation of the optimal power-control problem follows as $$\text{({\bf P8})} \quad \begin{aligned}
\underset{\{P_n\}}{\text{max}}\quad & \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^KI\l((P_ng'_n - p_c)g_n \geq \theta \r)I\l(P_n g'_n \geq p_c\r)\\
\text{s.t.} \quad
& \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K P_n \leq p_t,\\
&P_n \geq 0 \ \forall \ n.
\end{aligned}\nn$$
### Solution
Since the the first indicator function in the objective function of P8 yields $1$ if and only if the second does so, P8 reduces to $$\text{({\bf P8})} \quad \begin{aligned}
\text{max}\quad & \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^KI\l( P_n \geq \frac{1}{g'_n}\l(\frac{\theta}{g_n} + p_c\r) \r)\\
\text{s.t.} \quad
&P_n \geq 0 \ \forall \ n, \\
& \sum\nolimits_{n=1}^K P_n \leq p_t.
\end{aligned}\nn$$ For ease of notation, define the scalar sequence $v_1, v_2, \cdots, v_K$ according to $$\label{Eq:V:n}
v_n = \frac{1}{g'_n}\l(\frac{\theta}{g_n} + p_c\r)$$ and the vector $\bv = [v_1, v_2, \cdots, v_K]$. Let $\bar{v}_1,
\bar{v}_2, \cdots, \bar{v}_K$ represent the sequence $\{v_n\}$ sorted in ascending order, and define the vector $\bar{\bv} = [\bar{v}_1,
\bar{v}_2, \cdots, \bar{v}_K]$ and the permutation matrix $\boldsymbol{\Pi}_v$ such that $\bar{\bv} = \boldsymbol{\Pi}_v\bv$. By inspecting P8, the optimal power control policy at the base station is found to be the one that attempts to meet the minimum-SNR requirements of the uplink streams following the descending order of $\{v_n\}$. To be specific, the optimal power allocated to the sub-channel corresponding to $\bar{v}_n$, denoted as $\bar{P}_n$, is given as $$\label{Eq:Pwr:MU:UL:Fix}
\bar{P}_n^* = \left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\bar{v}_n, && 1\leq n \leq q_{\max}\\
& 0, && \text{otherwise}
\end{aligned}\right.$$ where $q_{\max}$ is the maximum number of uplink streams or equivalently the largest integer for which the power constraint obtained from , $$\sum\nolimits_{n=1}^{q_{\max}}\bar{P}_n^*\leq p_t,$$ is satisfied. Note that the policy $\{\bar{P}_n^*\}$ as specified by is a variant of greedy channel inversion where $\{\bar{v}_n\}$ combines the inversion of closed-loop channels and circuit-power consumption. Then the solution $\{P^*_n\}$ to P8 follows from rearranging $\{\bar{P}_n^*\}$ according to the original order of the sub-channels. In other words, $$\label{Eq:Pwr:MU:UL:Fix:a}
[P_1^*, P_2^*, \cdots, P^*_K]^T = \boldsymbol{\Pi}_v^{-1}[\bar{P}_1^*, \bar{P}_2^*, \cdots, \bar{P}^*_K]^T$$ with $\{\bar{P}^*_n\}$ in . The key results of this section are summarized in the following proposition.
Simulation Results {#Section:Simulation}
==================
In this section, the performance of SWIPT using the power-control algorithms proposed in the preceding sections is evaluated by simulation in terms of spectral efficiency versus circuit power. The channel model is described as follows. Propagation is assumed to have line-of-sight and be close to that in free space, which is necessary for making MPT feasible. The propagation model for beamed transmission is modified from that in [@Brown:BeamedMicrowavTarnsmsision] and specified by the following relation between the transmission power $P_t$ and received power $P_r$ for an arbitrary link: $$\label{Eq:Propagation}
\frac{P_r}{P_t} = \frac{A_t A_r }{\lambda^2 r^2}|Z|^2$$ where $\lambda$ is the wavelength, $A_t$ and $A_r$ the total apertures of the transmit and receive antenna arrays, respectively, $r$ the transmission distance and $Z$ a complex Gaussian random variable with nonzero mean that models small-scale fading. For simulation, it is assumed that the wavelength corresponds to a carrier frequency of $5.8$ GHz, the total aperture of the base-station antenna array is $1$ sq. m, the aperture of each of the two antennas at a mobile is $0.05$ sq. m, the base-station transmission power is $10$ W in the single-user system and $20$ W in the multi-user system, and $Z$ follows the $\mathcal{CN}(1, 0.2)$ distribution. For the scenario of uplink IT, the two sub-arrays at the base station that support full-duplex MPT/IT are assumed to have equal apertures of $0.5$ sq. m. For efficient MPT, transmission distances are assumed to be short as enabled by dense base-station deployment. To be specific, the distances are $100$ m for the single-user system and $\{50, 80, 100, 150, 200\}$ m for the multi-user system with five mobiles. Correspondingly, there are five frequency sub-channels which are assumed to be frequency non-selective. Their bandwidth has no effect on the simulation results since the performance metric is spectral efficiency. The distributions of the channel coefficients $\{\dot{h}_n, \ddot{h}_n, g_n, g_n'\}$ follow from the propagation model in . To be specific, each coefficient is given by the expression of $P_r/P_t$ in substituted with the corresponding transmission distance, and all coefficients are assumed to be independent. Note that the beamforming gains are accounted for in the model of the channel coefficients via the antenna apertures [@Brown:BeamedMicrowavTarnsmsision]. Given short propagation distances and line-of-sight channels, a mobile in can be exposed to extremely strong interference and hence the interference-plus-noise variance from each sub-channel is chosen to have a large value, namely $-30$ dBm, where $90\%$ and $10\%$ of the noise power are introduced before and after a power splitter (see Fig. \[Fig:Transceiver\]), respectively. Note that in an interference dominant environment, the interference-plus-noise variance is largely determined by the ratio between the main-lobe and side-lobe responses rather than the channel bandwidth that affects the thermal noise variance. The SNR threshold for the case of a fixed coding rate is set as $30$ dB for the scenario of downlink IT and $7$ dB for the scenario of uplink IT, which are optimized numerically to enhance the spectral efficiency. Last, the battery capacity at all mobiles is assumed to be sufficiently large such that there is no energy loss due to battery overflow.
\
The proposed SWIPT with power control is compared in the sequel with SWIPT without such control (equal power allocation) as well as the TD-IPT method [@Zhang:MIMOBCWirelessInfoPowerTransfer; @NgLo:MultiuserOFDMSInfoPowerTransfer]. It is assumed for TD-IPT that each time slot is divided into two halves for alternating MPT and IT. The time sharing reduces the duration for IT by half but enhances the received signal power by dedicating all antennas to either MPT or IT at each time instant. The power control algorithms for TD-IPT follow straightforwardly from those designed for SWIPT and thus the details are omitted for brevity.
\
First, consider the scenario of SWIPT with downlink IT. The curves of spectral efficiency versus circuit power are plotted in the sub-figures in Fig. \[Fig:SU:DLIT\], corresponding to different cases combining single-user/multi-user systems and variable/fixed coding rates. For all the curves in the figure, as the circuit power decreases, the spectral efficiencies converge to their counterparts for the case with reliable power supplies at the mobiles, which are extremely high ($10-13$ bit/s/Hz) due to the low propagation loss. The spectral efficiencies reduce with increasing circuit power. In particular, the changes exhibit a threshold effect for the single-user system (see top sub-figures in Fig. \[Fig:SU:DLIT\]). This suggests that powering one passive mobile by MPT has little effect on the spectral efficiency if the circuit power is below the threshold, but otherwise it degrades the efficiency severely. However, for the multi-user system, since the base-station needs to power multiple mobiles, the spectral efficiency is sensitive to the changes in the circuit power (see bottom sub-figures in Fig. \[Fig:SU:DLIT\]). Next, comparing SWIPT with and without power control, it is observed that with the spectral efficiency fixed such control can increase circuit power substantially e.g., by up to about $8$ dB for the single-user system. Last, though TD-IPT yields spectral efficiencies about half of those by SWIPT for low to moderate circuit power, the gap narrows as the power increases and TD-IPT can outperform SWIPT for high circuit power as shown in the case of the single-user system with fixed coding rates.
Next, consider the scenario of SWIPT with uplink IT. A similar set of curves as those in Fig. \[Fig:SU:DLIT\] are plotted in Fig. \[Fig:SU:ULIT\]. Compared with the previous scenario of SWIPT with downlink IT, the power supplied by the base station must overcome a *roundtrip* propagation loss, first for the MPT in the downlink and then for the IT in the uplink, which decreases the spectral efficiencies by more than $10$ bit/s/Hz. For the current scenario, TD-IPT is found to outperform SWIPT. This suggests that given severe propagation loss it should be preferable to use all transmit/receive antennas for either MPT or IT which more than compensates the time-sharing loss. Last, the performance of the sub-optimal Algorithm $1$ designed for the case of multi-user SWIPT with uplink IT is observed to be close-to-optimal, where the curve for the optimal algorithm is obtained by scheduling based on an exhaustive search for maximizing the spectral efficiency.
For the same scenario of uplink IT, a further comparison between TD-IPT and SWIPT is provided in Fig. \[Fig:TD-IPT:Compare\] for which the round-trip propagation loss is alleviated by reducing all transmission distances by five times. It is observed that there are intersections between the curves for SWIPT and their TD-IPT counterparts. This leads to the conclusion that SWIPT is preferred when the propagation loss is not extremely severe (e.g., for the case of downlink IT) or the circuit power is low; otherwise, TD-IPT should be used for a higher spectral efficiency.
Conclusions {#Section:Conclusion}
===========
A framework has been proposed for realizing SWIPT in a broadband wireless system that comprises a passive SWIPT-enabled mobile architecture and a matching set of power-control algorithms designed for different system configurations accounting for single-user/multi-user systems, variable/fixed coding rates, and uplink/downlink information transfer. These algorithms have been optimized for maximizing the system throughput under circuit-power constraints at mobiles, in addition to a power constraint at the base station. It is shown by simulation that power control plays an important role in enhancing the efficiency of SWIPT.
This work can be extended in several interesting directions. First, the channel assignment was assumed to be fixed here. Jointly assigning channels and performing optimal power control may further increase the SWIPT efficiency. Second, the current framework can be modified to support multimode operations including MPT or SWIPT to nearby mobiles but only information transfer to mobiles far away. Third, the power control can be integrated with intelligent energy management policies at the mobiles, in order to exploit the diversity that originates from time-variations of the channels. Finally, it would be interesting to design a framework for cooperative SWIPT in a multi-cell system.
[10]{}
W. C. Brown, “The history of power transmission by radio waves,” [*[IEEE]{} Trans. on Microwave Theory and Techniques*]{}, vol. 32, pp. 1230–1242, Sep. 1984.
J. O. Mcspadden and J. C. Mankins, “Space solar power programs and microwave wireless power transmission technology,” [*IEEE Microwave Magazine*]{}, vol. 3, pp. 46–57, Apr. 2002.
J. J. Schlesak, A. Alden, and T. Ohno, “A microwave powered high altitude platform,” [*[IEEE MTT-S]{} Digest*]{}, pp. 283–286, 1988.
T. Le, K. Mayaram, and T. Fiez, “Efficient far-field radio frequency energy harvesting for passively powered sensor networks,” [*IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits*]{}, vol. 43, pp. 1287–1302, May 2008.
“P2110 - 915[MH]{}z [RF]{} powerharvester receiver,” [*Product Datasheet, Powercast Corp.*]{}, pp. 1–12, 2010.
F. Balouchi and B. Gohn, “Wirelss power,” [*Pike Research Report*]{}, 2Q 2012.
F. Rusek, D. Persson, B. K. Lau, E. G. Larsson, T. L. Marzetta, O. Edfors, and F. Tufvesson, “Scaling up [MIMO]{}: Opportunities and challenges with very large arrays,” [*[IEEE]{} Signal Proc. Magazine*]{}, vol. 30, pp. 40–60, Jan. 2013.
L. R. Varshney, “Transporting information and energy simultaneously,” in [ *Proc., IEEE Intl. Symposium on Information Theory*]{}, pp. 1612–1616, Jul. 2008.
P. Grover and A. Sahai, “[Shannon]{} meets [Tesla]{}: [Wireless]{} information and power transfer,” in [*Proc., IEEE Intl. Symposium on Information Theory*]{}, pp. 2363–2367, Jun. 2010.
A. Fouladgar and O. Simeone, “On the transfer of information and energy in multi-user systems,” [*[IEEE]{} Comm. Letters*]{}, vol. 16, pp. 1733–1736, Nov. 2012.
R. Zhang and C. Ho, “[MIMO]{} broadcasting for simultaneous wireless information and power transfer,” [*[IEEE]{} Tarns. on Comm.*]{}, vol. 12, pp. 1989–2001, May 2013.
X. Zhou, R. Zhang, and C. Ho, “Wireless information and power transfer: Architecture design and rate-energy tradeoff,” [*submitted to [IEEE]{} Tarns. on Comm. (Avaiable: http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0618)*]{}, 2012.
Z. Xiang and M. Tao, “Robust beamforming for wireless information and power transmission,” [*IEEE Wireless Comm. Letters*]{}, vol. 1, pp. 372–375, Apr. 2012.
P. Popovski, A. Fouladgar, and O. Simeone, “Interactive joint transfer of energy and information,” [*IEEE Trans. on Comm.*]{}, vol. 61, pp. 2086–2097, May 2013.
B. Gurakan, O. Ozel, J. Yang, and S. Ulukus, “Energy cooperation in energy harvesting wireless communications,” in [*Proc., IEEE Intl. Symposium on Information Theory*]{}, pp. 965–969, 2012.
K. Huang and V. K. N. Lau, “Enabling wireless power transfer in cellular networks: Architecture, modeling and deployment,” [*submitted to IEEE Trans. on Wireless Comm. (Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5640)*]{}.
A. Goldsmith, [*Wireless Communications*]{}. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
K. Huang and E. G. Larsson, “Simultaneous information-and-power transfer for broadband downlink systems,” in [*Proc., IEEE Intl. Conf. on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing*]{}, May 2013.
D. W. Ng, E. S. Lo, and R. Schober, “Energy-efficient resource allocation in multiuser [OFDM]{} systems with wireless information and power transfer,” in [*Proc., IEEE Wireless Comm. and Networking Conf.*]{}, Apr. 2013.
J. Choi, M. Jain, K. Srinivasan, P. Levis, and S. Katti, “Achieving single channel, full duplex wireless communication,” in [*Proc., Intl. Conf. on Mobile Comp. and Networking*]{}, Sep. 20-24 2010.
G. Miao, N. Himayat, Y. G. Li, and A. Swami, “Cross-layer optimization for energy-efficient wireless communications: A survey,” [*Wireless Comm. and Mobile Computing*]{}, vol. 9, pp. 529–542, Apr. 2009.
C. Y. Wong, R. Cheng, K. Lataief, and R. Murch, “Multiuser [OFDM]{} with adaptive subcarrier, bit, and power allocation,” [*IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Comm.*]{}, vol. 17, pp. 1747–1758, Oct. 1999.
L. H. Ozarow, S. Shamai, and A. D. Wyner, “Information theoretic considerations for cellular mobile radio,” [*IEEE Trans. on Veh. Technology*]{}, vol. 43, pp. 359–378, May 1994.
S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, [*Convex Optimization*]{}. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2004.
C. W. Brown and E. E. Eves, “Beamed microwave power transmission and its application to space,” [*IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques*]{}, vol. 40, pp. 1239–1250, Jun. 1992.
[Kaibin Huang]{} (S’05, M’08, SM’13) received the B.Eng. (first-class hons.) and the M.Eng. from the National University of Singapore in 1998 and 2000, respectively, and the Ph.D. degree from The University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin) in 2008, all in electrical engineering.
Since Jul. 2012, he has been an assistant professor in the Dept. of Applied Mathematics (AMA) at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (PolyU), Hong Kong. He had held the same position in the School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering at Yonsei University, S. Korea from Mar. 2009 to Jun. 2012 and presently is affiliated with the school as an adjunct professor. From Jun. 2008 to Feb. 2009, he was a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. From Nov. 1999 to Jul. 2004, he was an Associate Scientist at the Institute for Infocomm Research in Singapore. He frequently serves on the technical program committees of major IEEE conferences in wireless communications. He will chair the Comm. Theory Symp. of IEEE GLOBECOM 2014 and the Adv. Topics in Wireless Comm. Symp. of IEEE/CIC ICCC 2014, and has been the technical co-chair for IEEE CTW 2013, the track chair for IEEE Asilomar 2011, and the track co-chair for IEE VTC Spring 2013 and IEEE WCNC 2011. He is a guest editor for the IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, and an editor for the IEEE Wireless Communications Letters and also the Journal of Communication and Networks. He is an elected member of the SPCOM Technical Committee of the IEEE Signal Processing Society. Dr. Huang received the Outstanding Teaching Award from Yonsei, Motorola Partnerships in Research Grant, the University Continuing Fellowship at UT Austin, and Best Paper Awards from IEEE GLOBECOM 2006 and PolyU AMA. His research interests focus on the analysis and design of wireless networks using stochastic geometry and multi-antenna limited feedback techniques.
[Erik G. Larsson]{} received his Ph.D. degree from Uppsala University, Sweden, in 2002. Since 2007, he is Professor and Head of the Division for Communication Systems in the Department of Electrical Engineering (ISY) at Linköping University (LiU) in Linköping, Sweden. He has previously been Associate Professor (Docent) at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm, Sweden, and Assistant Professor at the University of Florida and the George Washington University, USA.
His main professional interests are within the areas of wireless communications and signal processing. He has published some 100 journal papers on these topics, he is co-author of the textbook *Space-Time Block Coding for Wireless Communications* (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003) and he holds 10 patents on wireless technology.
He is Associate Editor for the *IEEE Transactions on Communications* and he has previously been Associate Editor for several other IEEE journals. He is a member of the IEEE Signal Processing Society SPCOM technical committee. He is active in conference organization, most recently as the Technical Chair of the Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers 2012 and Technical Program co-chair of the International Symposium on Turbo Codes and Iterative Information Processing 2012. He received the *IEEE Signal Processing Magazine* Best Column Award 2012.
[^1]: K. Huang is with the Dept. of Applied Mathematics, the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, and E. G. Larsson is with the Dept. of Electrical Engineering (ISY), Linköping University, Sweden. Email: huangkb@ieee.org, erik.larsson@isy.liu.se. Updated on .
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The semiclassical Boltzmann transport equation of charged, massive fermions in a rotating frame of reference, in the presence of external electromagnetic fields is solved in the relaxation time approach to establish the distribution function up to linear order in the electric field in rotating coordinates, centrifugal force and the derivatives. The spin and spin current densities are calculated by means of this distribution function at zero temperature up to the first order. It is shown that the nonequilibrium part of the distribution function yields the spin Hall effect for fermions constrained to move in a plane perpendicular to the angular velocity and magnetic field. Moreover it yields an analogue of Ohm’s law for spin currents whose resistivity depends on the external magnetic field and the angular velocity of the rotating frame. Spin current densities in three-dimensional systems are also established.'
author:
- |
Ö. F. Dayi, E. Yunt\
[*Physics Engineering Department, Faculty of Science and Letters,* ]{}\
*[Istanbul Technical University, TR-34469, Maslak-Istanbul, Turkey [^1] ]{}*
title: Spin Currents of Charged Dirac Particles in Rotating Coordinates
---
Introduction
============
In spintronics a major field of investigation is the efficient generation of spin current which is mainly achieved through the intrinsic spin-orbit and spin-magnetic field interactions. When a fermionic system is in a rotating frame of reference, spin also couples with the rotation of the system. This spin-rotation coupling theoretically offers an alternative mechanism to generate spin currents [@mism; @mism2]. It gives rise to the possibility of generating spin current mechanically, without the limiting requirement of strong intrinsic spin-orbit coupling in condensed matter systems. Some features of the spin-rotation coupling is discussed in [@chowbasu] by pointing out the similarity of this interaction with the intrinsic spin-orbit and the Zeeman interactions. These formalisms are mainly based on the Pauli-Dirac type Hamiltonians which are suitable to study the nonrelativistic dynamics of charge carriers.
The Dirac equation in a noninertial frame of reference is established in [@HehlNi]. The electron spin couples in a similar manner with the angular velocity of rotation $\bm\Omega$ and the external magnetic field $\bm B.$ Furthermore, the Maxwell’s equations are modified in rotating coordinates [@Schiff]. For nonrelativistic rotations, $|\bm \Omega \times \bm x|\ll c,$ the Maxwell’s equations are $$\begin{aligned}
\bm \nabla \cdot \bm E^\prime & = &4\pi q n,\nonumber \\
\bm \nabla \times \bm E^\prime & = &- \frac{\partial \bm B}{\partial t},\nonumber\\
\bm \nabla \cdot \bm B & = & 0, \nonumber \\
\bm \nabla \times \bm B & = &4\pi q \bm j + \frac{\partial \bm E^\prime}{\partial t}, \label{Meq}\end{aligned}$$ where the electric field in the rotating frame is $\bm E^\prime = \bm E + (\bm\Omega\times \bm x)\times \bm B .$ When a rotating object which possesses fermionic charge carriers, is subjected to the external electromagnetic fields $\bm E$ and $\bm B,$ these external fields will evolve in it according to the Maxwell equations (\[Meq\]) where the particle number and current densities, $n,$ and $\bm j,$ should be consistently furnished.
Son-Yamamoto [@soy] and Stephanov-Yin [@sy] showed that chiral anomalies can be incorporated into the semiclassical kinetic theory of chiral particles. Since then the semiclassical formulation has been extensively employed in studying dynamics of fermions either massless or massive. It furnished intuitive understandings of phenomena like the chiral magnetic effect [@kmw; @fkw; @kz], the chiral separation effect [@mz; @jkr], the chiral vortical effect [@ss] and local (spin) polarization effect [@lw; @bpr; @glpww].
We would like to obtain the spin and current density of Dirac particles within the semiclassical kinetic theory in the presence of the external electromagnetic fields in a uniformly rotating coordinate frame. The rotations are nonrelativistic but in contrary to Refs.[@mism; @mism2; @chowbasu] we deal with the dynamics of particles (antiparticles) considered as the wave packets composed of positive (negative) energy solutions of the free Dirac equation. The semiclassical method which we employ is a differential form formalism based on these wave packets. This system is not covariant, although fermionic particles obey relativistic dispersion relations.
In this approach the Berry curvature arises naturally [@sniu; @cyniu; @om-elif] and it is incorporated in the underlying symplectic two-form [@ds; @de]. The semiclassical kinetic theory of the Weyl and Dirac particles in the presence of the external electromagnetic fields in a rigidly rotating coordinate frame is elucidated in Ref. [@oee]. There the matrix-valued phase space measure and the time evolution of phase space variables are obtained in rotating coordinates.
One particle dynamics can be generalized to many particles by means of the kinetic theory. The semiclassical phase space velocities can be employed to acquire the related Boltzmann transport equation whose solution will be the nonequilibrium distribution function in the presence of collisions. It is worth noting that we do not deal with nonequilibrium thermodynamics, we consider the nonequilibrium state of a closed system. The relaxation time approach offers an accessible technique to consider collisions [@anselm]. Chiral kinetic theory is studied within this method in [@hyy] . It is difficult to solve the transport equation on general grounds, so that one should resort to approximations. The distribution function can be expanded in a series of the external electric field and solved perturbatively up to the desired order. Actually, we keep terms up to linear order in the electric field in rotating coordinates, the centrifugal force and the derivatives of the chemical potential. We deal with a roughly neutral background due to the presence of particles and antiparticles. The distribution function which will be established consists of the equilibrium part chosen to be the Fermi-Dirac distribution function and the nonequilibrium part which corresponds to the first order term.
Spin currents are defined in terms of the distribution function, first time derivative of spatial coordinates weighted with the measure of the phase space and Pauli spin matrices. The corresponding spin densities are given by the measure of phase space and the spin matrices. Here only the zero absolute temperature is taken into account in calculating the spin and spin current densities.
We first deal with the charge carriers constrained to move in a plane perpendicular to the magnetic field $\bm B$ and the angular velocity $\bm\Omega.$ These may have some relevance in the context of generating spin currents in two-dimensional condensed matter systems like metal films. We show that the equilibrium distribution function generates the spin Hall effect associated to the electric field in the rotating frame of reference, whose conductivity depends on the chemical potential $\mu$ (Fermi energy) and the mass of the Dirac particle $m. $ In the nonrelativistic limit it produces the spin Hall conductivity calculated in Ref.[@ccn] for an inertial reference frame as well as the one obtained in Ref.[@mism2] for rotating coordinates in the presence of magnetic field. In the $\mu \gg m$ limit it yields the topological spin Chern number [@prodan; @ezawa] as it was discussed in Ref.[@biz-ann]. This limit actually is equivalent to consider massless case given in Refs.[@soy; @sy]. We mainly make use of Berry gauge fields which are defined in adiabatic approximation where level crossing is not allowed. In fact when one does not allow level crossing Lorentz invariance of the system is broken even in the absence of rotation [@cssyy; @dehz; @css; @hpy]. Ref.[@fuj] provides insights about the role of level crossing and the adiabatic approximation in obtaining the Berry phase. We show that the spin Hall effect associated to the electric field in rotating coordinates results also from the nonequilibrium distribution function with the spin Hall conductivity independent of the magnetic field and angular velocity. We also derive an Ohm’s Law analogue for the spin current, where the analogue of resistivity depends on $\bm B$ and $\bm\Omega$ as well as on the chemical potential and mass. It is shown that the spin current is conserved up to first order.
When the Dirac particles are free to move in all three space dimensions, we integrate over the three dimensional momentum space to obtain the spin current densities. We study the spin current densities in three-dimensional conductors by keeping the direction of spin arbitrary. We find out that to generate spin currents in a certain direction the angular velocity of rotation or the external magnetic field should possess a nonvanishing component in that direction. The three-dimensional spin current yields similar effects with the two-dimensional system. The spin Hall conductivity arising from the nonequilibrium distribution function in three dimensions is analogously independent of the fields $\bm B$ and $\bm\Omega$ and depends only on the chemical potential and mass.
The paper is organized as follows. An overview of the semiclassical formalism of the Dirac particles in rotating coordinates, in the presence of electromagnetic fields is presented in Section \[STDP\]. We present the derivation of the nonequilibrium distribution function in the relaxation time approach in Section \[SCB\]. The definitions of the spin and spin current densities for the Dirac particles are given in Section \[SCD\]. In Section \[2D\], we discuss the spin and spin current densities in two-dimensional conductors. We obtain the spin Hall conductivity and an Ohm’s Law analogue for spin associated to the electromagnetic fields in rotating coordinates at $T=0.$ In Section \[3D\], we calculate the spin current densities in three-dimensional conductors. In Section \[CONC\], we discuss our results.
Semiclassical Velocities {#STDP}
=========================
We work within the semiclassical approach based on the wave packets composed of the positive and negative energy solutions of the free Dirac equation: \[STDP\] $$H_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ D}}}^{\scriptscriptstyle{(4)}} (\bm{p})=\beta m + \bm{\alpha} \cdot \bm{p}.
\label{hamiltonian}$$ We set the speed of light $c=1,$ and choose the following representation of $\beta,\ \alpha_i;\ i=1,2,3,$ matrices, $$\bm \alpha=
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & \bm \sigma \\
\bm \sigma & 0
\end{pmatrix},\qquad
\beta=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0\\
0 & -1
\end{pmatrix} ,$$ where $\bm \sigma$ are the Pauli spin matrices. The semiclassical Dirac wave packet is composed of the positive energy solutions of the free Dirac equation for particles and negative energy solutions for antiparticles: $$\psi_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}\bm x} (\bm{p}_c,t) = \sum_\alpha \xi_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}\alpha} \psi_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}^\alpha (\bm{p}_c) e^{-i{\text{sign}}(q_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}})p_\mu x^\mu /\hbar},$$ where $p_\mu=(-E,\bm{p}_c),\ x^\mu=(t,\bm{x})$ and $\alpha=1,2.$ $I=p,a$ labels the particles ($p$) corresponding to positive energy solutions with $q_{p}=q$ and antiparticles ($a$) corresponding to negative energy solutions with $q_{a}=-q.$ The coefficients $\xi_{ {{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}\alpha} , $ are chosen to be constant. $\bm{x}_c,$ and $\bm{p}_c,$ denote the phase space coordinates of wave packet centre coinciding with the centre of mass. We define the one-form $\eta_0$ through $$\int [dx] \delta({\text{sign}}(q_{ {{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}})\bm{x}_c - \bm{x}) \Psi^\dagger_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}\bm{x}}(\bm{p}_c,0) \left( -i \hbar d -{\text{sign}}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}})H^{\scriptscriptstyle{(4)}}_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ D}}}dt \right)\Psi_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}\bm{x}}(\bm{p}_c,0) =\sum_{\alpha\beta}\xi^*_{ {{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}\alpha} \eta^{\alpha\beta}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}0} \xi_{ {{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}},\beta}.$$ $\eta_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}0}$ which is a matrix in “spin indices" $\alpha, \beta ,$ can be written as $$\eta^{\alpha\beta}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}0}= - \delta^{\alpha\beta}\bm{x}_c\cdot d\bm{p}_c - {\text{sign}}(q_{ {{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}})\bm A^{\alpha\beta}\cdot d{\bm p}_c -{\text{sign}}(q_{ {{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}})H_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{ D}}}{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}}^{\alpha\beta}dt .
\label{et1}$$ Here $H_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{ D}}}{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}}^{\alpha\beta}$ is the projection of the Dirac Hamiltonian (\[hamiltonian\]), on the positive (negative) energy solutions The matrix valued Berry gauge field is defined in terms of $\psi_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}$, $$\label{bgd}
\bm A^{\alpha\beta}= -i \hbar \psi_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}}^{\dagger(\alpha)}(\bm p_c)\frac{\partial }{\partial {\bm p_c}} \psi_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}}^{(\beta)}(\bm p_c).$$ It takes the same form for $I=p,a.$ By relabelling $(\bm{x}_c,\bm{p}_c)\rightarrow (\bm{x},\bm{p})$ and adding an exact differential term, the one-form (\[et1\]) can be rewritten as $$\eta_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}0}=\bm p \cdot d\bm x - {\text{sign}}(q_{ {{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}})\bm A \cdot d\bm p -{\text{sign}}(q_{ {{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}})H_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{ D}}}{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}} dt.$$ Unless necessary the spin indices and the related unit matrix are suppressed. Let us consider the first order Hamiltonian formalism designated by the one-form $$\eta_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}=\bm p \cdot d\bm x -{\text{sign}}{(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}}) \bm A (\bm p ) \cdot d\bm p +\bm a (\bm x, \bm p , t ) \cdot d\bm x +\phi (\bm x, \bm p , t )dt -H_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}(\bm x, \bm p , t ) dt,
\label{eta}$$ where $\phi,\bm a$ are electromagnetic potentials and ${\text{sign}}({q_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}})H_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}}^{\alpha \beta}\equiv H_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}$ denotes the projection of $H^{\scriptscriptstyle{(4)}}$ on the positive (negative) energy solutions of the free Dirac equation. We define the extended symplectic two-form matrix by $$\tilde{\omega}_{t, {{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}} = d\eta_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}\equiv dt \frac{\partial \eta_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}}{\partial t} + d \bm x \cdot \frac{\partial \eta_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}}{\partial \bm x }
+ d\bm p \cdot \bm D \eta_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}},$$ where we introduced the covariant derivative $$\bm D \equiv \frac{\partial }{\partial \bm p}+\frac{i}{\hbar}[\bm A,\ ].$$ By employing the one-form (\[eta\]), we acquire $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\omega}_{t, {{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}} &=& {dp}_i \wedge{dx}_i +D_i a_j\ {dp}_i \wedge{dx}_j- {\text{sign}}{(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}})G +F + \left(\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x_i} - \frac{\partial a_i}{\partial t}\right)\ {dx}_i \wedge dt -\frac{\partial H_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}}{\partial x_i}\ {dx}_i \wedge dt \nonumber\\
&+& D_i \phi \ {dp}_i \wedge dt -D_i H_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}\ {dp}_i \wedge dt.\end{aligned}$$ As usual the repeated indices are summed over. $F$ is the curvature two-form of the gauge field $\bm a,$ $$F=\frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{\partial a_j}{\partial x_i}-\frac{\partial a_i}{\partial x_j}\right){dx}_i \wedge {dx}_j,$$ and the Berry curvature two-form $G=\frac{1}{2} {G_{ij}}{dp}_i \wedge {dp}_j$ is defined through the covariant derivative, $$G_{ij} =-i\hbar[D_i.D_j]=\left( \frac{\partial A_j}{\partial p_i}- \frac{\partial A_i}{\partial p_j}+\frac{i}{\hbar}[A_i,A_j]\right)= {\epsilon}_{ijk}G_k
\label{eq:G}.$$ The matrix valued Berry gauge field is $$\bm{A}=\hbar \frac{\bm{\sigma} \times \bm{p}}{2E(E+m)}, \label{bgf}$$ The curvature of the non-Abelian gauge field $\bm A$ is $$\bm G= \frac{\hbar m}{2E^3}\left( \bm{\sigma}+\frac{\bm{p}(\bm{\sigma}\cdot\bm{p})}{m(m+E)}\right) ,
\label{berrycurvature}$$ which furnishes the Berry curvature via $ G_{ij} ={\epsilon}_{ijk}G_k.$
Dirac Hamiltonian coupled to the external magnetic field $\bm{B}$ and to the constant angular velocity of the frame $\bm \Omega$ is given as [@HehlNi; @Bliokh], $$\label{reham}
H^{\scriptscriptstyle{(4)}} = \beta m +\bm{\alpha}\cdot\bm{ p } -\frac{\hbar}{2}\bm{\Sigma}\cdot \bm{\Omega}-\frac{\hbar q}{2E}\bm{\Sigma}\cdot \bm{B},$$ where $\bm{\Sigma}=\begin{pmatrix} \bm{\sigma}&0\\0&\bm{\sigma}\end{pmatrix}.$ To accomplish the semiclassical Hamiltonian we work in the adiabatic approximation [@sy; @fuj] where level crossing is absent. Then, the Dirac Hamiltonian can be diagonalized continuously at every time yielding $$\label{hsm}
H_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}=E [1-{\text{sign}}{(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}})\bm G \cdot (q\bm{B} + E\bm{\Omega}) ],$$ Two-dimensional unit matrix is suppressed throughout the paper. In this semiclassical approach the terms which are second or higher orders in the Planck constant are ignored.
The extended symplectic two-form $\tilde{ \omega}_{t, {{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}},$ which incorporates the dynamics of the system, lies at the heart of the Hamiltonian formalism. For the Dirac particle (antiparticle) in rigidly rotating coordinates, in the presence of the electric and magnetic fields, $\bm E,\bm B,$ it is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\omega}_{t, {{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}} & = & {dp}_i \wedge {dx}_i + \frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{ijk} (q B_k + 2 {\cal E} _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}\Omega_k)\ {dx}_i \wedge {dx}_j -{\text{sign}}{(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}})\frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{ijk} G_{k}\ {dp}_i \wedge {dp}_j \nonumber \\
&&+ \epsilon_{ijk} x_j\Omega_k (\nu_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}})_m {dx}_i \wedge {dp}_m - (\nu_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}})_i\ {dp}_i \wedge dt + \frac{1}{2} (\nu_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}})_i (\bm \Omega \times \bm x)^2 {dp}_i \wedge dt \nonumber\\
&&+[q\bm E+ (\bm\Omega\times \bm x)\times (q\bm B +{\cal E} _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}\bm\Omega)]_i\ {dx}_i\wedge dt \label{wtf},\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal{E}} _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}=H_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}$ is the dispersion relation and $\bm e$ denotes the effective force $$\label{efel}
\bm e = q\bm E + (\bm\Omega\times \bm x)\times (q\bm B +{\cal E} _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}\bm\Omega).$$ It is composed of two parts: the Lorentz force associated to the electric field in rotating coordinates, $\bm E^\prime =\bm E +(\bm\Omega\times \bm x)\times \bm B ,$ and the centrifugal force $ (\bm\Omega\times \bm x)\times {\cal E} _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}\bm\Omega.$ The “canonical velocity" ${\bm \nu}_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}$ is defined as the covariant derivative of the semiclassical Hamiltonian (\[hsm\]): $$\bm \nu_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}= \bm D H_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}= \frac{\bm p}{E} \left[ 1
+2{\text{sign}}{(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}})\bm G \cdot \left( q \bm B+\frac{E}{2}\bm{\Omega}\right) \right]
- \frac{ \hbar }{2E^3} \ (q\bm B +gE\bm \Omega) \bm{\sigma} \cdot \bm{p} . \label{numas}$$
One can calculate the Pfaffian and time evolutions of phase space variables weighted with the correct measure by inspecting the Lie derivative of the volume form, which is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vftw}
\tilde{\Omega} _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}&=& \frac{1}{3!} \tilde{\omega}_{t, {{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}} \wedge \tilde{\omega}_{t, {{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}} \wedge \tilde{\omega}_{t, {{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}} \wedge dt ,\end{aligned}$$ given in terms of extended symplectic two form, (\[wtf\]). The volume form(\[vftw\]) can be expressed as $$\label{wfpf}
\tilde{\Omega} _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}= (\tilde{\omega}_{{\scriptscriptstyle{1/2}}}) _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}\ dV \wedge dt,$$ where $(\tilde{\omega}_{{\scriptscriptstyle{1/2}}}) _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}$ is the Pfaffian of $(6\times 6)$ matrix $$\label{syma}
\begin{pmatrix}
\epsilon_{ijk} (q B_k + 2{\cal E} _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}\Omega_k) & -\delta_{ij}+\nu_{Ij}(\bm x \times\bm \Omega)_i \\
\delta_{ij}-\nu_{Ii}(\bm x \times\bm \Omega)_j &\ -{\text{sign}}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}})\epsilon_{ijk} G_{k}
\end{pmatrix}.$$ To attain the Liouville equation we need to calculate the Lie derivative of volume form which can be carried out in two different ways. One of them is to utilize the definition of the volume form in terms of the Pfaffian, (\[wfpf\]): $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{L}}_{\tilde v} \tilde{\Omega} _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}&=& (i_{\tilde v} d + d i_{\tilde v} ) ((\tilde{\omega}_{{\scriptscriptstyle{1/2}}}) _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}dV \wedge dt),
\label{lievolume2}\end{aligned}$$ where $i_{\tilde{v}}$ denotes the interior product of the vector field $$\label{vf}
\tilde v= \frac{\partial}{\partial t}+\dot{\tilde {\bm x}}\frac{\partial}{\partial \bm{x}}+\dot{\tilde {\bm p}}\frac{\partial}{\partial \bm{p}}.\nonumber$$ The other way is to employ the definition of volume form (\[vftw\]), and directly compute its Lie derivative: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{L}}_{\tilde v} \tilde{\Omega} _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}&=& (i_{\tilde v} d + d i_{\tilde v} )(\frac{1}{3!} (\tilde{\omega}_t) _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}^3 \wedge dt)\nonumber\\
&=& \frac{1}{3!} d {\tilde{\omega}_{t, {{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}}}^3 .
\label{liouville}\end{aligned}$$ Explicit calculation of ${\tilde{\omega}_{t, {{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}}}^3$ and the comparison of (\[liouville\]) with (\[lievolume2\]), provide us the explicit form of Pfaffian and $ \dot{(\tilde{ \bm x}}\tilde{\omega}_{{\scriptscriptstyle{1/2}}}) _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}},$ $(\tilde{\omega}_{{\scriptscriptstyle{1/2}}}\dot{\tilde {\bm p}}) _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}},$ for both particles and antiparticles which are the solutions of the equations of motion in terms of the phase space variables $(\bm x,\bm p),$ as $$\begin{aligned}
(\tilde{\omega}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{1/2}}}}) _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}&=&1+{\text{sign}}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}) \ \bm{G} \cdot (q\bm{B} + 2 {\cal E} _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}\bm{\Omega} ) - \bm {\nu} _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}\cdot (\bm x \times \bm \Omega) -{\text{sign}}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}) ( \bm {\nu} _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}\cdot \bm G)(q \bm B \cdot (\bm x \times \bm \Omega)),
\label{Pfaf} \\
(\dot{\tilde{ \bm x}}\tilde{\omega}_{{\scriptscriptstyle{1/2}}}) _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}&=&{\bm {\nu} _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}} (1 -\frac{1}{2} (\bm \Omega \times \bm x)^2) +{\text{sign}}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}) \ \bm e \times \bm G \nonumber\\
&&+ {\text{sign}}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}) ({\bm {\nu} _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}} \cdot \bm G) (q \bm B+ 2{\cal E} _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}\bm \Omega)(1 -\frac{1}{2} (\bm \Omega \times \bm x)^2)+ {\text{sign}}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}) ( \bm {\nu} _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}\cdot \bm G) [ (\bm x \times \bm \Omega) \times \bm e ] ,\label{msxd}\\
(\tilde{\omega}_{{\scriptscriptstyle{1/2}}}\dot{\tilde {\bm p}}) _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}&=& \bm e + {\bm {\nu} _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}} \times (q\bm{B} + 2 {\cal E} _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}\bm{\Omega}) (1 -\frac{1}{2} (\bm \Omega \times \bm x)^2) \nonumber\\
&& +{\text{sign}}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}) \bm G (\bm e \cdot (q \bm{B} + 2{\cal E} _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}\bm{\Omega})) - [ (\bm x \times \bm \Omega) \times \bm e ] \times {\bm {\nu} _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}} . \label{mspd}\end{aligned}$$ Equations (\[Pfaf\])-(\[mspd\]) will be employed in the Boltzmann transport equation.
Boltzmann Transport Equation in Relaxation Time Approach {#SCB}
========================================================
To generalize the one particle dynamics of Section \[STDP\] to many particle systems, one introduces the distribution function $f_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}$ which is defined to satisfy the Boltzmann transport equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bte}
(\tilde{\omega}_{{\scriptscriptstyle{1/2}}}) _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}\frac{\partial f_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}}{\partial t}+(\dot{\tilde{ \bm x}}\tilde{\omega}_{{\scriptscriptstyle{1/2}}}) _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}\cdot\frac{\partial f_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}}{\partial \bm{x}}+(\tilde{\omega}_{{\scriptscriptstyle{1/2}}}\dot{\tilde {\bm p}}) _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}\cdot\frac{\partial f_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}}{\partial \bm{p}}= (I_{\scriptscriptstyle{coll}}) _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}},\end{aligned}$$ where $(I_{\scriptscriptstyle{coll}}) _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}$ denotes the collision integral. We adopt the relaxation time approach by choosing the collision integral as $$(I_{\scriptscriptstyle{coll}}) _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}=-\frac{1}{\tau}(\tilde{\omega}_{{\scriptscriptstyle{1/2}}}) _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}(f_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}-f^{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}_{equ}). \label{intint}$$ The equilibrium distribution function $f^{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}_{equ}$ is chosen as the Fermi-Dirac distribution $$f_0^ {{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}=\frac{1}{e^{[E-{\text{sign}}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}) \mu(\bm x,t)]/kT}-1},$$ where $\mu(\bm x,t)$ is the inhomogeneous chemical potential and the dispersion relation is approximated by ignoring the Planck constant dependence: ${\cal{E}}=E.$ This choice of equilibrium distribution function may give the impression of being inappropriate for two reasons: $i)$ For being a Lorentz scalar $E$ should be substituted by the scalar product of momentum and velocity 4-vectors: $p_\mu u^\mu \equiv E-\bm p \cdot (\bm \Omega \times \bm x) .$ However, the symplectic two form (\[wtf\]) has been defined by taking into account the linear velocity $(\bm\Omega\times\bm{x}),$ so that if one would like to keep $\bm p \cdot (\bm \Omega \times \bm x) $ term she or he should set $(\bm\Omega\times\bm{x})$ dependent terms to zero in the symplectic two form (\[wtf\]). $ii)$ For strong magnetic field the equilibrium distribution function would possess terms which depend on magnetic field due to quantized background, for example it may be taken as the trace of Wigner function as discussed recently for similar cases in Refs.[@gmss; @srvw]. However, this would mean that one permits level crossing (band mixing) [@g1; @g2] in the definition of wave packet which is in contradiction with the adiabatic approximation. In the semiclassical approximation which has been adopted the wave packet is composed of free Dirac equation solutions.
Obviously we can only approximately solve the kinetic equation (\[bte\]). Actually we would like to solve it up to linear terms in $\bm e$ and the derivatives of the chemical potential. The former is equivalent to consider first order terms in the electric field, $\bm E,$ and the linear velocity due to the rotation, $(\bm\Omega\times\bm{x}).$ We keep only the first order derivatives. Hence the derivatives of $\bm E^\prime$ are considered as second order although it is not fully consistent, so that when we come to grips with the calculations of currents we will deal with the mutually parallel magnetic field and angular velocity. We write the distribution function as $f_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}=f^{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}_0+f^{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}_1, $ so that the Boltzmann equation (\[bte\]) turns out to be $$\begin{aligned}
\label{beeq}
(\tilde{\omega}_{{\scriptscriptstyle{1/2}}}) _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}\frac{\partial f_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}}{\partial t}+(\dot{\tilde{ \bm x}}\tilde{\omega}_{{\scriptscriptstyle{1/2}}}) _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}\cdot\frac{\partial f_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}}{\partial \bm{x}}+(\tilde{\omega}_{{\scriptscriptstyle{1/2}}}\dot{\tilde {\bm p}}) _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}\cdot\frac{\partial f_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}}{\partial \bm{p}}=-\frac{1}{\tau}(\tilde{\omega}_{{\scriptscriptstyle{1/2}}}) _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}f^{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}_1.
\end{aligned}$$ We would like to solve for $f_1^{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}$ by inserting the semiclassical solutions (\[Pfaf\])-(\[mspd\]) into (\[beeq\]). To facilitate the derivation we restrict our attention to particles and drop the index $I.$ The solution for antiparticle distribution function is straightforward once the solution for particles is obtained. To simplify our calculations we ignore the quantum corrections in (\[hsm\]), so that we set ${\cal{E}}=E$ and $\bm \nu=\bm p/E.$ The semiclassical Boltzmann transport equation for the Dirac particles becomes $$\begin{aligned}
&&(1+ \bm{G} \cdot \bm{{\cal B}} ) \frac{\partial}{\partial t} (f_0+f_1)+
(\bm{e}+\frac{\bm{p}}{E} \times \bm{{\cal B}} + \bm{G} (\bm{e} \cdot \bm{{\cal B}} )\cdot\frac{\partial}{\partial \bm{p}} (f_0+f_1)+ \nonumber\\
&&(\frac{\bm{p}}{E}+ \bm{e} \times \bm{G} + \frac{\bm{{\cal B}}}{E} (\bm{G} \cdot \bm{p}) )\cdot \frac{\partial}{\partial \bm{x}} (f_0+f_1) = -\frac{1}{\tau} (1+ \bm{G} \cdot \bm{{\cal B}} ) f_1,
\label{Boltzd}\end{aligned}$$ where we performed the relabelling $\bm{{\cal B}}\equiv q \bm{B}+2E\bm{\Omega}$. At first sight one can think that on the right-hand side only $f_0$ might be kept. However, in that case $\bm{{\cal B}}$ dependent terms cannot give any contribution to $f_1.$ Hence we retain the $\partial f_1/\partial \bm p$ term but treat the spatial and time derivatives of $f_1$ as second order terms. Thus (\[Boltzd\]) leads to $$(1+ \bm{G} \cdot \bm{{\cal B}} ) \frac{\partial f_0}{\partial t}+[\bm{e}+ \bm{G} (\bm{e} \cdot \bm{{\cal B}}) ]\cdot\frac{\partial f_0}{\partial \bm{p}} +(\frac{\bm{p}}{E} \times \bm{{\cal B}} )\cdot\frac{\partial f_1}{\partial \bm{p}} + [\frac{ \bm{p}}{E}+ \frac{\bm{{\cal B}}}{E} (\bm{G} \cdot \bm{p}) ]\cdot \frac{\partial f_0}{\partial \bm{x}} = -\frac{1}{\tau} (1+ \bm{G} \cdot \bm{{\cal B}} ) f_1 .
\label{Boltzd2}$$ We propose a solution for $f_1$ in the form $$f_1= -\frac{\partial f_0}{\partial E} ( \bm{\chi} \cdot \bm{p})+\tau\frac{\partial f_0}{\partial E}\frac{\partial \mu}{\partial t},
\label{f1}$$ where $\bm\chi$ is linear in $\bm e$ and the gradient of $\mu$. By substituting $f_1$ with (\[f1\]) in (\[Boltzd2\]), one gets $$\begin{aligned}
-(1+ \bm{G} \cdot \bm{{\cal B}} )\frac{\partial f_0}{\partial E}\frac{\partial \mu}{\partial t}+(\bm{e} + \bm{G} (\bm{e} \cdot \bm{{\cal B}}) )\cdot\frac{\bm p}{E}\frac{\partial f_0}{\partial E}-(\frac{\bm{p} }{E}\times \bm{{\cal B}}) \cdot\bm{\chi}\frac{\partial f_0}{\partial E} + (\frac{\bm{p}}{E}+ \frac{\bm{{\cal B}}}{E} (\bm{G} \cdot\bm{p}) )\cdot \frac{\partial\mu}{\partial \bm{x}} \frac{\partial f_0}{\partial E} \nonumber\\
= (1+ \bm{G} \cdot \bm{{\cal B}} ) \Big(\frac{1}{\tau}\frac{\partial f^0}{\partial E} ( \bm{\chi} \cdot \bm{p})-\frac{\partial f^0}{\partial E}\frac{\partial \mu}{\partial t}\Big).
\label{Boltzd3}\end{aligned}$$ It will be more tractable to separate $\bm \chi$ into two parts: $$\bm\chi= \bm \chi^0 + \bm \chi^1,$$ where $\bm \chi^0$ is independent of $\hbar,$ and $\bm \chi^1$ is linear in $\hbar$. Dependence of $\bm \chi$ on the direction of the momentum vector, $\hat{\bm p},$ can only be through $\bm G,$ Therefore $\bm \chi^0 $ should be independent of $\hat{\bm p}.$ Now by selecting terms according to the $\hbar$ order in (\[Boltzd3\]), we acquire the coupled equations $$\bm{e}_\mu - \bm{{\cal B}} \times \bm \chi^0 = \frac{E}{\tau} \bm \chi^0,
\label{ki0eq}$$ $$-(\frac{\bm p}{E}\times\bm{{\cal B}})\cdot\bm \chi^1+(\bm e_\mu \cdot \bm{{\cal B}})( \bm G\cdot\bm p) =\frac{1}{\tau}\bm \chi^1 \cdot\bm p+\frac{1}{\tau}( \bm{G} \cdot \bm{{\cal B}})(\bm \chi^0\cdot\bm p).
\label{ki1eq}$$ The effective electric field (force), (\[efel\]), and the gradient of the chemical potential behave similarly, hence we introduced $$\bm e_\mu = \bm e -\bm \nabla\mu.$$ The solution of (\[ki0eq\]) can be shown to be [@anselm] $$\bm \chi^0= \frac{g \bm e_\mu - g^2 \bm{{\cal B}} \times \bm e_\mu + g^3 \bm{{\cal B}} (\bm e_\mu \cdot \bm{{\cal B}}) }{1+d^2},
\label{ki0}$$ where $g=(\tau \slash E)$ and $1+d^2=1+(\tau^2 \slash E^2) A^2.$ We propose $\bm \chi^1$ to be in the form $$\bm \chi^1=g(\bm e_\mu\cdot\bm{{\cal B}})\bm G+(\bm G\cdot\bm{{\cal B}})\bm C+\bm K
\label{ki1sp}$$ and then solve (\[ki1eq\]) for $\bm C$ and $\bm K.$ They are necessarily independent of $\hat{\bm p}$, otherwise $\bm \chi^1$ would not satisfy the equality $$(\bm p \times \bm{{\cal B}})\cdot \frac{\partial (\bm p \cdot \bm \chi^1)}{\partial \bm p} = (\bm p \times \bm{{\cal B}})\cdot \bm \chi^1,$$ which has been assumed in obtaining (\[Boltzd3\]). Plugging (\[ki1sp\]) into (\[ki1eq\]) yields the equation $$\begin{aligned}
-g(\bm e_\mu\cdot\bm{{\cal B}})(\frac{\bm p}{E}\times\bm{{\cal B}})\cdot\bm G-(\bm G\cdot\bm{{\cal B}})(\frac{\bm p}{E}\times\bm{{\cal B}})\cdot\bm C-(\frac{\bm p}{E}\times\bm{{\cal B}})\cdot\bm K&=& \frac{1}{\tau}(\bm G\cdot\bm{{\cal B}})(\bm C\cdot\bm p)+\frac{1}{\tau}(\bm K\cdot\bm p) \nonumber \\
&& +\frac{1}{\tau}(\bm G\cdot\bm{{\cal B}})(\bm \chi^0\cdot\bm p).
\label{CK}\end{aligned}$$ We observe that the terms containing the vector $\bm C$ can be written as $$\nonumber
-\frac{E}{\tau}\bm \chi^0-\bm{{\cal B}}\times\bm C=\frac{E}{\tau}\bm C,$$ which is in the same form with equation (\[ki0eq\]). Hence, one can attain $\bm C$ as $$\bm C=\frac{1}{1+d^2}(-\bm \chi^0+g\bm{{\cal B}}\times\bm \chi^0-g^2(\bm{{\cal B}}\cdot\bm \chi^0)\bm{{\cal B}}) .
\label{C}$$ Having obtained $\bm C$ in terms of $\bm \chi_0,$ we now examine the terms related to $\bm K$ in (\[CK\]). The equation for $\bm K$ can be written as $$\label{eqK}
-g\frac{\bm p}{E}\cdot(\bm{{\cal B}}\times\bm G)(\bm e_\mu\cdot\bm{{\cal B}})-\frac{\bm p}{E}\cdot(\bm{{\cal B}}\times\bm K)=\frac{1}{\tau}\bm K\cdot\bm p.$$ To solve it by imitating the solution of (\[ki0eq\]), we must make sure that $\bm K$ is independent of $\hat{\bm p}.$ In fact, by inspecting the first term of (\[eqK\]) which is proportional to $\bm{G},$ one can observe that there is a vanishing part, so that (\[eqK\]) reduces to $$\nonumber
-g\frac{m\hbar}{2E^3}(\bm{{\cal B}}\times\bm\sigma)(\bm e_\mu\cdot\bm{{\cal B}})-(\bm{{\cal B}}\times\bm K)=\frac{E}{\tau}\bm K.$$ Thus, we solve (\[eqK\]) for $\bm K$ as $$\bm K=-\frac{m\hbar}{2E^3}\frac{g^2(\bm{{\cal B}}\times\bm\sigma)(\bm e_\mu\cdot\bm{{\cal B}})-g^3(\bm{{\cal B}}\times(\bm{{\cal B}}\times\bm{\sigma}))(\bm e_\mu\cdot\bm{{\cal B}})}{1+d^2}.
\label{K}$$ Plugging (\[C\]) and (\[K\]) into (\[ki1sp\]), one obtains $\bm \chi_1$. Then by employing (\[ki0\]) and (\[ki1sp\]) in (\[f1\]) we establish the first order distribution function in the relaxation time approach as $$\begin{aligned}
f_1=&& -\frac{\partial f_0}{\partial E}\Bigg\{g(\bm{{\cal B}}\cdot\bm e_\mu)(\bm G\cdot\bm p)-\tau \frac{\partial \mu}{\partial t} \nonumber \\
&&+\frac{\bm{p}\cdot\Big(g\bm e_\mu-g^2\bm{{\cal B}}\times\bm e_\mu+g^3(1-\bm G\cdot\bm{{\cal B}})(\bm{{\cal B}}\cdot\bm e_\mu)\bm{{\cal B}}-g^2\frac{m\hbar}{2E^3} (\bm{{\cal B}}\cdot\bm e_\mu)[(\bm{{\cal B}} \times\bm \sigma)-g\bm{{\cal B}}\times(\bm{{\cal B}} \times\bm \sigma)]\Big)}{1+d^2} \nonumber \\
&&-\frac{(\bm{G}\cdot\bm{{\cal B}})}{(1+d^2)^2}\Big(g(1-g^2A^2)\bm e_\mu\cdot\bm{p}-2g^2(\bm{{\cal B}}\times\bm e_\mu)\cdot \bm{p}+2g^3(\bm{{\cal B}}\cdot\bm e_\mu)(\bm{{\cal B}}\cdot \bm{p})\Big) \Bigg\}\nonumber .\end{aligned}$$ As far as the currents linear in $\bm e_\mu$ are concerned, it is sufficient to deal with $f=f_0+f_1$ for particles and correspondingly for antiparticles.
Spin and Spin Current Densities {#SCD}
===============================
Equipped with the solution of the Boltzmann equation the particle and antiparticle number densities are defined as $$n_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}=\int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi\hbar)^3}{{\rm Tr}}[(\tilde{\omega}_{1/2})_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}f_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}]. \label{pnccf}$$ Total number density is $$n=\sum_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}{\text{sign}}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}})n_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}.$$ Collisions should conserve the number density. Therefore, due to our choice of collision integral (\[intint\]), we need to constrain the nonequilibrium distribution functions to satisfy $$\sum_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}{\text{sign}}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}) \int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi\hbar)^3}{{\rm Tr}}[(\tilde{\omega}_{1/2})_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}f^{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}_1]=0.
\label{consteq}$$ Then the particle (antiparticle) number density (\[pnccf\]) involves only the equilibrium distribution function: $$n_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}=\int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi\hbar)^3}{{\rm Tr}}[(\tilde{\omega}_{1/2})_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}f^{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}_0]. \label{pncc}$$ The particle (antiparticle) current density is similarly defined: $$\bm{j} _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}=\int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi\hbar)^3}{{\rm Tr}}[(\dot{\tilde{ \bm x}}\tilde{\omega}_{{\scriptscriptstyle{1/2}}}) _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}f_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}]. \nonumber$$ Total current density is $$\bm{j}=\sum_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}{\text{sign}}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}})\bm{j} _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}.$$ One can show that total number and current densities satisfy the continuity equation $$\frac{\partial n}{\partial t }+\bm \nabla \cdot {\bm j}=0,$$ on account of the consistency condition (\[consteq\]) and letting $\bm B,\bm \Omega$ be mutually parallel.
The $4\times4$ spin matrices of the Dirac particles are $\frac{\hbar}{2}\bm\Sigma .$ In order to attain the semiclassical formalism we have projected all of the $4\times4$ matrix-valued physical quantities on the positive (negative) energy solutions of the Dirac equation. Hence, it is appropriate to define the spin matrix in the semiclassical formalism as the projection of $\frac{\hbar}{2}\bm\Sigma$ onto the positive (negative) energy solutions which yields the Pauli matrices, $\frac{\hbar}{2}\bm\sigma .$ We would like to study spin currents. To this aim we first define the spin density of particles and antiparticles having spin $\hbar/2$ in the $a$-direction, where $a=x,y,z,$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{snd}
n^a_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}=\frac{\hbar}{2}\int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi\hbar)^3}{{\rm Tr}}[(\sigma_a\tilde{\omega}_{1/2})_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}f^{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}_0].\end{aligned}$$ The total spin density is $$n^a=\sum_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}{\text{sign}}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}})n^a_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}.$$ Observe that it is defined only in terms of $f^{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}_0$ as the particle (antiparticle) number density (\[pncc\]). Thus for consistency we should demand that $$\sum_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}{\text{sign}}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}})\int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi\hbar)^3}{{\rm Tr}}[\sigma_a(\tilde{\omega}_{1/2})_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}f^{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}_1]=0.
\label{consteq1}$$ Actually, this condition yields the time evolution of the inhomogeneous chemical potential, $\mu (\bm x ,t).$ Naturally, we define the spin current densities in the $a$-direction as $$\label{totj}
\bm j^a_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}=\frac{\hbar}{2}\int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi\hbar)^3}{{\rm Tr}}[\sigma_a(\dot{\tilde{ \bm x}}\tilde{\omega}_{{\scriptscriptstyle{1/2}}}) _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}f_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}].$$ It is convenient to separate the spin currents into two parts depending on $f^{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}_0$ and $f^{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}_1$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\bm{J^a} _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}&=&\frac{\hbar}{2}\int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi\hbar)^3}{{\rm Tr}}[\sigma_a(\dot{\tilde{ \bm x}}\tilde{\omega}_{{\scriptscriptstyle{1/2}}}) _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}f^{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}_0], \label{ecc}\\
{\bm {{\cal{ J}}}}^{a} _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}&=&\frac{\hbar}{2}\int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi\hbar)^3}{{\rm Tr}}[\sigma_a(\dot{\tilde{ \bm x}}\tilde{\omega}_{{\scriptscriptstyle{1/2}}}) _{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}f^{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}_1]. \label{necc}\end{aligned}$$ Thus $\bm j^a_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}=\bm J^a_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}+\bm {{\cal{ J}}}^a_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}$ give the spin current densities for particles and antiparticles. The total spin current density is $$\bm j^a=\sum_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}{\text{sign}}(q_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}})\bm j^a_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ I}}}.$$ At $T=0$ there is no contribution from antiparticles to the number and current densities as well as to the spin and spin current densities, only particles contribute to integrals. We will consider two-dimensional and three-dimensional conductors at $T=0.$ Therefore, in the sequel we will drop the index $I$ and deal only with particle contributions to spin and spin current densities.
Spin Currents in Two-Dimensional Conductors {#2D}
===========================================
Two-dimensional condensed matter systems play an important role in realizing the spin currents. The effects of rotation alongside with the external magnetic fields in such systems have been a focus of attention. In Refs.[@mism; @mism2] a model to realize spin currents by mechanical rotation in Pt-films was proposed and to investigate the role of mechanical rotation in generation of spin currents, a rotating disk with the Pt-film attached to it has been considered. The external magnetic field is taken along the rotation axis. This model predicts spin currents in the radial and azimuthal directions. We would like to display the application of our formalism to the Dirac particles at $T=0$ confined to move in two-dimensions inspired by such experimentally realizable condensed matter systems and find out the consequences of rotation and external electromagnetic fields.
Our formalism is essentially three-dimensional, hence the definitions of the spin number and current densities, (\[snd\]), (\[totj\]), are given in terms of the three-dimensional momentum space integrals. Nevertheless, one can easily adapt these definitions to two-dimensional systems by setting the third component of momentum to zero, $p_z=0,$ then integrating over the remaining momentum components and confining the geometry to two-dimensions by taking $z=0$. We restrict our attention to the circular geometry: $\bm{x}=R\bm{\hat \rho},$ where $(\rho,\phi)$ denote the polar coordinates and $R$ is constant. Moreover, magnetic field and angular velocity are chosen to be perpendicular to this circular plane. Under these conditions $\bm{e}=q\bm{E}+(E\Omega^2R+q\Omega BR)\bm{\hat \rho}$.To simplify our discussion let the external electric field, $\bm{E},$ lie in the $xy$-plane. Note that in Ref.[@mism2] spin currents are calculated for $\bm E=0.$ Both $\bm B$ and $\bm \Omega$ point in the positive $z$-direction, thus it is natural to deal with the third component of spin, $\frac{\hbar}{2}\sigma_z.$ The two-dimensional spin and spin current densities are denoted $\tilde{n}^z$ and ${\tilde{\bm j}}^z=\tilde{ \bm J^z} +\tilde{\bm {{\cal{ J}}}}^z.$
We defined spin density in terms of equilibrium distribution function, (\[snd\]), so that the number of spin-up particles should not be altered by collisions, (\[consteq1\]). Thus we demand that the following condition is satisfied, $$\begin{aligned}
\int\frac{d^2p}{(2\pi\hbar)^2}Tr[ \sigma_z \tilde{\omega}_{1/2}f_1]_{z=p_z=0}&=&
\int\frac{d^2p}{(2\pi\hbar)^2}Tr[ \sigma_z(\bm G\cdot\bm{{\cal B}})\tau \frac{\partial f_0}{\partial E}\frac{\partial \mu}{\partial t}] \nonumber \\
&=&
\frac{\tau}{2\pi\hbar}\frac{m}{\mu^2}(qB+2\mu\Omega)\frac{\partial \mu}{\partial t}=0. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $\mu$ is independent of time at the first order. The spin density is readily calculated as $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde n^z= \frac{\hbar}{2}\int \frac{d^2p}{(2\pi\hbar)^2}Tr[\sigma_z\tilde{\omega}_{1/2}f_0]&=&\frac{m}{4\pi}qB\int_{m}^{\mu}\frac{dE}{E^2}+\frac{2\Omega m}{4\pi}\int_{m}^{\mu} \frac{dE}{E} \nonumber\\
&=&B\frac{q}{4\pi}(\frac{\mu-m}{\mu})+\Omega\frac{m}{2\pi}\ln \frac{\mu}{m}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Observe that it depends linearly on magnetic field and angular velocity. The spin current density arising from the equilibrium distribution function is $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde {\bm J}^z&=&\frac{\hbar}{2}\int \frac{d^2p}{(2\pi\hbar)^2}Tr[\sigma_z(\bm{e}\times\bm{G})]f_0 \nonumber\\
&=&\frac{q}{4\pi}(\frac{\mu-m}{\mu}) \bm{E} \times \bm{\hat z}-\frac{q\Omega BR}{4\pi}(\frac{\mu-m}{\mu})\bm{\hat\phi}\label{jf02}-\frac{\Omega^2Rm}{4\pi}\ln(\frac{\mu}{m})\bm{\hat\phi}.
\label{jf02d}\end{aligned}$$ The first term is the spin Hall current in an inertial reference frame which has been obtained in Ref. [@ccn] in the nonrelativistic limit. For the rest of this section let the electric field possess only radial component: $\bm E =E_\rho \hat{\bm \rho}.$ Now we can unify the first and the second terms of (\[jf02d\]) as $ \tilde {\bm J}^z_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{ S}}}{{\scriptscriptstyle{ H}}}} =\sigma_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{ S}}}{{\scriptscriptstyle{ H}}}} \hat{\bm z}\times \bm E^\prime,$ where $$\label{elp}
\bm E'= (E_\rho+\Omega BR ) \hat{\bm \rho}$$ is the electric field in rotating coordinates and $$\label{shc}
\sigma_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{ S}}}{{\scriptscriptstyle{ H}}}} =-\frac{q}{4\pi}\frac{\mu-m}{\mu}$$ is the spin Hall conductivity. At zero temperature the chemical potential can be written in terms of the Fermi momentum $k_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ F}}}$ as $\mu=\sqrt{k^2_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ F}}}+m^2}.$ Hence when we consider the nonrelativistic limit the spin Hall conductivity yields $\sigma_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{ S}}}{{\scriptscriptstyle{ H}}}}\approx -\frac{q\hbar}{4 m^2}\tilde{n},$ where $\tilde{n}$ is the particle number density in two dimensions. A similar result is obtained in [@mism; @mism2] in the nonrelativistic limit for a vanishing electric field. In the limit $m \ll \mu$ one obtains $\sigma_{\scriptscriptstyle{SH}}=-\frac{q}{4\pi}.$ As we discussed in Ref.[@om-elif], it is given by a topological invariant called the spin Chern number [@prodan; @ezawa] which can be expressed as the sum of two first Chern numbers (see [@biz-ann] and the references therein). The last term in (\[jf02d\]) is obviously associated to the fictitious centrifugal force.
Next, we turn back to the calculation of the spin current density. We would like to emphasize the fact that the spin dependence of the kinetic equation is due to the Berry curvature. Hence the terms which contribute to spin currents are the ones which involve the Berry curvature. They may be present either in the velocity $\dot{\tilde{ \bm x}}\tilde{\omega}_{{\scriptscriptstyle{1/2}}}$ or in $f_1.$
The contributions arising from the collisions will include various orders of the relaxation time, $\tau,$ as can be seen by examining (\[f1\]). Recall that the direction of the electric field is chosen in the radial direction, so that the electric field in the rotating frame is given by (\[elp\]). Then one can calculate ${\tilde{\bm {{\cal{J}} }}}^{z}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
{\tilde{\bm {{\cal{J}} }}}^{z}
=&&\frac{\hbar}{2}\int \frac{d^2p}{(2\pi\hbar)^2}\frac{\hbar m}{E^4}\frac{(qB+2E\Omega)}{(1+d^2)^2}\frac{\partial f_0}{\partial E}\bm{p}\Big(g(1-g^2{{\cal B}}^2)\bm e_\mu\cdot\bm{p}-2g^2(\bm{{\cal B}}\times\bm e_\mu)\cdot \bm{p}\Big) \nonumber\\
=&&\frac{m}{8\pi}\int dE \frac{\partial f_0}{\partial E} \frac{E^2-m^2}{E^3}\frac{g(qB+2E\Omega)}{(1+d^2)^2}
\Big[\left(qE^\prime+ER\Omega^2\right)
\left\{
(1-g^2{{\cal B}}^2) \bm{\hat\rho}+2g (qB+2E\Omega) \bm{\hat\phi}\right\}\nonumber \\
&&-\left\{(1-g^2{{\cal B}}^2)\bm{\nabla}\mu+2g(qB+2E\Omega)\bm{\hat{z}}\times\bm{\nabla}\mu\right\}\Big]\nonumber\\
=&&\frac{m(\mu^2-m^2)}{8\pi\mu^3}
\frac{g_\mu {{\cal B}}_\mu}{(1+d_\mu^2)^2}
\Big[ (1-g_\mu^2{{\cal B}}_\mu^2) \left( q\bm E^\prime-\bm{\nabla}\mu+\mu R\Omega^2 \bm{\hat\rho}\right)\nonumber\\
&&+2g_\mu {{\cal B}}_\mu \left(\bm{\hat{z}}\times (q\bm E^\prime-\bm{\nabla}\mu) +\mu R\Omega^2 \bm{\hat\phi} \right) \Big]
\label{jf12}\end{aligned}$$ where we introduced the short-handed notations ${{\cal B}}_\mu=(qB+2\mu\Omega),$ $g_\mu=\frac{\tau}{\mu}$ and $d_\mu=g_\mu {{\cal B}}_\mu .$ Equation (\[jf12\]) involves terms both in the radial and azimuthal direction. Actually, there are terms both parallel and perpendicular to $\bm E^\prime,$ in contrast to (\[jf02d\]) which has only a perpendicular term. Let us investigate further the terms which are linear in $\bm E^\prime,$ by first decomposing them into their $x$- and $y$-components as $$\begin{aligned}
(\tilde{\cal{J}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{ E}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle{ \prime}}}})_x^{z}&=&a_1E_x^\prime-a_2E_y^\prime \nonumber\\
(\tilde{\cal{J}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{ E}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle{ \prime}}}})_y^{z}&=&a_1E_y^\prime+ a_2E_x^\prime \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{a1a2}
a_1=\frac{mq\hbar}{8\pi}\frac{\mu^2-m^2}{\mu^3} \frac{g_\mu {{\cal B}}_\mu (1-g_\mu^2{{\cal B}}_\mu^2)}{(1+d_\mu^2)^2},\ \ \ a_2=\frac{2mq\hbar}{8\pi}\frac{\mu^2-m^2}{\mu^3}\frac{{{\cal B}}^2_\mu g^2_\mu}{(1+d_\mu^2)^2} .$$ To study the Hall-like current densities we set $(\tilde{\cal{J}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{ E}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle{ \prime}}}})_y^{z}=0$ and express $E^\prime_x=-\frac{a_1}{a_2}E_y^\prime $. Obviously, we suppose that the $\bm E^\prime,$ term in the current density generated by the equilibrium distribution function (\[jf02d\]) is suppressed. Then, the current density in the $x$-direction is given by the electric field $E_y^\prime$ as $$(\tilde{\cal{J}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{ E}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle{ \prime}}}})_x^{z}= -\left(\frac{a_1^2}{a_2}+a_2\right)E^\prime_y\equiv-\sigma_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{ S}}}{{\scriptscriptstyle{ H}}}}^{(1)} E^\prime_y .
\label{JEperp}$$ The spin Hall conductivity can be shown to be $$\sigma^{(1)}_{\scriptscriptstyle{SH}}=\frac{qm}{16\pi}\frac{\mu^2-m^2}{\mu^3}.
\label{shc1}$$ It is still independent of the fields and can be expressed in terms of the particle number density as $\sigma^{(1)}_{\scriptscriptstyle{SH}}=\frac{q\hbar m}{8\mu^3}\tilde{n}$. However for large $\mu$ it approaches to zero. To obtain the current density parallel to the electric field we set $(\tilde{\cal{J}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{ E}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle{ \prime}}}})_y^{z}=0$ and express $E^\prime_y= -\frac{a_2}{a_1}E^\prime_x, $ so that $$(\tilde{\cal{J}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{ E}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle{ \prime}}}})_x^{z}= \frac{qm}{8\pi}\frac{\mu^2-m^2}{\mu^3}\frac{g_\mu {{\cal B}}_\mu}{1-g_\mu^2{{\cal B}}_\mu^2}E^\prime_x.$$ This is an analogue of the Ohm’s law for the spin current in rotating coordinates and in external magnetic field.
The effects caused by the centrifugal force dependent term in (\[jf12\]) can be studied by substituting $\bm E^\prime$ with $\mu R\Omega^2 \bm{\hat \rho,}$ in the discussions given above. Also, the gradient of the chemical potential behaves similar to $\bm E^\prime$ as can be seen by inspecting (\[jf12\]).
The continuity equation can be shown to yield $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \tilde n^z}{\partial t} + \bm{\nabla}\cdot\tilde{\bm j^z}= 0. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the spin current is conserved at the first order.
Spin Currents in Three-Dimensional Conductors {#3D}
=============================================
Although it is quite relevant to deal with spin currents generated by rotations in two dimensional conductors, in some cases it would be useful to deal with the three dimensional ones. Therefore, in this section we would like to focus on the spin and spin current densities generated in the three dimensional conductors at $T=0$. To keep the discussion general let us deal with the spin matrix $\frac{\hbar}{2}\sigma_a$ in an arbitrary direction $\bm{\hat a}=\left(\hat{\bm x},\hat{\bm y}, \hat{\bm z} \right).$ By integrating over the angular part the spin density (\[snd\]) which is given by the equilibrium distribution function, $f_0,$ leads to $$\begin{aligned}
n^a=&& \frac{\hbar}{2}\int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi\hbar)^3}Tr[\sigma_a(1+\bm{G}\cdot(q\bm B+ 2E\bm\Omega))f_0]\nonumber\\
=&&\frac{1}{4\pi^2\hbar}\int p^2dp\Big( \frac{m}{E^3}+\frac{p^2}{3E^3(E+m)}\Big)(qB_a+2E\Omega_a)f_0 .\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ To acquire a nonvanishing spin current in a certain direction the external magnetic field $\bm{B}$ or the angular velocity $\bm \Omega$ should possess a nonvanishing component along the direction of the spin. Actually, we deal only with the mutually parallel $\bm{B}$ and $\bm \Omega.$ Now by performing the rest of the integrals at $T=0,$ one can show that the spin density is $$\begin{aligned}
n^a&=&\frac{qmB_a}{12\pi^2\hbar}\Big(\frac{(\mu-2m) \sqrt{\mu^2-m^2}}{m}+2m\ln(\frac{\sqrt{\mu^2-m^2}+\mu}{m})+m(\tan^{-1}(\frac{m}{\sqrt{\mu^2-m^2}})-\frac{\pi}{2}) \Big)\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{m^2\Omega_a}{12\pi^2\hbar}\Big(\frac{(4m+\mu)\sqrt{\mu^2-m^2}}{m^2}-\ln(\frac{\sqrt{\mu^2-m^2}+\mu}{m})+4(\tan^{-1}(\frac{m}{\sqrt{\mu^2-m^2}})-\frac{\pi}{2})\Big)
\label{3dna}\end{aligned}$$ The structure of the magnetic field and angular velocity dependent terms are quite similar.
To obtain the spin current densities we insert the semiclassical velocity (\[msxd\]) into (\[ecc\]) and (\[necc\]) with the appropriate distribution functions. Actually, there is only one term which may give contribution to the equilibrium current density (\[ecc\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\bm J^a&= &\frac{\hbar}{2}\int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi\hbar)^3}Tr[\sigma_a(\bm{e}\times\bm{G})]f_0 \nonumber\\
&=&\frac{q}{12\pi^2\hbar}[(\bm E+(\bm\Omega\times\bm x)\times\bm B)\times\bm{\hat a}]\Big(\sqrt{\mu^2-m^2}(1-\frac{2m}{\mu})+2m\ln(\frac{\sqrt{\mu^2-m^2}+\mu}{m})\nonumber\\
&&+m(\tan^{-1}(\frac{m}{\sqrt{\mu^2-m^2}})-\frac{\pi}{2}) \Big)\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{1}{12\pi^2\hbar}[(\bm\Omega\times\bm x)\times \bm \Omega)\times\bm{\hat a}]\Big((4m+\mu)\sqrt{\mu^2-m^2}-m^2\ln(\frac{\sqrt{\mu^2-m^2}+\mu}{m})\nonumber \\
&&+4m^2(\tan^{-1}(\frac{m}{\sqrt{\mu^2-m^2}})-\frac{\pi}{2})\Big)
\label{3djaf0}\end{aligned}$$ The first term is perpendicular to the electric field in rotating coordinates and the second one is perpendicular to the fictitious centrifugal force. Obviously they both are perpendicular to the spin direction which is considered.
Before proceed to calculate the current density arising from $f^1,$ let us examine the consistency condition (\[consteq1\]) for $f^1.$ One can easily observe that after integrating over the momentum space and keeping the first order terms, there remains only one term $$\begin{aligned}
\int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi\hbar)^3}Tr[\sigma_a\tilde{\omega}_{1/2}f_1]&=&\int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi\hbar)^3}Tr[ \sigma_a(\bm G\cdot\bm{{\cal B}})f_1] \nonumber\\
&=&\frac{\tau}{6\pi^2\hbar^2}\frac{2m+\mu}{\mu^2}\sqrt{\mu^2-m^2}(qB_a+2\mu\Omega_a)\frac{\partial \mu}{\partial t}=0,
\label{consteq3d}\end{aligned}$$ which states that $\mu$ is independent of time. Once we integrate over the angular variables, the spin current density (\[necc\]) which is linear in $\bm e_\mu,$ turns out to be $$\begin{aligned}
\bm{{\cal{ J}}}^{a}&= &\frac{\hbar}{2} \int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi\hbar)^3}Tr[\sigma_a(\frac{\bm p}{E}+\frac{\bm{{\cal B}}}{E}(\bm{G\cdot p}))f_1] \nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{12\pi^2\hbar}\int dp \frac{p^4}{E^4}\frac{\partial f_0}{\partial E}\Bigg[\frac{\bm{{\cal B}}\cdot\bm e_\mu}{(1+d^2)}g^2\Big(\frac{2g}{5}(E-m){{\cal B}}_a\bm{{\cal B}}-mg{{\cal B}}^2\bm{\hat a}+\bm{{\cal B}}\times\bm{\hat a}\Big)-(\bm{{\cal B}}\cdot\bm e_\mu)g\frac{m}{5}\bm{\hat a}\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{2Eg}{(1+d^2)}\Big({e_{\mu}}_a-g(\bm{{\cal B}}\times\bm e_\mu)_a+g^2(\bm{{\cal B}}\cdot\bm e_\mu){{\cal B}}_a\Big)\bm{{\cal B}}\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{1}{(1+d^2)^2}\frac{g}{5}\Big((E-4m)\Big[(1-g^2{{\cal B}}^2){{\cal B}}_a\bm {e_{\mu}}-2g{{\cal B}}_a(\bm{{\cal B}}\times\bm e_\mu)+2g^2(\bm{{\cal B}}\cdot\bm e_\mu){{\cal B}}_a\bm{{\cal B}}\Big]\nonumber\\
&&+(E-m)\Big[(1-g^2{{\cal B}}^2)e_{\mu a}\bm{{\cal B}}-2g(\bm{{\cal B}}\times\bm e_\mu)_a\bm{{\cal B}}+2g^2(\bm{{\cal B}}\cdot\bm e_\mu){{\cal B}}_a\bm{{\cal B}}\Big]\Big)\Bigg] .
\label{3djaf1}\end{aligned}$$ The spin density (\[3dna\]) and the spin current density given as the sum of (\[3djaf0\]),(\[3djaf1\]), satisfy the continuity equation $$\frac{\partial n^a}{\partial t} + \bm{\nabla}\cdot \bm j^a=0.$$ Hence the spin is conserved at the first order.
To render the discussion of this linear spin current density comprehensible, let us deal with the spin in the by choosing $\bm{{\cal B}}$ to have a nonvanishing component only in the same direction: $\bm{B}=B\bm{\hat z}$ and $\bm{\Omega}=\Omega\bm{\hat z}.$ Under these conditions the complicated expression (\[3djaf1\]) for the spin current arising from the collisions, becomes more accessible when we further impose conditions on the effective electric force $\bm e_\mu$. To this aim, we first take $\bm e_\mu$ in the same direction with $\bm B$ and $\bm \Omega$: $${\cal{ J}}^{z}_{3}
=\frac{\tau}{60\pi^2\hbar}\frac{(\mu^2-m^2)^{3/2}}{\mu^4}\Big[3(\mu+2m)+\frac{2m\tau^2 (qB+2\mu\Omega)^2}{\mu^2+\tau^2(qB+2\mu\Omega)^2}\Big] (qB+2\mu\Omega)\left(qE_3-\frac{\partial \mu}{\partial x_3}\right) . \nonumber$$ It results in a current in the third-direction, as long as the component of electric field or the gradient of the chemical potential in the third-direction exists. The other case which is instructive to explore is when $\bm e_\mu$ is perpendicular to $\bm B$ and $\bm \Omega$: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{ J}}^{z}_{i}
=&&\frac{\tau}{60\pi^2\hbar}\frac{ (4m-\mu)(\mu^2-m^2)^{3/2}}{(\mu^2+\tau^2(qB+2\mu\Omega)^2)^2 }(qB+2\mu\Omega)\Big[(1-\frac{\tau^2}{\mu^2}(qB+2\mu\Omega)^2)\\
&&\times(q\bm E^\prime
+\mu(\bm{\Omega}\times\bm {x})\times\bm\Omega-\bm{\nabla}\mu )_{i}-\frac{2\tau}{\mu}(qB+2\mu\Omega) (\bm{\hat{z}}\times (q\bm E^\prime+\mu(\bm{\Omega}\times\bm {x})\times\bm\Omega-\bm{\nabla}\mu ))_{i}\Big]\nonumber ,
\label{j3perp}\end{aligned}$$ where $i=1,2.$ Similar to the two-dimensional case in Section \[2D\], we can decompose the electric field part of (\[j3perp\]) into its $x$ and $y$ components as $ ({\cal{J}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{ E}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle{ \prime}}}})_x^{z}=b_1E_x^\prime-b_2E_y^\prime, \
({\cal{J}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{ E}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle{ \prime}}}})_y^{z}=b_1E_y^\prime+ b_2E_x^\prime $ where $$\begin{aligned}
b_1&=&\frac{ (4m-\mu)(\mu^2-m^2)^{3/2}}{60\pi^2\hbar }\frac{\tau(qB+2\mu\Omega)}{(\mu^2+\tau^2(qB+2\mu\Omega)^2)^2}(1-\frac{\tau^2}{\mu^2}(qB+2\mu\Omega)^2),\nonumber\\
b_2&=&\frac{(4m-\mu)(\mu^2-m^2)^{3/2}}{60\pi^2\hbar }\frac{(qB+2\mu\Omega)^2}{(\mu^2+\tau^2(qB+2\mu\Omega)^2)^2}\frac{2\tau^2}{\mu}\nonumber .\end{aligned}$$ Then the spin Hall-like conductivity can be read from (\[JEperp\]) as $$\sigma^{\perp}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{ S}}}{{\scriptscriptstyle{ H}}}}= \frac{(4m-\mu)}{120\pi^2\hbar}\frac{(\mu^2-m^2)^{3/2}}{\mu^3}.$$ It is independent of $\bm B$ and $\bm{\Omega}$. The gradient of the chemical potential behaves similar to the electric field $\bm E^\prime$.
Conclusions {#CONC}
===========
The spin and spin current densities of the Dirac particles in the presence of external electromagnetic fields, in rotating coordinates are studied. The effects caused by the particles which rotate because they have been subjected to mechanical rotations or due to vorticity when they show fluid behaviour, can equivalently be viewed as effects arising due to observation of the particles in a rotating frame. An intuitive approach to study the spin dependent phenomena of the Dirac particles in rotating frames is offered by the semiclassical kinetic theory proposed in Ref.[@oee]. In this formalism the velocities of phase space variables are matrix-valued in spin indices, so that they lead to a matrix valued Boltzmann transport equation. We studied this kinetic equation within the relaxation time method. We obtained the matrix-valued distribution functions up to terms linear in the electric field in rotating coordinates and the derivatives of the chemical potential. The spin and spin current densities are established for two and there dimensional conductors. They yield similar effects. We showed that in two-dimensional media the equilibrium distribution functions gives rise to the spin Hall effect associated to the electric fields in rotating coordinates. The relaxation time dependent terms of spin current densities vanish when one switches off the external magnetic field and rotations. These terms which are at least linear in the magnetic field $\bm B$ and the angular velocity $\bm \Omega,$ yield the Hall-like current whose conductivity is independent of them. These conductivities depend only on the mass of the Dirac particles and the chemical potential. However, in contrast to the ordinary spin Hall conductivity, it is not a topological invariant in the $\mu \gg m$ limit. At zero temperature the chemical potential can be written in terms of the Fermi momentum $k_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ F}}}$ as $\mu=\sqrt{k^2_{{\scriptscriptstyle{ F}}}+m^2}.$ We use the Fermi wavenumber value of $k_F=10^{10} {\rm m}^{-1}$ for Pt [@tm] to estimate spin Hall conductivity and spin currents. Equation (\[shc\]) yields a spin Hall conductivity value of $0.067\frac{q}{4\pi}$ and the correction arising from the nonequilibrium distribution function is estimated from (\[shc1\]) as $0.030\frac{q}{4\pi}$. Observe that they are of the same order, furthermore their combined effect yields a spin Hall conductivity value of $0.097\frac{q}{4\pi}$. Thus, we conclude that in principle the spin Hall conductivity in rotating coordinates should be observable. We can also make an estimate of the $\Omega$ and $B$ dependent terms in (\[jf02d\]), the spin current density due to equilibrium distribution function. We take $B=1 {\rm T}$, $\Omega=1 {\rm kHz} $ and $R=10 {\rm mm}$. The second term in (\[jf02d\]) proportional to $\Omega B R$ yields a spin current approximately $10^{-6} {\rm A/m}.$ For the same values, the estimated spin current in Ref.[@mism2] is roughly $10^{-8} {\rm A/m}.$ The difference arises from the $\frac{\mu-m}{m}$ factor. Third term in (\[jf02d\]) proportional to $\Omega^2Rm$ yields a spin current around $10^{-13} {\rm A/m},$ which is negligible in comparison with the $\Omega BR$ term. The structure of the three dimensional spin current densities are similar to the two dimensional ones. However, our results are valid only at $T=0,$ because analytic calculations for $T\neq 0$ on general grounds are not available. In the latter case one can try to compute spin current densities by treating the magnetic field and angular velocity as perturbations like the electric field. Obviously, one can handle them by numerical analysis. Nevertheless, in this work the necessary ingredients to construct the spin currents within the semiclassical approach are established.
[****]{}
This work is supported by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) Grant No. 115F108.
[99]{}
M. Matsuo, J. Ieda, E. Saitoh and S. Maekawa, Effects of Mechanical Rotation on Spin Currents, [Phys. Rev. Lett. ]{}106 (2011) 076601.
M. Matsuo, J. Ieda, E. Saitoh and S. Maekawa, Spin-dependent Inertial Force and Spin Current in Accelerating Systems, [Phys. Rev. B ]{}84 (2011) 104410.
D. Chowdhury and B. Basu, Effects of Spin Rotation Coupling on Spin Transport, Annals of Physics 339 (2013) 358.
F. W. Hehl and W-T. Ni, Inertial Effects of a Dirac Particle, [Phys. Rev. D ]{}42 (1990) 6.
L. L. Schiff, A Question in General Relativity, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci 25 (1939) 391.
D. T. Son and N. Yamamoto, Berry Curvature, Triangle Anomalies, and the Chiral Magnetic Effect in Fermi Liquids, [Phys. Rev. Lett. ]{}109 (2012) 181602.
M. A. Stephanov and Y. Yin, Chiral Kinetic Theory, [Phys. Rev. Lett. ]{}109 (2012) 162001.
D. E. Kharzeev, L. D. McLerran and H. J. Warringa, The effects of topological charge change in heavy ion collisions: Event by event P and CP violation, Nucl. Phys. A803 (2008) 227.
K. Fukushima, D. E. Kharzeev and H. J. Warringa, Chiral magnetic effect, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 074033.
D. Kharzeev and A. Zhitnitsky, Charge separation induced by P-odd bubbles in QCD matter, Nucl. Phys. A797 (2007) 67.
M. A. Metlitski and A. R. Zhitnitsky, Anomalous axion interactions and topological currents in dense matter, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 045011.
K. Jensen, P. Kovtun and A. Ritz, Chiral conductivities and effective field theory, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2013) 186.
D. T. Son and P. Surówka, Hydrodynamics with Triangle Anomalies, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009) 191601.
Z. T. Liang and X. N. Wang, Globally Polarized Quark-Gluon Plasma in Noncentral A+A Collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 102301.
F. Becattini, F. Piccinini and J. Rizzo, Angular momentum conservation in heavy ion collisions at very high energy, Phys. Rev. C 77 (2008) 024906.
J-H. Gao, Z-T. Liang, S. Pu, Q. Wang and X-N. Wang, Chiral Anomaly and Local Polarization Effect from the Quantum Kinetic Approach, [Phys. Rev. Lett. ]{}109 (2012) 232301.
G. Sundaram and Q. Niu, Wave-packet dynamics in slowly perturbed crystals: Gradient corrections and Berry-phase effects, [Phys. Rev. B ]{}59 (1999) 14915.
D. Culcer, Y. Yao and Q. Niu,Coherent Wave-packet Evolution in Coupled Bands, [Phys. Rev. B ]{}72 (2005) 085110.
Ö. F. Dayi and E. Yunt, Relation Between the Spin Hall Conductivity and the Spin Chern Number, Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. $\bm{13}$ (2016) 1550136; Erratum: [*ibid.*]{} 13 (2016) 1692001.
V. Dwivedi and M. Stone, Classical Chiral Kinetic Theory and Anomalies in Even Space-time Dimensions, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 47 (2014) 125401.
Ö. F. Dayi and M. Elbistan, A Semiclassical Formulation of the Chiral Magnetic Effect and Chiral Anomaly in Even $d+1$ Dimensions, Int.J. Mod. Phys. A 31 (2016) 1650074.
Ö. F. Dayi, E. Kilinçarslan and E. Yunt, Semiclassical Dynamics of Dirac and Weyl Particles in Rotating Coordinates, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 085005.
A. Anselm, Introduction to Semiconductor Theory, Prentice Hall 1982.
M. Stephanov, H-U. Yee and Y. Yin, Collective modes of chiral kinetic theory in a magnetic field, [Phys. Rev. D ]{}91 (2015) 125014.
C. P. Chuu, M.-C. Chang and Q. Niu, Semiclassical dynamics and transport of the Dirac Spin, Solid State Comm. 150 (2010) 533.
E.Prodan, Robustness of the Spin-Chern Number, Phy. Rev. B 80 (2009) 125327.
M. Ezawa, Symmetry Protected Topological Charge in Symmetry Broken Phase: Spin-Chern, Spin-Valley-Chern and Mirror-Chern Numbers, Phys. Lett. A 378 (2014) 1180.
Ö. F. Dayi, M. Elbistan and E. Yunt, Effective Field Theory of a Topological Insulator and the Foldy-Wouthuysen Transformation, Annals of Physics 327 (2012) 935.
A. J.-Y. Chen, D. T. Son, M. A. Stephanov, H.-U. Yee, and Y. Yin, Lorentz Invariance in Chiral Kinetic Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 182302.
C. Duval, M. Elbistan, P. A. Horvathy, and P.-M. Zhang, Wigner-Souriau translations and Lorentz symmetry of chiral fermions, Phys. Lett. B 742 (2015) 322.
B. J.-Y. Chen, D. T. Son, and M. A. Stephanov, Collisions in Chiral Kinetic Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 021601.
C. Y. Hidaka, S. Pu, and D.L. Yang, Relativistic Chiral Kinetic Theory from Quantum Field Theories, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 091901.
K. Fujikawa, Quantum anomaly and geometric phase: Their basic differences, [Phys. Rev. D ]{}73 (2006) 025017.
K. Y. Bliokh, Topological spin transport of a relativistic electron, Eur. Phys. Lett. 72 (2005) 7.
E. V. Gorbar, V. A. MiranskyI, A. Shovkovy and P. O. Sukhachov, Wigner function and kinetic phenomena for chiral plasma in a strong magnetic field, JHEP 08 (2017) 103.
X.-l. Sheng, D.H. Rischke, D. Vasak and Q. Wang, Wigner functions of massive fermions in strong magnetic fields, arXiv:1707.01388.
Y. Gao, S.A. Yang and Q. Niu, Field Induced Positional Shift of Bloch Electrons and Its Dynamical Implications, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 166601.
Y. Gao, S.A. Yang and Q. Niu, Geometrical effects in orbital magnetic susceptibility, Phys. Rev. B 91 (2015) 214405.
S. Takahashi and S. Maekawa, Spin current, spin accumulation and spin Hall effect, Sci. Tech. Adv. Mater. 9, 014105 (2008)
[^1]: [*E-mail addresses:*]{} dayi@itu.edu.tr, yunt@itu.edu.tr
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We study a quiet-Sun blowout jet which is observed on 2014 May 16 by the instruments on board *Solar Dynamics Observatory* (SDO). We find the twin CME as jet-like and bubble-like CME simultaneously as observed by LASCO C2 on board *Solar and Heliospheric Observatory* (SoHO), *Solar Terrestrial Relation Observatory* (STEREO\_A and STEREO\_B/COR2). They are respectively associated with the eruption of the northern and southern sections of the filament. A circular filament is rooted at the internetwork region at the base of the blowout jet. The collective magnetic cancellation is observed by SDO/HMI line of sight (LOS) magnetograms at the northern end of the filament, which makes this filament unstable and further makes it to erupt in two different stages. In the first stage, northern section of the filament is ejected, and causes an evolution of the northern part of the blowout jet. This part of the blowout jet is further extended as a collimated plasma beam to form a jet-like CME. We also observe the plasma blobs at the northern edge of the blowout jet resulting from Kelvin-Helmholtz (K-H) instability in its twisted magneto-plasma spire. In the second stage, southern section of the filament erupts in form of deformed/twisted magnetic flux rope which forms the southern part of the blowout jet. This eruption is most likely caused by the eruption of the northern section of filament, which removes the confined magnetic field of the southern section of the filament. Alternative scenarios may be a magnetic implosion between these magnetic structures confined in a much larger magnetic domain. This eruption of southern section of the filament further results in the bubble-like CME in the outer corona.'
author:
- 'R. Solanki'
- 'A. K. Srivastava'
- 'Y. K. Rao'
- 'B. N. Dwivedi'
title: 'Twin CME Launched by a Blowout Jet Originated from the Eruption of a Quiet-Sun Mini-filament '
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Solar coronal jets are the magnetically driven confined plasma eruptions which may be rooted in the lower solar atmosphere and further evolved in the solar corona. These dynamics occur in all solar environments such as quiet Sun, active region and coronal holes (e.g., Shimojo et al.1996, Nistico et al. 2009, Panesar et al. 2016, Raouafi et al. 2016). Solar coronal jets can be divided in two classes based on the temperature range of the ejected plasma as i) hot jets and ii) cool jets. In the hot jets, plasma is ejected into the solar corona along the open magnetic field lines as seen in UV, EUV, and X-ray wavelengths (e.g., Shibata et al. 1992, Shibata et al. 2007, Shen et al. 2012, Sterling et al. 2015, Liu et al. 2015, Shen et al. 2017). The temperature range of the ejected plasma is $\approx 4\times10^{6}$ K for solar X-ray jets and $\approx 10^{5}$ K for EUV jets (e.g., Shimojo et al. 1996, Shimojo et al. 1998). Jets observed in H$\alpha$ wavelength are termed as cool jets which are known as solar surges having the typical temperature $\approx 10^{4}$ K (e.g., Shibata et al. 1992, Yokoyama et al. 1995, Jiang et al. 2007, Uddin et al. 2012, Kayshap et al. 2013). Howerver cool coronal jets are also observed whose plasma is maintained at chromosphere, TR temperatues (e.g., Srivastava et al. 2011, Kayshap et al. 2013). Solar coronal jets have their width, which ranges from $5 \times 10^3$ $km$ to $1 \times 10^5$ $km$, the height ranges from $\approx 10^{4}$ km to $4\times10^{5}$ km, and the velocity ranges from $10$ $km sec^{-1}$ to $1000$ $km sec^{-1}$ (e.g., Shimojo et al. 1996, Nistico et al. 2009). The width of the jets can be determined by the length of the emerging bipoles as illustrated by Shen et al. 2011.
According to the magnetic topology of the coronal jets, they can be categorized in these following types- i) Eiffel Tower (ET) jets ii) $\lambda$ jets (e.g., Nistico et al. 2009) etc. In ET jets, photospheric bipolar magnetic field reconnects with the ambient open unipolar magnetic field of opposite polarity at the top of its loop. In the $\lambda$-shaped jets, the bipolar magnetic field reconnects with opposite polarity open magnetic field at their footpoints. Solar jets are classified as the anemone jets and two-sided loop jets based on their morphological structures and triggering mechanisms (e.g., Shibata et al. 1994, Yokoyama et al. 1995, Tian et al. 2017). There is another classification of solar coronal jets according to the standard model of the jet (Shibata et al. 1992). The jets which follow the standard model of the jets are called the standard jets and the others which do not follow such characteristics are termed as blowout jets. The concept of the blowout jets is firstly introduced by Moore et al. 2010 using Hinode/XRT observation of an X-ray jet. Blowout jets possess broad spire and bright magnetic base arch, while standard jets have narrow spire and dim magnetic base arch. In the blowout jet, the core field of the magnetic base arch carries the cool plasma ($\approx 10^{4}$-$10^{5}$ K) filaments. In the blowout jet, there is enough twist and shear in the base arch field, so when base arch field and ambient field reconnect at the current sheet, this sheared and twisted arch field is also erupted. On the contrary, in the standard jet, the base arch is inactive and does not participate in the eruption (e.g., Moore et al. 2010, Moore et al. 2013, Sterling et al. 2015). It should be noted that the blowout jet involves two times reconnection, while the standard jet have only one time reconnection. Sometimes, the eruption of base-arch field takes the large form of the eruption and drags CMEs (chen et al. 2011).
Hong et al. 2011 presented the observation of blowout jet in quiet Sun region where mini-filament is ejected during eruption and associated with a mini coronal mass ejections (CMEs). Shen et al. 2012 observed an active region blowout jet which is associated with two CMEs as one is bubble- like CME and another is jet-like CME, where bubble like CME relates cool component of the jet and jet-like CME relates hot componet of the jet. Pucci et al. 2013 have done the comparative study of the blowout jet and standard jet and found that blowout jets have ten times higher magnetic energy as compared to the standard jets. Adams et al. 2014 have analyzed the blow-out jet event which originates from the on-disk coronal hole and shows the different characteristics.
Miao et al. 2018 have analyzed a coronal blowout jet eruption which is associated with a EUV wave at its leading top and complex CME structures (jet-like and bubble-like CME) where filament eruption is observed during the blowout jet. Shen et al. 2018 have found the close relationship between the coronal jets and the EUV waves at different scales (spatial and temporal) in their observational event, where these EUV waves were propelled by the coronal jets. The observational results of Shen et al. 2018 have shown the presence of the EUV waves along with the coronal jets, where these EUV waves are generated by the lateral expansion of loop system due to the coronal jet eruption. Shen et al. 2018 have discussed the observations of arc-shaped EUV waves, a quasi-periodic fast propagating (QFP) wave, and a kink wave simultaneously with an active region coronal jet eruption. Zhu et al. 2017 have observed an active region blowout jet and investigated the 3D magnetic structure of the blowout jet and found that the kink instability is a possible triggering mechanism for this blowout jet. There are many research articles which deal with these interesting eruptive events and describe the different possible mechanisms of these eruptions (e.g., Liu et al. 2008, Murawski et al. 2011, Chen et al. 2015, Liu et al. 2015, Alzate et al. 2016). Wang et al. 1998 showed that EUV jets may be directly extended into the form of white-light jet-like CMEs. Coronal jets can cause multiple CMEs through interaction with remote structures (Jiang et al. 2008) or through the self-evolution of coronal blowout jets (Shen et al. 2012, Miao et al. 2018). So far, studies on this issue are still very scarce.
In this paper, we have studied a blowout jet eruption observed on 2014 May, 16 which is evolved due to the eruptions of the various segments of a quiescent filament. Here we observed the twin CME generation with this blowout jet. The jet-like CME is associated with the northern part of the blowout jet eruption and the bubble-like CME is driven from the eruption of the southern part of the blowout jet. Both the parts of the blowout jet are associated with successive eruptions of the various segments of a filament. The K-H unstable blobs are also observed in the northern part of the blowout jet on its spire. Observational data and its analyses are described in Section 2. In Section 3, we illustrate the observational results and driving mechanisms of the observed blowout jet, and the kinematics of the twin CME. In the last Section, discussion and conclusions are presented.
Analysis of Observational Data
==============================
Observations from *Solar Dynamics Observatory* (SDO)/*Atmospheric Imaging Assembly* (AIA)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We use high temporal and spatial *Solar Dynamics Observatory* (SDO; Pesnell et al. 2012) data for the multi-wavelength study of the blowout jet. *Atmospheric Imaging Assembly* (AIA; Lemen et al. 2012) observes full disk Sun in transition region and coronal emissions upto 0.5 R$_\odot$ above the solar limb. SDO/AIA provides the full disk images of the Sun in three UV wavelength bands 1600 Å , 1700 Å , 4500 Å and in seven EUV wavelength bands 304 Å , 171 Å , 193 Å , 211 Å , 335 Å , 131 Å , 94 Å covering the temperature range from 0.6 MK to 16 MK with $1.5^{\prime\prime}$ spatial resolution, and $0.6^{\prime\prime}$ pixel width. SDO/AIA captures the full-disk images of the Sun with 12 s. cadence in EUV filters and 24 s. in UV filters. We have taken the SDO/AIA data on 2014 May, 16 during the time period of 03:30:00 UT - 05:10:00 UT for the selected region of $500^{\prime\prime}$ to $900^{\prime\prime}$ in the X-direction and $-300^{\prime\prime}$ to $0^{\prime\prime}$ in the Y-direction. We have downloaded SDO/AIA data from Joint Science Operation Center (JSOC) [^1]. Standard subroutines of SSWIDL (Freeland et al. 1998) are used for aligning and scaling AIA images as observed in different filters.
Observations from *Solar Dynamics Observatory* (SDO)/*Helioseismic Magnetic Imager* (HMI)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We use *Helioseismic Magnetic Imager* (HMI; Scherrer et al. 2012) data to examine the morphology and topology of magnetic field at the footpoints of the observed blowout jet. SDO/HMI provides the full-disk line-of-sight (LOS) magnetic flux in the Fe<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> 6173 Å spectral line. It has 45-second temporal resolution, $0.5^{\prime\prime}$ pixel width and $1^{\prime\prime}$ spatial resolution. We have analyzed HMI magnetograms for the time period of 02:59:24 UT - 05:30:54 UT. SDO/HMI data has been rotated and aligned with the SDO/AIA data by using the standard subroutines of SSWIDL.
Observations from *Global Oscillation Network Group* (GONG)
-----------------------------------------------------------
We use GONG H$\alpha$ (Harvey et al. 2011) data for study the dynamics of the filament eruption. We have downloaded H$\alpha$ data from GONG data archive [^2]. This gives the full disk H$\alpha$ data with 1 minute cadence and $1^{\prime\prime}$ spatial resolution in 6563 Å wavelength.
Observations from *Solar and Heliospheric Observatory* (SoHO)/*Large Angle and Spectrometric Coronagraph* (LASCO)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We use LASCO CMEs data obtained from CME catalogue, which is available in CDA website [^3]. *Large Angle and Spectrometric Coronagraph* (LASCO; Brueckner et al. 1995) on board the *Solar and Heliospheric Observatory* (SoHO; Domingo et al. 1995) daily identify the coronal mass ejections (CMEs) in the images of the solar corona since 1996. LASCO has three telescopes named C1, C2, C3. LASCO observes the white light images of the solar corona from 1.1 R$_\odot$ to 30 R$_\odot$. LASCO C2 coronagraph images the solar corona from 1.5 R$_\odot$ to 6 R$_\odot$, while C3 coronagraph images the solar corona from 3.5 R$_\odot$ to 30 $R_\odot$. We use LASCO C2 and C3 data for detailed scientific investigation of narrow CME which is associated with some part of the blowout jet that further erupted in the outer corona after its origin into the quiet-Sun.
Observations from *Solar Terrestrial Relation Observatory* (STEREO)/*Sun Earth Connection Coronal and Heliospheric Investigation* (SECCHI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We use *Sun Earth Connection Coronal and Heliospheric Investigation* (SECCHI; Howard et al. 2008) on board STEREO-A and STEREO-B spacecraft data to analyse the kinematics of the blowout jet, jet-like and bubble-like CMEs. We use the images of the *Extreme Ultraviolet Imager* (EUVI; Wuelser et al. 2004) of SECCHI for determining the kinematics of the blowout jet, and the COR2 data of SECCHI for kinematics of jet-like and bubble-like CMEs. The field of view (FOV) of EUVI and COR2 is 1-1.7 $R_\odot$ and 2.5-15 $R_\odot$ respectively. We have downloaded the SECCHI data from the UKSSDC-STEREO archive [^4].
Observational Results
=====================
Source Location of the Blowout Jet Evolved due to Quiet-Sun Filament Eruption
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The blowout jet, which we have studied in the present paper was observed in the quiet Sun region on 2014, May 16. This quiet Sun region is near the western side of the NOAA AR12058 (S11W40), and lies in the fourth quadrant of the solar disk co-ordinates. The location of the blowout jet is Xcen = $660^{\prime\prime}$ and Ycen = $-150^{\prime\prime}$, and the initiation time is about 04:08:43 UT. This blowout jet is evolved due to the multiple stages of filament eruption which is rooted in the internetwork region of the quiet-Sun. We will describe physical picture of such unique plasma dynamics in the coming sub-sections.
The multi-wavelength behaviour of the blowout jet is seen in the composite image of different SDO/AIA filters (*cf.* upper panel of Figure 1). We have plotted the composite image of blowout jet and surrounding regions in AIA 1600 Å , AIA 304 Å and in HMI line of sight (LOS) magnetogram at 04:11 UT. This image collectively shows the behaviour of the blowout jet simultaneously in the emissions from UV continnumm to the transition region, and also the magnetic field polarites around its footpoint. The chosen field of view (FOV) for this composite image is $400^{\prime\prime} \times 300^{\prime\prime}$ as $500^{\prime\prime}$ to $900^{\prime\prime}$ in the X-direction and $-300^{\prime\prime}$ to $0^{\prime\prime}$ in the Y-direction. In the composite image of the blowout jet, orange colour represents AIA 304 Å , green colour reprents AIA 1600 Å , and blue colour represents HMI magnetogram.
The photospheric magnetic fields at the footpoint of the blowout jet and at its surroundings are shown in the HMI LOS (line of sight) magnetogram at 04:12:38 UT (*cf.* upper panel of Figure 2). The size of this magnetogram is $200^{\prime\prime} \times 200^{\prime\prime}$ with the co-ordinates of $550^{\prime\prime}$ to $750^{\prime\prime}$ in X-direction and $-200^{\prime\prime}$ to $0^{\prime\prime}$ in the Y-direction. We see that there are various quiet Sun magnetic networks in the neighbourhood of the blowout jet, and it is occured from an inter-network quiet Sun element where a circular filament is rooted (*cf.* bottom panels of Figure 3). The footpoint of the blowout jet is at the negative polarity (minority polarity) region in the vicinity of the positive polarity (majority polarity) region (*cf.* upper panel of Figure 2). For investigating the possible causes of the eruption of the filament and associated blowout jet and to understand the triggering mechanism for their eruptions, we examine the behaviour of the underlying magnetic field. In the initiation phase of the filament (*cf.* Figure 3), we have noticed the initial activity at the northern end of the filament which initiates the eruption of the filament. Therefore, we examine the time evolution of the magnetic flux at around the northern end of the filament. The time variation of the negative magnetic flux and the positive magnetic flux at the northern end of the filament is shown in the bottom panel of Figure 2. The negative and positive magnetic fluxes are extracted from the box shown by black solid line, which is overplotted on the HMI LOS (line of sight) magnetogram. The size of box is $20^{\prime\prime} \times 15^{\prime\prime}$ with the coordinates of $640^{\prime\prime}$ to $660^{\prime\prime}$ in X-direction and $-135^{\prime\prime}$ to $-120^{\prime\prime}$ in the Y-direction. The magnetic field intensities are extracted for the observational period of 02:59:24 UT - 05:30:54 UT. Negative magnetic flux has the order of $10^{21}$ Mx while positive magnetic flux has the order of $10^{22}$ Mx. The blue dashed line overplotted on this figure indicates the starting time (03:59 UT) of the slow rising phase of the filament. We have noticed that the positive flux shows the declined trend while the negative flux shows an increasing trend. The changing behaviour of the negative and positive magnetic fluxes suggests that the negative flux is emerging and at the same time the flux cancellation between positive and negative flux takes place. This is the confirmation of the magnetic cancellation at the northern end of the filament, where filament eruption and activation of the northern part of the blowout jet are observed. Therefore, we can infer that the magnetic flux cancellation at the northern end of the filament makes it eruptive in multiple parts, which further evolve the blowout jet eruption.
Time-intensity Profile at the Base of the Blowout Jet in Different SDO/AIA Filters
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The lightcurve is plotted in different SDO/AIA filters for analyzing the behaviour of the EUV brightening which is observed at the base of the blowout jet (*cf.* bottom panel of Figure 1). The intensity is extracted in different SDO/AIA filters from the white solid line box which is overplotted on the composite image of SDO/AIA filters over the observational period of 1 hour 40 minute from 03:30:00 UT to 05:10:00 UT. The white-line box size is $60^{\prime\prime} \times 60^{\prime\prime}$ and has the coordinates $630^{\prime\prime}$ to $690^{\prime\prime}$ in the X-direction and $-180^{\prime\prime}$ to $-120^{\prime\prime}$ in the Y-direction. Light curve is plotted in AIA 1600 Å (shown by black colour), AIA 304 Å (shown by red colour), AIA 171 Å (blue colour), AIA 335 Å (yellow colour), AIA 94 Å (violet colour) between the normalized intensity (maximum intensity/mean intensity) and the observational period of the evolution of the blowout jet. Light curve in different SDO/AIA filters show different behaviour i.e., there is no identical intensity peak for all filters. Intensity gets its peak value in AIA 1600 Å , AIA 304 Å earlier in comparison to other filters. For these two filters intensity peaks show nearly same behaviour as first peak observed at about 04:08:18 UT and second peak is observed at about 04:11:36 UT. This demonstrates that cool plasma is firstly evolved during the formation of the blowout jet’s spire. This is an opposite scenario as in typical coronal jets the hot plasma evolves first and the cool plasma thereafter (e.g., Jiang et al. 2007, Nishizuka et al. 2008, Solanki et al. 2018). This current observations reveal that some distinct mechanism is at work in the formation of this quiet-Sun blowout jet other than the typical magnetic reconnection in the corona. The most likely scenario is a collective small-scale flux emergences and subsequent cancellation with the neighbourhood at the boundary of magnetic network (*cf.* Figure 2). This launches the bulk plasma flows into the pre-existing blowout jet spire’s magnetic field in the upward direction. The cool plasma consists of the temperature range from $\approx 10^{4}$ - $10^{5}$ K. After these two filters intensity get its peak value in AIA 94 Å and in AIA 335 Å at about 04:20:00 UT and 04:23:18 UT respectively. AIA 171 Å shows slightly different kind of behaviour in intensity plot as there are many peaks in light curve of AIA 171 Å , first two small peaks match well with AIA 1600 Å and AIA 304 Å at 04:08:18 UT and at 04:11:36 UT with less intensity. Intensity gets its peak value at about 04:33:18 UT in AIA 171 Å . In the light curve, the shift is observed in the intensity peaks of different SDO/AIA filters, which emphasizes the time-lagging behaviour of the evolution of multi-temperature plasma throughout the entire period of the evolution of blowout jet at different time epoch . This time-lagging behaviour indicates the presence of flare evolution at the base of blowout jet. A weak flare is observed at about 04:08 UT near to the northern side of the blowout jet and the filament, which accelerates the plasma to the eruption. We relate this weak flare with the network flare (Krucker et al 1997, Krucker et al. 2000).
Evolution of the Blowout Jet due to the Eruption of Segments of a Filament as seen in Different SDO/AIA Filters and GONG H$\alpha$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The initiation phase of the blowout jet in different SDO/AIA filters as seen in AIA 304 Å , AIA 171 Å and in GONG H$\alpha$ 6563 Å indicates the presence of the cool plasma and the filament at the base of the blowout jet (*cf.* bottom panels of Figure 3). This filament is embedded at the internetwork region, which can be seen in first image of bottom panel in H$\alpha$ at 04:03:54 UT. In the GONG H$\alpha$ observations this filament looks like circular shaped structure. Firstly a slow rise is observed in the filament. The cool plasma and ustable filament move up and the jet bright points are created at the filament root at 04:08:54 UT, which is a network flare (see Figure 3). The filament is erupted at about 04:10:54 UT. In the initiation phase, filament shows slow rise, ejection and evolution of the blowout jet. The evolution of the blowout jet can be seen in the animation Movie1.
The filament is ejected in two stages as the circular shaped structure of the filament divides into two parts. In the first stage, the eruption of northern part of the filament (first part) takes place and drives the blowout jet (*cf.* Figure 4). The hot plasma escapes out and moves linearly along the open magnetic field lines and form a broad and complex jet-like spire (*cf.* northern part of eruptions in Figure 4). In the blowout jet, eruption of the northern side of the blowout jet is most activated in it’s primary phase, and significant plasma dynamics is seen along it (*cf.* Figure 4). The significance of the formation of plasma blobs are clearly evident in this part, which we will describe in the forthcoming sub-section 3.4.
Formation of the Plasma Blobs in the Northern Spire of the Blowout Jet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We have found the plasma blobs at the edge of the northern spire of the blowout jet. The formation and evolution of these plasma blobs can be seen in the time-sequence images of AIA 304Å in Figure 5, 6. The selected FOV for these images is $80^{\prime\prime} \times 50^{\prime\prime}$ from $670^{\prime\prime}$ to $750^{\prime\prime}$ in X-direction and from $-150^{\prime\prime}$ to $-100^{\prime\prime}$ in the Y-direction in Figure 5. These plasma blobs are identified as B1, B2, B3, B4 in the middle panel of Figure 5. The total time-duration of these plasma blobs are about 03 min 48 sec. The northern side of the blowout jet where these plasma blobs are formed is highlighted with the blue-lined box in Figure 6. The bottom panel of Figure 6 shows the zoomed picture of the plasma blobs. The formation of these plasma blobs results from the Kelvin-Helmholtz (K-H) instability. These hot and high-dense plasma blobs are moving along the northern spire of the blowout jet. The K-H instability arises due to the shear flows between the high speed blowout jet and the steady local plasma and results into the formation of the magnetic islands. These islands take the form of plasma blobs at the time of the evolution.
We have analyzed the velocity field at the northern side of the blowout jet by using Fourier ocal Correlation Tracking (FLCT; Fisher et al. 2008) method (*cf.* right panel of Figure 7). The velocity field is analyzed at the northern side of the blowout jet corresponding to the box which is overplotted on the AIA 1600 Å image having the coordinates of $500^{\prime\prime}$ to $900^{\prime\prime}$ in the X-direction and $-300^{\prime\prime}$ to $0^{\prime\prime}$ in the Y-direction (*cf.* left panel of Figure 7). We have selected two HMI LOS magnetograms first magnetogram at 03:37:36 UT and second magnetogram at 04:14:08 UT (at the timing of the onset of the blowout jet) to estimate the flow field velocity field. In the right panel of Figure 7, we see the base image of HMI magnetogram at 03:37:36 UT and the velocity field which is shown by orange arrows overplotted on the base image as taken from HMI magnetogram at 04:14:08 UT.
It is clear that the clock-wise plasma flows is evident centered at that particular quiet-Sun region from where the blowout jet is originated. The right panel of Figure 7 shows the partial field of view showing the footpoint of the northern side of the blowout jet (*X* = $640^{\prime\prime}$ - $710^{\prime\prime}$,*Y* = $-125^{\prime\prime}$ - $-100^{\prime\prime}$). Yellow contour which is overlaid on HMI magnetogram shows the AIA 304 Å intensities. This is clear that the clock-wise shearing flow-field is acting at the footpoint of the northern side of the blowout jet, which further launch the right-handed twist in the entire overlying plasma column/spire associated with the blowout jet. When this clock-wise shearing flow-field moves further and interact with the local stationary plasma field, it causes the K-H instability which results in the formation of four plasma blobs as B1, B2, B3, B4. The plasma blobs are less visible in AIA 304 Å channel due to the less spatial and time resolutions data. The northern spire of the jet also does untwisting/rotational motion and releases its twist. The jet’s spire shows the estimated twist about 1-1.5 turns (or $2\pi$-$3\pi$). Our twist value is found in good agreement with the results of the Pariat et al. 2009, which shows for the driving of a solar coronal jet the threshold value of the twist is 1.4 turns ($2.8\pi$). Our finding of the K-H unstable plasma blobs in the rotating/untwisting spire of the blowout jet supports the numerical results of the Ni et al. 2017, Zhelyazkov et al. 2018 and Zhelyazkov et al. 2018. This K-H unstable northern plasma spire further moves into higher coronal region and drives a jet-like CME, which we will discuss in the forthcoming Section 3.7.
Kinematics of the Northern Part of the Blowout Jet
--------------------------------------------------
We have done the height-time analysis of the northern part of the blowout jet. To calculate the height of the blowout jet, we have used the tie-pointing method of the Inhester et al. 2006. In this method the triangulation technique between the different view points of the STEREO\_A and SDO/AIA is used. In this triangulation technique, scc\_measure.pro is used which is available in solarsoft library for estimation of real height of blowout jet. We have calculated the height of the blowout jet by tracking the tip of the blowout jet in two different view points of the STEREO\_A and SDO/AIA (*cf.* upper panel of Figure 8). In the bottom panel of Figure 8, the height of the jet has been tracked using its tip starting at 04:06:09 UT when the jet is clearly visible in both the instruments (SDO/AIA 304 Å and STEREO\_A EUVI 304 Å ) while the initiation of jet takes place at 03:59 UT. We have calculated the height (in $R_\odot$) of the blowout jet at ten different times (in UT) as 04:06:19, 04:10:31, 04:14:07, 04:15:31, 04:16:19, 04:16:31, 04:20:31, 04:25:31, 04:26:15, 04:30:30. With this height-time array, we have calculated the velocity of the blowout jet which is $325$ $km sec^{-1}$ (*cf.* bottom panel of Figure 8). The calculated acceleration for this blowout jet is $-0.30$ $km sec^{-2}$ which is estimated by the second order fitting in the H-T plot of blowout jet.
Eruption of the Southern Part of the Filament and Associated Blowout Jet
------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the activation and eruption of the northern section of the filament and associated segment of the blowout jet, the southern section of the filament is also erupted in the form of a twisted/deformed flux rope (*cf.* H$\alpha$, AIA 304 Å images in bottom and middle panel of Figure 9 which makes the second stage of the eruption (*cf.* AIA 171Å images of Figure 9). The eruption of the southern part of the filament can be seen in the animation Movie1. This deformed/twisted magnetic flux rope moves further and releases its helicity and forms a rotating plasma spire of the southern part of the blowout jet. The eruption of the northern section of the filament destabilizes and removes the local magnetic field configurations and induces the eruption of the southern section of the filament. Alternatively we may adopt the magnetic implosion physical mechanism for the initiation of the eruption of the southern section of the filament. It may occur between neighbouring magnetic structures confined by a large magnetic structure (e.g., Hudson 2000, Liu et al. 2009, Shen et al. 2012). At the magnetic implosion site, the eruption takes place when the upward magnetic pressure decreases resulting into the contraction of overlying field and free magnetic energy release.
Jet-like and Bubble-like Twin CME
---------------------------------
In this analyzed event, we have found the generation of twin CME associated with the blowout jet eruption. Northern part of the filament erupts firstly and causes the evolution of the coronal blowout jet, which may also subject to the K-H instability. Thereafter, the southern part of the filament also erupts in form of magnetic flux rope, and form the full blowout jet eruption.
The northern and southern segments of the filament may be confined by the same magnetic field system. The magnetic flux cancellation is occured at the northern end of the filament which makes this filament unstable and erupts it in different stages. In first stage northern segment of filament ejects and initiates the eruption of the northern part of the blowout jet. The northern part of the blowout jet further drags the first CME which is a jet-like CME. This jet-like CME is the extension of the collimated plasma beam which is generated by the external magnetic reconnection (Shen et al. 2012).
The eruption of the northern section of the filament removes the confined magnetic field of the southern section of the filament and induces the eruption of the southern section of the filament. Alternatively we may adopt the magnetic implosion mechanism for the eruption of the southern section of the filament. The eruption of the southern section of the filament form the full blowout jet eruption and causes the second CME which is a bubble-like CME.
The line of sight (LOS) evolution of these twin CME are shown in running difference images of SoHO/LASCO C2 coronagraph (*cf.* Figure 10). The dynamics of these two CMEs can be seen in the animation Movie2. We have used the multi-scale gaussian normalization method of Morgan et al. 2014 in making these running difference images. We have marked the jet-like CME and bubble-like CME in Figure 10 in the image of 05:12:05 UT. The bubble-like CME has typical three part structures as bright core which consists of cool plasma material of the filament, dark cavity and the bright front of the CME. The bright core is at the northern side of the dark cavity, generally the bright core resides at the central of the dark cavity and the CME. The first appearance of the CMEs in the LASCO C2’s FOV is observed at about 04:38:53 UT. The spatial and the temporal relationship between the twin CME and the northern as well as southern part of the jet eruption relates to the eruptions of the northern and southern sections of the filament which determine jet-like and the bubble-like CME.
Kinematics of the Jet-like and Bubble-like CME
----------------------------------------------
We have done the height-time analysis for the study of the kinematics of jet-like and bubble-like CMEs. We have applied the same method for height-time measurements of these twin CME. We have measured the projected height for these CMEs with respect to the centre of the solar disk by using the tie-pointing method of the Inhester et al. 2006. We have tracked the tip of the CMEs in STEREO\_A COR2 and STEREO\_B COR2 simultaneously with the help of the triangulation technique. The separation angle between STEREO\_A and STEREO\_B on 2014 May 16 at 04:00 UT is about . Since longitude angle is high in measurements, we have estimated the projected height of the twin CME. In case of jet-like CME, we have estimated the projected height at five different times as 05:09:15 UT, 05:24 UT, 05:39 UT, 05:54 UT and 06:09:15 UT. At each time we have tracked the tip of the CME (measurement of projected height) at ten times to estimate the underlying uncertainty in the measurements. With these data sets of projected height and time we have plotted the H-T plot for jet-like CME (*cf.* Figure 11). The calculated velocity for jet-like CME is about $619$ $km sec^{-1}$. We have done the second order fitting on the H-T plot to calculate the acceleration of the CME and get the $0.35$ $km sec^{-2}$ acceleration value for the jet-like CME.
In case of bubble-like CME we have estimated the projected height at 04:54 UT, 05:09:15 UT, 05:24 UT, 05:39 UT, 05:54 UT, 06:09:15 UT, 06:24 UT, 07:09:15 UT. With the projected height and time data sets we have plotted the H-T plot for bubble-like CME and calculated the velocity of the bubble-like CME (*cf.* Figure 12). The calculated velocity is about $620$ $km sec^{-1}$. The calculated acceleration is about $-0.031$ $km sec^{-2}$. We have done the second order fitting on the H-T plot of bubble-like CME to get the value of this negative acceleration.
Discussion and Conclusions
==========================
There are many observational results which deal with the blow-out jet eruption from the active region of the Sun and their different characteristics and triggering mechanisms. Li et al. 2015 observed an active-region blow-out jet which is associated with a CME and a M-class solar flare , where the filament eruption triggers this blow-out jet. Li et al. 2017 observed a blow-out surge in coronal loops where he found that the magnetic reconnection between the erupting filament and the coronal loop is responsible cause for the eruption of blowout surge. Shen et al. 2017 observed an active region blow-out jet with SDO, this jet is associated with the filament eruption and consisted of hot and cool plasma structure, where cool plasma component preceeds further than the hot plasma component. Hong et al. 2017 studied an active region blow-out jet associated with C-class flare and a type-<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span> radio burst, where it is observed that the filament eruption triggers these eruptive events. Li et al. 2018 has recently discovered the Kelvin-Helmholtz Instability (KHI) in an active region penumbral structural blow-out jet in the high-resolution Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph (IRIS) observations.
In the present work, we describe the physical properties, triggering mechanism and kinematics of a quiet-Sun blowout jet which is observed by SDO/AIA in different wavelengths on 2014 May, 16. This blowout jet is initiated by the multi-section eruptions of the circular filament which is at the base of the blowout jet. Based on our observational results, we have also found the generation of the twin CME as jet-like and bubble-like CMEs which are associated with blowout jet eruption.
Here are some concluding points of this observed event in the studied observed baseline.
i\) In the time-intensity profile of the blowout jet it is observed that the cool plasma has the temperature range $\approx 10^{4}$-$10^{5}$ K, which is evolved earlier in the formation of the magnetized plasma spire of the blowout jet. This is due to the multiple filament ejection which further drags blowout jet. This is the unique scenario which shed the light that the formation mechanism of this blowout jet is entirely different from the typical coronal reconnection driven blowout jets. There is the presence of the multi-temperature plasma and the time-lagging behaviour is observed during the evolution period of the blowout jet, which is analogous with the flare eruption. We relate this flare with the network flare (Krucker et al. 1997, Krucker et al. 2000). This flare energy accelerates the blowout jet plasma. The energisation of this network flare is due to the activation of filament segments and its reconnection with the existing overlying fields.
ii\) The time-evolution of the magnetic flux at the northern end of the filament is analyzed which shows the magnetic cancellation signature. The magnetic cancellation destabilizes the filament and further makes it to erupt in different stages.
iii\) The complete evolution of the blowout jet and the filament is observed in AIA 304 Å (at TR temperature), AIA 171 Å (at inner coronal temperature) and in H$\alpha$ (at chromospheric temperature). This eruption goes through the different stages as the circular filament ejects in two stages. Firstly the northern section of the filament lifts up, ejects and drives the northern part of blowout jet. In second stage the southern section of the filament also erupts and forms the rotating plasma spire of the blowout jet, *i.e.* southward part of the blowout jet.
iv\) The plasma blobs are formed at the edge of the northern plasma spire of the blowout jet which are moving along the jet’s spire. These plasma blobs are most likely subjected to the K-H instability, which arises due to the interaction between the sheared motion of the northern part of the blowout jet and the local stationary plasma in the surrounding.
v\) The velocity field is analyzed at the footpoint of the northern part of the blowout jet using Fourier Local Correlation Technique (FLCT). The velocity field shows the clock-wise plasma flows is centered at the blowout jet triggering site, which enables the magnetic twists of similar sign in the whole northern spire of the blowout jet. This enables the sheared plasma motion in the jet’s spire and most likely the evolution of K-H unstable plasma blobs.
vi\) We have done the height-time analysis of the northern side of the blowout jet. The calculated velocity and acceleartion are found to be $325$ $km sec^{-1}$ and $-0.30$ $km sec^{-2}$ respectively.
vii\) The twin CME are observed associated with the blowout jet. The eruption of the northern part of the blowout jet drives the jet-like CME. The outward moving hot plasma on the disk is observed as northern part of the blowout jet and in the outer coronal region it is observed as the jet-like CME. The jet-like CME is the extension of the collimated plasma beam which is generated by the external magnetic reconnection (Shen et al. 2012). The eruption of the southern section of the filament enables the rotating spire of the blowout jet, which further drives the bubble-like CME. These twin CME are observed simultaneously.
viii\) The calculated velocity and acceleration for jet-like and bubble-like CMEs are found to be $619$ $km sec^{-1}$ and $0.35$ $km sec^{-2}$, $620$ $km sec^{-1}$ and $-0.031$ $km sec^{-2}$. respectively
In the observations of the Shen et al. 2012 the double CMEs are less distinguishable but in our case, we can easily distinguish the jet-like and bubble-like CME as these CMEs occur side by side. To the best of our knowledge, our observed event is the third event of the twin CME with blowout jet eruption after the observations of the Shen et al. 2012 and Miao et al. 2018.
{width="10cm"}
{width="8cm"}
{height="8cm"}
{height="8cm"}
{height="15cm" width="18cm"}
{height="15cm" width="18cm"}
{width="15cm"}
{height="11cm" width="9cm"}
{height="16cm"}
{height="13cm" width="13cm"}
{height="14cm" width="12cm"}
{height="12cm" width="11cm"}
{height="15cm" width="18cm"}
{height="14cm" width="17cm"}
{height="14cm" width="12cm"}
{height="12cm" width="11cm"}
{height="14cm" width="12cm"}
{height="12cm" width="11cm"}
AKS acknowledges the joint research grant under the frame-work of UKIERI (UK-India Educative and Research Initiatives). R.S. thanks the Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology (BHU) for providing her Senior Research Fellowship (SRF) and computational facilities. We acknowledge the SDO/AIA, SDO/HMI, SoHO/LASCO, STEREO/SECCHI, GONG H$\alpha$ observations for this work. Authors acknowledge Alphonso Sterling, Navdeep Panesar, T. V. Zaqarashvili for their fruitful discussion at initial stage and suggestions. We thank the anonymous referee for his/her valuable comments and suggestions. We thank Sudheer K. Mishra for his help in using tie-pointing method for the kinematics of the blowout jet and twin CME.
Adams, M., Sterling, A. C., Moore, R. L., & Gary, G. A. 2014, , 783, 11 Alzate, N., & Morgan, H. 2016, , 823, 129 Brueckner, G. E., Howard, R. A., Koomen, M. J., et al. 1995, , 162, 357 Chen, J., Su, J., Yin, Z., et al. 2015, , 815, 71 Chen, P. F. 2011, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 8, 1 Domingo, V., Fleck, B., & Poland, A. I. 1995, , 162, 1 Fisher, G. H., & Welsch, B. T. 2008, Subsurface and Atmospheric Influences on Solar Activity, 383, 373 Freeland, S. L., & Handy, B. N. 1998, , 182, 497 Harvey, J. W., Bolding, J., Clark, R., et al. 2011, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 43, 17. Hong, J., Jiang, Y., Zheng, R., et al. 2011, , 738, L20 Hong, J., Jiang, Y., Yang, J., Li, H., & Xu, Z. 2017, , 835, 35 Howard, R. A., Moses, J. D., Vourlidas, A., et al. 2008, , 136, 67 Hudson, H. S. 2000, , 531, L75 Inhester, B. 2006, arXiv:astro-ph/0612649 Jiang, Y. C., Chen, H. D., Li, K. J., Shen, Y. D., & Yang, L. H. 2007, , 469, 331 Kayshap, P., Srivastava, A. K., & Murawski, K. 2013, , 763, 24 Kayshap, P., Srivastava, A. K., Murawski, K., & Tripathi, D. 2013, , 770, L3 Krucker, S., & Benz, A. O. 2000, , 191, 341 Krucker, S., Benz, A. O., Bastian, T. S., & Acton, L. W. 1997, , 488, 499 Lemen, J. R., Title, A. M., Akin, D. J., et al. 2012, , 275, 17 Li, H., Jiang, Y., Yang, J., et al. 2017, , 842, L20 Li, X., Yang, S., Chen, H., Li, T., & Zhang, J. 2015, , 814, L13 Li, X., Zhang, J., Yang, S., Hou, Y., & Erd[é]{}lyi, R. 2018, Scientific Reports, 8, 8136 Liu, J., Wang, Y., Shen, C., et al. 2015, , 813, 115 Liu, R., Wang, H., & Alexander, D. 2009, , 696, 121 Liu, Y. 2008, , 249, 75 Miao, Y., Liu, Y., Li, H. B., et al. 2018, , 869, 39 Moore, R. L., Cirtain, J. W., Sterling, A. C., & Falconer, D. A. 2010, , 720, 757 Moore, R. L., Sterling, A. C., Falconer, D. A., & Robe, D. 2013, , 769, 134 Morgan, H., & Druckm[ü]{}ller, M. 2014, , 289, 2945 Murawski, K., Srivastava, A. K., & Zaqarashvili, T. V. 2011, , 535, A58 Ni, L., Zhang, Q.-M., Murphy, N. A., & Lin, J. 2017, , 841, 27 Nishizuka, N., Shimizu, M., Nakamura, T., et al. 2008, , 683, L83 Nistic[ò]{}, G., Bothmer, V., Patsourakos, S., & Zimbardo, G. 2009, , 259, 87 Panesar, N. K., Sterling, A. C., Moore, R. L., & Chakrapani, P. 2016, , 832, L7 Pariat, E., Antiochos, S. K., & DeVore, C. R. 2009, , 691, 61 Pesnell, W. D., Thompson, B. J., & Chamberlin, P. C. 2012, , 275, 3 Pucci, S., Poletto, G., Sterling, A. C., & Romoli, M. 2013, , 776, 16 Raouafi, N. E., Patsourakos, S., Pariat, E., et al. 2016, , 201, 1 Scherrer, P. H., Schou, J., Bush, R. I., et al. 2012, , 275, 2 Shen, Y., Liu, Y., & Su, J. 2012, , 750, 12 Shen, Y., Liu, Y., Su, J., & Ibrahim, A. 2011, , 735, L43 Shen, Y., Liu, Y., Su, J., & Deng, Y. 2012, , 745, 164 Shen, Y., Liu, Y. D., Su, J., Qu, Z., & Tian, Z. 2017, , 851, 67 Shen, Y., Tang, Z., Li, H., & Liu, Y. 2018, , 480, L63 Shen, Y., Tang, Z., Miao, Y., Su, J., & Liu, Y. 2018, , 860, L8 Shen, Y., Liu, Y., Liu, Y. D., et al. 2018, , 861, 105 Shibata, K., Nishikawa, T., Kitai, R., & Suematsu, Y. 1982, , 77, 121 Shibata, K., Ishido, Y., Acton, L. W., et al. 1992, , 44, L173 Shibata, K., Nitta, N., Strong, K. T., et al. 1994, , 431, L51 Shibata, K., Nakamura, T., Matsumoto, T., et al. 2007, Science, 318, 1591 Shimojo, M., Shibata, K., & Harvey, K. L. 1998, , 178, 379 Shimojo, M., Hashimoto, S., Shibata, K., et al. 1996, , 48, 123 Solanki, R., Srivastava, A. K., & Dwivedi, B. N. 2018, , 363, 233 Srivastava, A. K., & Murawski, K. 2011, , 534, A62 Sterling, A. C., Moore, R. L., Falconer, D. A., & Adams, M. 2015, , 523, 437 Tian, Z., Liu, Y., Shen, Y., et al. 2017, , 845, 94 Uddin, W., Schmieder, B., Chandra, R., et al. 2012, , 752, 70 Wang, Y.-M., Sheeley, N. R., Jr., Socker, D. G., et al. 1998, , 508, 899 Wuelser, J.-P., Lemen, J. R., Tarbell, T. D., et al. 2004, , 5171, 111 Yokoyama, T., & Shibata, K. 1995, , 375, 42 Zhelyazkov, I., & Chandra, R. 2018, , 478, 5505 Zhelyazkov, I., Zaqarashvili, T. V., Ofman, L., & Chandra, R. 2018, Advances in Space Research, 61, 628 Zhu, X., Wang, H., Cheng, X., & Huang, C. 2017, , 844, L20
[^1]: <http://jsoc.stanford.edu.>
[^2]: <https://gong.nso.edu/.>
[^3]: <http://cdaw.gsfc.nasa.gov/CME_list.>
[^4]: <https://www.ukssdc.ac.uk/solar/stereo/data.html.>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
We use Monte Carlo techniques to simulate the ability of future large high-redshift galaxy surveys to measure the temporal evolution of the dark energy equation-of-state $w(z)$, using the baryonic acoustic oscillations in the clustering power spectrum as a ‘standard ruler’. Our analysis only utilizes the oscillatory component of the power spectrum and not its overall shape, which is potentially susceptible to broadband tilts induced by a host of model-dependent systematic effects. Our results are therefore robust and conservative. We show that baryon oscillation constraints can be thought of, to high accuracy, as a direct probe of the distance — redshift and expansion rate — redshift relations where distances are measured in units of the sound horizon. Distance precisions of 1% are obtainable for a fiducial redshift survey covering $10{,}000$ deg$^2$ and redshift range $0.5 < z < 3.5$. If the dark energy is further characterized by $w(z) = w_0 + w_1 z$ (with a cut-off in the evolving term at $z = 2$), we can then measure the parameters $w_0$ and $w_1$ with a precision exceeding current knowledge by a factor of ten: $1\sigma$ accuracies $\Delta w_0 \approx 0.03$ and $\Delta w_1
\approx 0.06$ are obtainable (assuming a flat universe and that the other cosmological parameters $\Omega_{\rm m}$ and $h$ could be measured independently to a precision of $\pm 0.01$ by combinations of future CMB and other experiments). We quantify how this performance degrades with redshift/areal coverage and knowledge of $\Omega_{\rm m}$ and $h$, and discuss realistic observational prospects for such large-scale spectroscopic redshift surveys, with a variety of diverse techniques. We also quantify how large photometric redshift imaging surveys could be utilized to produce measurements of $(w_0,w_1)$ with the baryonic oscillation method which may be competitive in the short term.
author:
- Karl Glazebrook
- Chris Blake
title: Measuring the cosmic evolution of dark energy with baryonic oscillations in the galaxy power spectrum
---
Introduction
============
In the current standard cosmological model, baryonic matter and cold dark matter together contribute only about a third of the total energy density of the Universe. One of the most important puzzles in cosmology is to account for the remaining two-thirds of the energy, which is required to render the Universe approximately spatially flat, as demanded by recent observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background [CMB; @deBer00].
The existing set of cosmological data – consisting principally of measurements of the CMB, of the local clustering of galaxies, and of distant supernovae – can be understood by invoking the existence of the ‘cosmological constant’ $\Lambda$ originally envisaged by Einstein, such that it contributes a present-day fractional energy density $\Omega_\Lambda = 0.73 \pm 0.04$ [@Sper03]. The remarkable consequence of this model is that $\Lambda$ acts as a ‘repulsive gravity’, driving the rate of cosmic expansion into a phase of acceleration. Equally surprisingly, this acceleration has been observed reasonably directly by an apparent dimming of distant supernovae [@Riess98; @Perl99].
The cosmological constant component is naturally attributed to the inherent energy density of the vacuum. However, the ‘expected’ quantum-mechanical Planck energy density is larger than that required to account for the accelerating rate of cosmic expansion by an exceptionally large dimensionless factor of order $c^5\, G^{-1} \hbar^{-1} H_0^{-2}$ $\sim 10^{122}$. This profound difficulty has motivated the development of alternative models for the ‘dark energy’ – i.e. the causative agent of accelerating expansion. Many of these models, such as ‘quintessence’ [@RP88], feature a [*dynamic*]{} component of dark energy whose properties evolve with time (e.g. a rolling scalar field $\phi$). These predictions are commonly characterized in terms of the dark energy equation-of-state $w(z) = P/\rho$, relating its pressure $P$ to its energy density $\rho$ (in units where the speed-of-light $c = 1$). For the cosmological constant model, $w(z) = -1$ at all epochs.
These competing models for the dark energy are essentially untested, because the current cosmological dataset is not adequate for delineating variations in the function $w(z)$ with redshift, which is the essential requirement for distinguishing quintessential cosmologies from a cosmological constant. New experiments are demanded, which must be able to recover the characteristics of dark energy with unprecedented precision, including any cosmic evolution. The study of the nature of dark energy is the current frontier of observational cosmology, and has been widely identified as having profound importance for physics as a whole [@QuarkCosmos].
Given the fundamental importance of accelerating cosmic expansion and the possibility of confounding systematic effects in the supernova data, other precision probes of the dark energy model are clearly desirable. In [@BG03], hereafter Paper I, we suggested that the small-amplitude ‘baryonic oscillations’, which should be present in the power spectrum of the galaxy distribution on large scales ($\gtrsim 30$ Mpc), could be used as a ‘standard cosmological ruler’ to measure the properties of dark energy as a function of cosmic epoch, provided that a sufficiently-large high-redshift ($z \ga 1$) galaxy survey was available [see also @SE03; @Linder03; @HH03]. The characteristic sinusoidal ruler scale encoded by the baryonic oscillations is the sound horizon at recombination, denoted $s$. This length scale is set by straight-forward linear physics in the early Universe and its value is determined principally by the physical matter density ($\rho_m \propto \Omega_m
h^2$). The cosmological uncertainty in this parameter combination is ameliorated by an advantageous cancellation of pre-factors of $\Omega_m
h^2$ in the ratio of low-redshift distances to $s$ (see Paper I). The residual dependence of $s$ on $\Omega_m$ and other cosmological parameters is small [@EW04], rendering observations of the acoustic oscillations a powerful geometric probe of the cosmological model.
This acoustic signature has recently been identified at low redshift in the distribution of Luminous Red Galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey [@Dan05] [see also @Cole05]. Although these data are insufficient for precise measurements of the dark energy, this analysis represents a striking validation of the technique. The challenge now is to create larger and deeper surveys. In Paper I we demonstrated that, given a galaxy redshift survey at $z \sim 1$ mapping a total cosmic volume several times greater than that of the Sloan main spectroscopic survey in the local Universe (we define $V_{\rm Sloan} \equiv 2 \times 10^8 \,
h^{-3}$ Mpc$^3$), the equation-of-state of the dark energy could be recovered to a precision $\Delta w \approx 0.1$ (assuming a model in which $w$ is constant). The precision of this experiment scales with cosmic volume $V$ in a predictable manner (roughly in accordance with $1/\sqrt{V}$) and it is not unfeasible to imagine an ultimate ‘all-sky’ high-redshift spectroscopic survey within $\sim 20$ years.
We believe that this standard ruler technique would powerfully complement proposed future supernova searches such as the SNAP project [e.g. @Ald02 [http://snap.lbl.gov]{}] permitting, for example, direct tests of the ‘reciprocity relation’ which predicts that the true luminosity distance $d_L(z)$ (measured by a standard candle) is exactly the same as the angular diameter distance $d_A(z)$ (measured by a standard ruler), up to a factor of $(1+z)^2$ [@BK04]. Furthermore, we argue that it is [*not yet conclusively proven*]{} that the dimming of supernovae caused by cosmic acceleration can be distinguished with sufficient accuracy from other possible systematic effects, such as changes in the intrinsic properties of supernovae with galactic environment (e.g.metallicity), dust extinction effects, population drift and the difficulties of sub-percent-level photometric calibration (including K-corrections) across wide wavelength ranges. It is therefore important to pursue alternative precise high-redshift probes of the cosmological model. A particular advantage of the baryonic oscillations method is that it is probably free of major systematic errors, assuming that galaxy biasing on large scales is not pathological.
In Paper I we developed a Monte Carlo, semi-empirical approach to transforming synthetic galaxy redshift surveys into constraints on the value of $w$. This contrasts with, and complements, other analytical approaches to the problem such as those using Fisher-Information techniques [e.g. @SE03; @HH03]. In this present study we extend and refine our methodology to the more general case where we allow the equation-of-state of dark energy to have a dependence on redshift, $w(z) =
w_0 + w_1 z$, and we recover joint constraints upon $(w_0,w_1)$. Furthermore, we apply the standard ruler independently to the radial and tangential components of the power spectrum, which has the effect of producing separate measurements of the co-moving angular-diameter distance to the effective redshift of each survey slice, $x(z)$, and the rate of change of this quantity with redshift, $x'(z) \equiv dx/dz$. We note for clarity that in a flat Universe: $$x(z) = D_A(z) (1+z)$$ $$x'(z) = c/H(z)$$ where $D_A$ is the physical angular diameter distance and $H(z)$ is the Hubble factor (Universal expansion rate) at redshift $z$. We also examine in more detail the effect of uncertainties in cosmological parameters such as the matter density and the Hubble parameter. In addition, we present an in-depth discussion of the observational requirements and prospects for realistic surveys, based upon both spectroscopic redshifts and photometric redshifts.
The plan of this paper is as follows: in Section \[secmeth\] we give a very detailed description of our methodology, greatly expanding on Paper I, and the approximations we made to allow us to simulate a range of large surveys, and in Section \[secdetect\] we quantify the size of redshift survey required to detect the oscillatory component of the power spectrum. The recovered constraints on $(w_0, w_1)$ for various simulated surveys are presented in Section \[secmeas\] for spectroscopic surveys and in Section \[secphoto\] for photometric-redshift surveys. Finally, in an Appendix we present the results of a very large computation designed to test the effects of our approximations.
Monte Carlo Methodology {#secmeth}
=======================
Our methodology for simulating future galaxy redshift surveys and assessing their efficacy for measuring acoustic oscillations was summarized in Paper I. In this Section we provide a more detailed account of our procedures. In addition, we have implemented various extensions to the methodology of Paper I:
1. We now fit separate acoustic oscillation scales in the tangential and radial directions. In Paper I we fitted to the angle-averaged power spectrum, effectively assuming that the shift in the apparent radial and transverse scales as the cosmology was perturbed about the fiducial value were the same. This is only approximately true for $z\sim 1$ and breaks down at low and high redshift (see Figure 5 of Paper I). In the new approach we make use of the different redshift dependencies of radial and transverse scales to provide extra cosmological constraints increasing signal:noise. Specifically, the tangential scale is controlled by the co-moving distance to the effective redshift of the survey, $x(z)$, and the radial scale is determined by the rate of change of this quantity with redshift, $x'(z) \equiv dx/dz = c/H(z)$, where $H(z)$ is the Hubble constant measured by an observer at redshift $z$. This is useful because $H(z)$ is directly sensitive to the dark energy density at the redshift in question.
2. We allow the equation-of-state of dark energy $w(z)$ to have a dependence on redshift, $w(z) = w_0 + w_1 z$, and we recover joint constraints upon $(w_0,w_1)$. We do not claim that this expression faithfully describes dark energy in the real Universe. In particular, models with $w_1 > 0$ become unphysical at high redshift unless we impose a cut-off for the evolving term: we assume that $w(z > z_{\rm cut}) = w_0 + w_1 z_{\rm cut}$ where $z_{\rm cut} =
2$, and we ensure that matter dominates at high redshift, i.e. $w_1
\le (-w_0)/z_{\rm cut}$. However, usage of the equation $w(z) = w_0
+ w_1 z$ facilitates comparison with other work such as [@SE03] who use the same parameterization, empirically describes a range of dark energy models [@WA02], and permits a first disproof of the cosmological constant scenario, if $w_1 \ne 0$ and/or $w_0 \ne -1$. We note that the alternative parameterization $w(z) = w_0 + w_a
(1-a)$, where $a=(1+z)^{-1}$ is the usual cosmological scale factor, encodes a more physically reasonable behaviour at high redshift [@Linder02]. In this paper we compute $(w_0,w_a)$ constraints for one case.
3. We place Gaussian priors upon the other relevant cosmological parameters, the matter density $\Omega_{\rm m}$ and the Hubble parameter $h = H(z=0)/(100$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1})$, rather than assuming that their values are known precisely.
Method Summary {#secsumm}
--------------
As described in Paper I, the philosophy of our analysis is to maintain maximum independence from models. When measuring the acoustic oscillations from simulated data, we divide out the overall shape of the power spectrum via a smooth ‘reference spectrum’. We then fit a simple empirically-motivated decaying sinusoid to the remaining oscillatory signal. Hence we do not utilize any information encoded by the shape of the power spectrum. This shape may be subject to smooth broad-band systematic tilts induced by such effects as complex galaxy biasing schemes, quasi-linear growth of structure, a running primordial spectral index, and redshift-space distortions. However, it would be very surprising if any of these phenomena introduced [ *oscillatory*]{} features in $k$-space liable to obscure the distinctive acoustic peaks and troughs. We note that any model where the probability of a galaxy forming depends only on the local density field leads to linear bias on large scales [@Coles93; @SW98]. Furthermore, linear biassing is observed to be a very good approximation on large scales [e.g. @PeaDod; @Cole05]. This is in agreement with numerical simulations of galaxy formation which show that galaxies and/or massive haloes faithfully reproduce the acoustic oscillations [@Spr05; @Ang05].
Of course, a full power spectrum template should be fitted to real data as well: our aim here is to derive robust, conservative lower limits to the efficacy of baryon oscillations experiments, using only the information contained in the oscillations.
An important point is that the fractional error in the measured galaxy power spectrum, $\sigma_P/P$, after division by a smooth overall fit, is independent of the absolute value of $P(k)$ if the error budget is dominated by cosmic variance rather than by shot noise. In this sense, an incorrect choice of the underlying model power spectrum in our simulations does not seriously affect the results presented here. Having secured a detection of the acoustic signature, if one is then prepared to model the underlying power spectrum – correcting for such systematic effects as non-linear gravitational collapse, redshift-space distortions and halo bias – then more accurate constraints on cosmological parameters would follow [see @Dan05].
In summary (see Section \[secsteps\] for a more detailed account): we generate a model matter power spectrum in the linear regime using the fitting formulae of [@EH98], assuming a primordial spectral index $n =
1$ (as suggested by inflationary models) and fiducial cosmological parameters $\Omega_{\rm m} = 0.3$, $h = 0.7$ and baryon fraction $\Omega_{\rm b}/\Omega_{\rm m} = 0.15$, broadly consistent with the latest determinations [e.g. @Sper03]. In Paper I we showed that the cosmological constraints are fairly insensitive to the exact value of $\Omega_{\rm b}/\Omega_{\rm m}$ (Figures 7–8 in Paper I; increasing $\Omega_{\rm b}$ results in a somewhat higher baryonic oscillation amplitude, hence a more precise measure of the standard ruler). We assume that the shape of $P(k)$ does not depend on the dark energy component, and take the $z = 0$ normalization $\sigma_8 = 1$. The model $P(k)$ is then used to generate Monte Carlo realizations of a galaxy survey covering a given geometry, deriving redshifts and angular co-ordinates for the galaxies using a fiducial flat cosmological constant model. The realizations are then analyzed for a grid of assumed dark energy models. $P(k)$ is measured using a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) up to a maximum value of $k$ determined by a conservative estimate of the extent of the linear regime at the redshift in question (see Paper I, Figure 1). The measured power spectrum is fitted with a decaying sinusoid with the ‘wavelength’ as a free parameter. By comparing the fiducial wavescale (determined using the values of $\Omega_{\rm m} h^2$ and $\Omega_{\rm b}
h^2$ in conjunction with a standard fitting formula, e.g. [@EB99]) with the distribution of fitted wavescales across the Monte Carlo realizations, we can reject each assumed dark energy model with a derivable level of significance. We assume a flat universe (in Section \[secmethlik\], Figure \[figcurvgen\] below we indicate how our dark energy measurements weaken with declining knowledge of $\Omega_{\rm k}$).
Throughout this paper we ensure that our model galaxy surveys contain sufficient objects that the contribution of shot noise to the error in the power spectrum is sub-dominant to that of cosmic variance. In an analytical treatment [e.g. @Teggers97], the relative contributions of shot noise and cosmic variance can be conveniently expressed in terms of the quantity $n \times P$, where $n$ is the typical number density of galaxies in the survey volume and $P$ is the galaxy power spectrum evaluated at some typical scale measured by the survey. Analytically, the errors due to shot noise and to cosmic variance are equal when $n \times P
= 1$. For the simulations described in this paper, we uniformly populated the survey volume with sufficient galaxies that $n \times P = 3$, where $P$ is evaluated at a characteristic scale $k = 0.2 \, h$ Mpc$^{-1}$. The surface density of galaxies required to achieve this condition is illustrated in Figure \[fignp\].
Detailed fitting methodology {#secsteps}
----------------------------
Here we outline the Monte-Carlo approach we have implemented in our code. In fact for most of our analysis we utilized a simple approximation as explained in Section \[secstream\]: to be specific we omitted steps 8 and 9 below, which are very expensive in computational resources (we test this approximation in the Appendix).
1. A fiducial cosmology is chosen for the simulation: for example $(\Omega_{\rm m},h,w_0,w_1) = (0.3,0.7,-1,0)$. A fiducial baryon fraction is selected ($\Omega_{\rm b}/\Omega_{\rm m} = 0.15$).
2. A survey redshift range $(z_{\rm min},z_{\rm max})$ and solid angle is specified: for example $1.0 < z < 1.3$ and $1000$ deg$^2$. The survey sky geometry is assumed to be bounded by lines of constant right ascension and declination of equal angular lengths. The three-dimensional geometry is therefore ‘conical’ and the convolving effect of this window function is included.
3. Using the fiducial cosmology, a cuboid for FFTs is constructed whose sides $(L_x, L_y, L_z)$ are just sufficient to bound the survey volume. Note, only the enclosed cone is populated by galaxies in order that the window function effect is treated properly.
4. A model matter power spectrum $P_{\rm mass}(k,z=0)$ is computed for the chosen parameters $(\Omega_{\rm m},\Omega_{\rm b},h)$ from the fitting formula [@EH98], assuming a $z=0$ normalization $\sigma_8 = 1$ and a primordial power-law slope $n=1$. The survey slice is assumed to have an ‘effective’ redshift $z_{\rm eff} =
(z_{\rm min} + z_{\rm max})/2$. The power spectrum is scaled to this redshift using the linear growth factor $D_1(z)$, obtained by solving the full second-order differential equation [see e.g. @LinJen] to enable us to treat non-$\Lambda$CDM cosmologies: $$P_{\rm gal}(k,z_{\rm eff}) = P_{\rm mass}(k,0) \, D_1(z_{\rm eff})^2
\, b^2$$ where we use a constant linear bias factor $b$ for the clustering of galaxies with respect to matter. The value $b=1$ is assumed for our surveys, unless otherwise stated.
5. A set of Monte Carlo realizations (numbering 400 for all simulations presented here) is then performed to generate many different galaxy distributions consistent with $P_{\rm gal}(k)$, as described in steps 6 and 7.
6. A cuboid of Fourier coefficients is constructed with grid lines set by $dk_i = 2\pi/L_i$, with a Gaussian distribution of amplitudes determined from $P_{\rm gal}(k)$, and with randomized phases. The gridding is sufficiently fine that the Nyquist frequencies in all directions are significantly greater than the smallest scale for which a power spectrum is extracted (i.e. the linear/non-linear transition scale at the redshift $z_{\rm eff}$).
7. The Fourier cuboid is FFTed to determine the density field in the real-space box. This density field is then Poisson sampled within the survey ‘cone’ to determine the number of galaxies in each grid cell.
8. Using the fiducial cosmological parameters, this distribution is converted into a simulated catalogue of galaxies with redshifts and angular positions, for each Monte Carlo realization.
9. We now assume a trial cosmology: for example $(\Omega_{\rm
m},h,w_0,w_1) = (0.3,0.7,-0.9,0)$. The co-moving co-ordinates of the galaxies are computed in the trial cosmology as would be done by an observer without knowledge of the true cosmology.
10. The power spectrum of the simulated survey for the trial cosmology is measured using standard estimation tools [@FKP94]. Power spectrum modes in Fourier space are divided into bins of $(k_{\rm perp},k_{\rm par})$ where, if the $x$-axis is the radial direction, $k_{\rm par} = k_x$ and $k_{\rm perp}^2 = k_y^2 + k_z^2$.
11. An error bar is assigned to each power spectrum bin using the variance measured over the Monte Carlo realizations. Note that the distribution of realizations also encodes any covariances between different power spectrum bins, although the scale of correlations in $k$-space is expected to be very small (compared to the separation of the acoustic peaks) for the very large survey volumes considered here.
12. The measured $P(k_{\rm perp},k_{\rm par})$ is divided by a smooth ‘reference spectrum’ following Paper I [i.e. the ‘no-wiggles’ spectrum of @EH98], and the result is fitted with a simple empirical formula, modified from Paper I to permit separate fitting of the sinusoidal scale in the radial and tangential directions: $$\begin{aligned}
&\,& \frac{P(k_{\rm perp},k_{\rm par})}{P_{\rm ref}} = 1 + \nonumber
\\ &\,& \hspace{-1cm} A \, k \, \exp{ \left[ - \left( \frac{k}{0.1 \,
h \, {\rm Mpc}^{-1}} \right)^{1.4} \right] } \times \nonumber \\ &\,&
\hspace{-1cm} \sin{ \left( 2 \pi \sqrt{ \left( \frac{k_{\rm
perp}}{\lambda_{\rm perp}} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{k_{\rm
par}}{\lambda_{\rm par}} \right)^2 } \right) }\end{aligned}$$ where $k^2 = k_{\rm perp}^2 + k_{\rm par}^2$. The free parameters are then the tangential and radial sinusoidal wavescales $(\lambda_{\rm
perp},\lambda_{\rm par})$ together with the overall amplitude $A$.
We can now assign a probability to the trial cosmology. The Monte Carlo realizations produce a distribution of fitted wavescales $\lambda_{\rm
perp}$ and $\lambda_{\rm par}$ (Figure \[figlamfit\]) for the trial cosmology. Using these trial cosmological parameters, we can determine the length of the characteristic ruler $\lambda_{\rm theory}$ using a standard fitting formula for the sound horizon integral (Equation 1, Paper 1) in terms of $\Omega_{\rm m}$, $\Omega_{\rm b}$ and $h$ [@EB99]. (We remind the reader that $\lambda_{\rm theory}$ is set in the early Universe and is insensitive to dark energy parameters.) The location of the value of $\lambda_{\rm theory}$ in the distribution of tangential (radial) wavescales over the Monte Carlo realizations allows us to assign a probability for the trial cosmological parameters. For example: if $\lambda_{\rm theory}$ lies at the $16^{\rm th}$ percentile of the distribution, the rejection probability is $2 \times (50-16) = 68\%$. Note that the simulated observer does not need to know the fiducial cosmological parameters (including the dark energy model) to perform this analysis with real data.
The streamlined approach {#secstream}
------------------------
The full methodology outlined above is too computationally intensive for the exploration of a full grid of trial cosmological parameters $(\Omega_{\rm m},h,w_0,w_1)$. In practice we pursue a streamlined approach that adopts some simple approximations. In the Appendix we use a test case to demonstrate that the results are equivalent to the utilization of the full methodology.
In our streamlined approach, we exploit the fact that the accuracy of measurement of $\lambda_{\rm perp}$ is a very good approximation of the precision with which we can recover the quantity $x(z_{\rm eff})/s$, where $x(z_{\rm eff})$ is the co-moving radial distance to the effective redshift of the survey and $s$ is the value of the sound horizon at recombination. This is because (in the flat-sky approximation) the value of $x$ controls physical tangential scales in the slice (as displacements $\Delta r$ are governed by $\Delta r = x \times \Delta \theta$). Similarly, the accuracy of measurement of $\lambda_{\rm par}$ is equivalent to that of $x'(z_{\rm eff})/s$, where $x'(z) \equiv dx/dz =
c/H(z)$ (since $\Delta r = x' \times \Delta z$). The value of $s$ appears in the denominators because a systematic shift in the standard ruler scale implies a similar variation in the recovered physical scales $x$ and $dx/dz$: cosmic distances are measured in units of the sound horizon at recombination (equivalently, we may think of this measuring rod as the distance to the CMB: $s = D_{\rm CMB} \times \theta_A$, where $\theta_A$ is the angular scale separating the CMB acoustic peaks).
Therefore, rather than re-constructing the galaxy distribution using a trial cosmology, we instead fitted wavelengths $\lambda_{\rm perp}$ and $\lambda_{\rm par}$ directly in the fiducial cosmology (i.e. omitting steps 8 and 9 above). The $68\%$ scatter in these fits across the Monte Carlo realizations was assigned as a $1\sigma$ Gaussian error in the values of $x(z_{\rm eff})/s$ and $x'(z_{\rm eff})/s$, respectively. The likelihood contours for the trial cosmological parameters were then deduced using standard expressions for $dx/dz$ and $x$ in terms of $(\Omega_{\rm m},h,w_0,w_1)$ and a fitting formula for $s$ in terms of $(\Omega_{\rm m},\Omega_{\rm b},h)$ (see Section \[secmethlik\]).
This streamlined approach assumes that:
1. The scatter in fitted wavelengths is independent of the values of the cosmological parameters. In detail, changing the cosmological parameters will alter the cosmic volume surveyed between $z_{\rm min}$ and $z_{\rm max}$, and therefore the errors in the recovered power spectrum in any bin (and hence the accuracy with which the sinusoidal scale may be determined). However, these variations can be neglected for small perturbations about a fiducial cosmology.
2. The values of $[x(z_{\rm eff}),x'(z_{\rm eff})]$ control tangential and radial scales, respectively. This statement is exact for a flat sky, and holds approximately for the conical geometry assumed here (if the survey solid angle is not too large).
These approximations are tested in the Appendix.
Likelihoods for dark energy models {#secmethlik}
----------------------------------
The procedure thus far has permitted us to recover values and statistical errors for the quantities $x(z_{\rm eff})/s$ and $x'(z_{\rm eff})/s$ for each survey redshift bin. These measurements are statistically independent to a good approximation (this is evidenced by the distribution of fitted wavelengths in Figure \[figlamfit\] being close to an ellipse aligned parallel with the axes, displaying only a weak tilt). Figure \[figxdx\] illustrates the simulated recovery of $x(z)/s$ and $x'(z)/s$ for some Monte Carlo realizations of a $1000$ deg$^2$ survey, in redshift slices of width $\Delta z = 0.5$ from $z = 0.5$ to $z = 3.5$. Results for the accuracy of recovery of $x(z)/s$ and $x'(z)/s$ in these redshift slices are listed in Table \[tabxdx\].
----------------------------- ----------- ------------- -------------- ---------------
Survey Area $z$-bin Accuracy Accuracy
(deg$^2$) $x/s$ ($\%$) $x'/s$ ($\%$)
spec-$z$ 1000 $0.5 - 1.0$ 2.7 3.8
$1.0 - 1.5$ 1.4 2.1
$1.5 - 2.0$ 1.2 2.0
$2.0 - 2.5$ 1.0 1.9
$2.5 - 3.0$ 1.2 2.0
$3.0 - 3.5$ 1.1 1.9
spec-$z$ 10000 $0.5 - 0.7$ 1.7 2.7
$0.7 - 0.9$ 1.1 2.0
$0.9 - 1.1$ 1.0 1.5
$1.1 - 1.3$ 0.7 1.4
$1.3 - 1.5$ 0.6 1.2
KAOS 1000 $0.5 - 1.3$ 1.6 2.6
400 $2.5 - 3.5$ 1.2 2.3
photo-$z$ $\sigma_0 = 0.03$ 2000 $0.5 - 1.5$ 2.3 –
$1.5 - 2.5$ 1.4 –
$2.5 - 3.5$ 1.3 –
----------------------------- ----------- ------------- -------------- ---------------
We parameterize the dark energy model using an equation-of-state $w(z) =
w_0 + w_1 z$. The accuracies of $x(z)/s$ and $x'(z)/s$ are then used to infer joint constraints over a grid of $(w_0,w_1)$, using the standard formulae for $x'(z) = c/H(z)$ and $x(z) = \int_0^z x'(z') \, dz'$, where the Hubble constant $H(z)$ at redshift $z$ is a function of $(\Omega_{\rm
m},h,w_0,w_1)$. For the sound horizon $s$ we used the formulae of Efstathiou & Bond (1999, equations 18-20) in terms of $(\Omega_{\rm
m},\Omega_{\rm b},h)$ so we effectively assume that the effect of dark energy at early times is insignificant. We explore a range of uncertainties for these quantities below. For each grid point in the $(w_0,w_1)$ plane we derive a likelihood for each redshift slice by marginalizing over Gaussian priors for $\Omega_{\rm m} $ and $\Omega_{\rm
m} h^2$ (the natural variables – see below) centered upon $\Omega_{\rm m}
= 0.3$ and $h = 0.7$. The sound horizon is only weakly dependent on $\Omega_{\rm b}$, therefore we simply fixed the value $\Omega_{\rm b} h^2
= 0.022$ (we checked that the likelihood contours remained unchanged for reasonable variations in $\Omega_{\rm b} h^2$). The overall $(68\%,95\%)$ likelihood contours were then determined by multiplying together the individual likelihoods inferred from the measurements of $x(z)/s$ and $x'(z)/s$ for each redshift slice.
Figure \[figw0w1gen\] displays the resulting $(w_0,w_1)$ contours for a $10{,}000$ deg$^2$ survey. A further approximation has been used to generate this plot (also tested in the Appendix): that the accuracies of the fitted wavelengths determined for the $1000$ deg$^2$ simulation (Figure \[figxdx\]) may be scaled by a factor $\sqrt{10}$. This is simply equivalent to sub-dividing the $10{,}000$ deg$^2$ survey into $10$ separate independently-analyzed pieces. If we do not make this additional approximation, unfeasibly large Fourier transforms are required to handle the size of the survey cuboid. Furthermore, the statistical independence of $x(z_{\rm eff})$ and $x'(z_{\rm eff})$ in a given redshift slice becomes weaker, as this independence rests upon the flat-sky approximation.
We note that:
1. There is a significant degeneracy in each redshift slice between $w_0$ and $w_1$, because approximately the same cosmology is produced if $w_0$ becomes more negative and $w_1$ becomes more positive. The axis of degeneracy is a slow function of redshift, which improves this situation somewhat as we combine different redshift slices.
2. As redshift increases, the radial oscillations provide decreasingly powerful constraints upon the dark energy model, because $H(z)$ becomes independent of $(w_0,w_1)$. This conclusion is valid if we are perturbing about the cosmological constant model $(-1,0)$, but will not be true in general for models with $w_1 \ne
0$ for which dark energy may affect dynamics at higher redshift.
3. The tightness of the likelihood contours in the $(w_0,w_1)$ plane depends significantly upon the fiducial dark energy model (see Figure \[figfid\]). As $w_0$ and $w_1$ become more positive, dark energy grows more influential at higher redshifts and the simulated surveys constrain the dark energy parameters more accurately, despite the fact that the surveyed cosmic volume is decreasing.
When generating Figure \[figw0w1gen\], we assume that the values of $\Omega_{\rm m}$ ($=0.3$) and $h$ ($=0.7$) are known perfectly. Although there is some useful cancellation between the trends of the distance scale $x(z)$ and the standard ruler scale $s$ with the value of $\Omega_{\rm m}
h^2$, there is nevertheless some residual dependence of the experimental performance on the accuracy of our knowledge of both $\Omega_{\rm m}$ and $h$, independently.
In this paper we choose not to combine our results with cosmological priors from specific proposed experiments (as could be achieved by combining Fisher matrix information, for example). We prefer to keep our presentation in general terms by marginalizing over different priors for $\Omega_{\rm m}$ and $h$. We recognize that this approach will not capture all the parameter degeneracies inherent in future CMB, large-scale structure or supernova surveys, but nevertheless we can robustly quantify the accuracy of knowledge required for these other cosmological parameters such that their uncertainities do not dominate the resulting error in dark energy parameters. Combinations with any specific future experiment can be achieved by using our results listed in Table \[tabxdx\] which represent the fundamental observables recovered by this method: $x(z)$ and $x'(z)$ in units of the sound horizon.
In general terms, one degree of freedom in other parameters is constrained by the excellent measurement of the physical matter density $\Omega_{\rm
m} h^2$ afforded by the CMB angular power spectrum: accuracies of about $3\%$ ($\sigma(\Omega_{\rm m} h^2) \approx 0.004$) and $1\%$ ($\sigma(\Omega_{\rm m} h^2) \approx 0.001$) are possible with the WMAP and Planck satellites, respectively [@Balbi03]. However, a second independent constraint on a combination of $\Omega_{\rm m}$ and $h$ is also required.
This is illustrated by Figure \[figpriorsgen\], in which we re-compute the overall likelihoods in the $(w_0,w_1)$ plane, marginalizing over the WMAP and Planck errors in $\Omega_{\rm m} h^2$ together with a second independent Gaussian prior on $\Omega_{\rm m}$. We conclude that for a survey of $10{,}000$ deg$^2$, $\Omega_{\rm m}$ must be known with an accuracy $\sigma(\Omega_{\rm m}) \simeq 0.01$ (in conjunction with the WMAP or Planck determination of $\Omega_{\rm m} h^2$) in order that this uncertainty is not limiting. Note that as the cosmic volume surveyed increases, the prior requirements of knowledge of $\Omega_{\rm m}$ become more stringent. For a $1000$ deg$^2$ experiment, only $\sigma(\Omega_{\rm
m}) \la 0.03$ is required (see Figure \[figpriorskaos\]).
Large-scale structure and/or supernovae constraints together with the first-year WMAP CMB data currently deliver $\sigma(\Omega_{\rm m}) \approx
0.02$–0.04 assuming a flat Universe [e.g. @Sper03; @Teggers04; @Cole05]. [@Balbi03] quote $\sigma(h)
\simeq 0.02$ as attainable with Planck (equivalent to $\sigma(\Omega_{\rm
m}) \simeq 0.02$), even allowing for uncertainty in the dark energy model. However, in light of Figure \[figpriorsgen\], this may not be sufficient for a $10{,}000$ deg$^2$ baryon oscillations survey.
Table \[tabw0w1\] lists some $68\%$ confidence ranges for dark energy parameters $(w_0,w_1)$ for a range of survey configurations and cosmological priors, assuming a fiducial model $(-1,0)$.
Survey Configuration $\sigma(\Omega_{\rm m} h^2)$ $\sigma(\Omega_{\rm m})$ $\sigma(w_0)$ $\sigma(w_1)$
----------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ -------------------------- --------------- ---------------
spec-$z$ (10000 deg$^2$, $0.5<z<3.5$) 0 0 0.03 0.06
WMAP 0.01 0.04 0.07
WMAP 0.03 0.08 0.10
Planck 0.03 0.07 0.09
KAOS (1000 deg$^2$, $0.5<z<1.3$) + (400 deg$^2$, $2.5<z<3.5$) 0 0 0.17 0.48
WMAP 0.03 0.27 0.63
WMAP 0.05 0.34 0.71
($z \sim 1$) + (1000 deg$^2$, $1.5<z<2.5$) 0 0 0.10 0.26
SKA (20000 deg$^2$, $0.5<z<1.5$) 0 0 0.04 0.11
Planck 0.01 0.05 0.13
Planck 0.03 0.11 0.18
photo-$z$ (10000 deg$^2$, $0.5<z<3.5$, $\sigma_0=0.01$) 0 0 0.07 0.19
WMAP 0.01 0.20 0.57
WMAP 0.03 0.30 0.95
(10000 deg$^2$, $0.5<z<3.5$, $\sigma_0=0.03$) 0 0 0.12 0.32
WMAP 0.01 0.23 0.66
WMAP 0.03 0.31 0.95
(2000 deg$^2$, $0.5<z<3.5$, $\sigma_0=0.01$) 0 0 0.19 0.51
WMAP 0.01 0.25 0.72
WMAP 0.03 0.31 0.95
Throughout this paper we assume a spatially-flat ($\Omega_{\rm k} = 0$) cosmology. In Figure \[figcurvgen\] we compute how the likelihood contours in the $(w_0,w_1)$ plane for our $10{,}000$ deg$^2$ survey degrade as our knowledge of $\Omega_{\rm k}$ weakens. We note that current determinations of the curvature [$\sigma(\Omega_{\rm k}) \la
0.02$, @Sper03; @Dan05] are almost adequate for this proposed experiment. Of interest is [@Bern05] which noted that the the [*combination*]{} of baryon oscillations with weak lensing constraints leads to direct breaking of degeneracies of curvature with dark energy and allows $\Omega_{\rm k}$ to be measured without any assumptions about the equation of state.
Comparison with the Fisher matrix methodology
---------------------------------------------
It is worth comparing our methodology and results with the Fisher matrix approach utilized by [@SE03] for the simulation of baryonic oscillations experiments. The input data and assumptions are not entirely consistent in the two cases, but we can make a reasonably direct comparison of, for example, Figure 5 in [@SE03] with Figure \[figw0w1kaos\] in this study. In such comparisons we find that the accuracies of determination of $(w_0,w_1)$ are consistent within a factor of about $1.5$, with the Fisher matrix method yielding tighter contours.
This is not surprising: the Fisher matrix method uses information from the whole power spectrum shape (which will also be distorted in an assumed cosmology, e.g. by the Alcock-Paczynski effect) whereas in our approach, this shape is divided out and only the oscillatory information is retained. The bulk of the Fisher information does appear to originate from the sinusoidal features (see Figure 5 in [@HH03] and Section 4.4 of [@SE03]). However, the improvement in dark energy precision resulting from fitting a full power spectrum template to the data may be up to $50\%$ compared to our ‘model-independent’ treatment. Our results should provide a robust lower limit on the accuracy, as intended.
We also note that the Fisher approach provides the [*minimum possible*]{} errors for an unbiased estimate of a given parameter based upon the curvature of the likelihood surface near the fiducial model. As a result the projected error contours for any combination of two parameters always form an ellipse (e.g. Figure 5 of [@SE03]). In our approach we explore the whole parameter space and estimate probabilities via Monte Carlo techniques: the error contours are thus larger and not necessarily elliptical (e.g. our Figure \[figw0w1kaos\]).
A further difference between the appearances of our Figure \[figw0w1kaos\] and Figure 5 in [@SE03] is a noticeable change in the tilt of the principal degeneracy direction in the $(w_0,w_1)$ plane. The reason for this is readily identified: Seo & Eisenstein additionally incorporate the CMB measurement of the angular diameter distance to recombination into their confidence plots. We choose not to do this in order to expose the low redshift independent cosmological constraints from galaxy surveys and to isolate our results from the effects of any unknown behaviour of the equation of state (which could extend beyond our $w_0,
w_1$ formalism) between $z\sim 4$ and $z\sim 1100$.
In summary, we are encouraged by the rough agreement in values of $\Delta
w_0$ and $\Delta w_1$ between these two very different techniques. They represent respectively more conservative/robust and best possible dark energy measurements from future surveys for baryon oscillations.
Detectability and accuracy of wavescale extraction {#secdetect}
==================================================
In this Section we take a step back from questions of dark energy and employ our simulation tools to re-consider the fundamental question of the detectability of the acoustic oscillations in $P(k)$ as a function of survey size and redshift coverage.
[*The oscillations in the galaxy power spectrum are a fundamental test of the paradigm of the origin of galaxies in the fluctuations observed in the early Universe via the CMB.*]{}
Detection of the oscillations would be an extremely important validation of the paradigm. Furthermore our standard ruler technique cannot be confidently employed unless the sinusoidal signature in the power spectrum can be observed with a reasonable level of significance.
Recently, analysis of the clustering pattern of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies at $z = 0.35$ (a volume of $\sim 3.5 V_{\rm Sloan}$) has yielded the first convincing detection of the acoustic signal and application of the standard ruler [@Dan05]. Although this survey does not have sufficient redshift reach to strongly constrain dark energy models, this result is an important validation of the technique. Analysis of the final database of the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey has also yielded some visual evidence for baryonic oscillations [@Cole05]. Here we make the distinction between [*detection of oscillations*]{} and [*detection of a baryonic signal*]{} $\Omega_{\rm b} \ne 0$ in the clustering pattern: baryons produce an overall shape distortion in $P(k)$ as well as the characteristic pattern of oscillations. In this Section we define the ‘wiggles detectability’ as the confidence of rejection of a smooth ‘no wiggles’ model (i.e. the best-fitting smooth reference spectrum of step 12 in Section \[secsteps\]). This is a different quantity to the ‘$3.4$-sigma confidence’ of observing $\Omega_{\rm b} \ne 0$ reported by [@Dan05]. However, the techniques roughly agree on the measurement accuracy of the standard ruler (see the discussion of SDSS LRGs in our Paper I, Figure 3).
Figure \[figdetect\] tracks the detection significance against the percentage accuracy of recovery of the standard ruler for surveys covering three different redshift ranges: $0.25 < z < 0.75$, $0.75 < z < 1.25$ and $2.75 < z < 3.25$. The lines connect points separated by survey volume intervals of $1 V_{\rm Sloan}$; the solid circles denote volumes $(2, 5,
10) \, V_{\rm Sloan}$. For the purposes of this Section, an angle-averaged (isotropic) power spectrum is used rather than a power spectrum separated into tangential and radial components. We also only consider the pure vacuum $\Lambda$CDM model: the detectability is primarily driven by the cosmic volume surveyed, which is a relatively slow function of dark energy parameters. The detection significance is calculated from the average over the Monte Carlo realizations of the relative probability $P_{\rm rel}$ of the smooth ‘no-wiggles’ model and best-fitting ‘wiggles’ model, where $$P_{\rm rel} = \exp{[-(\chi^2_{\rm no-wig} - \chi^2_{\rm best-wig})/2]}
\label{eqprel}$$
We note that:
1. In order to obtain a significant ($3\sigma$) rejection of a no-wiggles model without using any power spectrum shape information, several $V_{\rm Sloan}$ must be surveyed. For the surveys centred at $z=(0.5,1,3)$ the required volume (in units of $V_{\rm Sloan}$) is approximately $(7,5,5)$. For the redshift ranges listed above, this corresponds to survey areas $(2300,700,500)$ deg$^2$.
2. For a fixed wiggles detection significance, the accuracy of recovery of the standard ruler increases with redshift. This is due to the larger available baseline in $k$ at higher redshift, owing to the extended linear regime. Two full oscillations are visible at $z
= 1$; four are unveiled by a survey at $z = 3$.
3. For a fixed wavescale accuracy, the detection significance decreases with redshift, because the amplitude of the oscillations is damped with increasing $k$. As noted above, at higher redshifts there are more acoustic peaks available, thus a less significant measurement of each individual peak may be tolerated.
4. The distribution of values of $P_{\rm rel}$ (equation \[eqprel\]) over the Monte Carlo realizations is significantly skewed (see the discussion in [@BB05]). The median value of $P_{\rm rel}$ represents a more confident detection than the average plotted in Figure \[figdetect\].
Figure \[figpkspec\] displays some Monte Carlo power spectrum realizations of three surveys: ($0.5 < z < 1.3$, $1000$ deg$^2$), ($2.5 <
z < 3.5$, $400$ deg$^2$) and ($0.5 < z < 1.5$, $10{,}000$ deg$^2$). The total volumes mapped in units of $V_{\rm Sloan}$ are $(10,8,133)$, respectively. The total numbers of galaxies observed in each survey (to ensure $n \times P = 3$) are $(6,2,85) \times 10^6$ (assuming linear bias $b=3$ for the $z \sim 3$ survey and $b=1$ otherwise). The first two redshift surveys could be performed by a next-generation wide-field optical spectrograph such as the KAOS instrument proposed for the Gemini telescopes [@KAOS [http://www.noao.edu/kaos/]{}]. The third survey is possible in 6 months using the Square Kilometre Array to detect HI emission line galaxies [@AR04] or from a space mission (see Section \[sec:space\]).
Dark energy measurements from realistic spectroscopic redshift surveys {#secmeas}
======================================================================
We now consider the prospects of performing these experiments with realistic galaxy redshift surveys. As noted above and in Paper I, such surveys must cover a minimum of several hundred deg$^2$ at high redshift, cataloguing at least several hundred thousand galaxies, in order to obtain significant constraints upon the dark energy model.
Existing surveys
----------------
These requirements are orders of magnitude greater than what has been achieved to date. Some existing surveys of high-redshift galaxies are the Canada-France Redshift Survey [CFRS; a few hundred galaxies covering $\sim 0.1$ deg$^2$ to $z \approx 1.3$; @Lilly95], the survey of $z \sim
3$ Lyman-break galaxies by [@Stei03] (roughly a thousand galaxies across a total area $\approx 0.4$ deg$^2$). Most other high redshift spectroscopic surveys [e.g. @GDDS; @K20; @Stei04] cover equally small areas $\la 1$ deg$^2$.
Some larger surveys are in progress: the DEEP2 project [@Davis03], using the DEIMOS spectrograph on the Keck telescope, aims to obtain spectra for $60{,}000$ galaxies ($3.5$ deg$^2$, $0.7 < z < 1.4$); the VIRMOS redshift survey [@LeFev03], using the VIMOS spectrograph at the VLT, will map $150{,}000$ redshifts over $16$ deg$^2$ (considering the largest-area component of each). Neither of these existing projects comes close to meeting our goals, primarily due to the limitations of existing instrumentation. The spectrographs used to perform these surveys have typical fields-of-view (FOV) of diameter $10-20'$ and are unable to cover hundreds of deg$^2$ in a reasonable survey duration.
New ground-based approaches (optical/IR)
----------------------------------------
Some proposed new optical instrumentation addresses this difficulty, permitting spectroscopic exposures over considerably larger FOVs using the 8-metre telescopes that are required to obtain spectra of sufficient quality at these redshift depths. For example, the KAOS project for the Gemini telescopes [@KAOS [http://www.noao.edu/kaos/]{}] is a proposal for a $1.5$ deg diameter FOV, 4000 fibre-fed optical spectrograph. There are two proposed redshift surveys: $900{,}000$ ($0.5
< z < 1.3$) galaxies over $1000$ deg$^2$, and $600{,}000$ ($2.5 < z <
3.5$) galaxies across $400$ deg$^2$. These surveys would together take $\sim 170$ clear nights using the 8-metre Gemini telescope with realistic exposure times computed for the KAOS instrument sensitivity. The redshift ranges are driven by the strong spectral features available for redshift measurement in optical wavebands in a relatively short exposure time. The $z \sim 1$ range is cut off at $z = 1.3$ by the \[OII\] emission line and the calcium H & K lines shifting to red/infrared wavelengths $>0.9$ where the airglow is severe and conventional CCD detectors have low efficiency; the $z \sim 3$ component is driven by observing Ly$\alpha$ in the blue part of the optical range.
The $w(z)$ measurements resulting from the proposed KAOS surveys, computed using the methodology of Section \[secmeth\], are displayed in Figure \[figw0w1kaos\] (see also Tables \[tabxdx\] and \[tabw0w1\]). We show both the $z \sim 1$ and $z \sim 3$ contributions separately, and the joint constraint. We assume linear bias factors $b = (1,3)$ for the $z
\sim (1,3)$ simulations, respectively. The measurement precision of the dark energy parameters is $\Delta w_0 \approx 0.2$ and $\Delta w_1 \approx
0.4$, significantly better than current supernovae constraints [@Riess04]. In statistical terms the KAOS performance is somewhat poorer than that projected for the proposed SNAP mission [@Ald02], but the acoustic oscillations method is significantly less sensitive to errors of a systematic nature. Figure \[figw0w1kaos\] illustrates that models with $w_1 < 0$ are harder to exclude owing to the diminishing sensitivity of cosmic distances to dark energy in this region of parameter space.
We note that the KAOS measurement of $H(z \approx 3)$ from the radial component of the $z \sim 3$ power spectrum provides little information about the dark energy model if we are perturbing around the cosmological constant: at $z \sim 3$, the dynamics of the Universe are entirely governed by the value of $\Omega_{\rm m} h^2$, and $H(z)$ is almost independent of $(w_0,w_1)$. However, the value of $x(z \approx 3)$ inferred from the tangential component of the $z \sim 3$ power spectrum does depend on dark energy, because $x(z=3)$ is an integral of $dx/dz =
c/H(z)$ from $z = 0$ to $z = 3$, which is influenced by dark energy at lower redshifts. The $z \sim 3$ constraint thus reduces to a significant degeneracy between $w_0$ and $w_1$, as observed in Figure \[figw0w1kaos\], although models with $w_1 > 0$ can still be ruled out by this redshift component. The degeneracy is less severe for the $z \sim
1$ component owing to the availability of both $H(z)$ and $x(z)$ information.
Figure \[figw0w1kaos\] assumes that we have perfect prior knowledge of $\Omega_{\rm m}$ ($= 0.3$) and $h$ ($= 0.7$). Figure \[figpriorskaos\] relaxes this assumption, illustrating the effect of including Gaussian priors upon $\Omega_{\rm m}$ and $\Omega_{\rm m} h^2$ of various widths.
A drawback of this survey design is the absence of the redshift range $1.5
< z < 2.5$, sometimes called the ‘redshift desert’. There are no strong emission lines accessible to optical spectrographs in this interval: existing surveys of this region have required very long exposure times to secure spectra [@GDDS], but this could be remedied by near-IR or near-UV spectroscopy of bright, star-forming galaxies [@Stei04]. We now consider the usefulness of these additional observations as regards measuring dark energy, along with the observational practicalities.
First, we investigate the effect of this redshift range upon measurements of the dark energy model $w(z) = w_0 + w_1 z$ (assuming precise prior knowledge of $\Omega_{\rm m}$ and $h$ for the purposes of this comparison; Figure \[figpriorskaos\] indicates how accurately these parameters must be known in order that their uncertainty is not limiting). In Figure \[figw0w1kaos2\], we remove the $z = 3$ component of the proposed KAOS experiment and extend the lower-redshift $1000$ deg$^2$ survey across the redshift range $1.5 < z < 2.5$, divided into two independent slices of width $\Delta z = 0.5$. The likelihood constraints in $(w_0,w_1)$ space tighten appreciably, [*by a further factor of two*]{}, principally due to the $1.5 < z < 2.0$ component, for which $H(z)$ still yields useful information about $(w_0,w_1)$. In Figure \[figw0w1kaos3\] we add back in the $z = 3$ data; the dark energy measurements do not significantly improve. We conclude that coverage of the redshift desert would be highly desirable if it could be achieved. Simply increasing the area of the $z\sim 3$ component does not help nearly as much ($\Delta w_1$ is improved by $\sim 25\%$ for 1000 deg$^2$ at $z\sim 3$). This simplistic analysis is of course no substitute for a proper survey optimization assuming fixed total time or cost.
We note, however, that there are other persuasive scientific reasons to include a $z = 3$ survey component [@Dan02], amongst them:
1. A galaxy redshift survey at $z = 3$ unveils the linear power spectrum down to unprecedentedly small scales $k \approx 0.5 \, h$ Mpc$^{-1}$, measuring linear structure modes that cannot be accessed using the CMB.
2. If dark energy is insignificant at $z = 3$, then measurement of the acoustic oscillations in such a redshift slice enables the standard ruler to be calibrated in a manner independent of the CMB.
3. Our present analysis assumes that the fiducial dark energy model is a cosmological constant, $(w_0,w_1) = (-1,0)$. Based on current data, we have very little information about the value of $w_1$ (for the latest supernova analysis of [@Riess04], $\sigma(w_1)
\approx 0.9$). Should $w_1 \ne 0$, the influence of $w(z)$ upon higher-redshift dynamics could become more significant. A general redshift survey optimization, which is beyond the scope of this paper, should address the range of $w(z)$ to be explored [@Bassett05].
Figure \[figw0wa\] considers a different parameterization for dark energy $w(z) = w_0 + w_a (1-a)$ $=w_0 + w_a/(1+z)$ (Linder 2002), where $a=(1+z)^{-1}$ is the usual cosmological scale factor, which encapsulates a more physically realistic behaviour at high redshifts $z \gtrsim 1$ in comparison to $w(z) = w_0 +
w_1 z$. The rate of change of $w$ with redshift in the two models is $dw/dz = w_1 = w_a/(1+z)^2 < w_a$ hence for a given survey we expect the size of the error for $w_a$ to exceed that for $w_1$. Figure \[figw0wa\] illustrates this for the same survey configuration as Figure \[figw0w1kaos3\].
Figure \[figfid\] uses the KAOS surveys plus a $1.5 < z < 2.0$ extension to illustrate how the tightness of the likelihood contours in the $(w_0,w_1)$ plane is a strong function of the fiducial dark energy parameters, as discussed in Section \[secstream\]. We computed the linear growth factor for non-$\Lambda$CDM models by solving the appropriate second-order differential equation [e.g. @LinJen]. If $w_1 > 0$ then dark energy is more significant at higher redshifts and the model parameters can be constrained more tightly, despite both the resulting decrease in the available cosmic volume in a given redshift range and the movement of the linear/non-linear transition to larger scales (smaller $k$). Note that our cut-off to the evolution of $w(z) =
w_0 + w_1 z$ at $z_{\rm cut} = 2$ ensures that dark energy does not dominate at high redshift for our model with $w_1 > 0$.
Next, we consider the practicalities of observing galaxies in the redshift range $1.5 < z < 2.5$ (the so-called ‘optical redshift desert’). Considering near infra-red wavebands first: the H$\alpha$ 6563Å line is accessible in the 1–2$\mu$m band over the interval $0.5 < z < 2$. This regime is the non-thermal infra-red, in which the sky is sufficiently dark to permit high-redshift spectroscopy (e.g. the emission-line observations of [@Glz99] and [@Pett98]). The critical opportunity offered here is that the H$\alpha$ emission line is potentially very bright at redshifts $z \gtrsim 1$, owing to the steep evolution in the star-formation rate of galaxies in the Universe over $0 < z \lesssim 1$ [@Hop00].
Let us consider a redshift slice $1.5 < z < 1.7$. Our requirement for shot noise sampling ($n \times P = 3$) translates into a required surface density $(3900/b^2)$ deg$^{-2}$ within this slab (Figure \[fignp\]), where $b$ is the linear bias factor of the surveyed galaxies. The luminosity function of H$\alpha$ emitters at $z \gtrsim 1$ has been reasonably well determined from NICMOS slitless grism surveys using the Hubble Space Telescope [@Hop00; @Yan99]. Using the Hopkins et al.luminosity function, we find that we need to reach a line flux limit of $1.1 \times 10^{-16}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ in order to reach the required surface density (assuming $b=1$). The $z=1$ H$\alpha$ luminosity function has apparently evolved strongly in comparison with $z=0$ [@Gal95] but the measurements are fairly robust: we can double-check the luminosity function determinations by simply counting objects in the NICMOS surveys above our required line flux limit. In the Hopkins, Connolly & Szalay sample there are 4 galaxies in the redshift range $1.5
< z < 1.7$ above this flux limit, spread over 4.4 arcmin$^2$, yielding a surface density $\simeq$ 3300 deg$^{-2}$. The H$\alpha$ identifications are also very reliable: the Yan et al. sample was observed in optical wavebands by [@Hicks02], confirming $\ge 75\%$ of the H$\alpha$ identifications via associated \[OII\] emission at the same redshift. This agrees with expectations: analytic models of evolving line emission show that H$\alpha$ should dominate at these flux levels at 1-2 over other lines.
This is encouraging, because these bright lines are accessible in relatively modest exposures. Let us assume an 8-metre telescope, a $25\%$ efficient $R = 4000$ near-IR spectrograph and detector (with a dispersion of 5Å per arcsec), and consider an object observed in an aperture of size 0.8 arcsec $\times$ 0.8 arcsec, covering $2\times 2$ pixels and containing half the light (the Yan et al. objects have compact half-light radii of 0.2–0.7 arcsec). The signal-to-noise ratio is determined by detector readout noise, sky background and dark current. We will assume a readout noise of 4 electrons (this is the stipulated requirement of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) detectors) and an inter-OH sky background of 1.2 photons s$^{-1}$ nm$^{-1}$ arcsec$^{-2}$ m$^{-2}$ in the H-band (the OH night sky line forest is well-resolved at $R=4000$) which is a typical value measured at Gemini observatory[^1]. We will neglect dark current, which is equivalent to assuming that this dark current is much lower than the sky counts. Given these assumptions, our H$\alpha$ flux limit at $z =
1.6$ corresponds to a signal-to-noise ratio of 20 in a 600 second integration, and we find the observation is background limited for any readout noise $<$ 15 electrons.
This exposure time is encouragingly short, and implies that using a 1 degree FOV spectrograph, one could survey $1000$ deg$^2$ in only 20 nights. Admittedly our instrument specification is optimistic, especially for readout noise; however, it can be relaxed considerably whilst still achieving exposure times $< 1$ hour. Assuming a fibre spectrograph we estimate that observing 3900 objects simultaneously at this resolution would only require 2–3 detector arrays of size 4096$\times$4096 to cover the $H$-band. Obviously more objects or broader wavelength coverage would require more detectors or time. Finally we note that, at least in principle, the exposure times are sufficiently short that one could imagine performing such a survey on a smaller-aperture (4-metre class) telescope.
The potential problem with the approach outlined above is that it is not known ‘a priori’ which of the galaxies identified in deep images will be H$\alpha$ bright, or the redshifts of these galaxies. Possibly these data could be successfully predicted from other information (e.g. broad-band colours or sub-mm/radio fluxes), but this may be unreliable. Targetting fainter H$\alpha$ fluxes resulting from realistic target selections would obviously require longer exposure times. Further work on this problem is required in order to determine the distinguishing properties of known H$\alpha$-bright galaxies.
A second potential difficulty is the effect of the night-sky OH emission lines in potentially making inaccessible certain redshift ranges, in a complex pattern. Since these redshift ranges are very narrow, the result is the removal of a series of redshift spikes at known locations in the radial window function. In order to assess the likely consequences, we manufactured a synthetic $n(z)$ possessing narrow gaps where no galaxies could be observed, i.e. when the redshifted H$\alpha$ emission line coincided with an OH line or landed in the water-absorption hole between the J and H bands. We assumed a spectrograph operating at a resolution $R
= 4000$, which implied that $68\%$ of the $1.1 < z < 1.7$ redshift interval was accessible. With our simulation tools we then recovered $P(k)$ using this $n(z)$ (employing an FFT with sufficient gridding in the radial direction to resolve these narrow spikes). The principal effect of the window function is to damp the amplitude of the acoustic oscillations slightly in the radial direction, leaving the tangential modes largely unaffected. The fractional error ($\Delta k_A/k_A$) with which the acoustic scale is recovered is increased by no more than $25\%$, which is mostly due to the smaller effective survey volume owing to the absence of many thin redshift shells. We conclude that the OH lines are not a factor which will significantly hamper ground-based surveys of the acoustic peaks.
Bright star-forming galaxies can alternatively be observed by targetting the \[OII\] 3727Å emission line in optical wavebands. High-resistivity CCD detectors under development can maintain quantum efficiency out to 1 [@CCD] corresponding to $z=1.7$. The typical H$\alpha$:\[OII\] intensity is 2:1; high spectral resolution is again required to observe between the OH night sky lines, in which case the exposure times would be short if one could pre-select the \[OII\]-bright population. This could be more problematic than with H$\alpha$ as there is considerable extra scatter introduced in to the line ratio \[OII\]$/$H$\alpha$ due to variations in metallicity and extinction [@JFF01]. We also note that \[OII\] is accessible in the non-thermal IR up to $z=5$ and therefore is a potential probe of high-redshift acoustic oscillations.
The high star-formation rate at earlier cosmic epochs also implies a considerable boost in the rest-frame UV luminosity of galaxies. High-altitude sites such as Mauna Kea have an atmospheric cutoff further into the near-UV, which can be exploited by blue-optimized spectrographs. For example, [@Stei04] have obtained spectra of star-forming galaxies over $1.4<z<2.5$ using exposure times of only a few hours at the 10-metre Keck telescope, reaching a lowest observed-frame wavelength of 3200Å; this corresponds to Ly$\alpha$ at $z = 1.6$, or CIV at $z = 1.1$. The spectral region between Ly$\alpha$ and CIV is rich in interstellar lines and ripe for determination of accurate redshifts. It is possible that a UV approach may be superior to a near-IR approach targetting H$\alpha$: the observed surface density of Steidel et al. sample is sufficiently high for our requirements, but we note that a UV-optimized design would probably require a wide-field slit spectrograph because conventional fibres considerably attenuate the UV light for long runs ($>20$m).
New ground-based approaches (radio)
-----------------------------------
Next-generation radio interferometer arrays, such as the proposed Square Kilometre Array (SKA; [http://www.skatelescope.org]{}; planned to commence operation in about 2015), will have sufficient sensitivity to detect the HI (21cm) transition of neutral hydrogen at cosmological distances that are almost entirely inaccessible to current radio instrumentation. This will provide a very powerful means of performing a large-scale redshift survey: once an HI emission galaxy has been located on the sky, the observed wavelength of the emission line automatically provides an accurate redshift.
The key advantage offered by a radio telescope is that it may be designed with an instantaneous FOV exceeding $100$ deg$^2$ (at $1.4$ GHz), vastly surpassing the possibilities of optical spectrographs. Equipped with a bandwidth of many $100$ MHz, such an instrument could map out the cosmic web (probed by neutral hydrogen) at an astonishing rate: the SKA, if designed with a large enough FOV, could locate $\sim 10^9$ HI galaxies to redshift $z \approx 1.5$ over the whole visible sky in a timescale of $\sim 1$ year [@AR04; @BABR04]. Deeper pointings could probe the HI distribution to $z \sim 3$ over smaller solid angles. A caveat is that the HI mass function of galaxies has been determined locally [@Zwaan03] but is currently very poorly constrained at high redshift. However, for a range of reasonable models, the number densities required to render shot noise negligible may be attained for HI mass limits [*larger*]{} than the break in the mass function [@AR04]. Another requirement of interferometer design is that a significant fraction of the collecting area must reside in a core of diameter a few km, to deliver the necessary surface brightness sensitivity for extended 21cm sources. Sharp angular resolution is not a pre-requisite, assuming that the observed galaxies are not confused.
Figure \[figw0w1ska\] displays measurements of the dark energy model resulting from a $20{,}000$ deg$^2$ neutral hydrogen survey over the redshift range $0.5 < z < 1.5$, analyzing acoustic peaks in redshift slices of width $\Delta z = 0.2$. We note that a smaller 21cm survey could be performed in the nearer future by SKA prototypes such as the HYFAR proposal [@Bun03], which may cover several thousand deg$^2$ over a narrower bandwidth (corresponding to $0.8 < z < 1.2$).
Space-based approaches {#sec:space}
----------------------
An interesting alternative approach is to use a space-based dispersive but slitless survey to pick out emission-line objects directly over a broad redshift range. In space, the 1–2$\mu$m background is $1000$ times lower (in a broad band) than that observed from the ground [based upon the JWST mission background simulator at distance 3 au from the Sun; @Petro02]; in the background-limited regime this gain is equivalent to a $1000$-fold increase in collecting area. The dispersing element could be either a large objective prism or a grism. The NICMOS surveys mentioned above already demonstrate that this technique is possible, but they lack somewhat in FOV and spectral resolution compared to what is desirable.
As an illustrative example, let us consider a 0.5-metre space telescope with a $60\%$ overall system efficiency working in slitless dispersed imaging mode, again targeting $0.5''$ galaxies at redshift $z = 1.6$. We will assume the JWST-like background and that the slitless spectra are de-limited by a 2000Å-wide blocking filter. Just considering the sky background, the signal-to-noise ratio in a 1800s exposure is 5 for our canonical flux limit of $1.1 \times 10^{-16}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. This signal-to-noise ratio is independent of spectral resolution for unresolved lines much brighter than the continuum (the spectral resolution must of course be sufficient for determining accurate redshifts). Highly-dispersive IR materials such as silicon could enable an objective prism approach with $R = 500$, using a simple prime focus imaging system. Such a satellite, if equipped with a 1 deg FOV and sensitive over 1–2, could perform a spectroscopic survey over the redshift interval $0.5 < z < 2$ (using H$\alpha$), covering an area of $10{,}000$ deg$^2$ in a 4 year mission, obtaining dark energy constraints very similar to those presented in Figure \[figw0w1gen\]. Accessing higher redshifts would be possible by either extending the wavelength range or going fainter with the \[OII\] line, in both cases requiring a larger diameter mirror. Ambiguous line identification is a potential problem, this could be remedied by cross-matching with a photometric-redshift imaging survey. We refer the reader to [@BOP] for a more detailed discussion of such a dedicated ‘Baryonic Oscillation Probe’.
Dark energy measurements from realistic photometric redshift surveys {#secphoto}
====================================================================
We next explore the potential of surveys based on [*photometric redshifts*]{} for detecting the acoustic oscillations and placing constraints upon any cosmic evolution of the dark energy equation-of-state $w(z)$. For a detailed treatment of the significance of ‘wiggles detection’ and the accuracy of measurement of the standard ruler with photometric redshift surveys, we refer the reader to [@BB05]. Here we present a summary and discuss the consequences for dark energy measurement.
A photometric redshift (‘photo-z’) is obtained from multi-colour photometry of a galaxy: the object is imaged in several broad-band filters, ranging from the UV to the near-IR, producing a rough spectral energy distribution (SED). This observed SED is then fitted by model galaxy SEDs as a function of redshift to construct a likelihood distribution with redshift; the peak of the likelihood function indicates the best-fitting redshift. A classic example of this approach is the analysis of the Hubble Deep Field North [@FLY99].
There are obviously many options concerning the number and width of filter bands, and their placement in the UV-NIR range. Generally at least five broad bands are used, and IR coverage is essential for constraining galaxies with $1.2 < z < 2.2$ [@BMP00]. Some approaches have used as many as 17 broad $+$ narrow-band filters [e.g. @COMBO17]. Many different techniques have been proposed for deriving the photo-z [e.g. @Cs00; @leB02; @CL04]. The important question for our study is: what is the accuracy of the photo-z estimates?
These errors can be divided into two main types. First, there is the random statistical error due to noise in the flux estimates and to the coarseness of the SED. Typically this is specified by a parameter $\sigma_0$ where $$\sigma_0 = {\sigma_z \over (1+z) } \approx \hbox{constant}$$ and $\sigma_z$ is the standard deviation of the redshift $z$. We note that $\sigma_0$ is approximately constant because it is proportional to the spectral resolution $\lambda/\Delta\lambda$ of the set of filters. [@Chen03] obtained $\sigma_0 = 0.08$; the COMBO17 survey achieved $\sigma_0 = 0.03$. In a theoretical study, [@Bud01] demonstrated that an optimized filter set produced results within the range $\sigma_0 = 0.02 - 0.05$, depending on the shape of the SED. In general, redder galaxies deliver more accurate photo-z’s because the model colours change faster with redshift.
The second source of photo-z error is the possibility of getting the redshift grossly wrong, either because the set of colours permit more than one redshift solution, or because the model SEDs are not sufficiently representative of real galaxies. Different authors disagree about the magnitude of this effect, which depends on the specific filter sets, photometric accuracy, spectroscopic calibration and photo-z methods used. A useful theoretical discussion is given in [@BMP00]. [@BB05] analyze various ‘realistic’ redshift error distributions including outliers and systematic offsets.
For our purposes we will ignore systematic errors and parameterize photo-z performance using the value of $\sigma_0$ alone. A realistic survey will contain additional systematic redshift errors, thus we will obtain lower limits. We will also assume that $\sigma_0$ is a constant, whereas for a realistic survey it will depend somewhat on redshift and galaxy type.
What is the effect of a statistical redshift error ($\sigma_0$) on the measured power spectrum? This is fairly easy to estimate analytically. As discussed in Paper I [see also @SE03 Section 4.5] this photo-z error represents a radial smearing of galaxy positions. For example, $\sigma_0
= 0.03$ for a $z = 1$ galaxy corresponds to an error $\sigma_x \approx 100
\, h^{-1}$ Mpc in the radial co-moving coordinate. Since smoothing (i.e.convolution) by a Gaussian function in real space is equivalent to multiplication by a Gaussian function in Fourier space, we can model the photo-z effect as a multiplicative damping of the 3D power spectrum $P(k_x, k_y, k_z)$ by a term $\exp{(-k_x^2 \sigma_x^2)}$ (where we choose the $x$-axis as the radial direction). In the following, we implement a [*flat-sky approximation*]{} and presume that there is no tangential effect (i.e. parallel to the $(y,z)$-plane).
Prior to the smearing effect of photometric redshifts, the available Fourier structure modes in the linear regime comprise a sphere in Fourier space of radius $k < k_{\rm linear} \approx 0.2 \, h$ Mpc$^{-1}$ (where the value of $k_{\rm linear}$ depends on redshift). Afterwards, the damping term $\exp{(-k_x^2 \sigma_x^2)}$ implies that only a thin slice of this sphere with $|k_x| \lesssim 2/\sigma_x \approx 0.02 \, h$ Mpc$^{-1}$ is able to contribute useful power spectrum signal. This is illustrated schematically in Figure \[figphotexample\]. Considering those modes contributing to a Fourier bin centred about scale $k$, the reduction in usable Fourier space volume corresponds to a factor $(k \times \sigma_x/2)$. At a scale $k = 0.2 \, h$ Mpc$^{-1}$, this represents a loss by a factor of 10 ($\sigma_0 = 0.03$, $z = 1$). For the same surveyed area, we can hence expect the error ranges in the derived power spectrum to worsen by a factor $\approx \sqrt{10}$ in comparison to a spectroscopic survey (although also note that the scaling of the error with $k$ also changes from $\delta P_{\rm spec} \propto k^{-1}$ to $\delta P_{\rm
photo} \propto k^{-1/2}$). The errors on the resulting dark energy parameters will be worse by a factor of $\simeq \sqrt{20}$ than in a similar sized spectroscopic survey once one also accounts for the loss on the radial dimension.
Critically, the radial damping due to photometric redshifts results in the loss of any ability to detect the acoustic oscillations in the [*radial*]{} component of the power spectrum (in the above example, the power spectrum is significantly suppressed for modes with $|k_x| > 2/\sigma_x
\approx 0.02 \, h$ Mpc$^{-1}$, i.e. the whole regime containing the oscillations). We are only able to apply the standard ruler in the tangential direction. As noted earlier, the radial component provides a direct measure of $H(z)$, contributing significantly to the measurements of the dark energy model. Thus in the above example ($\sigma_0 = 0.03$, $z = 1$) the resulting errors in the dark energy parameters will worsen by a factor closer to $\approx \sqrt{20}$. Alternatively, one could compensate by increasing the survey area (and hence the density of states in Fourier space) by the corresponding factor. We note that with sufficient filter coverage and for special classes of galaxy, the photometric redshift error $\sigma_0$ may also be reduced to improve dark energy performance.
We simulated photo-z surveys using analogous Monte Carlo techniques to those described in Section \[secmeth\] (see [@BB05] for a more detailed account). We introduced a radial Gaussian smearing $$\sigma_x = \sigma_0 \, (1 + z_{\rm eff}) \, x'(z_{\rm eff})$$ into our Poisson-sampled density fields (for a survey slice at redshift $z_{\rm eff}$). When measuring the power spectrum we restrict ourselves to modes with $|k_x| < 2/\sigma_x$ (where the factor of 2 was determined empirically to be roughly optimal). The residual damping in the shape of $P(k)$ is divided out using the known Gaussian damping expression. We bin the power spectrum modes in accordance with the total length of the Fourier vector $k = \sqrt{k_x^2 + k_y^2 + k_z^2}$, noting that only tangential modes (with $k_x \approx 0$) are being counted. We fit a 1D decaying sinusoid (Paper I, equation 3) to the result. The scatter of the fitted wavescales across the Monte Carlo realizations is interpreted as the accuracy of measurement of the quantity $x(z_{\rm eff})/s$ (given that only tangential modes are involved). We uniformly populated our survey volumes such that $n \times P = 3$.
We consider two different photo-z accuracies: $\sigma_0 = 0.03$, representing the typical fidelity of the current best photo-z studies, and $\sigma_0 = 0.01$, which we somewhat arbitrarily adopt as an upper limit to future improvements. [@BB05] consider a much wider range of possibilities. We note that in our methodology, reducing the value of $\sigma_0$ by some factor is equivalent to covering a proportionately larger survey area. Figure \[figpkphot\] displays some Monte Carlo realizations of measured power spectra for these photometric redshift surveys, assuming a redshift range $0.5 < z < 1.5$. We assume a survey solid angle of $10{,}000$ deg$^2$, but also consider a smaller project ($2000$ deg$^2$ with $\sigma_0 = 0.01$).
Figure \[figw0w1phot\] illustrates the resulting measurement of the dark energy parameters $(w_0,w_1)$ for these survey configurations, assuming that we can span the redshift range $0.5 < z < 3.5$ (also see Tables \[tabxdx\] and \[tabw0w1\]). These $(w_0,w_1)$ contours are computed using the same method as Section \[secmethlik\], utilizing measurements of $x(z)/s$ in three redshift bins of width $\Delta z = 1$ (for real data, narrower redshift slices would be used and the results co-added). Each of these redshift constraints corresponds to a degenerate line in the $(w_0,w_1)$ plane (i.e. constrains one degree of freedom in the dark energy model) but, as described in Section \[secmethlik\], the direction of degeneracy slowly rotates with redshift: the combination of the likelihoods for each redshift bin results in closed contours.
Note that for photometric redshift surveys, the cosmological priors on $\Omega_{\rm m} h^2$ and $\Omega_{\rm m}$ required to achieve a given measurement precision of $(w_0,w_1)$ are much tighter than for spectroscopic surveys (see Table \[tabw0w1\]). This is because in the absence of $H(z)$ information, the photo-$z$ survey must achieve a significantly tighter measure of $x(z)$ to recover a corresponding measurement accuracy of the dark energy parameters, rendering it more susceptible to uncertainties in $\Omega_{\rm m}$ and $h$.
The real figure-of-merit for comparison of practical instruments is the accuracy with which the dark energy model can be measured [*for a fixed total observing time*]{} or [*at a fixed cost*]{}. The myriad details of comparing large imaging cameras with large spectroscopic systems are beyond the scope of this paper. However, we note that the proposed Large Synoptic Survey Telescope [LSST; @LSST] could image half of the entire sky to the required depth ($V \approx 25$) in multiple colours every 25 nights; such a survey would produce dark energy constraints comparable with a spectroscopic (e.g. KAOS) survey of 1000 deg$^2$ (the latter requiring 170 nights) [*if $\sigma_0 = 0.01$ could be achieved*]{}. We regard this level of photometric redshift accuracy as unlikely for ground-based surveys. We note that the KAOS measurements additionally constrain $H(z)$ leading to qualitatively more robust measurement of dark energy. Further the KAOS survey could be improved by adding more area, whereas once the LSST has observed the whole celestial hemisphere, there is obviously no further gain in $w(z)$ information from further passes. However, since ‘all-sky’ deep multi-colour surveys are being performed for other scientific reasons (e.g. cosmic shear analysis), it is of considerable value to utilize these data for baryonic oscillation studies. Furthermore, as discussed in detail by [@BB05], a photometric redshift survey of several thousand square degrees may provide constraints competitive with spectroscopic surveys in the short term.
Conclusions
===========
This study has extended the methodology of Blake & Glazebrook (2003) to simulate measurements of the cosmic [*evolution*]{} of the equation-of-state of dark energy $w(z)$ from the baryonic oscillations, using the simple parameterization $w(z) = w_0 + w_1 z$. The methodology used is very similar to that of Paper I, treating the primordial baryonic oscillations in the galaxy power spectrum as a standard cosmological ruler, whilst dividing out the overall shape of the power spectrum in order to maximize model-independence. In this study we make the improvement of fitting independent radial and tangential wavescales, showing that this is directly equivalent to measuring $D_A(z)$ and $H(z)$ in a series of redshift slices in units of the sound horizon. This results in improved constraints upon $(w_0,w_1)$. We have tested the approximations encoded in our approach and found them all to be satisfactory, increasing our confidence in the inferred error distributions for the dark energy parameters. The simulated accuracies for $(w_0,w_1)$ are roughly consistent with other estimates in the literature based on very different analysis methods.
Our baseline ‘KAOS-like’ optical surveys of $\sim 1000$ deg$^2$, which can be realized by the next generation of spectroscopic instruments at ground-based observatories, deliver measurements of the dark energy parameters with precision $\Delta w_0 \approx 0.15-0.2$ and $\Delta w_1
\approx 0.3-0.4$. In statistical terms, these constraints are poorer than those which may be provided by a future space-based supernova project such as the SNAP proposal. We note, however, that the baryonic oscillations method appears to be substantially free of systematic error, with the principal limitation being the amount of cosmic volume mapped. In addition, any measurement of deviations from a cosmological constant model is of sufficient importance for physics that [*entirely independent*]{} experiments would be demanded to confirm the new model. A next-generation radio telescope with a FOV $\approx 100$ deg$^2$ at $1.4$ GHz, performing a redshift survey of 21cm emission galaxies over several $1000$ deg$^2$, may be available on a similar timescale.
We have considered the observational possibilities of more extensive baryonic oscillation experiments covering a significant fraction of the whole sky. Such a survey (encompassing $0.5 < z < 3.5$) may be straight-forward using a dedicated several-year space mission with slitless spectroscopy. In radio wavebands, the Square Kilometre Array would be able to survey the entire visible sky out to $z \approx 1.5$ in 6 months, if equipped with a sufficiently large FOV. These experiments would deliver extremely precise measurements of the dark energy model with accuracy $\Delta w_0 \approx 0.03-0.05$ and $\Delta w_1 \approx 0.06-0.1$ and would be invaluable to pursue if a significant non-vacuum dark energy signal was detected by smaller surveys.
We have also explored in detail the potential of photometric redshift optical imaging surveys for performing baryonic oscillations experiments. The loss of the radial oscillatory signal, due to the damping caused by the redshift errors, implies that we can no longer recover information about the Hubble constant at high redshift. However, the baryonic oscillations can still be measured using tangential Fourier modes. A deep $2000$ deg$^2$ imaging survey with excellent photometric redshift precision ($\sigma_0 < 0.03$) would allow the oscillations to be detected (2.5$\sigma$ significance). Useful constraints upon the dark energy model are possible if $\sim
20{,}000$ deg$^2$ can be surveyed (such an experiment with $\sigma_0 =
0.03$ is roughly equivalent to a $\sim 1000$ deg$^2$ spectroscopic survey).
We conclude that the baryonic oscillations in the clustering power spectrum represent one of the rare accurate probes of the cosmological model, possessing the potential to delineate cleanly any cosmic evolution in the equation-of-state of dark energy, via accurate measurements of $D_A(z)$ and $H(z)$ in a series of redshift slices. Importantly, such an experiment is likely to be substantially free of systematic error. Recent observations of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies at $z = 0.35$ have provided the first convincing detection of the acoustic signature and validation of the technique. The challenge now is to create the large-scale surveys at higher redshifts required for mapping the properties of the mysterious dark energy.
KG and CB acknowledge generous funding from the David and Lucille Packard foundation and the Center for Astrophysical Sciences, Johns Hopkins University. CB warmly thanks his colleagues at the University of New South Wales where most of this work took place, especially Warrick Couch, and acknowledges funding from the Australian Research Council. CB also thanks Sarah Bridle, Filipe Abdalla and Steve Rawlings for many valuable conversations. We are grateful for useful discussions with Dan Eisenstein and Eric Linder. CB acknowledges current funding from the Izaak Walton Killam Memorial Fund for Advanced Studies and the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics.
Tests of approximations
=======================
Effect of redshift-space distortions
------------------------------------
As mentioned in Section \[secsumm\], a power spectrum measured from a real redshift survey is liable to suffer systematic shape distortions. We performed a test to verify that we were able to divide out such distortions via a smooth fit, prior to fitting for the acoustic oscillations. For a survey covering $0.5 < z < 1.3$ and $1000$ deg$^2$, we incorporated a redshift-space distortion into each Monte Carlo realization by smearing the redshift of each simulated galaxy by the equivalent of a radial velocity of $300$ km s$^{-1}$. This process has the effect of damping the overall power spectrum by a factor increasing with $k$ and amounting to about $20\%$ at $k = 0.2 \, h$ Mpc$^{-1}$. After division by the ‘no-wiggles’ reference spectrum of [@EH98], we fitted an additional second-order polynomial to the residual, in order to remove the extra shape distortion. We found that the scatter of the fitted acoustic scales across the Monte Carlo realizations (i.e. the precision with which we could recover the standard ruler) was entirely unchanged by this more complex fitting procedure.
Streamlined vs Full methodology
-------------------------------
In this Section we evaluate the validity of the approximations employed in our ‘streamlined method’ (Section \[secstream\]) with respect to the full methodology (Section \[secsteps\]). These approximations are implemented because it would otherwise require a prohibitively long computational time to cover the grid of dark energy parameters $(w_0,w_1)$ with sufficient resolution. In particular, we wish to test that:
1. The constraints upon the dark energy parameters $(w_0,w_1)$ arising from the fitted radial and tangential power spectrum wavescales can be deduced by supposing that these fitted wavescales measure the quantities $x/s$ and $x'/s$, respectively.
2. Dark energy measurements arising from a survey of solid angle $A_2$ may be inferred from those resulting from a survey of area $A_1 < A_2$ by multiplying the accuracy of $x/s$ and $x'/s$ deduced from this former survey by a factor $\sqrt{A_1/A_2}$.
3. A reasonably broad survey redshift interval, $z_{\rm min} < z <
z_{\rm max}$, can be utilized to measure $x/s$ and $x'/s$ at an ‘effective’ redshift $z_{\rm eff} = (z_{\rm min} + z_{\rm max})/2$.
In order to test the effect of these approximations, we consider a ‘test case’ which we analyze using both the streamlined and the full method. This test case comprises a spectroscopic survey covering the redshift interval $0.7 < z < 1.3$ (i.e. approximately the KAOS $z \sim 1$ component), but with an increased area of $4000$ deg$^2$. This is the maximum size we can simulate in a reasonable time. Implementing the full method, we first divide the redshift range into three bins of width $\Delta z = 0.2$. For each bin, we consider a grid of trial dark energy parameters $(w_0,w_1)$ (spaced by $\Delta w_0 = 0.05$, $\Delta w_1 = 0.1$) and create 50 Monte Carlo realizations for each grid point, deducing the relative probability of each trial cosmology by assessing the position of the theoretical standard ruler scale in the distributions of fitted radial and tangential wavescales (as described in Section \[secsteps\]). We then obtain the overall constraints upon the dark energy model, resulting from the full method, by multiplying together these three likelihood maps. We compare these measurements with those resulting from the streamlined approach, based upon scaling a single analysis of a ($0.7 < z < 1.3$, $1000$ deg$^2$) survey by a factor $\sqrt{4}$, and deeming the effective redshift to be $z_{\rm eff} = 1$.
These two likelihood maps in the $(w_0,w_1)$ plane are compared in Figure \[figw0w1test\]. The grid is necessarily quite coarse and noisy for the full methodology, but it is clear that the likelihood patterns are in reasonable agreement concerning both width and degeneracy direction. The most noticeable discrepancy appears in the region $w_0 > -1$, $w_1 < 0$, where dark energy has a reduced influence at high redshift but the disagreement is of marginal significance. In the regime $w_1 > 0$, the agreement is much better. We conclude that within the noise of the simulation the two sets of contours are a good match though it would be desirable in the future to test this further.
Abdalla, F. & Rawlings, S. 2004, , in press [(astro-ph/0411342)]{} Abraham, R. G., et al. 2004, , 127, 2455 Aldering, G., et al. 2002, , 4835, 146 Angulo, R., Baugh, C. M., Frenk, C. S., Bower, R. G., Jenkins, A., & Morris, S. L. 2005, MNRAS, submitted (astro-ph/0504456) Balbi, A., Baccigalupi, C., Perrotta, F., Matarrese, S., & Vittorio, N. 2003, , 588, L5 Barden, S.C., Dey, A., Boyle, B., & Glazebrook, K. 2004, in “Ground-based Instrumentation for Astronomy”, ed. Moorwood and Iye, , 5492. Bassett, B. A. & Kunz, M. 2004, , 607, 661 Bassett, B. A., Parkinson, D., & Nichol R. C. 2005, , in press [(astro-ph/0409266)]{} Bernstein, G. 2005, ApJ, submitted (astro-ph/0503276) Bolzonella, M., Miralles, J.-M., & Pell[' o]{}, R. 2000, , 363, 476 Blake, C. & Glazebrook, K. 2003, , 594, 665 Blake, C., Abdalla, F., Bridle, S.L., & Rawlings, S., 2004, New Astron. Rev., 48, 1063 Blake, C. & Bridle, S.L. 2005, , in press [(astro-ph/0411713)]{} Budav[' a]{}ri, T., Szalay, A. S., Csabai, I., Connolly, A. J., & Tsvetanov, Z. 2001, , 121, 3266 Bunton, J.D., et al. 2003, “Panorama of the Universe: A Cylindrical Reflector SKA” (see [ www.skatelescope.org]{}) Chen, H., et al. 2003, , 586, 745 Cimatti, A., et al. 2002, , 381, L68 Cole, S., et al. 2005, , in press [(astro-ph/0501174)]{} Coles, P. 1993, , 262, 1065 Collister, A. A. & Lahav, O. 2004, , 116, 345 Csabai, I., Connolly, A. J., Szalay, A. S., & Budav[' a]{}ri, T. 2000, , 119, 69 Davis, M., et al. 2003, , 4834, 161 de Bernardis, P., et al. 2000, , 404, 955 Efstathiou, G. & Bond, J. R. 1999, , 304, 75 Eisenstein, D. J. & Hu, W. 1998, , 496, 605 Eisenstein, D. J., Hu, W., & Tegmark, M. 1999, , 518, 2 Eisenstein D.J., 2002, [ *“Large-scale structure and future surveys”*]{} in “Next Generation Wide-Field Multi-Object Spectroscopy”, ASP Conference Series vol. 280, ed. M.Brown & A.Dey [(astro-ph/0301623)]{} Eisenstein, D., & White, M. 2004, , 70, 103523 Eisenstein, D., et al. 2005, , in press [(astro-ph/0501171)]{} Feldman, H. A., Kaiser, N., & Peacock, J. A. 1994, , 426, 23 Fern[' a]{}ndez-Soto, A., Lanzetta, K. M., & Yahil, A. 1999, , 513, 34 Gallego, J., Zamorano, J., Aragon-Salamanca, A., & Rego, M. 1995, , 455, L1 Glazebrook, K., Blake, C., Economou, F., Lilly, S., & Colless, M. 1999, , 306, 843 Glazebrook, K., Baldry, I., Moos, W., Kruk, J., & McCandliss, S. 2004, New Astronomy Reviews, in press [ (astro-ph/0410037)]{} Hicks, E. K. S., Malkan, M. A., Teplitz, H. I., McCarthy, P. J., & Yan, L. 2002, , 581, 205 Hopkins, A. M., Connolly, A. J., & Szalay, A. S. 2000, , 120, 2843 Hu, W. & Haiman, Z. 2003, , 68, 063004 Jansen, R. A., Franx, M., & Fabricant, D. 2001, , 551, 825 Le Borgne, D. & Rocca-Volmerange, B. 2002, , 386, 446 Le Fevre, O., et al. 2003, , 4834, 173 Lilly, S. J., Le Fevre, O., Crampton, D., Hammer, F., & Tresse, L. 1995, , 455, 50 Linder, E. V. 2003, , 90, 091301 Linder, E. V. 2003, , 68, 083504 Linder, E. V. & Jenkins, A. 2003, , 346, 573 Peacock, J. A. & Dodds, S. J. 1994, MNRAS, 267, 1020 Perlmutter, S., et al. 1999, , 517, 565 Petro, L., Kriss, G., & Stockman, H. S. 2002, STScI Technical Memorandum TM-2002-0004 A Pettini, M., Kellogg, M., Steidel, C. C., Dickinson, M., Adelberger, K. L., & Giavalisco, M. 1998, , 508, 539 Ratra, B. & Peebles, P. J. E. 1988, , 37, 3406 Riess, A. G., et al. 1998, , 116, 1009 Riess, A. G., et al. 2004, , 607, 665 Scherrer, R. J. & Weinberg, D. H. 1998, , 504, 607 Seo, H. & Eisenstein, D. J. 2003, , 598, 720 Spergel, D. N., et al. 2003, , 148, 175 Springel, V., et al. 2005, Nature, in press (astro-ph/0504097) Steidel, C. C., Adelberger, K. L., Shapley, A. E., Pettini, M., Dickinson, M., & Giavalisco, M. 2003, , 592, 728 Steidel, C. C., Shapley, A. E., Pettini, M., Adelberger, K. L., Erb, D. K., Reddy, N. A., & Hunt, M. P. 2004, , 604, 534 Stover, R. J., et al. 1998, , 3505, 13 Tegmark, M. 1997, , 79, 3806 Tegmark, M., et al. 2004, , 69, 103501 Turner, M. S., et al. 2003, [*Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos: Eleven Science Questions for the New Century*]{}, The National Academies Press, Washington D.C. Tyson, J. A. 2002, , 4836, 10 Weller, J. & Albrecht, A. 2002, , 65, 103512 Wolf, C., Meisenheimer, K., Rix, H.-W., Borch, A., Dye, S., & Kleinheinrich, M. 2003, , 401, 73 Yan, L., McCarthy, P. J., Freudling, W., Teplitz, H. I., Malumuth, E. M., Weymann, R. J., & Malkan, M. A. 1999, , 519, L47 Zwaan, M. A., et al. 2003, , 125, 2842
[^1]: See [http://www.gemini.edu/sciops/ObsProcess/obsConstraints/\\
ocSkyBackground.html](http://www.gemini.edu/sciops/ObsProcess/obsConstraints/\
ocSkyBackground.html)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We attach a ring of sequences to each number from a certain class of extremal real numbers, and we study the properties of this ring both from an analytic point of view by exhibiting elements with specific behaviors, and also from an algebraic point of view by identifying it with the quotient of a polynomial ring over ${\mathbb{Q}}$. The link between these points of view relies on combinatorial results of independent interest. We apply this theory to estimate the dimension of a certain space of sequences satisfying prescribed growth constrains.'
address:
- |
Département de Mathématiques\
Université d’Ottawa\
585 King Edward\
Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5, Canada
- |
Département de Mathématiques\
Université d’Ottawa\
585 King Edward\
Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5, Canada
author:
- Damien ROY
- Éric Villani
title: |
On the ring of approximation triples\
attached to a class of extremal real numbers
---
=16.8pt
[^1]
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Let $\gamma= (1+\sqrt{5})/2$ denote the golden ratio. In [@DS], H. Davenport and W. M. Schmidt proved that, for each real number $\xi$ which is neither rational nor quadratic irrational, there exists a constant $c>0$ with the property that, for arbitrarily large real numbers $X$, the system of inequalities $$\label{ineq:DS}
|x_0|\le X,
\quad
|x_0\xi-x_1| \le c X^{-1/\gamma},
\quad
|x_0\xi^2-x_2| \le c X^{-1/\gamma}$$ has no non-zero solution ${\mathbf{x}}= (x_0,x_1,x_2) \in {\mathbb{Z}}^3$. Because of this, we say that a real number $\xi$ is *extremal* if it is neither rational nor quadratic irrational and if there exists a constant $c'>0$ such that the system with $c$ replaced by $c'$ has a non-zero solution $(x_0,x_1,x_2) \in {\mathbb{Z}}^3$ for each $X\ge 1$. The existence of such numbers is established in [@Ra; @Rb], showing in particular that the exponent $1/\gamma$ in the result of Davenport and Schmidt is best possible. Among these numbers are all real numbers whose continued fraction expansion is the infinite Fibonacci word constructed on an alphabet consisting of two different positive integers [@Ra] (or a generalized such word constructed on two non-commuting words in positive integers [@Re]). This connection with symbolic dynamics is extended by M. Laurent and Y. Bugeaud in [@BL], and stressed even further in recent work of S. Fischler [@Fa; @Fb].
Schmidt’s subspace theorem implies that any extremal real number is transcendental (see [@Sc Chap. VI, Theorem 1B]). Using a quantitative version of the subspace theorem, B. Adamczewski and Y. Bugeaud even produced a measure of transcendence for theses numbers, showing that, in terms of Mahler’s classification, they are either $S$ or $T$ numbers [@AB Theorem 4.6]. The purpose of the present paper is to provide tools which may eventually lead to sharper measures of approximation to extremal real numbers either by all algebraic numbers or by more restricted types of algebraic numbers (like in [@Rc]).
As shown in [@Rb], any extremal real number comes with rigid sequences of integer triples $(x_0,x_1,x_2)$ satisfying a stronger approximation property than that required by . In the next section, we show that, for each extremal real number in some large family, this naturally gives rise to a finitely generated ring of sequences over ${\mathbb{Q}}$. We study this ring in Sections \[sec:ring\] and \[sec:bideg\], both from an analytic point of view by exhibiting elements with specific behaviors, and also from an algebraic point of view by showing that it is isomorphic to the quotient of a polynomial ring in six variables over ${\mathbb{Q}}$ by an ideal $I$ with three explicitly given generators. The link between these points of view relies on two combinatorial results of independent interest that are stated at the beginning of Sections \[sec:ring\] and \[sec:bideg\], and proved in Section \[sec:comb\]. In Section \[sec:applic\], we apply this theory to estimate the dimension of a certain space of sequences with restricted growth. Following a suggestion of Daniel Daigle, we conclude in Section \[sec:complement\] with a complementary result showing that the ideal $I$ mentioned above is a prime ideal of rank $3$ and thus, that the ring of sequences attached to the extremal real numbers under study is an integral domain of transcendence degree $3$.
The ring of approximation triples {#sec:ring}
=================================
A combinatorial result {#subsec:2.1}
----------------------
We denote by ${\mathbb{N}}$ the set of non-negative integers, and by ${\mathbb{N}}^*=
{\mathbb{N}}\setminus\{0\}$ the set of positive integers. We also denote by $f\colon{\mathbb{Z}}\to {\mathbb{Z}}$ the function satisfying $$\label{def:f}
f(0)=f(1)=1
{\quad\mbox{and}\quad}f(i+2)=f(i+1)+f(i)
\quad \text{for each $i\in{\mathbb{Z}}$,}$$ so that $(f(i))_{i\ge 0}$ is simply the Fibonacci sequence. In order not to interrupt the flow of the discussion later, we start by stating the following crucial combinatorial result whose proof is postponed to Section \[sec:comb\] and whose relevance will be made clear shortly.
\[thm:comb\_deg\] Let $d\in{\mathbb{N}}$. For each $s\in{\mathbb{N}}$, denote by $\chi_d(s)$ the number of points $(m,n)\in{\mathbb{Z}}^2$ for which the conditions $$\label{conditions:thm:comb_deg}
(m,n) = \sum_{k=1}^s \big( f(-i_k),\, f(-i_k-1) \big)
{\quad\mbox{and}\quad}\sum_{k=1}^s f(i_k) \le d$$ admit a solution integers $0\le i_1\le\cdots\le i_s$, and $s$ is maximal with this property. Then, $$\label{formula:chi_d}
\chi_d(s)
= \begin{cases}
2s+1 &\text{if\, $0\le s < d$,}\\
d+1 &\text{if\, $s = d$,}\\
0 &\text{if\, $s>d$.}
\end{cases}$$
Here, and throughout the rest of this paper, we agree that an empty sum is zero, so that for $(m,n)=(0,0)$, the conditions are satisfied with $s=0$.
For our purposes, we need to recast this result in the following context. Consider the subring ${\mathbb{Z}}[\gamma]$ of ${\mathbb{R}}$ generated by $\gamma$. Since $\gamma = 1+1/\gamma$ and $(1/\gamma)^2 = 1-
(1/\gamma)$, we note that ${\mathbb{Z}}[\gamma] = {\mathbb{Z}}[1/\gamma] = {\mathbb{Z}}\oplus
{\mathbb{Z}}\cdot (1/\gamma)$ is a free ${\mathbb{Z}}$-module with basis $\{1,1/\gamma\}$. The formulas $$\label{formulas:gamma^-i}
\gamma^{-i} = f(-i) + f(-i-1)/\gamma
= (-1)^i \big( f(i-2) - f(i-1)/\gamma \big),$$ which follow from a quick recurrence argument, show that, for any point $\alpha = m+n/\gamma \in {\mathbb{Z}}[\gamma]$, the conditions are equivalent to $$\label{conditions:decomp_alpha}
\alpha = \gamma^{-i_1} + \cdots + \gamma^{-i_s}
{\quad\mbox{and}\quad}f(i_1) + \cdots + f(i_s) \le d.$$ For each $d\in {\mathbb{N}}$, let $E_d$ denote the set of points $\alpha\in{\mathbb{Z}}[\gamma]$ for which these conditions admit a solution in integers $0\le i_1\le\cdots\le i_s$ for some $s\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and, for each $\alpha\in E_d$, let $s_d(\alpha)$ denote the largest value of $s$ for which such a solution exists. Then, Theorem \[thm:comb\_deg\] can be restated by saying that, for each pair of integers $d,s\in{\mathbb{N}}$, the number of elements $\alpha$ of $E_d$ with $s_d(\alpha)=s$ is the integer $\chi_d(s)$ given by . It is in this form that Theorem \[thm:comb\_deg\] will be proved in Section \[sec:comb\], together with a more compact description of the sets $E_d$.
A class of extremal numbers {#subsec:2.2}
---------------------------
We first recall that a real number $\xi$ is extremal if and only if there exists an unbounded sequence of points ${\mathbf{x}}_k = (x_{k,0}, x_{k,1}, x_{k,2})$ in ${\mathbb{Z}}^3$, indexed by integers $k\ge 1$ in ${\mathbb{N}}^*$, and a constant $c_1\ge 1$ such that, for each $k\ge 1$, the first coordinate $x_{k,0}$ of ${\mathbf{x}}_k$ is non-zero and we have
- $c_1^{-1} |x_{k,0}|^\gamma \le |x_{k+1,0}| \le c_1
|x_{k,0}|^\gamma$,
- $\max\big\{ |x_{k,0}\xi-x_{k,1}|,\, |x_{k,0}\xi^2-x_{k,2}| \big\}
\le c_1 |x_{k,0}|^{-1}$,
- $1\le |x_{k,0}x_{k,2}-x_{k,1}^2| \le c_1$,
- $1\le |\det({\mathbf{x}}_k,{\mathbf{x}}_{k+1},{\mathbf{x}}_{k+2})| \le c_1$.
This follows from Theorem 5.1 of [@Rb] upon noting that the condition E2 forces the maximum norm of ${\mathbf{x}}_k$ to behave like $|x_{k,0}|$. As in [@Rb], it is convenient to identify each triple ${\mathbf{x}}=(x_0,x_1,x_2)$ with coefficients in a commutative ring with the symmetric matrix $${\mathbf{x}}= \begin{pmatrix} x_0 &x_1\\ x_1 &x_2 \end{pmatrix}.$$ Then, the condition E3 reads simply as $1\le |\det({\mathbf{x}}_k)| \le c_1$. We also recall that, for a given extremal real number $\xi$, the corresponding sequence $({\mathbf{x}}_k)_{k\ge 1}$ is unique up to its first terms and up to multiplication of its terms by non-zero rational numbers with bounded numerators and denominators (see Proposition 4.1 of [@Rd]). Moreover, for such $\xi$ and such a sequence $({\mathbf{x}}_k)_{k\ge 1}$ viewed as symmetric matrices, Corollary 4.3 of [@Rd] ensures the existence of a non-symmetric and non-skew-symmetric $2\times 2$ matrix $$\label{formula:M}
M = \begin{pmatrix} a_{1,1} &a_{1,2}\\ a_{2,1} &a_{2,2} \end{pmatrix}$$ with integer coefficients such that, for each sufficiently large $k\ge 1$, the matrix ${\mathbf{x}}_{k+2}$ is a rational multiple of ${\mathbf{x}}_{k+1}M_{k+1}{\mathbf{x}}_k$ where $$\label{formula:Mk}
M_{k+1} =
\begin{cases}
M &\text{if $k$ is odd,}\\
{{\,{^t}\hskip-2pt M}}&\text{if $k$ is even,}
\end{cases}$$ and where ${{\,{^t}\hskip-2pt M}}$ denotes the transpose of $M$. The present paper deals with a special class of extremal numbers.
\[hyp\] In the sequel, we fix an extremal real number $\xi$, a corresponding sequence $({\mathbf{x}}_k)_{k\ge 1}$ and a corresponding matrix $M$ satisfying the additional property that, for each $k\ge 1$, we have $$\label{formula:hyp}
\det({\mathbf{x}}_k) = 1
{\quad\mbox{and}\quad}{\mathbf{x}}_{k+2}={\mathbf{x}}_{k+1}M_{k+1}{\mathbf{x}}_k.$$
The first condition $\det({\mathbf{x}}_k)=1$ is restrictive as there exist extremal real numbers with no corresponding sequence $({\mathbf{x}}_k)_{k\ge
1}$ in ${\mathrm{SL}}_2({\mathbb{Z}})$, but it is not empty as it is fulfilled by any real number whose continued fraction expansion is given by an infinite Fibonacci word constructed on two non-commuting words in positive integers, provided that both words have even length (see [@Re]). The second condition however is no real additional restriction. It is achieved by omitting the first terms of the sequence $({\mathbf{x}}_k)_{k\ge 1}$ if necessary, by choosing $M$ so that ${\mathbf{x}}_3 = {\mathbf{x}}_2 M {\mathbf{x}}_1$ and then by multiplying recursively each ${\mathbf{x}}_k$ with $k\ge 4$ by $\pm 1$ so that the second equality in holds for each $k\ge 1$. In particular, we have $\det(M)=1$. Since ${{\,{^t}\hskip-2pt M}}\neq \pm M$, this in turn implies that we have $a_{1,1}\neq 0$ or $a_{2,2}\neq 0$.
A subring of the ring of sequences {#subsec:2.3}
----------------------------------
Let $S$ denote the ring of sequences of real numbers $(a_k)_{k\ge
1}$ indexed by the set ${\mathbb{N}}^*$ of positive integers, with component-wise addition and multiplication, and let ${{\mathfrak{S}}}$ denote the quotient of $S$ by the ideal $S_0$ of sequences with finitely many non-zero terms. Two sequences $(a_k)_{k\ge 1}$ and $(b_k)_{k\ge 1}$ in $S$ thus represent the same element of ${{\mathfrak{S}}}$ if and only if $a_k=b_k$ for each sufficiently large integer $k$. We view ${\mathbb{R}}$ as a subring of ${{\mathfrak{S}}}$ by identifying each $x\in{\mathbb{R}}$ with the image of the constant sequence $(x)_{k\ge 1}$ modulo $S_0$. This gives ${{\mathfrak{S}}}$ the structure of an ${\mathbb{R}}$-algebra. By restriction of scalars, we may also view ${{\mathfrak{S}}}$ as a ${\mathbb{Q}}$-algebra. In particular, given elements ${{\mathfrak{A}}}_1,\dots,{{\mathfrak{A}}}_\ell$ of ${{\mathfrak{S}}}$ we can form the sub-${\mathbb{Q}}$-algebra ${\mathbb{Q}}[{{\mathfrak{A}}}_1,\dots,{{\mathfrak{A}}}_\ell]$ that they generate.
For each $i\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ and each $j=0,1,2$, we define an element ${{\mathfrak{X}}}_j^{(i)}$ of ${{\mathfrak{S}}}$ by $$\label{formula:gX_j^i}
{{\mathfrak{X}}}_j^{(i)} = \text{\ class of\ }\big( x_{2k+i,j} \big)_{k\ge 1}
\text{\ in ${{\mathfrak{S}}}$,}$$ where for definiteness we agree that $x_{2k+i,j}=0$ when $2k+i \le
0$, although the resulting element of ${{\mathfrak{S}}}$ is independent of this choice. Clearly, ${{\mathfrak{X}}}_j^{(i+2)}$ differs simply from ${{\mathfrak{X}}}_j^{(i)}$ by a shift, but nevertheless they are quite different from the algebraic point of view. For each $i\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, we also define a triple $$\label{formula:gX}
{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(i)}
= \big( {{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(i)},\, {{\mathfrak{X}}}_1^{(i)},\, {{\mathfrak{X}}}_2^{(i)} \big)
\in {{\mathfrak{S}}}^3.$$ Identifying these triples with $2\times 2$ symmetric matrices according to our general convention, and using to extend the definition of $M_{k+1}$ to all integers $k$, Hypothesis \[hyp\] gives $$\label{formula:hyp_seq}
\det({{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(i)}) = 1
{\quad\mbox{and}\quad}{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(i+2)} = {{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(i+1)} M_{i+1} {{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(i)}$$ for each $i\in {\mathbb{Z}}$. Our goal in this paper is to study the sub-${\mathbb{Q}}$-algebra ${\mathbb{Q}}[{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\,{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}]$ of ${{\mathfrak{S}}}$. For this purpose, we form the polynomial ring ${{\mathbb{Q}}[{\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{X}}^*]}$ in six indeterminates $${\mathbf{X}}= (X_0, X_1, X_2)
{\quad\mbox{and}\quad}{\mathbf{X}}^* = (X_0^*, X_1^*, X_2^*).$$ We first note that ${{\mathbb{Q}}\big[{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\,{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}\big]}$ contains the coordinates of ${{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(i)}$ for each $i\in{\mathbb{Z}}$.
\[lemma:bi-degree\_gX\] For each $i\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, the coordinates of ${{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-i)}$ can be written as values at the point $\big({{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\,{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}\big)$ of polynomials of ${{\mathbb{Q}}[{\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{X}}^*]}$ that are separately homogeneous of degree $|f(i-2)|$ in ${\mathbf{X}}$ and homogeneous of degree $|f(i-1)|$ in ${\mathbf{X}}^*$.
By , the coordinates of ${{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(i+2)}$ are bilinear forms in $\big({{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(i+1)},\,{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(i)}\big)$ for each $i\in{\mathbb{Z}}$. Since each matrix ${{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(i)}M_i$ has determinant $1$, its inverse is its adjoint. Thus we find $${{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-i-2)} = {\text{Adj}}\big( {{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-i-1)} M_{-i-1} \big)\, {{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-i)},$$ showing that, for each $i\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, the coordinates of ${{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-i-2)}$ are also bilinear in $\big({{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-i-1)},\,{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-i)}\big)$. By recurrence, this implies that, for each $i\ge 0$, the coordinates of ${{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-i)}$ (resp. ${{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(i)}$) are the values at $\big({{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\, {{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}\big)$ of bi-homogeneous polynomials of bi-degree $(f(i-2),f(i-1))$ (resp. $(f(i),f(i-1))$). The conclusion follows since, for the same values of $i$, the formulas give $f(i)=|f(-i-2)|$ and $f(i-1)=|f(-i-1)|$.
The preceding result implicitly uses the natural surjective ring homomorphism $$\label{def:pi}
\begin{matrix}
\pi\colon &{{\mathbb{Q}}[{\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{X}}^*]}&\longrightarrow & {{\mathbb{Q}}\big[{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\,{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}\big]}\\[2pt]
&P({\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{X}}^*) &\longmapsto &P({{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}).
\end{matrix}$$ Our first goal is to describe the kernel of this map.
\[lemma:I\] The kernel of $\pi$ contains the ideal $I$ of ${{\mathbb{Q}}[{\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{X}}^*]}$ generated by the polynomials $$\label{def:gen_I}
\begin{gathered} \det({\mathbf{X}}) - 1 = X_0X_2 - X_1^2 - 1, \\
\det({\mathbf{X}}^*) - 1 = X^*_0 X^*_2 - (X^*_1)^2 - 1, \\
\Phi({\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{X}}^*) =
a_{1,1} \left| \begin{matrix}
X^*_0 &X^*_1 \\ X_0 &X_1
\end{matrix}
\right|
+ a_{1,2} \left| \begin{matrix}
X^*_1 &X^*_2 \\ X_0 &X_1
\end{matrix}
\right|
+ a_{2,1} \left| \begin{matrix}
X^*_0 &X^*_1 \\ X_1 &X_2
\end{matrix}
\right|
+ a_{2,2} \left| \begin{matrix}
X^*_1 &X^*_2 \\ X_1 &X_2
\end{matrix}
\right|.
\end{gathered}$$
The first equality in tells us that $\det({{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(i)})=1$ for each $i\in{\mathbb{Z}}$. Applying this with $i=0$ and $i=-1$, we deduce that $\det({\mathbf{X}})-1$ and $\det({\mathbf{X}}^*)-1$ belong to the kernel of $\pi$. On the other hand, the second equality in gives ${{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(1)} = {{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)} M
{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}$ and so $$\begin{pmatrix}
{{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(1)} &{{\mathfrak{X}}}_1^{(1)}\\
{{\mathfrak{X}}}_1^{(1)} &{{\mathfrak{X}}}_2^{(1)}
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
{{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(0)} &{{\mathfrak{X}}}_1^{(0)}\\
{{\mathfrak{X}}}_1^{(0)} &{{\mathfrak{X}}}_2^{(0)}
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} a_{1,1} &a_{1,2}\\ a_{2,1} &a_{2,2} \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
{{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(-1)} &{{\mathfrak{X}}}_1^{(-1)}\\
{{\mathfrak{X}}}_1^{(-1)} &{{\mathfrak{X}}}_2^{(-1)}
\end{pmatrix}.$$ In particular, the matrix product on the right gives rise to a symmetric matrix. This fact translates into $\Phi({{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}) = 0$, and so $\Phi \in \ker(\pi)$.
We will see below that $I$ is precisely the kernel of $\pi$. In Section \[sec:complement\] we will provide an alternative proof of this, suggested by Daniel Daigle, showing moreover that $I$ is a prime ideal of ${{\mathbb{Q}}[{\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{X}}^*]}$ of rank $3$, and therefore that ${{\mathbb{Q}}\big[{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\,{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}\big]}$ is an integral domain of transcendence degree $3$ over ${\mathbb{Q}}$.
Asymptotic behaviors {#subsec:2.4}
--------------------
The units of ${{\mathfrak{S}}}$ are the elements of ${{\mathfrak{S}}}$ which are represented by sequences $(a_k)_{k\ge 1}$ with $a_k\neq 0$ for each sufficiently large $k$. We define an equivalence relation $\sim$ on the group ${{\mathfrak{S}}}^*$ of units of ${{\mathfrak{S}}}$ by writing ${{\mathfrak{A}}}\sim{{\mathfrak{B}}}$ when ${{\mathfrak{A}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{B}}}$ are represented respectively by sequences $(a_k)_{k\ge 1}$ and $(b_k)_{k\ge 1}$ with $\lim_{k\to \infty}
a_k/b_k =1$. Then, for each $i\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, the condition E2 implies that $$\label{estimates:coord_gX}
{{\mathfrak{X}}}_1^{(i)} \sim \xi\, {{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(i)}
{\quad\mbox{and}\quad}{{\mathfrak{X}}}_2^{(i)} \sim \xi^2\, {{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(i)}.$$ For this reason, we regard the points ${{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(i)}$ as generic (projective) approximations to the triple $(1,\xi,\xi^2)$ and, in view of Lemma \[lemma:bi-degree\_gX\], we say that ${{\mathbb{Q}}\big[{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\,{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}\big]}$ is the ring of approximation triples to $(1,\xi,\xi^2)$. Since the second formula in gives $${{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(i+2)}
=
\begin{pmatrix} {{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(i+1)} &{{\mathfrak{X}}}_1^{(i+1)} \end{pmatrix}
M_{i+1}
\begin{pmatrix} {{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(i)}\\ {{\mathfrak{X}}}_1^{(i)} \end{pmatrix},$$ we also find that $$\label{estimates:gX0}
{{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(i+2)} \sim \theta\, {{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(i+1)}\, {{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(i)}$$ where $$ \theta
=
\begin{pmatrix} 1 &\xi \end{pmatrix}
M_{i+1}
\begin{pmatrix} 1\\ \xi \end{pmatrix}
=
a_{1,1} + (a_{1,2}+a_{2,1})\xi + a_{2,2}\xi^2$$ is independent of $i$ and non-zero because $\xi$ is transcendental over ${\mathbb{Q}}$ and $M$ is not skew-symmetric.
For each $d\in{\mathbb{N}}$, we denote by ${{\mathbb{Q}}[{\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{X}}^*]}_{\le d}$ the subspace of ${{\mathbb{Q}}[{\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{X}}^*]}$ consisting of all polynomials of total degree at most $d$, and by ${{\mathbb{Q}}\big[{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\,{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}\big]}_{\le d}$ its image under the evaluation map $\pi$. The next lemma provides a variety of elements of the latter set, with explicit behavior.
\[lemma:gM\] Let $d\in{\mathbb{N}}$. For each $\alpha = m+n/\gamma \in E_d$ and each integer $j$ with $0\le j \le 2s_d(\alpha)$, there exists an element ${{\mathfrak{M}}}_{\alpha,j}$ of ${{\mathbb{Q}}\big[{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\,{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}\big]}_{\le d}$ with $${{\mathfrak{M}}}_{\alpha,j}
\sim
\theta^{m+n-s_d(\alpha)} \xi^j
\big( {{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(0)} \big)^m
\big( {{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(-1)} \big)^n.$$
By recurrence, we deduce from that, for each $i\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, we have $${{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(i)}
\sim
\theta^{f(i+1)-1}
\big( {{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(0)} \big)^{f(i)}
\big( {{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(-1)} \big)^{f(i-1)}.$$ Now, let $\alpha = m+n/\gamma \in E_d$, let $s=s_d(\alpha)$, and let $j$ be an integer with $0\le j \le 2s$. By definition, there exist integers $0 \le i_1 \le \cdots \le i_s$ satisfying . Choose also integers $j_1,\dots,j_s\in \{0,1,2\}$ such that $j_1+\cdots+j_s=j$. Then, we find $$\prod_{k=1}^s {{\mathfrak{X}}}_{j_k}^{(-i_k)}
\sim
\xi^j
\prod_{k=1}^s \theta^{f(-{i_k}+1) - 1}\,
\big( {{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(0)} \big)^{f(-i_k)}
\big( {{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(-1)} \big)^{f(-i_k-1)}.$$ Since and are equivalent, the product on the right is simply $\theta^{m+n-s} \xi^j \big( {{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(0)} \big)^m
\big( {{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(-1)} \big)^n$. The conclusion then follows by observing that, according to Lemma \[lemma:bi-degree\_gX\], the product on the left is the value at $\big({{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\,
{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}\big)$ of some bi-homogeneous polynomial of ${{\mathbb{Q}}[{\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{X}}^*]}$ with bi-degree $\sum_{k=1}^s \big( f(i_k-2),f(i_k-1) \big)$, and thus with total degree $\sum_{k=1}^s f(i_k) \le d$.
In fact, we claim that the elements ${{\mathfrak{M}}}_{\alpha,j}$ constructed in the preceding lemma form a basis of ${{\mathbb{Q}}\big[{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\,{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}\big]}_{\le d}$. To prove this, we will first show that they are linearly independent over ${\mathbb{Q}}$, and count them using Theorem \[thm:comb\_deg\]. This will provide a lower bound for the dimension of ${{\mathbb{Q}}\big[{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\,{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}\big]}_{\le d}$. Next, using the fact that the ideal $I$ is contained in the kernel of the evaluation map $\pi$, we will find that the same number is also an upper bound for this dimension. This will prove our claim and will bring other consequences as well. We now proceed to the first step of this programme.
Growth estimates {#subsec:2.5}
----------------
Let ${{\mathfrak{S}}}_+$ denote the subgroup of ${{\mathfrak{S}}}^*$ whose elements are represented by sequences with positive terms. Given ${{\mathfrak{A}}},\, {{\mathfrak{B}}}\in
{{\mathfrak{S}}}_+$, we write ${{\mathfrak{A}}}\ll {{\mathfrak{B}}}$ or ${{\mathfrak{B}}}\gg {{\mathfrak{A}}}$ if there exists a constant $c>0$ such the corresponding sequences $(a_k)_{k\ge 1}$ and $(b_k)_{k\ge 1}$ satisfy $a_k \le c b_k$ for each sufficiently large index $k$. We write ${{\mathfrak{A}}}\asymp {{\mathfrak{B}}}$ if we both have ${{\mathfrak{A}}}\ll {{\mathfrak{B}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{A}}}\gg {{\mathfrak{B}}}$. The latter is an equivalence relation on ${{\mathfrak{S}}}_+$, and the condition E1 in §\[subsec:2.2\] can be expressed in the form $$ \big| {{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(i+1)} \big| \asymp \big| {{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(i)} \big|^\gamma$$ for each $i\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, where the absolute value and exponentiation are taken “component-wise”. In particular, for any $d\in{\mathbb{N}}$, $\alpha
= m+n/\gamma \in E_d$ and $j \in \{ 0, 1, \dots, 2s_d(\alpha)\}$, the element ${{\mathfrak{M}}}_{\alpha,j}$ of ${{\mathbb{Q}}\big[{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\,{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}\big]}_{\le d}$ provided by Lemma \[lemma:gM\] satisfies $$\big|{{\mathfrak{M}}}_{\alpha,j}\big|
\asymp
\big| {{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(0)} \big|^m
\big| {{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(-1)} \big|^n
\asymp
\big| {{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(0)} \big|^{m+n/\gamma}
=
\big| {{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(0)} \big|^\alpha.$$ Since each $E_d$ is a finite set of positive real numbers, this leads to the following conclusion.
\[lemma:comb\_gM\] Let $d\in{\mathbb{N}}$, let $r_{\alpha,j}$ ($\alpha\in E_d$, $0\le j \le
2s_d(\alpha)$) be rational numbers not all zero, let $\alpha' =
m+n/\gamma$ be the largest element of $E_d$ for which at least one of the numbers $r_{\alpha',j}$ ($0\le j \le 2s_d(\alpha')$) is non-zero, and put $s'=s_d(\alpha')$. Then, with the notation of Lemma \[lemma:gM\], the linear combination ${{\mathfrak{A}}}= \sum_{\alpha\in
E_d} \sum_{j=0}^{2s_d(\alpha)} r_{\alpha,j}\, {{\mathfrak{M}}}_{\alpha,j}$ satisfies $$ {{\mathfrak{A}}}\ \sim\
\bigg( \sum_{j=0}^{2s'} r_{\alpha',j}\, \xi^j \bigg)
\theta^{m+n-s'}
\big( {{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(0)} \big)^m
\big( {{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(-1)} \big)^n
{\quad\mbox{and}\quad}|{{\mathfrak{A}}}| \asymp\
\big| {{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(0)} \big|^{\alpha'}.$$
We are now ready to complete the first step of the programme outlined at the end of the subsection \[subsec:2.4\].
\[lemma:indep\_gM\] Let $d\in{\mathbb{N}}$. The elements ${{\mathfrak{M}}}_{\alpha,j}$ ($\alpha\in E_d$, $j=0,\dots,2s_d(\alpha)$) constructed in Lemma \[lemma:gM\] form a ${\mathbb{Q}}$-linearly independent subset of ${{\mathbb{Q}}\big[{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\,{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}\big]}_{\le d}$ with cardinality $(4d^3+6d^2+8d+3)/3$.
Lemma \[lemma:comb\_gM\] shows that the elements ${{\mathfrak{M}}}_{\alpha,j}$ are linearly independent over ${\mathbb{Q}}$. By Theorem \[thm:comb\_deg\], their number is $$\sum_{\alpha\in E_d} (2s_d(\alpha)+1)
= \sum_{s=0}^d \chi_d(s) (2s+1)
= (d+1)(2d+1) + \sum_{s=0}^{d-1} (2s+1)^2.$$
Computation of an Hilbert function {#subsec:2.6}
----------------------------------
We introduce a new variable $U$, make the ring ${\mathbb{Q}}[{\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{X}}^*,U]$ into a graded ring for the total degree, and denote by $I_1$ the homogeneous ideal of this ring generated by $$\label{generators:I1}
\det({\mathbf{X}})-U^2,\quad
\det({\mathbf{X}}^*)-U^2,\quad
\Phi({\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{X}}^*).$$ Then, for each $d\in {\mathbb{N}}$, Lemma \[lemma:I\] ensures that we have a surjective ${\mathbb{Q}}$-linear map $$\label{iso:I1}
\begin{aligned}
\big( {\mathbb{Q}}[{\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{X}}^*,U]/I_1 \big)_d
&\longrightarrow {{\mathbb{Q}}\big[{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\,{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}\big]}_{\le d}\\
P({\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{X}}^*,U) + I_1
&\longmapsto P\big({{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\, {{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)},\, 1\big).
\end{aligned}$$ In particular, this gives $$\label{upper_bound_dim_QgX}
\dim_{\mathbb{Q}}{{\mathbb{Q}}\big[{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\,{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}\big]}_{\le d}
\le H(I_1;d)
:= \dim_{\mathbb{Q}}\big( {\mathbb{Q}}[{\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{X}}^*,U]/I_1 \big)_d.$$ Thus, in order to complete the programme outlined at the end of the subsection \[subsec:2.4\], it remains to compute the Hilbert function $H(I_1;d)$ of $I_1$. We achieve this by showing first that the generators of $I_1$ form a regular sequence in ${\mathbb{Q}}[{\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{X}}^*,U]$.
Recall that a *regular sequence* in a ring $R$ is a finite sequence of elements $a_1,\dots,a_n$ of $R$ such that, for $i=1,\dots,n$, the multiplication by $a_i$ in $R/(a_1, \dots,
a_{i-1})$ is injective (with the convention that $(a_1, \dots,
a_{i-1}) = (0)$ for $i=0$). If $R$ is a polynomial ring in $m$ variables over a field, then, for any integer $n$ with $1\le n\le
m$, a sequence of $n$ homogeneous polynomials $a_1,\dots,a_n$ of $R$ is regular if and only if the ideal $(a_1,\dots,a_n)$ that it generates has rank (or codimension) equal to $n$. In that case, any permutation of $a_1,\dots,a_n$ is a regular sequence.
\[lemma:reg\_seq\_det\] The polynomials $\det({\mathbf{X}})$, $\det({\mathbf{X}}^*)$ and $\Phi({\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{X}}^*)$ form a regular sequence in ${{\mathbb{Q}}[{\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{X}}^*]}$.
Put $R:={{\mathbb{Q}}[{\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{X}}^*]}$. Since $\det({\mathbf{X}})$ and $\det({\mathbf{X}}^*)$ are relatively prime, they form a regular sequence in $R$. Moreover, the ideal that they generate is the kernel of the endomorphism of $R$ which maps $X_i$ to $X_0^{2-i}X_1^i$ and $X^*_i$ to $(X^*_0)^{2-i}
(X^*_1)^i$ for $i=0,1,2$. The conclusion follows by observing that the image of $\Phi({\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{X}}^*)$ under this map is $$(X_1X^*_0-X_0X_1^*)
(a_{1,1}X_0X^*_0+a_{1,2}X_0X^*_1+a_{2,1}X_1X_0^*+a_{2,2}X_1X_1^*),$$ which is a non-zero polynomial.
We can now turn to the ideal $I_1$.
\[lemma:reg\_seq\_I1\] The generators of $I_1$ form a regular sequence in ${\mathbb{Q}}[{\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{X}}^*,U]$. For each $d\in{\mathbb{N}}$, we have $$H(I_1;d)
=
(4d^3+6d^2+8d+3)/3.$$
Since the natural isomorphism ${\mathbb{Q}}[{\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{X}}^*,U]/(U) \to {{\mathbb{Q}}[{\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{X}}^*]}$ induced by the specialization $U\mapsto 0$ maps the sequence of polynomials to the regular sequence of $R$ studied in Lemma \[lemma:reg\_seq\_det\], we deduce that $U$, $\det({\mathbf{X}})-U^2$, $\det({\mathbf{X}}^*)-U^2$ and $\Phi({\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{X}}^*)$ form a regular sequence in ${\mathbb{Q}}[{\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{X}}^*,U]$. Since these are homogeneous polynomials, it follows that the last three of them, which generate $I_1$, form a regular sequence. Since the latter are homogeneous of degree $2$ and since ${\mathbb{Q}}[{\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{X}}^*,U]$ is a polynomial ring in $7$ variables, the Hilbert series of the ideal $I_1$ is given by $$\sum_{d=0}^\infty H(I_1;d) T^d
= \frac{(1-T^2)^3}{(1-T)^7}
= \frac{(1+T)^3}{(1-T)^4}
= (1+T)^3 \sum_{d=0}^\infty \binom{d+3}{3} T^d,$$ and a short computation completes the proof.
Conclusion {#subsec:2.7}
----------
Combining the above result with and Lemma \[lemma:indep\_gM\], we obtain finally:
\[thm:basis\_gM\] Let $d\in{\mathbb{N}}$. Then, the map is an isomorphism of vector spaces over ${\mathbb{Q}}$, and the elements ${{\mathfrak{M}}}_{\alpha,j}$ ($\alpha\in E_d$, $j=0,\dots,2s_d(\alpha)$) constructed in Lemma \[lemma:gM\] form a basis of ${{\mathbb{Q}}\big[{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\,{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}\big]}_{\le d}$. The dimension of the latter vector space is $(4d^3+6d^2+8d+3)/3$.
Applying first Lemma \[lemma:comb\_gM\] and then the growth estimates of Subsection \[subsec:2.5\], we deduce from this the following two consequences.
\[cor1:thm:basis\] Let $d\in{\mathbb{N}}$. For non-zero element ${{\mathfrak{A}}}$ of ${{\mathbb{Q}}\big[{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\,{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}\big]}_{\le d}$, there exists a point $\alpha = m+n/\gamma \in E_d$ and a polynomial $A\in{\mathbb{Q}}[T]$ of degree at most $2s_d(\alpha)$ such that $${{\mathfrak{A}}}\sim
\theta^{m+n-s_d(\alpha)} A(\xi)
\big( {{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(0)} \big)^m\,
\big( {{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(-1)} \big)^n.$$
\[cor2:thm:basis\] For non-zero element ${{\mathfrak{A}}}$ of ${{\mathbb{Q}}\big[{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\,{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}\big]}$, there exists a point $\alpha
\in {\mathbb{Z}}[\gamma]$ such that $${{\mathfrak{A}}}\asymp
\big| {{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(0)} \big|^\alpha.$$ The map ${{\mathfrak{A}}}\mapsto \alpha$ is a rank two valuation on the ring ${{\mathbb{Q}}\big[{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\,{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}\big]}$.
Finally, we note that, for each $d\in{\mathbb{N}}$, the linear map factors through the map from $({{\mathbb{Q}}[{\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{X}}^*]}_{\le d}+I)/I$ to ${{\mathbb{Q}}\big[{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\,{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}\big]}_{\le d}$ induced by $\pi$. Since the former is an isomorphism, the latter is also an isomorphism, and so:
\[cor:ker\_pi\] The ideal $I$ defined in Lemma \[lemma:I\] is the kernel of the evaluation map $\pi$ from ${{\mathbb{Q}}[{\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{X}}^*]}$ to ${{\mathbb{Q}}\big[{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\,{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}\big]}$.
Analogous results in bi-degree {#sec:bideg}
==============================
The following result is analogous to Theorem \[thm:comb\_deg\].
\[thm:comb\_bideg\] Let ${\mathbf{d}}= (d_1,d_2)\in{\mathbb{N}}^2$. For each $s\in{\mathbb{N}}$, let $\chi_{\mathbf{d}}(s)
= \chi_{d_1,d_2}(s)$ denote the number of points $(m,n)\in{\mathbb{Z}}^2$ for which the conditions $$\label{conditions:thm:comb_bideg}
(m,n) = \sum_{k=1}^s \big( f(-i_k),\, f(-i_k-1) \big),
\quad
\sum_{k=1}^s f(i_k-2) \le d_1
{\quad\mbox{and}\quad}\sum_{k=1}^s f(i_k-1) \le d_2,$$ admit a solution integers $0\le i_1\le\cdots\le i_s$, and $s$ is maximal with this property. Then, $$\label{formula:chi_ud}
\chi_{d_1,d_2}(s) =
\begin{cases}
2\min\{ d_1,\, d_2,\, s,\, d_1+d_2-s\} + 1
&\text{if\, $0\le s\le d_1+d_2$,}\\
0 &\text{if\, $s>d_1+d_2$.}
\end{cases}$$
Note that this function $\chi_{d_1,d_2}(s)$ possess several symmetries. For each $(d_1,d_2)\in{\mathbb{N}}^2$ and each $s=0,\dots,d_1+d_2$, it satisfies $$ \chi_{d_1,d_2}(s) = \chi_{d_2,d_1}(s)
{\quad\mbox{and}\quad}\chi_{d_1,d_2}(s) = \chi_{d_1,d_2}(d_1+d_2-s).$$ As in Section \[sec:ring\], we note that, for a point $\alpha =
m+n/\gamma \in {\mathbb{Z}}[\gamma]$, the conditions are equivalent to $$\label{conditions:decomp_alpha_bideg}
\alpha = \sum_{k=1}^s \gamma^{-i_k},
\quad
\sum_{k=1}^s f(i_k-2) \le d_1
{\quad\mbox{and}\quad}\sum_{k=1}^s f(i_k-1) \le d_2.$$ For each ${\mathbf{d}}\in {\mathbb{N}}^2$, we denote by $E_{\mathbf{d}}$ the set of $\alpha \in
{\mathbb{Z}}[\gamma]$ for which these conditions admit a solution in integers $0\le i_1\le\cdots\le i_s$ for some $s\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and, for each $\alpha\in E_{\mathbf{d}}$, we denote by $s_{\mathbf{d}}(\alpha)$ the largest such $s$. Then, Theorem \[thm:comb\_bideg\] tells us that, for given ${\mathbf{d}}\in{\mathbb{N}}^2$ and $s\in{\mathbb{N}}$, the number of elements $\alpha$ of $E_{\mathbf{d}}$ with $s_{\mathbf{d}}(\alpha)=s$ is $\chi_{\mathbf{d}}(s)$ given by . This will be proved in Section \[sec:comb\].
For each ${\mathbf{d}}= (d_1,d_2) \in{\mathbb{N}}^2$, we also denote by ${{\mathbb{Q}}[{\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{X}}^*]}_{\le
{\mathbf{d}}}$ the set of polynomials of ${{\mathbb{Q}}[{\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{X}}^*]}$ with degree at most $d_1$ in ${\mathbf{X}}$ and degree at most $d_2$ in ${\mathbf{X}}^*$. We also write ${{\mathbb{Q}}\big[{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\,{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}\big]}_{\le
{\mathbf{d}}}$ for the image of that set under the evaluation map $\pi$ defined by . We can now state and prove the following bi-degree analog of Theorem \[thm:basis\_gM\].
\[thm:basis\_gM’\] Let ${\mathbf{d}}=(d_1,d_2)\in{\mathbb{N}}^2$. For each $\alpha = m+n/\gamma \in
E_{\mathbf{d}}$ and each $j=0,\dots,2s_{\mathbf{d}}(\alpha)$, there exists an element ${{\mathfrak{M}}}'_{\alpha,j}$ of ${{\mathbb{Q}}\big[{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\,{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}\big]}_{\le {\mathbf{d}}}$ with $${{\mathfrak{M}}}'_{\alpha,j}
\sim
\theta^{m+n-s_{\mathbf{d}}(\alpha)} \xi^j
\big( {{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(0)} \big)^m
\big( {{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(-1)} \big)^n.$$ Any such choice of elements, one for each pair $(\alpha,j)$, provides a basis of ${{\mathbb{Q}}\big[{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\,{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}\big]}_{\le {\mathbf{d}}}$. This vector space has dimension $(d_1+d_2+1)(2d_1d_2+d_1+d_2+1)$.
The existence of the elements ${{\mathfrak{M}}}'_{\alpha,j}$ is established exactly as in the proof of Lemma \[lemma:gM\], upon replacing everywhere the symbol $d$ by ${\mathbf{d}}$, using and instead of and . Fix such a choice of elements. The fact that they are linearly independent over ${\mathbb{Q}}$ is proved as in §\[subsec:2.5\], upon observing that the statement of Lemma \[lemma:comb\_gM\] still holds when $d$ is replaced by ${\mathbf{d}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{M}}}_{\alpha,j}$ by ${{\mathfrak{M}}}'_{\alpha,j}$. According to Theorem \[thm:comb\_bideg\], they form a set of cardinality $\sum_{s=0}^{d_1+d_2} \chi_{\mathbf{d}}(s) (2s+1)$. Since $\chi_{\mathbf{d}}(s) = \chi_{\mathbf{d}}(d_1+d_2-s)$ for $s=0,\dots,d_1+d_2$, this cardinality is also given by $$\frac{1}{2} \sum_{s=0}^{d_1+d_2} \Big( \chi_{\mathbf{d}}(s) (2s+1)
+ \chi_{\mathbf{d}}(s) (2(d_1+d_2-s)+1) \Big)
=
(d_1+d_2+1) \sum_{s=0}^{d_1+d_2}\chi_{\mathbf{d}}(s).$$ A short computation based on the formula shows that the right-most sum is equal to $2d_1d_2+d_1+d_2+1$ (an alternative approach is to note that this sum is the cardinality of $E_{\mathbf{d}}$ and to use Corollary \[cor:card\_Ed\]). Thus the elements ${{\mathfrak{M}}}'_{\alpha,j}$ span a subspace of ${{\mathbb{Q}}\big[{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\,{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}\big]}_{\le {\mathbf{d}}}$ of dimension $(d_1+d_2+1)(2d_1d_2+d_1+d_2+1)$. To complete the proof, it remains only to show that the dimension of ${{\mathbb{Q}}\big[{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\,{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}\big]}_{\le {\mathbf{d}}}$ is no more than this. To that end, we proceed as in §\[subsec:2.6\]. We introduce two new indeterminates $V$ and $V^*$ and, for each ${\mathbf{n}}=(n_1,n_2)\in{\mathbb{N}}^2$, we denote by ${\mathbb{Q}}[{\mathbf{X}},V,{\mathbf{X}}^*,V^*]_{\mathbf{n}}$ the subspace of ${\mathbb{Q}}[{\mathbf{X}},V,{\mathbf{X}}^*,V^*]$ whose elements are homogeneous in $({\mathbf{X}},V)$ of degree $n_1$ and homogeneous in $({\mathbf{X}}^*,V^*)$ of degree $n_2$. This makes the polynomial ring $R_2:={\mathbb{Q}}[{\mathbf{X}},V,{\mathbf{X}}^*,V^*]$ into a ${\mathbb{N}}^2$-graded ring. Let $I_2$ denote the bi-homogeneous ideal of $R_2$ generated by $$\label{generators:I2}
\det({\mathbf{X}})-V^2,\quad
\det({\mathbf{X}}^*)-(V^*)^2,\quad
\Phi({\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{X}}^*).$$ Lemma \[lemma:I\] ensures that we have a surjective ${\mathbb{Q}}$-linear map in each bi-degree ${\mathbf{n}}$ $$\label{iso:I2}
\begin{aligned}
\big( {\mathbb{Q}}[{\mathbf{X}},V,{\mathbf{X}}^*,V^*]/I_2 \big)_{\mathbf{n}}&\longrightarrow {{\mathbb{Q}}\big[{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\,{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}\big]}_{\le {\mathbf{n}}}\\
P({\mathbf{X}},V,{\mathbf{X}}^*,V^*) + I_1
&\longmapsto P\big({{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\, 1,\, {{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)},\, 1\big).
\end{aligned}$$ In particular, this gives $\dim_{\mathbb{Q}}{{\mathbb{Q}}\big[{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\,{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}\big]}_{\le {\mathbf{d}}} \le H(I_2;{\mathbf{d}})$ where $H(I_2;{\mathbf{n}})$ stands for the Hilbert function of $I_2$ at ${\mathbf{n}}$, namely the dimension of the domain of the linear map . As in the proof of Lemma \[lemma:reg\_seq\_I1\], we deduce from Lemma \[lemma:reg\_seq\_det\] that the generators of $I_2$ form a regular sequence in $R_2$. Since these generators are bi-homogeneous of bi-degree $(2,0)$, $(0,2)$ and $(1,1)$, and since the grading of $R_2$ involves two sets of $4$ variables, we deduce that the Hilbert series of $I_2$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n_1,n_2\in{\mathbb{N}}} H(I_2;n_1,n_2) T_1^{n_1} T_2^{n_2}
&=
\frac{(1-T_1^2)(1-T_2^2)(1-T_1T_2)}{(1-T_1)^4(1-T_2)^4}\\
&=
(1-T_1T_2) \sum_{n_1,n_2\in{\mathbb{N}}}
(n_1+1)^2(n_2+1)^2 T_1^{n_1}T_2^{n_2}.
\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof as it implies that $$H(I_2;{\mathbf{d}})
= (d_1+1)^2(d_2+1)^2 - d_1^2d_2^2
= (d_1+d_2+1)(2d_1d_2+d_1+d_2+1).$$
Note that this result implies that the statement of Corollary \[cor1:thm:basis\] still holds in bi-degree, with $d$ replaced by ${\mathbf{d}}$.
Combinatorial study {#sec:comb}
===================
This section is devoted to the proof of Theorems \[thm:comb\_deg\] and \[thm:comb\_bideg\]. As mentioned in §\[subsec:2.1\], we work within the ring ${\mathbb{Z}}[\gamma]$. We define $$E= \{ \alpha\in{\mathbb{Z}}[\gamma] \,;\, \alpha\ge 0 \}
{\quad\mbox{and}\quad}E^* = E \setminus \{0\},$$ and note that, since $\gamma>0$, the sets $E_d$ and $E_{\mathbf{d}}$ defined respectively in Sections \[subsec:2.1\] and \[sec:bideg\] are subsets of $E$. Our first goal is to provide a more explicit description of these.
A partition {#subsec:4.1}
-----------
We first establish a partition of $E^*$.
\[prop:partitionE\] The sets $$\begin{aligned}
E^{(+)} &= \{ m+ n\gamma^{-1} \,;\, m,n\ge 1 \} \\
\text{and}\quad
E^{(i)} &= \{ m\gamma^{-i}+n\gamma^{-i-2} \,;\, m\ge 1, n\ge 0 \}
\quad \text{for}\quad i\ge 0\end{aligned}$$ form a partition $E^* = E^{(+)} \coprod \left( \coprod_{i=0}^\infty
E^{(i)} \right)$ of $E^*$.
Consider the bijection $\varphi\colon{\mathbb{Z}}[\gamma]\to
{\mathbb{Z}}^2$ which maps a point $m+n/\gamma$ to its pair of coordinates $(m,n)$ relative to the basis $\{1,1/\gamma\}$ of ${\mathbb{Z}}^2$. It identifies $E^*$ with the set of non-zero points $(m,n)$ of ${\mathbb{Z}}^2$ whose argument in polar coordinates satisfies $$-\arctan(\gamma) < \arg(m,n) < \pi-\arctan(\gamma).$$ Using the formulas , a quick recurrence argument shows that, for each index $i\ge 0$, the determinant of the points $\varphi(\gamma^{-i})$ and $\varphi(\gamma^{-i-2})$ is $$\left|
\begin{matrix}
f(i-2) &-f(i-1)\\ f(i) &-f(i+1)
\end{matrix}
\right|
=
(-1)^{i+1}.$$ This means that $\{ \varphi(\gamma^{-i}), \varphi(\gamma^{-i-2})\}$ forms a basis of ${\mathbb{Z}}^2$ for each $i\ge 0$. Since the points $\varphi(\gamma^{-2i})$ have positive first coordinate, it also means that $\arg\varphi(\gamma^{-2i})$ is a strictly decreasing function of $i\ge 0$ starting from $\arg\varphi(\gamma^0)=0$. Finally, since the points $\varphi(\gamma^{-2i-1})$ have positive second coordinate, it tells us that $\arg\varphi(\gamma^{-2i-1})$ is a strictly increasing function of $i\ge 0$ starting from $\arg\varphi(\gamma^{-1})=\pi/2$. In other words, we have $$\cdots
< \arg\varphi(\gamma^{-4})
< \arg\varphi(\gamma^{-2})
< \arg\varphi(\gamma^{0})
< \arg\varphi(\gamma^{-1})
< \arg\varphi(\gamma^{-3})
< \arg\varphi(\gamma^{-5})
< \cdots$$ We conclude from this that a point $\alpha$ of $E^*$ belongs to $E^{(+)}$ if and only if $\arg\varphi(\gamma^{0}) <
\arg\varphi(\alpha) < \arg\varphi(\gamma^{-1})$, and that it belongs to $E^{(i)}$ for some $i\ge 0$ if and only if $\arg\varphi(\alpha)$ lies between $\arg\varphi(\gamma^{-i})$ and $\arg\varphi(\gamma^{-i-2})$, with the first end point included and the second excluded. In particular the sets $E^{(+)}$ and $E^{(i)}$ with $i\ge 0$ are all disjoint. They cover $E^*$ because the fact that $\lim_{j\to \infty} f(j)/f(j-1) = \gamma$ implies that $\arg\varphi(\gamma^{-2i})$ and $\arg\varphi(\gamma^{-2i-1})$ tend respectively to $-\arctan(\gamma)$ and $\pi-\arctan(\gamma)$ as $i\to\infty$.
With our convention that an empty sum is zero, this implies that:
\[cor:representation\_alpha\] Any $\alpha\in E$ can be written in the form $$\label{dec:alpha:bis}
\alpha = \gamma^{-i_1} + \cdots + \gamma^{-i_s}$$ for a choice of integers $s\ge 0$ and $0\le i_1\le \cdots \le i_s$.
We say that a finite non-decreasing sequence of non-negative integers ${\mathbf{i}}=(i_1,\dots,i_s)$ is a *representation* of a point $\alpha$ of $E$ if it satisfies the condition . In particular, the only representation of the point $0$ is the empty sequence.
Degree and bi-degree
--------------------
For any finite non-decreasing sequence of non-negative integers ${\mathbf{i}}= (i_1, \dots, i_s)$, we define $$\begin{gathered}
d({\mathbf{i}}) = \sum_{k=1}^s f(i_k), \quad
d_1({\mathbf{i}}) = \sum_{k=1}^s f(i_k-2), \quad
d_2({\mathbf{i}}) = \sum_{k=1}^s f(i_k-1), \\
{\mathbf{d}}({\mathbf{i}}) = (d_1({\mathbf{i}}),d_2({\mathbf{i}}))
{\quad\mbox{and}\quad}s({\mathbf{i}}) = s.
\end{gathered}$$ We say that $d({\mathbf{i}})$, ${\mathbf{d}}({\mathbf{i}})$ and $s({\mathbf{i}})$ are respectively the *degree*, *bi-degree* and *size* of the point ${\mathbf{i}}$, while $d_1({\mathbf{i}})$ and $d_2({\mathbf{i}})$ are respectively the *first* and *second partial degrees* of ${\mathbf{i}}$. For the empty sequence, all these integers are zero. We also put a partial order on ${\mathbb{N}}^2$ by writing $(m,n)\le (m',n')$ if $m\le m'$ and $n\le n'$. We can now state and prove:
\[prop:degree\_alpha\] Let $\alpha = m + n/\gamma \in E^*$ and let ${\mathbf{i}}=(i_1,\dots,i_s)$ be a representation of $\alpha$. Then we have $d({\mathbf{i}}) \ge |m|+|n|$ and ${\mathbf{d}}({\mathbf{i}}) \ge (|m|,|n|)$. Both inequalities are equalities if $i_s\le 1$ or if $i_1, \dots, i_s$ share the same parity. Otherwise, they become strict inequalities. Moreover, we have $d_2({\mathbf{i}}) > |n|$ if $i_1,\dots,i_s$ contains a pair of positive integers not of the same parity.
Since $\alpha=\gamma^{-i_1} + \cdots + \gamma^{-i_s}$, the formulas imply that $$m = \sum_{k=1}^s (-1)^{i_k} f(i_k-2)
{\quad\mbox{and}\quad}n = \sum_{k=1}^s (-1)^{i_k+1} f(i_k-1)$$ From this we deduce that $$|m| \le \sum_{k=1}^s f(i_k-2) = d_1({\mathbf{i}})
{\quad\mbox{and}\quad}|n| \le \sum_{k=1}^s f(i_k-1) = d_2({\mathbf{i}}),$$ and the conclusion follows because $f(-2)=1$, $f(-1)=0$ and $f(i)
\ge 1$ for each $i\in{\mathbb{N}}$.
Since, by Proposition \[prop:partitionE\], each $\alpha\in E^*$ admits a representation ${\mathbf{i}}=(i_1,\dots,i_s)$ with $i_s\le 1$ or with $i_1,\dots,i_s$ of the same parity, we deduce that
\[cor:deg/bideg\] Each $\alpha = m + n/\gamma \in E$ admits a representation with largest degree $d(\alpha):=|m|+|n|$ and largest bi-degree ${\mathbf{d}}(\alpha):= (|m|,|n|)$.
We say that the integers $d(\alpha)$ and ${\mathbf{d}}(\alpha)$ defined in the above corollary are respectively the *degree* and *bi-degree* of $\alpha$.
Let $d\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and ${\mathbf{d}}=(d_1,d_2)\in{\mathbb{N}}^2$. In §\[subsec:2.1\] (resp. §\[sec:bideg\]), we defined $E_d$ (resp. $E_{\mathbf{d}}$) as the set of points which admit a representation of degree $\le d$ (resp.of bi-degree $\le {\mathbf{d}}$). According to the corollary, it can also be described as the set of elements of $E$ with degree $\le d$ (resp.with bi-degree $\le {\mathbf{d}}$): $$E_d = \{ m+n/\gamma\in E \,;\, |m|+|n| \le d \}
{\quad\mbox{and}\quad}E_{\mathbf{d}}= \{ m+n/\gamma\in E \,;\, |m|\le d_1, \ |n| \le d_2 \}.$$ We can now easily compute the cardinality of these sets.
\[cor:card\_Ed\] Let $d\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and ${\mathbf{d}}=(d_1,d_2)\in{\mathbb{N}}^2$. Then, we have $|E_d| =
d^2+d+1$ and $|E_{\mathbf{d}}| = 2d_1d_2+d_1+d_2+1$.
Denote by ${{\mathcal{L}}}$ the set of all non-zero points $(m,n)$ in ${\mathbb{Z}}^2$ satisfying $|m|+|n| \le d$ (resp. $|m|\le d_1$ and $|n|\le d_2$). Define also ${{\mathcal{L}}}^+$ to be the set of points $(m,n)$ in ${{\mathcal{L}}}$ for which $m+n/\gamma > 0$. Then, $E_d\setminus\{0\}$ (resp.$E_{\mathbf{d}}\setminus\{0\}$) is in bijection with ${{\mathcal{L}}}^+$. As the sets ${{\mathcal{L}}}^+$ and $-{{\mathcal{L}}}^+$ form a partition of ${{\mathcal{L}}}$ in two subsets of the same cardinality, it follows that the cardinality of $E_d$ (resp.of $E_{\mathbf{d}}$) is $1 + |{{\mathcal{L}}}|/2$, and the conclusion follows upon noting that $|{{\mathcal{L}}}|$ is $2d(d+1)$ (resp. $(2d_1+1)(2d_2+1)-1$).
Representations by quads {#subsec:3.3}
------------------------
Let $\alpha\in E$. For each $d\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $\alpha\in E_d$, we define the *size $s_d(\alpha)$ of $\alpha$ relative to $d$* to be the largest size of a representation of $\alpha$ of degree $\le
d$ (see §\[subsec:2.1\]). Similarly, for each ${\mathbf{d}}\in{\mathbb{N}}^2$ such that $\alpha\in E_{\mathbf{d}}$, we define the *size $s_{\mathbf{d}}(\alpha)$ of $\alpha$ relative to ${\mathbf{d}}$* to be the largest size of a representation of $\alpha$ of bi-degree $\le {\mathbf{d}}$ (see §\[sec:bideg\]). The next proposition shows that, in order to compute the various degrees and sizes of $\alpha$, it suffices to consider only representations of the form $$\label{dec:quad}
\alpha = a\gamma^{-i} + b\gamma^{-i-1} + c\gamma^{-i-2}$$ with $i,a,b,c\in {\mathbb{N}}$, and $a\ge 1$ if $\alpha\neq 0$.
\[prop:quad\] Let $d \in {\mathbb{N}}^*$ and let ${\mathbf{d}}\in {\mathbb{N}}^2\setminus\{(0,0)\}$. Each $\alpha \in E_d\setminus\{0\}$ admits a representation ${\mathbf{i}}=
(i_1,\dots,i_s)$ with degree $d({\mathbf{i}}) \le d$ and size $s =
s_d(\alpha)$ for which $i_s \le i_1+2$. Similarly, each $\alpha \in
E_{\mathbf{d}}\setminus\{0\}$ admits a representation ${\mathbf{i}}= (i_1,\dots,i_s)$ with bi-degree ${\mathbf{d}}({\mathbf{i}}) \le {\mathbf{d}}$ and size $s = s_{\mathbf{d}}(\alpha)$ for which $i_s \le i_1+2$.
Let $\alpha \in E_d\setminus\{0\}$. Put $s=s_d(\alpha)$, and choose a representation ${\mathbf{i}}=(i_1,\dots,i_s)$ of $\alpha$ of size $s$ with minimal degree. We claim that ${\mathbf{i}}$ has all the required properties. First it satisfies $d({\mathbf{i}})\le d$ by definition of $s_d(\alpha)$. It remains to show that $i_s\le i_1+2$.
To show this, we first observe that, for any pair of integers $(p,k)$ with $k\ge 1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma^{-p} + \gamma^{-p-2k-1}
&= \Big( \sum_{i=0}^{k-1} \gamma^{-p-2i-1} \Big)
+ \gamma^{-p-2k+1} \\
\gamma^{-p} + \gamma^{-p-2k-2}
&= \gamma^{-p-2}
+ \Big( \sum_{i=1}^{k} \gamma^{-p-2i} \Big)
+ \gamma^{-p-2k}.\end{aligned}$$ Assuming that $i_s\ge i_1+3$, these formulas show that the point $\beta = \gamma^{-i_1} + \gamma^{-i_s}$ admits a representation ${\mathbf{j}}= (j_1,\dots,j_t)$ with coordinates of the same parity as $i_s$, size $t=2$ if $i_s = i_1+3$, and size $t\ge 3$ if $i_s > i_1+3$. In this case, Proposition \[prop:degree\_alpha\] gives $d({\mathbf{j}}) =
d(\beta)$ and also $d(\beta) \le d(i_1,i_s)$ with the strict inequality if $i_s=i_1+3$. Then, upon reorganizing terms in the decomposition $$\alpha = (\gamma^{-j_1}+\cdots+\gamma^{-j_t})
+ (\gamma^{-i_2}+\cdots+\gamma^{-i_{s-1}}),$$ we get a representation ${\mathbf{i}}'$ of $\alpha$ with degree $d({\mathbf{i}}') =
d({\mathbf{i}}) + d(\beta) - d(i_1,i_s)$ and size $s({\mathbf{i}}')=s+t-2$. If $i_s =
i_1+3$, we have $d({\mathbf{i}}') < d({\mathbf{i}})$ and $s({\mathbf{i}}')=s$ in contradiction with the choice of ${\mathbf{i}}$. If $i_s> i_1+3$, we find that $d({\mathbf{i}}')
\le d({\mathbf{i}}) \le d$ and $s({\mathbf{i}}') > s = s_d(\alpha)$ in contradiction with the definition of $s_d(\alpha)$. Thus, we must have $i_s\le
i_1+2$.
This proves the first assertion of the proposition. The proof of the second assertion is the same provided that one replaces everywhere the word “degree” by “bi-degree”, and the symbol $d$ by ${\mathbf{d}}$.
We define a *quad* $q$ to be an expression of the form $q =
(i\,;\,a,b,c)$ with $i,a,b,c\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and $a\ge 1$. We say that a quad $q$ as above represents a point $\alpha\in E$ if it satisfies . Identifying it with the sequence formed by $a$ occurrences of $i$ followed by $b$ occurrences of $i+1$ and $c$ occurrences of $i+2$, the various notions of degree and size translate to $$\label{formulas:degree&bidegree}
\begin{gathered}
d_1(q) = af(i-2)+bf(i-1)+cf(i), \quad
d_2(q) = af(i-1)+bf(i)+cf(i+1), \\
d(q) = d_1(q)+d_2(q), \quad
{\mathbf{d}}(q) = \big( d_1(q),\ d_2(q) \big)
{\quad\mbox{and}\quad}s(q) = a+b+c.
\end{gathered}$$ In this context, Proposition \[prop:quad\] shows that for any $\alpha\in E^*$ and any integer $d\ge d(\alpha)$ (resp. any integer pair ${\mathbf{d}}\ge {\mathbf{d}}(\alpha)$), the integer $s_d(\alpha)$ (resp.$s_{\mathbf{d}}(\alpha)$) is the largest size of a quad of degree $\le d$ (resp. of bi-degree $\le {\mathbf{d}}$) which represents $\alpha$.
Sequences of quads {#subsec:4.4}
------------------
For each $\alpha\in E^*$, we denote by $Q_\alpha$ the set of quads which represent $\alpha$, and, for each ${\mathbf{d}}\in{\mathbb{N}}^2$, we denote by $Q_{\mathbf{d}}$ the set of quads of bi-degree ${\mathbf{d}}$. Although we use the same letter for both kinds of sets, the nature of the subscript should in practice remove any ambiguity. As we will see these families have similar properties. We start with those of the first kind.
\[prop:Qalpha\] Let $\alpha\in E^*$. The set $Q_\alpha$ of all quads representing $\alpha$ is an infinite set whose elements have distinct size. If we order its elements by increasing size, then their sizes form an increasing sequence of consecutive integers while their degrees, bi-degrees, and second partial degrees form strictly increasing sequences in ${\mathbb{N}}$, ${\mathbb{N}}^2$ and ${\mathbb{N}}$ respectively. The element of $Q_\alpha$ of smallest size is the quad of degree $d(\alpha)$ and bi-degree ${\mathbf{d}}(\alpha)$ associated to the representation of $\alpha$ given by Proposition \[prop:partitionE\].
The relation $\gamma^{-i} = \gamma^{-i-1}+\gamma^{-i-2}$ shows that, for each $q = (i\,;\,a,b,c) \in Q_\alpha$, the quad $$\label{def:theta}
\theta(q)
= \begin{cases}
(i\,;\,a-1,b+1,c+1) &\text{if $a\ge 2$,}\\
(i+1\,;\,b+1,c+1,0) &\text{if $a = 1$}
\end{cases}$$ also represents $\alpha$. This defines an injective map $\theta$ from $Q_\alpha$ to itself, which increases the size of a quad by $1$. Since the size of any quad is finite and non-negative, this implies that any $q\in Q_\alpha$ can be written in a unique way in the form $q = \theta^j(q_0)$ where $j \in {\mathbb{N}}$ and where $q_0$ is an element of $Q_\alpha$ which does not belong to the image of $\theta$. The latter condition on $q_0$ means that it is of the form $q_0 = (0\,;\, a, b, 0)$ with $a,b\ge 1$ or $q_0 = (i\,;\, a,
0, c)$ with $a\ge 1$. According to Proposition \[prop:partitionE\], there exists exactly one representation of $\alpha$ of that form and, by Proposition \[prop:degree\_alpha\], it has degree $d(\alpha)$ and bi-degree ${\mathbf{d}}(\alpha)$. Thus $q_0$ is the element of $Q_\alpha$ of smallest size, and we can organize $Q_\alpha$ in a sequence $\big(\theta^j(q_0)\big)_{j\ge 0}$ where the size increases by steps of $1$ Along this sequence, the degree, bi-degree and second partial degree are strictly increasing, since for any $q=(i\,;\,a,b,c) \in Q_\alpha$, the formula implies that ${\mathbf{d}}(\theta(q)) = {\mathbf{d}}(q) + (2f(i-1),
2f(i))$.
The proof of the above proposition provides an explicit recursive way of constructing the elements of $Q_\alpha$ by order of increasing size: given any $q\in Q_\alpha$ the next element is $\theta(q)$. We will not use this explicit formula in the sequel, except in the proof of the second corollary below.
\[cor:char\_size\] Let $d \in {\mathbb{N}}^*$, ${\mathbf{d}}\in{\mathbb{N}}^2\setminus\{(0,0)\}$, and $\alpha\in
E^*$. If $\alpha\in E_d$, then $s_d(\alpha)$ is the size of the quad of largest degree $\le d$ which represents $\alpha$. If $\alpha\in
E_{\mathbf{d}}$, then $s_{\mathbf{d}}(\alpha)$ is the size of the quad of largest bi-degree $\le {\mathbf{d}}$ which represents $\alpha$.
Suppose that $\alpha\in E_d$. Then, by Proposition \[prop:quad\], the size $s_d(\alpha)$ of $\alpha$ relative to $d$ is the largest size achieved by a quad of degree $\le d$ in $Q_\alpha$. By Proposition \[prop:Qalpha\], this is also the size of the quad of largest degree $\le d$ in $Q_\alpha$. The proof of the assertion in bi-degree ${\mathbf{d}}$ is similar.
\[cor:comp\_size\] Let $d \in {\mathbb{N}}^*$ and $\alpha\in E_d$. There exists one and only one representative $(i\,;\, a, b, c)$ of $\alpha$ which satisfies $$\label{ineq:comp_size}
d-2f(i+1) < af(i) + bf(i+1) + cf(i+2) \le d.$$ For this choice of quad, one has $s_d(\alpha)= a+b+c$.
By Corollary \[cor:char\_size\] and the remark following Proposition \[prop:Qalpha\], the integer $s_d(\alpha)$ is the size of the unique quad $q$ in $Q_\alpha$ satisfying $d(q) \le d <
d(\theta(q))$. Upon writing $q = (i\,;\, a, b, c)$ and using the formula for $\theta(q)$, the latter inequality translates into , and the conclusion follows.
\[prop:Qd\] Let ${\mathbf{d}}= (d_1,d_2) \in {\mathbb{N}}^2\setminus\{(0,0)\}$. The set $Q_{\mathbf{d}}$ of all quads of bi-degree ${\mathbf{d}}$ is a finite non-empty set whose elements have distinct size. If we order its elements by decreasing size, then their sizes form a decreasing sequence of consecutive integers while the points of $E_{\mathbf{d}}$ that they represent form a strictly decreasing sequence of positive real numbers. The element of $Q_{\mathbf{d}}$ of largest size has size $d_1+d_2$ and represents the point $d_1+d_2/\gamma$, while the element of $Q_{\mathbf{d}}$ of smallest size represents the point $|d_1-d_2/\gamma|$, both points being of bi-degree ${\mathbf{d}}$. The elements of $Q_{\mathbf{d}}$ of intermediate sizes represent points of bi-degree $\le (d_1,d_2-1)$.
The set $Q_{\mathbf{d}}$ is not empty as it contains the quad $$q_0
= \begin{cases}
(0\,;\, d_1,d_2,0) &\text{if $d_1>0$,}\\
(1\,;\, d_2,0,0) &\text{if $d_1=0$.}
\end{cases}$$ Since $f(-2)=1$, $f(-1)=0$ and $f(j)\ge 1$ for each $j\ge 0$, the formula for the bi-degree shows that $q_0$ is the only element of $Q_{\mathbf{d}}$ if $d_1=0$ or if $d_2=0$. As the proposition is easily verified in that case, we may assume that $d_1$ and $d_2$ are positive.
Define $Q_{\mathbf{d}}^+$ to be the set of quads $q=(i\,;\,a,b,c)$ of $Q_{\mathbf{d}}$ with $b\ge 1$. Then, under our present assumptions, $Q_{\mathbf{d}}^+$ is not empty as it contains the point $q_0$. Moreover, the recurrence relation for the function $f$ combined with shows that one defines a map $\psi\colon Q_{\mathbf{d}}^+ \to Q_{\mathbf{d}}$ by sending a quad $q = (i\,;\,a,b,c)
\in Q_{\mathbf{d}}^+$ to $$\label{formula:psi}
\psi(q)
= \begin{cases}
(i\,;\,a-1,b-1,c+1) &\text{if $a\ge 2$,}\\
(i+1\,;\,b-1,c+1,0) &\text{if $a = 1$ and $b\ge 2$,}\\
(i+2\,;\,c+1,0,0) &\text{if $a = b = 1$.}
\end{cases}$$ This map is injective and decreases the size of a quad by $1$. Thus any $q\in Q_{\mathbf{d}}$ can be written in a unique way in the form $q =
\psi^j(q_0')$ where $j \in {\mathbb{N}}$ and where $q_0'$ is an element of $Q_{\mathbf{d}}$ which does not belong to the image of $\psi$. This means that $q_0'$ is of the form $(0\,;\, a, b, 0)$ with $a,b\ge 1$ or $(1\,;\, a, 0, 0)$ with $a\ge 1$, and thus that $q_0' = q_0$ since its bi-degree is ${\mathbf{d}}$.
The above discussion shows that we can organize $Q_{\mathbf{d}}$ in a sequence $\big(\psi^j(q_0)\big)_{j=0}^t$ where the size decreases by steps of $1$, starting from the element $q_0$ of $Q_{\mathbf{d}}$ of largest size $d_1+d_2$, and ending with the element $q_t:=\psi^t(q_0)$ of smallest size. Since the quad $q_t$ does not belong to $Q_{\mathbf{d}}^+$, it has the form $(i\,;\, a, 0, c)$ for some $i\ge 0$. In the notation of Proposition \[prop:partitionE\], it thus represents a point of $E^{(i)} \subset E \setminus E^{(+)}$ which, by Proposition \[prop:degree\_alpha\], has bi-degree exactly ${\mathbf{d}}$. Since $d_1 +
d_2/\gamma \in E^{(+)}$ and $|d_1 - d_2/\gamma| \in E \setminus
E^{(+)}$ are the only points of $E$ of bi-degree ${\mathbf{d}}$, we conclude that $q_0$ and $q_t$ are respectively the representations of $d_1 +
d_2/\gamma$ and $|d_1 - d_2/\gamma|$ coming from Proposition \[prop:partitionE\]. All intermediate quads $\psi^j(q_0)$ with $j=1,\dots,t-1$ belong to $Q_{\mathbf{d}}^+ \setminus \{q_0\}$. They have the form $(i\,;\,a,b,c)$ with $i=0$ and $a,b,c\ge 1$, or with $i\ge
1$ and $a,b\ge 1$. Therefore, by Proposition \[prop:degree\_alpha\], they represent points of bi-degree $\le
(d_1,d_2-1)$. Finally, for any given $q = (i\,;\, a, b, c) \in
Q_{\mathbf{d}}^+$, the quad $\psi(q)$ given by represents the point $(a-1)\gamma^{-i} + (b-1)\gamma^{-i-1} +
(c+1)\gamma^{-i-2}$ of $E^*$ which, as a real number, is smaller than the point $a\gamma^{-i} + b\gamma^{-i-1} + c\gamma^{-i-2}$ represented by $q$. Thus the points of $E^*$ represented by quads in $Q_{\mathbf{d}}$ decrease (in absolute value) with the size of these quads.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:comb\_bideg\] {#subsec:4.5}
------------------------------------
We prove it in the following form.
\[thm:card\_Euds\] Let ${\mathbf{d}}=(d_1,d_2) \in {\mathbb{N}}^2$. For each integer $s\ge 0$, define $$E_{\mathbf{d}}(s) = \{ \alpha\in E_{\mathbf{d}}\,;\, s_{\mathbf{d}}(\alpha) = s \}.$$ Then, for $s>d_1+d_2$, this set is empty while for $0\le s\le
d_1+d_2$ its cardinality is $$\label{formula:card_Euds}
\big| E_{\mathbf{d}}(s) \big|
= 2\min\{d_1,\, d_2,\, s,\, d_1+d_2-s\} + 1.$$
We fix a choice of $d_1\ge 0$ and prove the theorem by recurrence on $d_2\ge 0$. For $d_2=0$, we have $E_{d_1,0}=\{0,1,\dots,d_1\}$ and $s_{d_1,0}(i)=i$ for $i=0,1,\dots,d_1$. Therefore $E_{d_1,0}(s)$ has cardinality $1$ for $0\le s \le d_1$ and is empty for $s>d_1$, as asserted by the theorem. Suppose now that $d_2>0$ and that the statement of the theorem holds in bi-degree $(d_1,d_2-1)$.
Fix an integer $s\ge 0$. In order to establish the formula in bi-degree $(d_1,d_2)$, we first compare the sets $E_{d_1,d_2}(s)$ and $E_{d_1,d_2-1}(s)$.
1\) According to Corollary \[cor:char\_size\], the points of $E_{d_1,d_2}(s)$ which do not belong to $E_{d_1,d_2-1}(s)$ are the elements $\alpha$ of $E$ for which the quad of $Q_\alpha$ of largest bi-degree $\le (d_1,d_2)$ has size $s$ but does not have bi-degree $\le (d_1,d_2-1)$. They are therefore the points of $E$ which are represented by an element of $Q_{i,d_2}$ of size $s$ for some integer $i$ with $0\le i\le d_1$. Since by Proposition \[prop:Qalpha\] the quads representing the same point have distinct second partial degrees, and since by Proposition \[prop:Qd\] each $Q_{i,d_2}$ contains at most one element of size $s$, we conclude that the cardinality of $E_{d_1,d_2}(s) \setminus
E_{d_1,d_2-1}(s)$ is the number of indices $i$ with $0\le i\le d_1$ such that $Q_{i,d_2}$ contains an element of size $s$.
2\) According again to Corollary \[cor:char\_size\], the points of $E_{d_1,d_2-1}(s)$ which do not belong to $E_{d_1,d_2}(s)$ are the points $\alpha$ of $E_{d_1,d_2-1}$ for which $Q_\alpha$ contains both a quad of size $s$ and bi-degree $\le (d_1,d_2-1)$, and a quad of size $s+1$ and bi-degree $(i,d_2)$ for some $i$ with $0\le i\le
d_1$. The first condition however is redundant because if $\alpha
\in E_{d_1,d_2-1}$ is represented by a quad of size $s+1$ and bi-degree $(i,d_2)$ with $0\le i\le d_1$, then as the second partial degree increases with the size in $Q_\alpha$ while the first partial degree does not decrease (by Proposition \[prop:Qalpha\]), the quad of $Q_\alpha$ with largest bi-degree $\le (d_1,d_2-1)$ must have size $s$. Thus, the set $E_{d_1,d_2-1}(s) \setminus
E_{d_1,d_2}(s)$ consists of the points of $E_{d_1,d_2-1}$ which are represented by an element of $Q_{i,d_2}$ of size $s+1$ for some $i$ with $0\le i\le d_1$. Moreover, according to Proposition \[prop:Qd\], for a given $i\in{\mathbb{N}}$ all elements of $Q_{i,d_2}$ represent points of bi-degree $\le (i,d_2-1)$ except for the ones of smallest or largest size. Therefore, the cardinality of $E_{d_1,d_2-1}(s) \setminus E_{d_1,d_2}(s)$ is the number of indices $i$ with $0\le i\le d_1$ such that $Q_{i,d_2}$ contains an element of size $s$ and an element of size $s+2$.
Combining the conclusions of 1) and 2), we obtain that the cardinality of $E_{d_1,d_2}(s)$ is equal to that of $E_{d_1,d_2-1}(s)$ plus the number of indices $i$ with $0\le i\le
d_1$ such that $Q_{i,d_2}$ contains an element of size $s$ but no element of size $s+2$. Since, by Proposition \[prop:Qd\], the largest size of an element of $Q_{i,d_2}$ is $i+d_2$, the latter condition on $i$ amounts to either $i+d_2=s$ or both $i+d_2=s+1$ and $i\neq 0$ (so that $Q_{i,d_2}$ contains at least two elements and thus contains an element of size $s$). This provides the recurrence relation $$|E_{d_1,d_2}(s)|
= |E_{d_1,d_2-1}(s)|
+
\begin{cases}
0 &\text{if\, $s<d_2$ or $s>d_1+d_2$,}\\
1 &\text{if\, $s=d_1+d_2$,}\\
2 &\text{if\, $d_2\le s < d_1+d_2$.}
\end{cases}$$ Combining this with the induction hypothesis for $|E_{d_1,d_2-1}(s)|$, we get $|E_{d_1,d_2}(s)|=0$ if $s>d_1+d_2$ and $|E_{d_1,d_2}(s)|=1$ if $s=d_1+d_2$. If $s< d_1+d_2$, it also provides the required value for $|E_{d_1,d_2}(s)|$ because the difference $$\min\{d_1,\, d_2,\, s,\, d_1+d_2-s\}
- \min\{d_1,\, d_2-1,\, s,\, d_1+d_2-1-s\}$$ is $0$ if $\min\{d_1,\, s\} < \min\{d_2,\, d_1+d_2-s\}$ and $1$ otherwise. Since $\min\{d_2,\, d_1+d_2-s\} = d_2 - s + \min\{d_1,\,
s\}$, this difference is therefore $0$ if $s<d_2$ and is $1$ if $d_2\le s< d_1+d_2$.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:comb\_deg\] {#subsec:4.6}
----------------------------------
Similarly, we prove Theorem \[thm:comb\_deg\] in the following form.
\[thm:card\_Eds\] Let $d \in {\mathbb{N}}$. For each integer $s\ge 0$, define $$E_d(s) = \{ \alpha\in E_d \,;\, s_d(\alpha) = s \}.$$ Then, for $s>d$, this set is empty while for $0\le s\le d$ its cardinality is $$\big| E_d(s) \big|
= \begin{cases}
2s+1 &\text{if $0\le s<d$,}\\
d+1 &\text{if $s=d$.}
\end{cases}$$
We proceed by recurrence on $d$. For $d=0$, we have $E_0=\{0\}$ and since $s_0(0)=0$, the theorem is verified in that case. Suppose now that $d > 0$ and that the conclusion of the theorem holds in smaller degree.
Fix an integer $s\ge 0$. Arguing in a similar way as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:card\_Euds\], we find that:
- $E_d(s) \setminus E_{d-1}(s)$ consists of the points of $E$ which are represented by a quad of $Q_{i,d-i}$ of size $s$ for some integer $i$ with $0\le i\le d$; its cardinality is the number of indices $i$ with $0\le i\le d$ such that $Q_{i,d-i}$ contains an element of size $s$;
- $E_{d-1}(s) \setminus E_d(s)$ consists of the points of $E_{d-1}$ which are represented by an element of $Q_{i,d-i}$ of size $s+1$ for some $i$ with $0\le i\le d$; its cardinality is the number of indices $i$ with $0\le i\le d$ such that $Q_{i,d-i}$ contains an element of size $s$ and an element of size $s+2$.
Thus, the cardinality of $E_d(s)$ is equal to that of $E_{d-1}(s)$ plus the number of indices $i$ with $0\le i\le d$ such that $Q_{i,d-i}$ contains an element of size $s$ but no element of size $s+2$. Since the largest size of an element of $Q_{i,d-i}$ is $d$, the latter condition amounts to either $d=s$ or both $d=s+1$ and $i\neq 0$. This gives the recurrence relation $$|E_d(s)|
= |E_{d-1}(s)|
+
\begin{cases}
0 &\text{if\, $s<d-1$ or $s>d$,}\\
d &\text{if\, $s=d-1$,}\\
d+1 &\text{if\, $s=d$,}
\end{cases}$$ and from there the conclusion follows.
Application to a dimension estimate {#sec:applic}
===================================
The following result illustrates how the theory developed in Sections \[sec:ring\] and \[sec:comb\] can be used to derive dimension estimates of the type that one requires in the construction of auxiliary polynomials.
Let $d\in{\mathbb{N}}^*$ and $\delta\in{\mathbb{R}}$ with $0<\delta\le \gamma d$. Define $V_d(\delta)$ to be the set of sequences ${{\mathfrak{A}}}\in {{\mathbb{Q}}\big[{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\,{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}\big]}_{\le
d}$ satisfying $|{{\mathfrak{A}}}| \ll |{{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(0)}|^{\delta}$. Then, $V_d(\delta)$ is a subspace of ${\mathbb{Q}}[{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)}, {{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}]_{\le d}$ and its dimension satisfies $$\label{applic:ineq_thm}
c_1(d\delta)^{3/2}
\le
\dim_{\mathbb{Q}}V_d(\delta)
\le
1+c_2(d\delta)^{3/2},$$ for appropriate positive constants $c_1$ and $c_2$ depending only on $\xi$.
It is clear that $V_d(\delta)$ is a vector space over ${\mathbb{Q}}$. Combining Lemma \[lemma:comb\_gM\] with Theorem \[thm:basis\_gM\] and then using Corollary \[cor:comp\_size\] we find that his dimension is $$\dim_{\mathbb{Q}}V_d(\delta)
= \sum_{\{\alpha\in E_d\,;\, \alpha\le\delta\}}
(2s_d(\alpha)+1)
= 1 + \sum_S (2(a+b+c)+1),$$ where the rightmost sum runs over the set $S$ of all quads $(i\,;\,a,b,c)$ satisfying the system of inequalities $$\begin{gathered}
\label{applic:ineq1}
d-2f(i+1) < af(i) + bf(i+1) + cf(i+2) \le d, \\
\label{applic:ineq2}
a\gamma^{-i} + b\gamma^{-i-1} + c\gamma^{-i-2} \le \delta.\end{gathered}$$ For each $i\in{\mathbb{N}}$, let $S_i$ denote the set of triples $(a,b,c)\in{\mathbb{N}}^3$ satisfying both $a\ge 1$ and the first condition . In the computations below, we freely use the fact that $\gamma^{i-1}\le f(i) \le \gamma^i$ for each $i\in{\mathbb{N}}$ (as one easily shows by recurrence on $i$).
Let $i\in{\mathbb{N}}$. We first note that $S_i$ is empty if $f(i)>d$ (since we require $a\ge 1$). Assume that $f(i)\le d$. Then each $(a,b,c)\in S_i$ satisfies $d/(2f(i+2)) \le a+b+c\le d/f(i)$ and so $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{\gamma^{i+2}} \le \frac{d}{f(i+2)}
&\le 2(a+b+c)+1
\le \frac{2d}{f(i)}+1 \le \frac{3d}{f(i)}
\le \frac{3d}{\gamma^{i-1}},\\
\frac{d}{2\gamma^{2i+4}} \le \frac{d}{2f(i+2)}\gamma^{-i-2}
&\le a\gamma^{-i} + b\gamma^{-i-1} + c\gamma^{-i-2}
\le \frac{d}{f(i)}\gamma^{-i}
\le \frac{d}{\gamma^{2i-1}}.
\end{aligned}$$ The second chain of inequalities implies that if some $(a,b,c)\in
S_i$ satisfies , then we must have $d\le
2\gamma^{2i+4}\delta$. On the other hand, it also implies that any $(a,b,c)\in S_i$ satisfies as soon as $d\le
\gamma^{2i-1}\delta$. Therefore, we obtain $$1 + \sum_{i\in J} |S_i| \frac{d}{\gamma^{i+2}}
\le
\dim_{\mathbb{Q}}V_d(\delta)
\le
1 + \sum_{i\in I} |S_i| \frac{3d}{\gamma^{i-1}}$$ where $I$ denotes the set of integers $i\ge 0$ such that $f(i)\le d$ and $d \le 2\gamma^{2i+4}\delta$, and $J$ the set of integers $i\ge
0$ such that $f(i)\le d$ and $d\le\gamma^{2i-1}\delta$.
Again, let $i\in{\mathbb{N}}$. For each choice of integers $a\ge 1$ and $c\ge 0$ with $af(i)+cf(i+2)\le d$, there are exactly two choices of integer $b\ge 0$ such that $(a,b,c)$ satisfies , or equivalently such that $(a,b,c)\in S_i$. This means that the cardinality $|S_i|$ of $S_i$ is twice the number of points $(a,c)\in{\mathbb{N}}^*\times {\mathbb{N}}$ satisfying $af(i)+cf(i+2)\le d$. Since $f(i)\le d$ for each $i$ in $I$ or $J$, this number is non-zero and a short computation provides absolute constants $c_3>0$ and $c_4>0$ such that $|S_i| \le c_3 d^2 \gamma^{-2i}$ for each $i\in I$ and $|S_i| \ge c_4 d^2 \gamma^{-2i}$ for each $i\in J$.
If $I$ is not empty, it contains a smallest element $i_0$ and so the above considerations give $$\dim_{\mathbb{Q}}V_d(\delta)
\le 1 + 3 c_3 d^3 \sum_{i=i_0}^\infty \gamma^{-3i+1}
\le 1 + 4 \gamma c_3 (d\gamma^{-i_0})^3.$$ Since $d\le 2 \gamma^{2i_0+4}\delta$, we find that $d\gamma^{-i_0}
\le (2\gamma^4 d\delta)^{1/2}$ and so $\dim_{\mathbb{Q}}V_d(\delta) \le 1 +
c_2 (d\delta)^{3/2}$ with $c_2 = 12\gamma^7 c_3$. If $I$ is empty, $V_d(\delta)$ has dimension $1$ and this inequality still holds.
Let $j_0$ denote the integer for which $\gamma^{2j_0-3}\delta < d
\le \gamma^{2j_0-1}\delta$. Since $\delta \le \gamma d$, we have $j_0\ge 0$, and thus $j_0$ belongs to $J$ if and only if $f(j_0) \le
d$. In that case, using $\gamma^{2j_0-3}\delta < d$, we find that $d\gamma^{-j_0} \ge \gamma^{-3/2} (d\delta)^{1/2}$ and so $$\dim_{\mathbb{Q}}V_d(\delta)
\ge |Q_{j_0}| \frac{d}{\gamma^{j_0+2}}
\ge \gamma^{-2} c_4 (d\gamma^{-j_0})^3
\ge \gamma^{-7} c_4 (d\delta)^{3/2}.$$ If $j_0\notin J$, then we have $d < f(j_0) \le \gamma^{j_0}$, thus $d\delta \le \gamma^{j_0}\delta \le \gamma^{-j_0+3} d \le \gamma^3$ and therefore $$\dim_{\mathbb{Q}}V_d(\delta)
\ge
1
\ge
\gamma^{-9/2} (d\delta)^{3/2},$$ showing that the lower bound in holds with $c_1 = \min\{ \gamma^{-7} c_4,\, \gamma^{-9/2}\}$.
A complementary result {#sec:complement}
======================
Following a suggestion of Daniel Daigle, we show:
\[thm:prime\] The ideal $I$ defined in Lemma \[lemma:I\] is a prime ideal of rank $3$ of the ring $R={{\mathbb{Q}}[{\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{X}}^*]}$.
This provides a proof of Corollary \[cor:ker\_pi\] which is independent of the combinatorial arguments of Section \[sec:comb\]. Indeed, it follows easily from the considerations of §§\[subsec:2.4\]–\[subsec:2.5\] that ${{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(0)}$, ${{\mathfrak{X}}}_0^{(-1)}$ and ${{\mathfrak{X}}}_1^{(-1)}$ are elements of ${{\mathbb{Q}}\big[{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\,{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}\big]}$ which are algebraically independent over ${\mathbb{Q}}$. On the other hand, the evaluation map $\pi\colon R \to {{\mathbb{Q}}\big[{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\,{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}\big]}$ defined by induces a surjective ring homomorphism $\bar{\pi}\colon R/I \to
{{\mathbb{Q}}\big[{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\,{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}\big]}$ and, if we take for granted Theorem \[thm:prime\], the quotient $R/I$ is an integral domain of transcendence degree $3$ over ${\mathbb{Q}}$. Therefore, as Daniel Daigle remarked, this means that $\bar{\pi}$ is an isomorphism. This not only proves Corollary \[cor:ker\_pi\] but also:
The ring ${{\mathbb{Q}}\big[{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(0)},\,{{\mathfrak{X}}}^{(-1)}\big]}$ is an integral domain of transcendence degree $3$ over ${\mathbb{Q}}$.
In order to prove Theorem \[thm:prime\], we first note that we may assume, without loss of generality, that the coefficient $a_{2,2}$ of the matrix $M$ is non-zero. Indeed, as we saw at the end of §\[subsec:2.2\], at least one of the coefficients $a_{1,1}$ or $a_{2,2}$ of $M$ is non-zero. If $a_{2,2}=0$, then $a_{1,1}\neq 0$ and we replace $I$ by its image under the ring automorphism of $R$ which sends $X_i$ to $X_{2-i}$ and $X^*_i$ to $X^*_{2-i}$ for $i=0,1,2$. This automorphism fixes the first two generators $\det({\mathbf{X}})-1$ and $\det({\mathbf{X}}^*)-1$ of $I$ and maps $\Phi({\mathbf{X}},{\mathbf{X}}^*)$ to a polynomial of the same form with the coefficient $a_{2,2}$ replaced by $-a_{1,1}\neq 0$.
Now, let $V$, $V^*$ and $W$ be indeterminates over $R$. We put a ${\mathbb{N}}^3$-grading on the ring $R_3 := R[V,V^*,W]$ by requesting that each variable is multi-homogeneous with multi-degree: $$\begin{gathered}
\deg(X_i)=(1,0,i),\quad \deg(X_i^*)=(0,1,i) \quad \text{for $i=0,1,2$,}\\
\deg(V)=(1,0,1),\quad \deg(V^*)=(0,1,1) {\quad\mbox{and}\quad}\deg(W)=(0,0,1).
\end{gathered}$$ A polynomial $P$ in $R_3$ is thus multi-homogeneous of multi-degree $(d_1,d_2,d_3)$ if and only if, in the usual sense, it is homogeneous of degree $d_1$ in $({\mathbf{X}},V)$, homogeneous of degree $d_2$ in $({\mathbf{X}}^*,V^*)$, and if its image under the specialization $X_i\mapsto W^iX_i$, $X_i^*\mapsto W^iX^*_i$ ($i=0,1,2$), $V\mapsto
WV$ and $V^*\mapsto WV^*$ belongs to $W^{d_3}R[V,V^*]$. In this case, $d_3$ is called the *weight* of $P$.
Let $I_3$ denote the ideal of $R_3$ generated by $$\begin{aligned}
F &= \det({\mathbf{X}}) - V^2,\\
F^* &= \det({\mathbf{X}}^*)- (V^*)^2, \\
G &=
a_{1,1} \left| \begin{matrix}
X^*_0 &X^*_1 \\ X_0 &X_1
\end{matrix}
\right| W^2
+ \left(
a_{1,2} \left| \begin{matrix}
X^*_1 &X^*_2 \\ X_0 &X_1
\end{matrix}
\right|
+ a_{2,1} \left| \begin{matrix}
X^*_0 &X^*_1 \\ X_1 &X_2
\end{matrix}
\right|
\right) W
+ a_{2,2} \left| \begin{matrix}
X^*_1 &X^*_2 \\ X_1 &X_2
\end{matrix}
\right|.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $F$, $F^*$ and $G$ are respectively multi-homogeneous of multi-degree $(2,0,2)$, $(0,2,2)$ and $(1,1,3)$, the ideal $I_3$ is multi-homogeneous. By construction, it is mapped to $I$ under the $R$-linear ring homomorphism from $R_3$ to $R$ sending $V$, $V^*$ and $W$ to $1$. Moreover, any element of $I$ is the image of a multi-homogeneous element of $I_3$ under that map. Therefore, in order to prove Theorem \[thm:prime\], it suffices to show that $I_3$ is a prime ideal of $R_3$. In preparation to this, we first establish the following lemma where, for any $f\in R_3$, we define $(I_3\colon f) = \{a\in R_3\,;\, af\in I_3 \}$.
\[lemma:reg\_seqVW\] The polynomials $F$, $F^*$ and $G$ form a regular sequence in $R_3$ and we have $(I_3\colon X_0) = (I_3\colon X^*_0) = I_3$.
Each polynomial in the sequence $X_0$, $X^*_0$, $F$, $F^*$, $G$ depends on a variable on which the preceding polynomials do not depend ($V$ for $F$, $V^*$ for $F^*$ and $W$ for $G$). Therefore, this sequence generates an ideal of $R_3$ of rank $5$, and so it is a regular sequence. Since these polynomials are homogeneous, any reordering of this sequence remains a regular sequence, and the conclusion follows.
We now complete the proof of Theorem \[thm:prime\] by showing:
The ideal $I_3$ is prime of rank $3$.
Let $S$ denote the multiplicative subset of $R_3$ generated by $X_0$ and $X_0^*$. By Lemma \[lemma:reg\_seqVW\], we have $(I_3\colon f)
= I_3$ for each $f\in S$. So, it is equivalent to prove that $S^{-1}I_3$ is a prime ideal in the localized ring $S^{-1} R_3$. Since $$X_0^{-1}F = X_2-X_0^{-1}(X_1^2+V^2)
{\quad\mbox{and}\quad}(X_0^*)^{-1}F^* = X_2^*-(X_0^*)^{-1}((X_1^*)^2+(V^*)^2),$$ this amounts simply to showing that $G$ is mapped to a prime element under the ring endomorphism of $S^{-1} R_3$ sending $X_2$ to $X_0^{-1}(X_1^2+V^2)$, $X_2^*$ to $(X_0^*)^{-1}
((X_1^*)^2+(V^*)^2)$, and all other variables to themselves. The image of $G$ takes the form $(X_0X^*_0)^{-1} H$ where $$\begin{aligned}
H =
a_{1,1}
&\left| \begin{matrix}
X^*_0 &X^*_1 \\ X_0 &X_1
\end{matrix}
\right| X_0 X^*_0 W^2
+ a_{1,2} \left| \begin{matrix}
X^*_0X^*_1 &(X^*_1)^2+(V^*)^2 \\ X_0 &X_1
\end{matrix}
\right| X_0 W \\
&+ a_{2,1} \left| \begin{matrix}
X^*_0 &X^*_1 \\ X_0 X_1 &X_1^2+V^2
\end{matrix}
\right| X^*_0 W
+ a_{2,2} \left| \begin{matrix}
X^*_0X^*_1 &(X^*_1)^2+(V^*)^2 \\ X_0 X_1 &X_1^2+V^2
\end{matrix}
\right|.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $R_3$ is a unique factorization domain, we are reduced to showing that $H$ is an irreducible element of $R_3$. Moreover, since $H$ is multi-homogeneous of multi-degree $(2,2,3)$, it suffices to prove that $H$ has no non-constant multi-homogeneous divisor of multi-degree $<(2,2,3)$. Let $H_0$ denote the constant coefficient of $H$, viewed as a polynomial in $W$. Since $a_{2,2}\neq 0$, it is non-zero. It takes the form $H_0 =
a(V^*)^2-b$ where $a$ and $b$ are relatively prime elements of $R[V]$ such that $ab$ is not a square in $R[V]$ ($ab$ is divisible by $X_0$ but not by $X_0^2$). Therefore $H_0$ is irreducible. If $A$ is a multi-homogeneous divisor of $H$ of multi-degree $<(2,2,3)$, then the constant coefficient $A_0$ of $A$ (as a polynomial in $W$) is a divisor of $H_0$. Since $H_0$ is irreducible and multi-homogeneous of the same multi-degree $(2,2,3)$ as $H$, it follows that $A_0$ is a constant and therefore that $A$ itself is a constant.
The authors thank Daniel Daigle for several interesting discussions on the topic of this paper, for the suggestion mentioned above, as well as for suggesting the formalism of the ring of sequences ${{\mathfrak{S}}}$ in Section 2.
[99]{}
B. Adamczewski and Y. Bugeaud, Mesures de transcendance et aspects quantitatifs de la méthode de Thue-Siegel-Roth-Schmidt, tapuscript.
Y. Bugeaud, M. Laurent, Exponents of Diophantine Approximation and Sturmian Continued Fractions, [*Ann. Inst. Fourier*]{} [**55**]{} (2005), 773–804.
H. Davenport, W. M. Schmidt, Approximation to real numbers by algebraic integers, [*Acta Arith. *]{}[**15**]{} (1969), 393–416.
S. Fischler, Palindromic prefixes and episturmian words, [*J.Combin. Theory Ser. A*]{} [**113**]{} (2006),1281–1304.
S. Fischler, Palindromic prefixes and Diophantine approximation, [*Monatsh. Math. *]{}[**151**]{} (2007), 11–37.
D. Roy, Approximation simultanée d’un nombre et de son carré, [*C. R. Acad. Sci., Paris, sér. I*]{} [**336**]{} (2003), 1–6.
D. Roy, Approximation to real numbers by cubic algebraic integers I, [*Proc. London Math. Soc. *]{}[**88**]{} (2004), 42–62.
D. Roy, Approximation to real numbers by cubic algebraic integers II, [*Annals of Math. *]{}[**158**]{} (2003), 1081–1087.
D. Roy, Diophantine approximation in small degree, in: [*Number theory*]{}, E. Z. Goren and H. Kisilevsky Eds, CRM Proceedings and Lecture Notes [**36**]{} (Proceedings of CNTA-7), 2004, 269–285; arXiv:math.NT/0303150.
D. Roy, On the continued fraction expansion of a class of numbers, in: [*Diophantine approximation*]{}, Proceedings of a conference in honour of Wolfgang Schmidt’s seventeenth birthday, H. P. Schlickewei, K. Schmidt, R. Tichy Eds, Springer Verlag, to appear; arXiv:math.NT/0409233.
W. M. Schmidt, [*Diophantine Approximation*]{}, Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 785, Springer-Verlag, 1980.
[^1]: Work partially supported by NSERC and CICMA
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- |
Sayantan Choudhury$^a$[^1], Anshuman Dey$^a$[^2], Indranil Halder$^a$[^3], Lavneet Janagal$^a$[^4], Shiraz Minwalla$^a$[^5], Rohan R. Poojary$^a$[^6]\
\
bibliography:
- 'tri-fun.bib'
title: 'Notes on Melonic $O(N)^{q-1}$ Tensor Models'
---
Introduction
============
It has recently been demonstrated that the dynamically rich Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model - a quantum mechanical model of fermions interacting with random potentials - is solvable at large $N$ [@Sachdev:2010um; @kitaev-talk; @Maldacena:2016hyu]. This model is interesting partly because its thermal properties have several features in common with those of black holes. The SYK model self equilibrates over a time scale of order the inverse temperature and has a Lyapunov index that saturates the chaos bound [@Maldacena:2016hyu; @kitaev-talk]. Moreover the long time behaviour of this model at finite temperature is governed by an effective action that has been reinterpreted as a particular theory of gravity expanded about $AdS_2$ background solution [@Sachdev:2010um; @Almheiri:2014cka; @Jensen:2016pah; @Maldacena:2016upp; @Mandal:2017thl; @Gross:2017hcz; @Forste:2017kwy; @Das:2017pif].
These facts have motivated the suggestion that the SYK model is the boundary dual of a highly curved bulk gravitational theory whose finite temperature behaviour is dominated by a black hole saddle point. If this suggestion turns out to be correct, the solvability of the SYK model at large $N$ - and its relative simplicity even at finite $N$- could allow one to probe old mysteries of black hole physics in a manner that is nonperturbative in $\frac{1}{N}$, the effective dual gravitational coupling (see e.g. [@Garcia-Garcia:2016mno; @Cotler:2016fpe; @Garcia-Garcia:2017pzl] for recent progress).
There is, however, a potential fly in the ointment. While the SYK model - defined as a theory with random couplings - is an average over quantum systems, it is not a quantum system by itself. One cannot, for instance, associate the SYK model with a Hilbert space in any completely precise manner, or find a unitary operator that generates time evolution in this model. As several of the deepest puzzles of black hole physics concern conflicts with unitarity, this feature of the SYK model is a concern.
Of course any particular realisation of the couplings drawn from the SYK ensemble is a genuine quantum theory. It is plausible that several observables - like the partition function - have the same large $N$ limit when computed for any given typical member of the ensemble as they do for the SYK model defined by averaging over couplings [@Cotler:2016fpe; @Stanford:2017thb; @Belokurov:2017eit]. It might thus seem that [*every*]{} typical realization of random couplings is an inequivalent consistent quantization of classical large $N$ SYK system. As the number of such quantizations is very large, this would be an embarrassment of riches. The potential issue here is that if we work with any given realization of the SYK model, it appears inconsistent to restrict attention to averaged observables for any finite $N$ no matter how large. On the other hand correlators of individual $\psi_i$ operators (as opposed to their averaged counterparts) presumably do not have a universal large $N$ limit (and so are not exactly solvable even at large $N$). [^7]
In order to address these concerns some authors have recently [@Witten:2016iux; @Klebanov:2016xxf; @Klebanov:2017nlk] (based on earlier work [@Gurau:2009tw; @Gurau:2010ba; @Gurau:2011aq; @Gurau:2011xq; @Bonzom:2011zz; @Gurau:2011xp]) studied a related class of models. These models are ordinary quantum mechanical systems; in fact they describe the global or gauged quantum mechanics of a collection of fermions in 0+1 dimensions. In this paper we will focus our attention on the model $$\label{sykqm} \begin{split}
&S= \int dt \sum_{a=1}^{N_F} [ {\bar \psi}_a D_0 \psi_a
- \left(g \ \psi_a^q + h.c. \right)
], \\
& D_0 = \partial_0 + i A_0 \ , \ g=\frac{J}{N^{\frac{(q-1)(q-2)}{4}}}, \\
\end{split}$$ that was first proposed - at least in the current context - in [@Klebanov:2016xxf] . In $\psi_a$ are a collection of complex gauged fermionic fields in $0+1$ dimensions that transform in the fundamental of each of the $q-1$ copies of $O(N)$. The index $a$ is a flavour index that runs from $1 \ldots N_F$. [^8]. $J$ is a coupling constant with dimensions of mass and $\psi^q$ is a schematic for a $q$ vertex generalisation of a ‘tetrahedronal’ interaction term between $q$ copies of the fermionic fields, whose gauge index contraction structure is explained in detail in [@Witten:2016iux; @Klebanov:2016xxf] and will be elaborated on below.
The tetrahedral structure of the interaction[@Witten:2016iux; @Klebanov:2016xxf] is such that for any even number of fermions $q$ each fermion has $q-1$ indices each in a different $O(N)({\textrm or}\, U(N))$. The indices among the $q$ fermions are contracted such that every fermion is index contracted with an index of the same gauge group on one of the remaining fermions. Moreover, given any - and every - 2 fermions have a single index (of some gauge group) contracted between them. For $q=4$ it is easy to check that these words define a unique contraction structure which may be viewed as a tetrahedral contraction among the 4 fermions each with $q-1=3$ indices(legs) with every fermion(point or vertex of the tetrahedron) connected to 3 different coloured legs. For $q\geq6$ it is not clear that the words above define a unique contraction structure. In case the contraction structure is not unique, we pick one choice - for example the Round-Robin scheduling process to define our interaction [@Narayan:2017qtw; @Yoon:2017nig]. [^9]
The connection between the quantum mechanical theories and the SYK model itself is the following; it has been demonstrated (subject to certain caveats) that sum over Feynman graphs of the theory coincides with the sum over Feynman graphs of the SYK model at at leading order at large $N$ (see [@Witten:2016iux] for the argument in a very similar model), even though these two sums differ at finite values of $N$ (see e.g. the recent paper [@Dartois:2017xoe] and references therein). It follows that the quantum mechanical models are exactly as solvable as the SYK model at large $N$; moreover they also inherit much of the dynamical richness of the SYK model. In other words the models are solvable at large $N$, are unitary and are potentially boundary duals of (highly curved) black hole physics.
Motivated by these considerations, in this note we study the effective theory that governs the long time dynamics of the model at finite temperature. We focus attention on dynamical aspects of that have no counterpart in the already well studied dynamics of the original SYK model. [^10]
In the rest of this introduction we will explain and describe our principal observations and results.
New light modes {#Newlightmodes}
---------------
The thermal behaviour of both the theory and the original SYK model is determined by the path integral of these theories on a circle of circumference $\beta$.
It was demonstrated in [@kitaev-talk; @Maldacena:2016hyu] that, in the case of the original SYK model, this path integral is dominated by a saddle point of an effective action whose fields are the two point function and self energy of the fermions. An extremization of this effective action determines both the fermionic two point function at finite temperature as well as the free energy of the system at leading order at large $N$.
In a similar manner, the thermal behaviour of the quantum mechanical systems is dominated by a saddle point at large $N$. Under appropriate assumptions it may be shown that resultant effective action has the same minimum as that of the original SYK theory [@Witten:2016iux]. [^11]. Specialising to the case $N_F=1$, the leading order fermionic two point function of the quantum mechanical system is given by $$\label{tpf}
\langle {\bar \psi}^a (t) \psi_b(t') \rangle
= \delta^a_b G^{SYK}(t-t'),$$ where $a$ and $b$ denote the (collection of) vector indices for the fermions and $G^{SYK}(t)$ is the thermal propagator of the original SYK model. [^12]
While the thermal behaviour of the model is thus indistinguishable from that of the SYK model at leading order in the large $N$ limit, the dynamics of the quantum mechanical model differs from that of the SYK model at subleading orders in $1/N$. The first correction to leading large $N$ thermal behaviour may be obtained by performing a one loop path integral over quadratic fluctuations around the saddle point. In the long time limit, correlators are dominated by the lightest fluctuations around the saddle point.
Recall that in the UV (i.e. as $\beta J \rightarrow 0$ ) the fermions of have dimension zero. The term proportional to $\psi^q$ in represents a dimension zero relevant deformation of this UV fixed point. The resultant RG flow ends in the deep IR in a conformal field theory in which the fermions have dimension $\frac{1}{q}$. [@kitaev-talk; @Maldacena:2016hyu]. In this IR limit (relevant to thermodynamics when $\beta J \to \infty$) $\psi^q$ is marginal while the kinetic term in is irrelevant [@kitaev-talk; @Maldacena:2016hyu]. The fact that the kinetic term is irrelevant in the IR - and so can effectively be ignored in analysing the symmetries of at large $\beta J$ - has important implications for the structure of light fluctuations about the thermal saddle point.
The first implication of the irrelevance of the kinetic term occurs already in the SYK model and was explored in detail in [@kitaev-talk; @Maldacena:2016hyu; @Maldacena:2016upp]. The main point is that the action , with the kinetic term omitted, enjoys invariance under conformal diffeomorphisms (i.e. diffeomorphisms together with a Weyl transformation). However the saddle point solution for the Greens function $G^{\text{SYK}}(t)$ is not invariant under conformal diffeomorphisms. It follows immediately that the action of infinitesimal conformal diffeomorphisms on this solution generates zero modes in the extreme low energy limit.
At any finite temperature, no matter how small, the kinetic term in cannot completely be ignored and conformal invariance is broken; the action of conformal diffeomorphisms on the SYK saddle point consequently produces anomalously light (rather than exactly zero) modes. The action for these modes was computed in [@kitaev-talk; @Maldacena:2016hyu; @Maldacena:2016upp] and takes the form of the Schwarzian for the conformal diffeomorphisms.
A very similar line of reasoning leads to the conclusion that the model has $(q-1) \frac{N^2}{2}$ additional light modes in the large $\beta J$ limit, as we now explain. Let us continue to work in the gauge $A_0=0$. In this gauge the action is obviously invariant under the global rotations $\psi \rightarrow V \psi $, $ {\bar \psi} \rightarrow {\bar \psi} V ^{\dagger}$ where $V$ is an arbitrary time independent $O(N)^{q-1}$ rotation. In the global model the rotation by $V$ is the action of a global symmetry. In gauged model on the other hand, these rotations are part of the gauge group and do not generate global symmetries of our model; the Gauss law in the theory ensures that all physical states are uncharged under this symmetry.
Let us now consider the transformation $\psi \rightarrow V(t) \psi$ together with $ {\bar \psi} \rightarrow {\bar \psi} V(t)^{\dagger}$ where $V(t)$ is an arbitrary time [*dependent*]{} $O(N)^{q-1}$ rotation. In the case of the gauged models, this transformation is not accompanied by a change in $A_0$ ($A_0=const$ throughout) so the rotation is not a gauge transformation.
At finite $\beta J$ the rotation by a time dependent $V(t)$ is not a symmetry of the action in either the global or the gauged theory as the kinetic term in is not left invariant by this transformation. As we have explained above, however, the kinetic term is irrelevant in the low temperature limit $\beta J \to \infty$. It follows that the time dependent transformation is an effective symmetry of dynamics this strict low temperature limit.
However the saddle point solution is clearly not invariant under the time dependent rotations by $V(t)$. It follows that, as in the discussion for conformal diffeomorphisms above, the action of $V(t)$ on generates exact zero modes in the strict limit $\beta J \to \infty$ and anomalously light modes at any finite $\beta J$. We emphasise that this discussion applies both to the global model where $O(N)^{q-1}$ is a global symmetry, and the gauged model where it is not.
In section \[EffectiveActionSection\] below we argue that the dynamics of our new light modes is governed by the effective sigma model on the group manifold $$\label{effectiveaction}
\begin{aligned}
S=-\mathcal{A} \ \frac{N^{q-2}}{|J|} \int dt \ \sum_{l=1}^{q-1} \ Tr \ \left[ \left( V_l^{-1}(t)\ \frac{\partial}{\partial t} V_l(t) \right)^2 \right],
\end{aligned}$$ where $V_l(t)$ is an arbitrary element of the group $O(N)$ and $\mathcal{A} $ is a number of order unity that we have not been able to determine.
The formula has appeared before in a closely related context. The authors of [@Sachdev:2017mar] (see also [@Stanford:2017thb]) studied the a complex version of the SYK model. Their model had an exact $U(1)$ symmetry at all energies, which - using the arguments presented in the previous paragraphs - was approximately enhanced to a local $U(1)$ symmetry at low energies. The authors of [@Sachdev:2017mar] argued the long distance dynamics of the new light modes is governed by a sigma model on the group manifold $U(1)$. [^13] Given these results, the appearance of a low energy sigma model in the large $\beta J$ finite temperature dynamics of the theory seems natural.
We would, however, like to emphasise two qualitative differences between the sigma model and the model that appeared in [@Sachdev:2017mar]. First is a sigma model for a group $O(N)^{q-1}$ whose dimensionality goes to infinity in the large $N$ limit, $N \to \infty$. Second that we find the new light modes of the action even of the gauged model even though $O(N)^{q-1}$ is not a global symmetry of this theory.
The new modes governed by are approximately as light - and so potentially as important to long time dynamics - as the conformal diffeomorphisms described above. Note, however, that there are $(q-1) \frac{N^2}{2}$ light time dependent $O(N)^{q-1}$ modes but (as far as we can tell) only one conformal diffeomorphism.
We have already remarked above that the light diffeomorphism degree of freedom described above has been given an interpretation as a particular gravitational action in an $AdS_2$ background. It seems likely to us that the effective action will, in a similar way, admit a bulk interpretation as a gauge field propagating in $AdS_2$. The Yang Mills coupling of this gauge field - like Newton’s constant for the gravitational mode - will be of order $\frac{1}{N^{q-1}}$ (this is simply a reflection of the fact that our model has $N^{q-1}$ degrees of freedom). This means that the t’ Hooft coupling of all the gauge fields in the bulk will be of order $g_{YM}^2 N \sim \frac{1}{N^{q-2}}$. The fact that this coupling goes to zero in the large $N$ limit implies that the bulk gauge fields are classical even though there are so many of them. [^14]
It has been established that the light diffeomorphism degree of freedom has a qualitatively important effect on out of time ordered thermal correlators; it leads to exponential growth in such correlators at a rate that saturates the chaos bound $G \sim e^{ 2 \pi Tt}$. When we include the contribution of the new light modes described in this subsection, we expect this growth formula to be modified to $$\label{mgf}
G(t) \sim \left( e^{2 \pi T t} + N^2 f(t) \right).$$ [^15] The factor of $N^2$ is a reflection of the fact that our new modes are $N^2$ in number, whereas - as far as we can tell - there is only a single light mode corresponding to conformal diffeomorphisms.
Given that the solutions of the equations of motion to the Sigma model grow no faster than linearly in time, we expect $f(t)$ to grow at most polynomial in time. This suggests it that the light modes will dominate correlators up to a time of order $\frac{1}{\pi T} \ln N $. At later times the exponentially growing diffeomorphism mode will dominate, leading to exponential growth and a Lyapunov index that saturates the chaos bound.
To end this subsection let us return to a slightly subtle point in our discussion. In order to derive the effective action for $V(t)$ we worked in the gauge $A_0=0$. As our theory is on a thermal circle, in the case of the gauged model we have missed a degree of freedom - the gauge holonomy - by working in the gauge $A_0=0$. This, however, is easily corrected for. Even in the presence of a holonomy, we can set the gauge field $A_0$ to zero by a gauge transformation provided we allow ourselves to work with gauge transformations that are not single valued on the circle. The net effect of working with such a gauge transformation is that the matter fields are no longer periodic around the thermal circle but obey the boundary conditions $$\label{bcV}
\psi(\beta)= -U \psi(0),$$ where $U$ is the holonomy around the thermal circle. For the fields of the low energy effective action this implies the boundary conditions $$\label{lea}
V(\beta)= U V(0) U^{-1}.$$ Recall we are instructed to integrate over all values of the holonomy $U$. Consequently we must integrate over the boundary conditions with the Haar measure. See section \[sec5\] for some discussion of this point.
In summary, the discussion of this subsection suggests that the bulk low energy effective action ‘dual’ to the gauged/global quantum mechanics of differs from the low energy effective action ‘dual’ to the SYK model in an important way; in addition to the gravitational field it contains gauge fields of a gauge group whose rank is a positive fractional power of the inverse Newton (and Yang Mills) coupling constant of the theory. In the classical limit in which Newton’s constant is taken to zero, the rank of the low energy gauge fields also diverges. Nonetheless the limits are taken in such a way that the effective bulk theory remains classical.
Holonomy dynamics and the spectrum at large mass
------------------------------------------------
Our discussion up to this point has applied equally to the ‘global’ and ‘gauged’ quantum mechanical models . In the rest of this introduction we focus attention on the gauged models, i.e. the models in which the $O(N)^{q-1}$ symmetry algebra is gauged. In this case the thermal path integral of our system includes an integral over gauge holonomies over the thermal circle. We wish to study the effect of this holonomy integral on the dynamics of our system.
In order to do this in the simplest and clearest possible way we deform the model in a way that trivializes the dynamics of all non holonomy modes in the theory. This is accomplished by adding a mass to the fermions. For concreteness we work with the $O(N)^{q-1}$ model $$\label{sykqmmd} \begin{split}
&S= \int dt \sum_{a=1}^{N_F} \left[ \left( {\bar \psi}_a D_0 \psi_a
+ m {\bar \psi}_a \psi_a \right) -\left( g \
\psi_a^q + h.c. \right) \right], \\
& D_0 = \partial_0 + i A_0 \ , \ g=\frac{J}{N^{\frac{(q-1)(q-2)}{4}}},\\
\end{split}$$ where $m$, the mass of the fermion is taken to be positive. [^16] We work the large mass limit, i.e. the limit $\frac{m}{J} \gg 1$. The effective interaction between fermions in , $\frac{J}{m}$, is small in this limit and can be handled perturbatively. In the strict $m \to \infty$ limit the only interaction that survives in the system is that between the (otherwise free) matter fields and the holonomy $U$. [^17]
Let us first work in the strict limit $\frac{m}{J} \rightarrow \infty$. In this limit the dynamics of the holonomy field $U$ in this theory is governed by an effective action obtained by integrating out the matter fields at one loop. [^18] The resultant effective action is easily obtained and is given by ([@Aharony:2003sx]) $$\label{freesykmd} \begin{split}
&Z= \operatorname{Tr}x^{\frac{H}{m}} = \int \prod_{i=1}^{q-1}dU_i
\exp (- S_{\text{eff}} (U_i)), \\
&S_{\text{eff}}(U_i)= -N_F \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{ (-x)^n \left( \prod_{i=1}^{q-1} \operatorname{Tr}U_i^n \right)
}{n},\\
&x= e^{- \beta |m|},\\
\end{split}$$ where $H$ is the Hamiltonian of our theory. [^19]
Each $U_i$ is an $O(N)$ matrix that represents the holonomy in the $i^{th}$ factor in the gauge group $O(N)^{q-1}$. $dU$ is the Haar measure over the group $O(N)^{q-1}$ normalized so that the total group volume is unity.
Notice that when $x$ is of order unity, $S_{\text{eff}} \sim N^{q-1}$ in . On the other hand the contribution of the group measure to the ‘effective’ action is of order $N^2$. The integral in is interesting when these two contributions are comparable. This is the case if we scale temperatures so that $$\label{tempscal}
x=e^{- \beta |m|} =\frac{\alpha}{N_F N^{q-3}},$$ with $\alpha$ held fixed as $N$ is taken to infinity. In this limit the terms in the second of with $n>1$ are subleading and can be ignored. Effectively $$\label{pfotss}
\begin{split}
&Z(x)= \int \prod_{i=1}^{q-1}d U_i
\exp (- S_{\text{eff}} (U_i)) \\
&S_{\text{eff}} = \frac{\alpha}{N^{q-3}}
\left(\prod_{i=1}^{q-1}\operatorname{Tr}U_i \right).
\end{split}$$
In the large $N$ limit the matrix integral is equivalent - as we show below - to the well known Gross Witten Wadia model and is easily solved. The solution - presented in detail below - has the following features
- [1.]{} In the canonical ensemble, the partition function undergoes a deconfinement type phase transition at $\alpha=\alpha_{1pt}$ where the value of $\alpha_{1pt}$ is given in . At smaller values of $\alpha$ the system is dominated by the ‘confining’ saddle point in which $U$ is the clock matrix. At larger values of $\alpha_{1pt}$ the system is dominated by a more complicated ‘deconfined’ or black hole saddle point. The phase transition is reminiscent of the transitions described in [@Witten:1998apr; @Aharony:2005bq]. [^20]
- [2.]{} In the microcanonical ensemble, the scaling limit described above captures the density of states of the system at energies less than or of order $N^2$. Over the range of energies $1 \ll E < \frac{N^2}{4} $, the entropy $S$ is given by the simple formula $$\label{leent}
S(E) = (q-3)\left[ \frac{E}{2} \ln \left( \frac{E}{2} \right) -\frac{E}{2} \right]+E \ \log N_F + (q-3)\frac{E}{2}\ln(2).$$ The saddle point that governs the density of states of the theory changes in a non analytic manner at $E= \frac{N^2}{4}$. For $E > \frac{N^2}{4}$ the formula for the entropy is more complicated. For energies $E \gg (q-2) \frac{N^2}{4} $, however, the entropy simplifies to the formula for $ n_B N^{q-1}$ complex bosonic and $n_F N^{q-1}$ free complex fermionic harmonic oscillators $$\label{eent}
S(E) = E \left[1-\log \left(\frac{E}{pN^{q-1}}\right)\right].$$ The complicated formula that interpolates between these special results is presented in .
The formula suggests that if a dual bulk interpretation of the theory exists, it is given in terms of a collection of bulk fields whose number grows faster than exponentially with energy. It would be fascinating to find a bulk theory with this unusual behaviour.
Moreover the existence of a Hawking Page type phase transition in this model - and in particular the existence of a subdominant saddle point even at temperatures at which the dominant phase is a black hole phase - opens the possibility of the subdominant phase playing a role in effectively unitarizing correlators about the black hole saddle point by putting a floor on the decay of the amplitude of correlators as in [@Maldacena:2001kr].
The results presented above apply only in the limit $\frac{m}{J}\to \infty$. We have also investigated how these results are modified at very weak (rather than zero) coupling. We continue to work at low temperatures, in a manner we now describe in more detail. It turns that $S_{\text{eff}}(U)$ takes the schematic form $$\label{pfsf}
S_{\text{eff}}(U) = \sum_{a=1}^\infty x^a f_a(\beta, U).$$ Working to any given order in perturbation theory, the functions $f_a(\beta)$ are all polynomials of bounded degree in $\beta$. We work at temperatures low enough so that we can truncate to its first term. In other words the terms we keep are all proportional to $x$ multiplied by a polynomial dressing in $\beta$.
We demonstrate below that within this approximation the partition function takes the form $$\label{sfai}
-S_{\text{eff}}(U)= N^{q-1} x \left(\prod_{m=1}^{q-1} \rho^1_m \right)
\left( \sum_{k=0}^\infty \left( \frac{J}{m} \right)^{2k}
{\tilde H}_k(\frac{J^2 \beta}{m}) \right).$$ Note that asserts that the interacting effective action has the same dependence on $x$ and $U$ as its free counterpart did. The only difference between the interacting and free effective action is a prefactor which is a function of the two effective couplings $\frac{J}{m}$ and $\frac{J^2 \beta}{m}$. Below we have summed an infinite class of graphs and determined the function ${\tilde H}_0$. Working at $N_F=1$ we find $$\label{parfmoi}
\begin{aligned}
{\tilde H}_0=& 2
\left[ \frac{1}{2}+2\gamma(q)\ \frac{(-\beta)}{m}|J|^2 e^{\gamma(q)\ \frac{(-\beta)}{m}|J|^2}-\frac{1}{2}e^{2 \gamma(q)\ \frac{(-\beta)}{m}|J|^2} -\frac{(-1)^{q/2}}{2} q \ \beta \frac{|J|^2}{m} \right],
\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma(q)$ is defined in .
and determine the effective action of our system whenever the terms proportional to ${\tilde H}_m$ $(m=1, 2 \ldots)$ in the second line of can be ignored compared to the term proportional to ${\tilde H}_0$. This is always the case at weak enough coupling; the precise condition on the coupling when this is the case depends on the nature of the as yet unknown large argument behaviour of the functions ${\tilde H}_m$ .
The partition function that follows from the action is identical to the free partition function described above under the replacement $ \alpha \rightarrow \alpha {\tilde H}_0$. It follows that the interacting partition function is essentially identical to the free one in the canonical ensemble. The $\beta$ dependence of the effective value of $\alpha$ leads to some differences in the micorcanonical ensemble that turn out not to impact the main qualitative conclusions of the analysis of the free theory. For instance the super hagedorn growth of the entropy persists upon including the effects of interaction. : ‘We have recently become aware of the preprint [@Bulycheva:2017ilt] which overlaps with this paper in multiple ways. We hope it will prove possible to combine the results of this paper with the methods of [@Bulycheva:2017ilt] to better understand the new light modes discussed earlier in this introduction’.
Light thermal modes of the Gurau-Witten-Klebanov-Tarnopolsky models {#sec2}
===================================================================
In this section we consider the Gurau-Witten-Klebanov-Tarnopolsky model at finite temperature. The Lagrangians for the specific theories we study was listed in . As we have explained in the introduction, this model has a new set of light modes parameterized by $V(t)$, an arbitrary group element as a function of time, where $V$ belongs to $O(N)^{q-1}$. In this section we will present an argument that suggests that the dynamics of these light modes is governed by a (quantum mechanical) sigma model on the group manifold. We will also present an estimate for the coupling constant of this sigma model.
That the dynamics of $V(t)$ should be governed by a sigma model is very plausible on general grounds. Recall that in the formal IR limit, $V(t)$ is an exact zero mode of dynamics. It follows that $V(t)$ picks up dynamics only because of corrections to extreme low energy dynamics. From the point of view of the low energy theory these corrections are UV effects, and so should lead to a local action for $V(t)$. The resultant action must be invariant under global shifts $V(t ) \rightarrow V_0 V(t)$. We are interested in the term in the action that will dominate long time physics, i.e. the action with this property that has the smallest number of time derivatives. Baring a dynamical coincidence (that sets the coefficient of an apparently allowed term to zero) the action will be that of the sigma model.
In the rest of this section we will put some equations to these words. We would like to emphasise that the ‘derivation’ of the sigma model action presented in this section is intuitive rather than rigorous - and should be taken to be an argument that makes our result highly plausible rather than certain.
Classical effective action {#ClassicalEffectiveAction}
--------------------------
In [@Maldacena:2016hyu] the effective large $N$ dynamics of the SYK model was recast as the classical dynamics of two effective fields; the Greens function $G(t)$ and the self energy $\Sigma(t)$. The action for $\Sigma$ and $G$ derived in [@Maldacena:2016hyu] was given by $$\label{msee}
\begin{aligned}
S=
N^{q-1} \left(
-\log Pf(\partial_t-\tilde{\Sigma} ) + \int dt_1 \ dt_2 \
\left[ - \tilde{\Sigma}(t_1,t_2)\tilde{G}(t_2,t_1)-
\frac{J^2}{q}\tilde{G}^q(t_1,t_2) \right] \right).
\end{aligned}$$ The utility of the action was twofold. First, the solutions to the equations of motion that follow from varying are the saddle point that govern thermal physics of the SYK model. Second, an integral over the fluctuations in also correctly captures the leading order (in $\frac{1}{N}$) correction to this saddle point result. In order to obtain these corrections, one simply integrates over the quadratic fluctuations about this saddle point. In particular the action was used to determine the action for the lightest fluctuations about the saddle point , namely conformal diffeomorphism [@Maldacena:2016hyu].
In this section we wish to imitate the analysis of [@Maldacena:2016hyu] to determine the action for fluctuations of the new zero modes - associated with time dependent $O(N)^{q-1}$ rotations - described in the introduction. The action is not sufficient for this purpose. As explained in the introduction, the low energy fluctuations we wish to study are obtained by acting on the saddle point Greens function with time dependent $O(N)^{q-1}$ rotations; however the fields $G$ and $\Sigma$ that appear in have no indices and so cannot be rotated.
As the first step in our analysis we proceed to generalise the effective action to an action whose variables are the matrices $G_a^b$ and $\Sigma_a^b$. The indices $a$ and and $b$ are both fundamental indices of the group $O(N)^{q-1}$. Our generalised action is given by $$\label{genact}
\begin{aligned}
S=-\log Pf(D_0-\tilde{\Sigma} ) + \int dt_1 \ dt_2 \ \left[ - \tilde{\Sigma}_a^{\ b}(t_1,t_2)\tilde{G}_b^{\ a}(t_2,t_1)-\frac{|g|^2}{q}\tilde{G}^q(t_1,t_2) \right].
\end{aligned}$$
In this action, the expression $\tilde{G}^q$ is a product of $q$ copies of $\tilde{G}^{a}_{b}$ where all gauge indices are contracted in a manner we now describe. Recall that $a$ and $b$ are fundamental indices for the group $O(N)^{q-1}$. Each of these indices may be thought of as a collection of $q-1$ fundamental indices $$a=(a_1 a_2 \ldots a_{q-1}), ~~~b=(b_1 b_2 \ldots b_{q-1}),$$ where $a_i$ and $b_i$ are fundamental indices in the ($i^{th}$ factor of) $O(N)$. In the contraction $\tilde{G}^q$, $a$ type indices are contracted with each other while $b$ type indices are also contracted with each other - there is no cross contraction between $a$ and $b$ type indices. The structure of contractions is as follows; the $a$ indices of precisely one of the $O(N)$ factors of the gauge group are contracted between any two (and every two) $Gs$ and, simultaneously, the $b$ indices of the same two $O(N)$ factors are also contracted between the same two $\tilde{G}s$. [^21]
As a quick check note that the total number of contraction of $a$ (or $b$) indices, according to our rule, is the number of ways of choosing two objects from a group of $q$, or, $\frac{q(q-1)}{2}$. As each pair hit two indices, we see that the pairing rule described in this paragraph saturates the indices present $q$ copies of $\tilde{G}$ (there are a total of $q(q-1)$ $a$ type indices).
The contraction structure described for $a$ type indices in the previous paragraph is precisely the contraction structure for the interaction term $\psi^{q}$ in the action .
We regard as a phenomenological action with the following desirable properties. First it is manifestly invariant under global $O(N)^{q-1}$ transformations. Second if we make the substitutions $\tilde{G}^a_b \to \tilde{G} \delta^a_b$, $\tilde{\Sigma}^a_b \to \tilde{\Sigma} \delta^a_b$ into we recover the action . It follows in particular that, if $G$ and $\Sigma$ denote the saddle point values of then $$\label{sadptsol}
G^a_b= \delta^a_b G, ~~~\Sigma^a_b= \delta^a_b \Sigma,$$ are saddle points of . This point can also be verified directly from the equations of motion that follow from varying , i.e. $$\label{LargeNeq}
\begin{aligned}
G_a^{\ b}(t_1,t_2)=& ((D_0-\Sigma )^{-1})_a^{\ b}(t_1,t_2),\\
\Sigma_a^{\ b}(t_1,t_2)=&|g|^2 \ (G^{q-1})_a^{\ b}(t_1,t_2).
\end{aligned}$$ While correctly reproduces finite temperature saddle point of the the model , it does not give us a weakly coupled description of arbitrary fluctuations about this saddle point. The fact that has $N^{2(q-1)}$ fields makes the action very strongly coupled. The key assumption in this section - for which we will offer no detailed justification beyond its general plausibility - is that the action can, however, be reliably used to obtain the effective action for the very special manifold of configurations described in the introduction, namely $$\label{symo}
\begin{aligned}
\ \tilde{G}_b^{\ a}(t_1,t_2) =&
V_b^{\ b'}(t_1) G(t_1, t_2) V_{b'}^{\ a}(t_2),\\
\tilde{\Sigma}_b^{\ a}(t_1,t_2) =& V_b^{\ b'}(t_1)
\Sigma(t_1,t_2)V_{b'}^{\ a}(t_2),
\end{aligned}$$ where the index free functions $G(t_, t_2)$ and $V(t_1, t_2)$ are the solutions to the SYK gap equations and $V(t)$ is an arbitrary $O(N)^{q-1}$ group element. The RHS in is the result of performing a time dependent $O(N)^{q-1}$ rotation on the saddle point solution .
The fact that we have only $(q-1)\frac{N^2}{2}$ fields ($V(t)$) on this manifold of solutions - at least formally makes the action restricted to this special manifold weakly coupled, as we will see below.
In the rest of this section we will use the action to determine the effective action that controls the dynamics of the matrices $V(t)$ at leading order in the long wavelength limit.
Effective action {#EffectiveActionSection}
----------------
In order to study quadratic fluctuations about , we follow [@Maldacena:2016hyu] to insert the expansion [^22] $$\label{sov}
\begin{aligned}
\tilde{G}_a^{\ b}(t_1,t_2)=&G_a^{\ b}(t_1,t_2)+|G(t_1,t_2)|^{\frac{q-2}{2}}g_a^{\ b} (t_1,t_2),\\
\tilde{\Sigma}_a^{\ b}(t_1,t_2)=&\Sigma_a^{\ b}(t_1,t_2)+|G(t_1,t_2)|^{\frac{2-q}{2}}\sigma_a^{\ b} (t_1,t_2),
\end{aligned}$$ into and work to quadratic order in $g_a^{\ b} (t_1,t_2)$ and $\sigma_a^{\ b} (t_1,t_2)$. Integrating out $\sigma_a^{\ b} (t_1,t_2)$ using the linear equations of motion, we find an effective action of the general structure $$\label{gsqa}
\begin{aligned}
S(\tilde{G},\tilde{\Sigma})= S(G,\Sigma)&+\frac{1}{2}\int dt_1..dt_4 \ g_a^{\ b}(t_1,t_2)\tilde{K}^{-1}(t_1,t_2;t_3,t_4)g_b^{\ a}(t_3,t_4)\\
& - \frac{|g|^2}{q} \ \frac{q}{2} N^{\frac{1}{2}(q-1)(q-4)+1} \int dt_1 \ dt_2 \ g(t_1,t_2) g(t_1,t_2).
\end{aligned}$$ The expression in the first line of results from varying the first two terms in , while the second line is the variation of the $\tilde{G}^q$ term in . This term denotes the a sum of different contraction of indices between the two $gs$ $$\label{ggf}
g(t_1,t_2) g(t_1,t_2)
= \sum_{k=1}^{q-1} g^{c_1 c_2 ...c_{k-1} a_k c_{k+1}....c_{q-1}}_{c_1 c_2 ...c_{k-1} b_k c_{k+1}....c_{q-1}} g^{d_1 d_2 ...d_{k-1} a_k d_{k+1}....d_{q-1}}_{d_1 d_2 ...d_{k-1} b_k d_{k+1}....d_{q-1}}.$$ In the special case that the fluctuation fields $g$ are taken to be of the form $g^a_b= \delta^a_b g$, the matrix contractions in give appropriate powers of $N$, and reduces to the effective action for $g$ presented in [@Maldacena:2016hyu].
It was demonstrated in [@Maldacena:2016hyu] that $$\label{kform}
\begin{aligned}
\tilde{K}(t_1,t_2;t_3,t_4)=-|G(t_1,t_2)|^{\frac{q-2}{2}}G(t_1,t_3)G(t_2,t_4)|G(t_3,t_4)|^{\frac{q-2}{2}}.
\end{aligned}$$ In the long distance limit the Greens function can be expanded as $$\label{gfe}
\begin{split}
G=&G_c + \delta G + ...,\\
\delta G(t_1,t_2) & \equiv G_c(t_1,t_2) \ f_0(t_1,t_2),\\
\end{split}$$ where $G_c$ is the Greens function in the conformal limit and $\delta G$ is the first correction to $G_c$ in a derivative expansion. It follows that $f_0$ is an even function of the time difference, an approximate form of which is given in [@Maldacena:2016hyu]. Plugging this expansion into it follows that ${\hat K}$ can be expanded as $$\label{kexp}
{\tilde K}= {\tilde K}_c + \delta \tilde{K} + ...,$$ where [@Maldacena:2016hyu] $$\label{rru}
\begin{aligned}
\delta \tilde{K}(t_1,t_2;t_3,t_4)= \ \tilde{K}_c(t_1,t_2;t_3,t_4) \left[\frac{q-2}{2}(f_0(t_1,t_2)+f_0(t_3,t_4))+ f_0(t_1,t_3)+f_0(t_2,t_4)\right].
\end{aligned}$$ The first two contributions have their origin in the factors of $G^\frac{q-2}{2}$ in and were called rung contributions in [@Maldacena:2016hyu] . The remaining two contributions have their origin in the factors of $G$ in and were called rail contributions in [@Maldacena:2016hyu]. We note that for rung contributions $f_0$ appears with either first two times or last two times of the kernel. On the other hand the two times in rail contributions are one from the first set and one from the second.
Our discussion so far has applied to general fluctuations about the saddle point, and has largely been a review of the general results of [@Maldacena:2016hyu] with a few extra indices sprinkled in. In the rest of this subsection we now focus attention on the specific fluctuations of interest to us, namely those generated by the linearized form of around conformal solution $$\label{spcmodes}
(g_c)_a^{\ b} (t_1,t_2)= |G_c(t_1,t_2)|^{\frac{q-2}{2}}G_c (t_1,t_2)\left[H_a^{\ b} (t_1)- H_a^{\ b} (t_2)\right].$$ Notice that the fluctuations represent the change of the propagator under a time dependent $O(N)^{q-1}$ rotation. The form of is similar in some respects to the variation of the propagator under diffeomorphisms, studied in [@Maldacena:2016hyu], with one important difference; the factors of $H^b_a(t_1)$ and $H^b_a(t_2)$ appear with a relative negative sign in , whereas the infinitesimal diffeomorphism fields in the light fluctuations of [@Maldacena:2016hyu] appeared with a relative positive sign in [@Maldacena:2016hyu]. The fact that our fluctuations are ‘antisymmetric’ rather than‘ symmetric’ will play an important role below.
Specialising to this particular fluctuation, It can be shown (see Appendix \[ConformalKernel\]) that *$g_c$ is an eigenfunction of $\tilde{K}_c^{-1}$ with eigenvalue $|J|^2$* more clearly $$\label{eval}
\begin{aligned}
\int dt_3 \ dt_4 \ \tilde{K_c}^{-1}(t_1,t_2;t_3,t_4)(g_c)_a^{\ b}(t_3,t_4)=|J|^2 \ (g_c)_a^{\ b}(t_1,t_2).
\end{aligned}$$ It follows immediately from that $$\label{conformaleq}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2} \ g_c \ \tilde{K}_c^{-1} \ g_c=\frac{|g|^2}{q} \ g_c \ g_c.
\end{aligned}$$ Using this equation it may be verified that for the for the particular fluctuations under study- the second line of simply cancels the part of the term in the first line obtained by replacing ${\tilde K}$ with ${\tilde K}_c$.
It follows that the action evaluated on the modes is nonzero only because $K^{-1}$ differs from $K_c^{-1}$. Recall $K= K_c+ \delta K$ (see ). Using $\delta K ^{-1}=-K \delta K K^{-1}$ that the action for our special modes evaluates at quadratic order to $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\text{eff}}=-\frac{1}{2}g_c \ \tilde{K}_c^{-1} \ \delta \tilde{K} \ \tilde{K}_c^{-1} \ g_c.
\end{aligned}$$ Using the fact that $\tilde{K}^{-1}$ is hermitian ([@Maldacena:2016hyu]) and the eigenvalue equation , the action simplifies to $$\label{actionsimplified}
\begin{aligned}
S_{\text{eff}}=-\frac{1}{2}|J|^4 \int dt_1..dt_4 \ (g_c)_a^{\ b} (t_1,t_2) \ \delta \tilde{K}(t_1,t_2;t_3,t_4) \ \ (g_c)_b^{\ a}(t_3,t_4).
\end{aligned}$$ Plugging the specific form of our fluctuations into this expression we find [^23] $$\label{corre}
\begin{aligned}
S_{\text{eff}}=-\frac{1}{2} N^{q-2} \sum_{l=1}^{q-1} \sum_{(i,k) \textit{ pair}}(-1)^{i-k} \int dt_i \ dt_k \ (H_l)_a^{\ b}(t_i)(H_l)_b^{\ a}(t_k)L_{ik}(t_i,t_k),
\end{aligned}$$ where $i \in (1,2)$, $k \in (3,4)$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dem}
L_{ik}(t_i,t_k)&=&\int A(t_1,..,t_4)\prod_{m \neq i, m \neq k}dt_m, \nonumber\\
A(t_1,..t_4)&=&|J|^4 \ G_c(t_1,t_2) |G_c(t_1,t_2)|^{\frac{q-2}{2}}
\delta \tilde{K}(t_1,t_2;t_3,t_4)
|G_c(t_3,t_4)|^{\frac{q-2}{2}}G_c(t_3,t_4).~~~~~
$$ The expression is not yet completely explicit, as $L_{ik}$ in is given in terms of $\delta K$ which is given in terms of the first correction to the conformal propagator $G_c$ which, in turn, is not explicitly known. Luckily $\delta G$ can be eliminated from as we now demonstrate. [^24]
While we do not know the explicit form of the correction to the conformal two-point function $\delta G(t_1,t_2)$, we know that it satisfies the equation $$\label{perturbationeq}
\begin{aligned}
\Sigma_c*\delta G+\delta \Sigma*G_c+s*G_c=0.
\end{aligned}$$ This is simply the gap equation expanded around the conformal point. Here $s(t_1,t_2)=-\frac{\partial}{\partial t_1}\delta(t_1-t_2)$ is a local differential operator.
In order to make the expression explicit we first simplify the formulae for $L_{ij}$. Plugging the expansion $G= G_c+ \delta G$ into , and using properties of conformal solutions, it may be verified after some algebra that for odd $i-k$ [^25] $$\label{ole}
\begin{aligned}
L_{ik}(t_i,t_k)=2 \ \delta(t_i-t_k)\left[\frac{q-2}{2}G_c* \frac{\delta \Sigma}{q-1} +\Sigma_c*\delta G\right](t_i,t_k).
\end{aligned}$$ The fact that $L_{ik}$ is proportional to a $\delta$ function establishes that the contribution of terms with odd $i-k$ to the action is local. may be further simplified using the relation $$\label{DeltaIdentity}
\begin{aligned}
\delta(t_i-t_k)G_c* \frac{\delta \Sigma}{q-1}(t_i,t_k)= \delta(t_i-t_k)\Sigma_c* \delta G(t_i,t_k),
\end{aligned}$$ and to give $$\label{ole1}
L_{ik}(t_i,t_k)=q\delta(t_i-t_k)\Sigma_c*\delta G (t_i,t_k).$$ Multiplying $\delta$-function on both sides of and using , we find $$\label{ole2}
L_{ik}(t_i,t_k)=-\delta(t_i-t_k)s*G_c (t_i,t_k)= \delta(t_i-t_k)\frac{\partial}{\partial t_i} G_c(t_i,t_k).$$ On the other hand when $i-k$ is even, using properties of conformal solutions [^26] $$\label{lnex}
L_{ik}(t_i,t_k) = -\left[\frac{q-2}{2}\times 2 +1\right]\Sigma_c(t_i,t_k) \delta G(t_i,t_k)+(\Sigma_c*\delta G*\Sigma_c)(t_i,t_k)G_c(t_i,t_k).$$ can be further simplified by substituting $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma_c*\delta G*\Sigma_c=\delta \Sigma +s,
\end{aligned}$$ and then using the linearized form of the gap equation $$\label{sma}
\delta \Sigma \ G_c = (q-1) \delta G \ \Sigma_c,$$ to give $$\begin{aligned}
L_{ik}(t_i,t_k)=- G_c(t_i,t_k)\frac{\partial}{\partial t_i}\delta(t_i-t_k).
\end{aligned}$$ Adding together the contributions of $i-k$ even and $i-k$ odd we have a manifestly local effective action, whose structure accounts for the fact that we have worked beyond the purely conformal limit (recall that in the purely conformal limit our fluctuation action simply vanished) even though the final expression makes no reference to the explicit form of the correction $\delta G$ to the conformal propagator $G_c$. $$\label{seffaf}
\begin{aligned}
S_{\text{eff}}=&-N^{q-2}\sum_{l=1}^{q-1}\int dt_i \ dt_k G_c(t_i-t_k)\delta(t_i-t_k) \operatorname{Tr}\ \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial t_i} H_l(t_i)H_l(t_k)\right)\\
\end{aligned}$$ Expanding $H_l(t_k)$ in a Taylor series expansion about $t_i$ $$H_l(t_k)= \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{\partial^n}{\partial t^n} H_l(t_i)
\frac{(t_k-t_i)^n}{n!}$$ allows us to recast into the form $$\label{effactaaf}
S_{\text{eff}}=-N^{q-2}\int dt \ \sum_{l=1}^{q-1} \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}C_n \ Tr \ \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial t} H_l(t) \ \frac{\partial^n}{\partial t^n} H_l(t) \right).$$ where $$\label{cn}
\begin{aligned}
C_n=\frac{1}{n!}\int dt \ G_c(t)\delta(t)t^n.
\end{aligned}$$ The term in the sum with $n=0$ is a total derivative and so can be ignored. It follows that $$\label{effact}
S_{\text{eff}}=-\int dt \ \sum_{l=1}^{q-1} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}C_n \operatorname{Tr}\ \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial t} H_l(t) \ \frac{\partial^n}{\partial t^n} H_l(t) \right).$$ Our final result for the effective action, has now been arranged as an expansion over terms with increasing numbers of derivatives.
Recall that all the results of this section have been obtained after expanding the Greens function $$\label{expgf}
G(t_1, t_2)= G_c(t_1, t_2)+ \delta G(t_1, t_2),$$ and assumed that $\delta G \ll G_c$. This assumption is only valid when $t_1 - t_2 \gg \frac{1}{J}$, but are not valid for $t_1 -t_2 \sim \frac{1}{J}$. All potential non localities in the effective action for $H$ presumably have their origin in regions where our approximations are valid. It thus seems plausible that the central result of this section - namely the absence of nonlocalities in the effective action on length scales large compared to $\frac{1}{J}$ - which therefore takes the form - is a reliable result.
On the other hand the precise expressions for the coefficient functions $C_n$ involve integrals over a function - namely the delta function - which varies over arbitrarily small distances - and so is not reliable (it uses our approximations in a regime where they are not valid). We would expect the correct versions of to be given by smeared out versions of the integrals in . On general dimensional grounds it follows that $$\label{rcn}
C_n \rightarrow \frac{A_n}{|J|^n}.$$ We will make the replacement in what follows. The numbers $A_n$ could presumably be computed by studying four point correlators of appropriate operators at finite temperature. We will not attempt this exercise in this paper.
For the purposes of long time physics we are interested only in the term with the leading number of derivatives, i.e. with the term with $n=1$ in . The coefficient of our action in this case is proportional to $A_1\equiv {\cal A}$. [^27] and the effective action of our theory at leading order in the derivative expansion takes the form $$\label{effectiveactioninfinitesimal}
\begin{aligned}
S=-\mathcal{A} \ \frac{N^{q-2}}{|J|} \int dt \ \sum_{l=1}^{q-1} \ \operatorname{Tr}\ \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial t} H_l(t) \ \frac{\partial}{\partial t} H_l(t) \right).
\end{aligned}$$
In the analysis presented so far we have determined the form of the effective action for infinitesimal group rotations $H$. The group invariant extension of our result to finite group rotations is the sigma model action $$\label{effectiveactiont}
\begin{aligned}
S=-\mathcal{A} \ \frac{1}{|J|} \int dt \ \ \sum_{l=1}^{q-1} \operatorname{Tr}\ \left[ \left( V_l^{-1}(t)\ \frac{\partial}{\partial t} V_l(t) \right)^2 \right],
\end{aligned}$$ where $V_l \in SU(N)$ whose infinitesimal form is $V_l=1+H_l+\mathcal{O}(H_l^2)$. is simply the action for a free particle moving on the group manifold $O(N)^{q-1}$ [^28]. As explained in the introduction, the structure of this action could have been anticipated on general grounds. The fact that the action is proportional to $\frac{1}{J}$ follows largely on grounds of dimensional analysis.
As we have already seen in the introduction, once we have established that the action for $V(t)$ is local the form of the low energy effective action for our system is almost inevitable using the general principles of effective field theory. The main accomplishment of the algebra presented in this section is the demonstration that the effective action for $V(t)$ is, indeed, local.
Note that the Sigma model action has an $O(N)^{q-1} \times O(N)^{q-1}$ global symmetry under which $$\label{gsym}
V_l \rightarrow A V_l B,$$ where $A$ and $B$ both belong to $O(N)^{q-1}$. The rotations by $A$ are simply the global symmetry that the microscopic SYK model possesses. Rotations by $B$ are an emergent symmetry of the low energy effective action. The corresponding conserved quantities are $L_l=\dot{ V_l} V_l^{-1}$, and $R_l=V_l^{-1} \dot{ V_l}$ [^29]. Choosing a basis $(T_a)$ [^30] of Lie algebra $\mathcal{O}(N)$ it can be shown that Hamiltonian vector fields corresponding to group functions $L_{l,a}=Tr \ (T_a L_l) $, $R_{l,a}=Tr \ (T_a R_l) $ give two copies of $\mathcal{O}(N)$ (at both classical and quantum level), both of which commutes with the Hamiltonian which is the quadratic Casimir of the algebra.
Holonomy dynamics and density of states at large mass {#sec3}
=====================================================
We now switch gears; in this section and next we discuss a the mass deformed SYK theory in the large mass limit. We work with the theory based on the $O(N)^{q-1}$ symmetry where this symmetry is gauged. The large mass limit is of interest because it allows us to focus on the dynamics of the holonomy at finite temperature, and also allows us to compute the growth of states in the theory as a function of energy in a very simple setting.
Scaling limit
-------------
As explained in the introduction, in this section we will compute the finite temperature partition function $$Z= \operatorname{Tr}\ x^{\frac{H}{m}},$$ for the mass deformed gauged $O(N)^{q-1}$ melonic theory .
In the large mass limit all fields in except the holonomies of the gauge group can be integrated out at quadratic order. The result of this integration is easily obtained using the formulae of [@Aharony:2003sx], and is given by .
Notice that the effective action $S_{\text{eff}}(U_i)$ presented in is invariant under the global ‘gauge transformations’ $U_i \rightarrow V_i U_i V_i^{-1}$ for arbitrary orthogonal matrices $V_i$. This invariance may be used to diagonalize each $U_i$. The integral in may then be recast as an integral over the eigenvalues of each of the holonomy matrices $U_i$ with the appropriate measure. As $U_m$ are each unitary, their eigenvalues take the form $e^{i \theta^n_m}$ where $n$ runs from $1$ to $N$. We define the eigen value density functions $$\label{evdf}
\rho_m(\theta)= \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^N \delta( \theta- \theta_m^n).$$ As we are dealing with orthogonal matrices, the eigenvalues of our matrix occurs in equal and opposite pairs $(\theta_a, -\theta_a)$ and so the eigenvalue density function defined in is an even function.
As usual the rather singular looking sum over delta functions in morphs into an effectively smooth function at large $N$ as the individual eigenvalues merge into a continuum. Note that $$\label{evdfmd}
\frac{ \operatorname{Tr}U_m^n}{N}= \frac{ \sum_{j=1}^N e^{i n \theta_m^j}}{N}=
\int \rho_i(\theta)e^{i n \theta} \equiv \rho_m^n,$$ where the last equality defines the symbol $\rho_i^n$. Note that the subscript $m$ on $\rho$ runs from $ 1 \ldots q-1$ and labels the $O(N)$ factor under study, while the superscript $n$ runs from $1 \ldots \infty$ and labels the Fourier mode of the eigenvalue distribution. Using the fact that $\rho_i(\theta)=\rho_i(-\theta)$ it follows that $$\label{altrin}
\rho_i^n = \int d \theta \rho(\theta) \cos n \theta.$$ It follows that $\rho_i^n$ are all real numbers and that $\rho_i^n=\rho_i^{-n}$.
In the large $N$ limit the integral over the eigenvalues $\theta_m^n$ may be recast, in the large $N$ limit into a path integral over the eigenvalue functions $\rho_m(\theta)$ given by $$\label{pfotn}
Z(x)=
\int \prod_{i=1}^{q-1}D \rho_i
\exp \left[\frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=1}^\infty\left( -N^2 \sum_{m=1}^{q-1} \frac{|\rho_m^n|^2}{n} -2 N_F N^{q-1} (-x)^n \frac{ \left( \prod_{m=1}^{q-1} \rho^n_m
\right) }{n}
\right) \right],$$ [^31] where the path integral is now taken over the eigenvalue density functions $\rho_m$ with a measure which descends from the flat integration measure for individual eigenvalues $\theta_m^j$. As we have only $(q-1)N$ eigenvalues, the Jacobian of this variable change is of order $N$ in the exponent and so is subleading at large $N$ and will not concern us.
Notice that the effective action in is a sum of two kinds of terms; those proportional to $N^2$ (we call these terms the contribution of the measure) and those proportional to $N^{q-1}$ (we call these terms the contribution of the energy). As $q \geq 4$ the energy overwhelms the measure at large $N$ if $x$ is taken to be of order unity. In order to work in a regime in which the measure and the energy compete with each other we define $$\label{scaling}
x= \frac{\alpha}{p N^{q-3}},$$ where [^32] $$p= N_F,$$ and take the limit $N \to \infty$ with $\alpha$ held fixed. In this limit the ‘energy’ term with $n=1$ in is of order $N^2$ and so competes with the measure. All energy terms with $n > 1$ are, however, subleading compared to the measure and can be dropped at large $N$. In the limit under consideration, in other words, the effective action in simplifies to $$\label{pfots}
\begin{split}
&Z(\alpha)= \int \prod_{i=1}^{q-1}d U_i
\exp (- S_{\text{eff}} (U_i)), \\
&S_{\text{eff}} = -\frac{\alpha}{N^{q-3}} \left(
\prod_{i=1}^{q-1}\operatorname{Tr}U_i \right).
\end{split}$$ We will now evaluate the integral at large $N$ with the effective action replaced by the simplified effective action . In order to facilitate comparison with the matrix model literature, it is useful to note that the matrix integral is closely related to the following integral over unitary matrices $$\label{pfotsu}
\begin{split}
&Z_{SU}(\alpha)= \int \prod_{i=1}^{q-1}d U_i
\exp (- S_{\text{eff}} (U_i)), \\
&S_{\text{eff}} = -\frac{\alpha}{N^{q-3}} \left(
\prod_{i=1}^{q-1} \operatorname{Tr}U_i + \prod_{i=1}^{q-1} \operatorname{Tr}U_i^\dagger \right).
\end{split}$$ Where the integral is now taken over unitary matrices. In the large $N$ limit the two matrix models have the same gap equation (see below) and $$\label{suso}
\ln Z_{SU}(\alpha)= 2 \ln Z(\alpha).$$
Determination of saddle points {#detsad}
------------------------------
The matrix model (and so ) is easily solved in the large $N$ limit using the usual saddle point method. In order to see how this can be done note that as far as the integral over the eigenvalues of $U_1$ are concerned, $\operatorname{Tr}U_2$, $\operatorname{Tr}U_3$ …$\operatorname{Tr}U_{q-1}$ are all constants. Focusing only on the integral over $U_1$, reduces to $$\label{gww} \begin{split}
Z_{SU} & =\int d U_1 \exp \left( \frac{N}{g_1} \left( \operatorname{Tr}U_1 + \operatorname{Tr}U_1^\dagger \right) \right), \\
\frac{1}{g_1}& = \alpha \rho^1_2 \rho^1_3 \ldots \rho^1_{q-1} = \alpha u_2 u_3 \ldots u_{q-1},
\end{split}$$ where in order to lighten the notation we have defined $$\label{urh}
\rho^1_m=u_m$$ A similar statement applies to the integral over all $U_i$ for $i=1 \ldots q-1$. However is precisely the celebrated Gross Witten Wadia matrix integral [@Gross:1980he; @Wadia:2012fr; @Wadia:1980cp]. Recall that the saddle point that dominates the integral (and its counterparts for $U_2$ etc) is given by [@Gross:1980he; @Wadia:2012fr; @Wadia:1980cp] $$\label{trho}
{\rho}_m( \theta ) =
\begin{cases}
\dfrac{1}{2\pi}\left[1+\dfrac{2}{g_m}\cos\theta \right],
& g_m \geq 2 ,\ \ |\theta|\le \pi \\
\dfrac{2}{\pi g_m}\cos\dfrac{\theta}{2}\sqrt{\dfrac{g_m }{2}
-\sin^2\dfrac{\theta}{2}}, & g_m < 2,\ \ |\theta| < 2\sin^{-1}\left(\dfrac{g_m}{2}\right)^{1/2},
\end{cases}$$ where[^33] $$\label{speqsre} \begin{split}
&\frac{1}{g_m}= \alpha \prod_{j \neq m} u_j.
\end{split}$$ Taking the Fourier transform of it follows that $$\label{uexpr}
u_m =
\begin{cases}
\dfrac{1}{g_m}, & g_m\ge 2 \\
1- \dfrac{g_m}{4}, & g_m< 2. \\
\end{cases}$$ We refer to the solution $u_m= \frac{1}{g_m}$ as the wavy phase while the solution $u_m = 1- \dfrac{g_m}{4}$ as the gapped phase.
and may be regarded as a set of $2(q-1)$ equations for the $2(q-1)$ variables $u_m$ and $g_m$. In order to complete the evaluation of our matrix integrals we will now solve these equations.
Let us first demonstrate that the variables $g_m$ are either all greater than 2 or all less than two simultaneously; and admit no solutions in which some of the $g_m$ are greater than 2 while others are less than 2. [^34]
Let us assume that $g_m\geq 2$. It follows from and that $$\label{wavy}
\alpha u_1 u_2 \ldots u_{q-1} = \frac{u_m}{g_m} = \frac{1}{g_m^2} \leq \frac{1}{4}.$$ On the other hand let us suppose that $g_k <2$ Then it follows from and that $$\label{gapped}
\alpha u_1 u_2 \ldots u_{q-1} = \frac{u_k}{g_k}= \frac{1}{g_k} -\frac{1}{4} > \frac{1}{4}.$$ As and contradict each other it follows that either all $g_m \geq 2$ or all $g_m < 2$ as we wanted to show. Moreover it follows immediately from that when all $g_m\leq 2$ they are in fact all equal. Similarly it follows from that when all $g_m \geq 2$ then once again they are all equal. [^35] It follows that in either case all $u_m$ and all $g_m$ are equal. Let us refer to the common saddle point value of $u_m$ as $u$. The saddle point equations now simplify to $$\label{uexprs}
u =
\begin{cases}
\alpha u^{q-2} & u \leq \frac{1}{2} \\
1- \dfrac{1}{4 \alpha u^{q-2}}, & u > \frac{1}{2}. \\
\end{cases}$$ Once we have determined the solution to value of the partition function , in the large $N$ limit under consideration, is given by $$\label{pffu} \begin{split}
Z(\alpha)& = \exp \left( - \frac{N^2}{2} V(u) \right), \\
V(u)& = (q-1) f(u) -2 \alpha ~ u^{q-1}, \\
f(u)& = \begin{cases}
u^2, & u\le \frac{1}{2} \\
\dfrac{1}{4} -\dfrac{1}{2}\ln\left[2(1-u)\right], & u> \frac{1}{2}.
\end{cases}
\end{split}$$ [^36] Indeed the saddle point equation is simply the condition that the ‘potential’ $V(u)$ in is extremised. In other words the saddle point solutions of our matrix integral are in one to one correspondence with the saddle points (or extrema) of $V(u)$; the contribution of each saddle point to the matrix integral is simply given by $e^{-N^2 \frac{V(u)}{2}}$.
![Effective potential for different values of temperature and associated phase transitions. The graphs are drawn for $q=4$.[]{data-label="vg"}](phase_transit.pdf)
At every positive value of $\alpha$, $V(u)=0$ when $u=0$ and $V(u)$ diverges as $u$ approaches unity from below. [^37] However the qualitative behaviour of the function $V(u)$ for values between zero and unity depends sensitively on $\alpha$.
It is easily verified that for $\alpha \leq \alpha_c=\frac{(q-1)^{q-1}}{4(q-2)^{q-2}}$ the function $V(u)$ increases monotonically as $u$ increases from $0$ to unity (see Fig \[vg\] (a)). It follows that when $\alpha \leq \alpha_c$ the only saddle point lies at $u=0$. In this case the saddle point value of the partition function is $Z(x)=1$ (see below for a discussion of fluctuations about this saddle point value).
At $\alpha=\alpha_c$ the potential $V(u)$ develops a point of inflection at $u=u_c= \frac{q-2}{q-1}$ (see Fig. \[vg\] (b)). Note that $u_c > \frac{1}{2}$. At this value of $\alpha$ we have a new saddle point in the gapped phase.
As $\alpha$ is increased above $\alpha_c$ the point of inflection at $u=u_c$ splits up into two saddle points; a local maximum at $u= u_{max} < u_c$ and a local minimum at $u=u_{min}> u_c$ (see Fig. \[vg\] (c)). To start with both saddle points are in the gapped phase. We refer to the saddle point at $u_{max}$ as the upper saddle and the saddle point at $u_{min}$ as the lower saddle.
As $\alpha$ is increased further the value of $u_{min}$ continues to increase while the value of $u_{max}$ continues to decrease. At $\alpha= \alpha_{pt} = 2^{q-3} > \alpha_c$, $u_{max}=\frac{1}{2}$. For $\alpha > \alpha_{pt}$, $u_{max} <\frac{1}{2}$ and the upper saddle makes a Gross Witten Wadia phase transition into the wavy phase (see Fig \[vg\] (d)). [^38]
Finally, when the new saddle point at $u=u_{c}$ is first nucleated, we have $V(u_c)>0$. As $\alpha$ is increased $V(u_{min})$ decreases below this value. At $\alpha= \alpha_{1pt} = $ we have $V(u_{min})=0$ (see Fig \[vg\](f)). For larger values of $\alpha$, $V(u_{min})<0$ and our matrix model undergoes a first order phase transition from the saddle at $u=0$ to the saddle at $u=u_{min}$. Note that at $\alpha=\alpha_{1pt}$ (i.e. at the ‘Hawking Page transition temperature’) the saddle at $u=u_{max}$ is already in the the wavy phase when $q=4$ but is still in the gapped phase for $q>4$.
Thermodynamics in the canonical ensemble
----------------------------------------
The thermodynamics of our system in the canonical ensemble follows immediately from the nature of the function $V(u)$ as a function of $\alpha$ described at the end of the last section. For convenience we discuss the phase diagram of our system as a function of $\alpha$ rather than temperature (recall that $\alpha$ is defined by the relations $e^{- \beta m}=x = \frac{\alpha}{p N^{q-3}}$).
For $\alpha< \alpha_c$ the saddle at $u=0$ is the only saddle point in the theory (see Fig \[vg\] (a)). For $\alpha_{c} < \alpha < \alpha_{pt}$ [^39] there are two additional saddle points at $u=u_{min}$ and $u=u_{max}$ with $\frac{1}{2} < u_{max} < u_{min} <1$. The saddle point at $u=u_{max}$ is a local maximum and $V(u_{max})>0$ (see Fig \[vg\] (c)). The saddle point at $u=u_{min}$ is a local minimum and however $V(u_{min}) >0$. Both these saddles are subdominant compared to the flat saddle in this range of $\alpha$.
For $\alpha_{pt} < \alpha < \alpha_{1pt}$ the two new phases continue to be subdominant compared to the phase at $u=0$; in this range, however, the solution at $u=u_{max}< \frac{1}{2}$ is now in the wavy phase (see Fig \[vg\] (e)).
At $\alpha= \alpha_{1pt}$ we have $V(u_{min})=0$. For $\alpha> \alpha_{1pt}$ $V(u_{min})<0$, so the solution at $u=u_{min}$ is the dominant saddle point. Our system undergoes a phase transition at $\alpha=\alpha_{1pt}$ (see Fig \[vg\] (e)). The value of $\alpha_{1pt}$ is given as a function of $q$ by $$\label{alpha1pt}
\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{1pt}= \frac{1}{4} (q-1)w \left[1-\frac{1}{(q-1) w}\right]^{-(q-2)}, \ \ w=-W_{-1}\left[-\frac{2 \exp\left[{-\frac{(q+1)}{2(q-1)}}\right]}{q-1}\right],
\end{aligned}$$ where $W_{n}$ is the productlog function.
Thermodynamics in the microcanonical ensemble
---------------------------------------------
In this subsection we compute the density of states as a function of energy corresponding to each of the saddle points described in the previous subsection. In order to do this we use the thermodynamical relations $$\label{thermody}
E( \alpha) = \alpha \partial_\alpha \ln Z(\alpha) \, ~~~
S( \alpha) = \left(\ln Z(\alpha) - E(\alpha) \ln \frac{ \alpha}{N^{q-3} p}\right),$$ where $E$ is the eigenvalue of $\frac{H}{m}$. We invert the first of these equations to solve for $\alpha(E)$, and then plug this solution into the second equation to obtain $S=S(E)$. For the trivial saddle, the saddle value of $S(E)$ is trivial, so we include the contribution of fluctuations around this saddle.
### The saddle at $u=0$
The saddle point at $u=0$ exists at every value of $\alpha$. In this case the saddle point values of the energy and entropy both vanish so the first nontrivial contribution to the thermodynamics comes from the study of fluctuations about the saddle point. In this subsection - which is a bit of a deviation from the main flow of the (otherwise purely saddle point) computations of this paper we describe the relevant computations. For the purposes of this subsection - and this subsection only - we retreat away from the scaling limit and work with the full matrix model - or more precisely with its generalisation which allows for bosonic as well as fermionic harmonic oscillators. Working with this generalised model we compute the fluctuations around the trivial saddle point $\operatorname{Tr}U_m^n=0$, i.e. $\rho^n_m=0$.
For the purposes of studying small fluctuations around this saddle point we work with the integral . The integral can be simplified by making the variable change $$\label{varchange}
\rho_m^n = \frac{\beta_m^n}{N}$$ The point of the scaling is that it eliminates all explicit factors of $N$ from the integral . It follows that - at least for the purposes of the perturbative Wick contraction evaluations we perform in this subsection - at any finite order in perturbation theory the integral over $\beta^m_n$ receives significant contributions only from values of $\beta^m_n$ of order unity. Note however that if $\beta^m_n$ are of order unity then $\rho^m_n$ are of order $\frac{1}{N}$ and so are very small. We can thus safely integrate over all values of $\beta^m_n$ without worrying about boundaries to the domain of integration. [^40] In other words may be rewritten in terms of these scaled variables $$\label{fluc} \begin{split}
&Z(x) = \prod_{n=1}^\infty F_n(x),\\
& F_n(x) =
\begin{cases} M_n\displaystyle \int \prod_{m=1}^{q-1} d \beta_m^n
\exp \left( -\sum_{m=1}^{q-1} \frac{|\beta_m^n|^2}{2n} + N_{F} x^n
\frac{ \left( \prod_{m=1}^{q-1} \beta^n_m
\right) + \text{c.c} }{n} \right) & ~~~n ~~{\rm odd}\\
M_n \displaystyle\int \prod_{m=1}^{q-1} d \beta_m^n
\exp \left( -\sum_{m=1}^{q-1} \frac{|\beta_m^n|^2}{2n} -N_{F} x^n
\frac{ \left( \prod_{m=1}^{q-1} \beta^n_m
\right) + \text{c.c} }{n} \right) & ~~~n ~~{\rm even}.\\
\end{cases}
\end{split}$$ The expressions for $F_n$ above involve an integral with the usual measure $dz d{\bar z}$ for the complex variable $\beta^n_m$. The integral is taken over the whole complex plane[^41]. The $x$ independent normalisation constant $M_n$ above are chosen to ensure that normalisation of Haar measure,i.e, $F_n(0)=1$ .
The expressions for $F_n$ presented in are formal as the integrals that define $F_n$ do not converge. However this fact does not bother us, as we are not really interested in the the expression for $Z(x)$ but only in the coefficients in of $x^{k}$ for each $k$ in that expression. Each of these coefficients is easily obtained (by Taylor expanding the non Gaussian terms in the integrands in the formulas for $F_n$ above and performing all integrals using Wicks theorem. We find $$\label{fnres}
F_n(x)=
\sum_{k=0}^\infty x^{2kn} \left( p^2 (2n)^{q-3} \right)^k (k!)^{q-3}, ~~~ p \equiv N_F,$$
Let $E$ denote the eigenvalues of $\frac{H}{m}$; in other words $E$ is the energy of our theory in units of the oscillator mass (or frequency). It follows from that the functions $F_n(x)$ represent the partition function of a system whose entropy as a function of energy is given by $S_n(E)$ where $$\label{seoe}
e^{S_n(E)}=
\left( \frac{E}{2n}! \right)^{q-3} \left( p^2 (2n)^{q-3} \right)^\frac{E}{2n}.$$ At large $E$ ( i.e. when $E \gg 2 n$) we may use Sterling’s approximation to simplify to obtain the asymptotic formula $$\label{seoel}
S_n(E)=
(q-3)\frac{E}{2n} \ln \left( \frac{E}{2n} \right) + \frac{E}{2n}
\left( -(q-3) + 2 \ln p +(q-3) \ln(2n) \right).$$ Notice that the density of states grows faster than exponentially as a function of energy, explaining the divergence of the integrals that define $F_n$ (or, equivalently, explaining why the sums in are divergent at every $x$ no matter how small.
As the partition function of our system is simply the product over the functions $F_n$, the entropy of our system at large energies is obtained by distributing the available energy $E$ among the various systems $S_n$ in such a way as to maximise the entropy. A glance at is sufficient to convince oneself that the best one can do is to put all available energy into the ‘system’ $S_1$. It follows that for $E \gg 1$, the contribution of the saddle point at $u_1=0$ to the entropy of the system is $$\label{content}
S(E)=S_1(E)= (q-3)\frac{E}{2} \ln \left( \frac{E}{2} \right) + \frac{E}{2}
\left( (\ln(2)-1)(q-3) + 2 \ln p \right).$$
The saddle at $u=0$ is exceptional in that it is trivial as a saddle point; in order to determine the thermodynamics of this ‘phase’ we had to perform the one loop expansion about this saddle point. The remaining saddle points we will study in this section are nontrivial even at leading order, and so will be analysed only within the strict saddle point approximation. In the rest of this subsection we also return to the study of the strict scaling limit .
### The wavy phase
In this subsection we study the thermodynamics of the wavy saddle, i.e. the saddle point at $u=u_{max}$ for $\alpha> \alpha_{pt}= 2^{q-3}$. The contribution of this saddle point to partition function is $$\label{contwavy}
\ln Z(\alpha)= - \frac{N^2}{2} (q-3) \alpha^{- \frac{2}{q-3}}.$$ The energy of the corresponding phase is given by $$\label{enphase1}
E( \alpha) = \alpha \partial_\alpha \ln Z(\alpha) = \frac{N^2}{\alpha^{\frac{2}{q-3}}},$$ Note that the energy is a decreasing function of $\alpha$ so that this phase has a negative specific heat. As this phase exists only for $\alpha > \alpha_{pt}$ it follows that the energy in this phase is bounded from above by $$\label{Ept}
E_{pt} \equiv E(\alpha_{pt})= \frac{N^2}{4}.$$ The entropy of this phase is given by $$\label{entphase1}
S( \alpha) = \left(\ln Z(\alpha) - E(\alpha) \ln \frac{ \alpha}{N^{q-3} p}\right).$$ Eliminating $\alpha$ between and we obtain $$\label{enten1}
S(E) = (q-3)\left[ \frac{E}{2} \ln \left( \frac{E}{2} \right) -\frac{E}{2} \right]+E \ \log p + (q-3)\frac{E}{2}\ln (2).$$ Note that is in perfect agreement with . This match strongly suggests that the formula is correct for all values of $E$ in the range $$\label{enrange} \
1 \ll E < \frac{N^2}{4}.$$
### The gapped phase
The analysis of this section applies to the saddle point at $u=u_{max}$ for $\alpha \leq \alpha_{pt}$ and to the saddle point at $u_{min}$. The partition function of this saddle is given by plugging the solution of the equation $$\label{uppersaddle}
u = 1- \dfrac{1}{4 \alpha u^{q-2}} \ , \quad u \geq \frac{1}{2}$$ into the formula $$\ln Z= -\frac{N^2}{2} \left[ (q-1)
\left( \dfrac{1}{4} -\dfrac{1}{2}\ln\left[2(1-u)\right]
\right) - 2 \alpha u^{q-1} \right].$$ As we have explained above, for $\alpha<
\alpha_c=\frac{(q-1)^{q-1}}{4 (q-2)^{q-2}}$ there are no legal solutions to . For $ \alpha_c< \alpha < \alpha_{pt}=2^{q-3}$ there are two legal solutions and for $\alpha> \alpha_{pt}$ there is a single legal solution to this equation. After the partition function is obtained one obtains the energy and entropy of the solution using the thermodynamical formulae $$\label{thermodys}
E( \alpha) =\alpha \partial_\alpha \ln Z(\alpha) \ , ~~~
S( \alpha) = \left(\ln Z(\alpha) - E(\alpha) \ln \frac{ \alpha}{N^{q-3} p}\right).$$ Eliminating $\alpha$ from the expressions obtained in we find the entropy $S$ as a function of the energy. This function $S=S(E)$ is difficult to find explicitly simply because is difficult to solve. The procedure described above, however, implicitly defines this function. It is not difficult to convince oneself that there is a single saddle point of this nature for every energy $E > \frac{N^2}{4}$ and that the function $S(E)$ is an analytic function of energy for every energy greater than $\frac{N^2}{4}$.
While explicit formulae are difficult to obtain in general, they are easy to obtain in three special limits which we now describe
At $\alpha=\alpha_{pt}$ admits the solution $u= \frac{1}{2}$. (This is a solution at $u=u_{max}$, i.e. the solutions that is a local maximum). It follows that at $\alpha= \alpha_{pt}- \delta \alpha$, admits a solution with $u = \frac{1}{2}+ \delta u$. Here $\delta u$ is solved order by order in $\delta \alpha$. A few lines of standard algebra gives: $$\label{ene}
\begin{split}
S\left( E_{pt} + \delta E\right) =& -\frac{1}{4} N^2 \left[ \log \left(\frac{2^{q-3} N^{3-q}}{p}\right)+\frac{q-3}{2}\right]
-\log \left[\frac{2^{(q-3)/2} N^{3-q}}{p}\right] \delta E \\
&~~~~~~+\frac{2(q-3)}{2 N^2}\left(\delta E \right)^2 +\frac{4(7-3 q)}{6 N^4}\left(\delta E\right)^3+\ldots
\end{split}$$ Comparing and , it is easily verified that while $S(E)$, $S'(E)$ and $S''(E)$ are continuous at $E= \frac{N^2}{4}$, $S'''(E)$ is discontinuous. In that sense the function $S(E)$ has a third order phase transition’ at $E= \frac{N^2}{4}$. Further taking the limit: $$\label{Sdis}
\lim_{\epsilon\to 0^{+}} S^{'''}\left(\frac{N^2}{4}-\epsilon\right) = \frac{4(6-2q)}{N^4}, \quad \lim_{\epsilon\to 0^{+}} S^{'''}\left(\frac{N^2}{4}+\epsilon\right) = \frac{4(7-3q)}{N^4}$$ This discontinuity is a consequence of the fact that the saddle point undergoes a Gross Witten Wadia transition at this energy.\
At $\alpha=\alpha_c$ admits the solution $u=\frac{q-2}{q-1} $. For $\alpha= \alpha_c + \delta \alpha$ the admits two solutions near this critical solution at $u=u_{c} + \delta u$; these are the solutions at $u=u_{max}$ and $u=u_{min}$ respectively. A careful calculation shows $E,S$ as a function of $\alpha$ are different for this two branches but $S$ as a function of $E$ is same for both of them and given by: $$\label{enen}
\begin{split}
S\left( E_c + \delta E\right) =& \frac{1}{4} N^2 \left[- (q-2) \log \left(\frac{(q-2)^{2-q} (q-1)^{q-1} N^{3-q}}{4p}\right)+ (q-1) \log \left(\frac{2}{q-1}\right)+\frac{(q-3)}{2}\right] \\
&-\log \left[\frac{(q-2)^{2-q} (q-1)^{q-1} N^{3-q}}{2^{(q+1)/2}p}\right]\left(\delta E\right) + \left[-\frac{8}{3 N^4 (q-2) (q-1)}\right]\left(\delta E\right)^3+\ldots
\end{split}$$ Note that is completely smooth around $E=E_c=\frac{1}{4} N^2 (q-2)$.\
At $\alpha \gg 1$ admits the solution near $u=1$; this is the thermodynamically dominant saddle at $u=u_{max}$. Setting $u= 1- \delta u$, $\delta u$ is solved to give as series in $\frac{1}{\alpha}$: $$\label{dunn}
\delta u = \left( \frac{1}{4}\right)\alpha^{-1} +\left( \frac{q-2}{16}\right) \alpha^{-2}+ \ldots$$ It follows that: $$\label{cnhnn} \begin{split}
\ln Z(\alpha) &= N^2 \alpha+\left( -\frac{1}{4} N^2 (q-1)\right) \log (\alpha)+\ldots,\\
E( \alpha) & = N^2 \alpha +\left( -\frac{N^2 (q-2) (q-1)}{32 }\right)\alpha +\ldots, \\
S( \alpha) & = \left( - N^2\right) \alpha \log(\alpha)+\left( N^2 \left(1+ \log \left(2 pN^{q-3}\right)\right)\right) \alpha+\ldots
\end{split}$$ which gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eneg}
S(E) &=& E-E\log \left( \frac{E}{pN^{q-1}}\right)- \frac{N^2}{2}\bigg[\frac{q-1}{2}\log \left(\frac{2 E}{N^2}\right)+\frac{3}{4}(q-1) +\frac{1}{8}(q-1)\left(\frac{2 E}{N^2}\right)^{-1} \bigg] +\ldots~~~~~~~~~
$$
### Entropy as a function of energy for $E \gg \frac{N^2}{2}$
We have verified above that for $E \gg \frac{N^2}{2}$ the saddle point for the eigenvalue distribution function becomes very peaked and so is well approximated by a delta function. Whenever the eigenvalue distribution becomes so peaked effect of the holonomies on the partition function of the system can be ignored. It follows that for energies much greater than $N^2$ the partition function of our system is simply that of $N_F N^{q-1}$ complex fermionic oscillators. The partition function for our system thus reduces to $$\label{nbnf}
\ln Z(x) = N_F N^{q-1} \ln (1+x),$$ For $x \ll 1$ reduces to $$\label{nbnfa}
\ln Z(x) = ~x~p~N^{q-1}.$$ Substituting $x= \frac{\alpha}{N^{q-3} p}$ we find that agrees precisely with the leading term in the first line of : $$\label{contla}
\ln Z(\alpha)= N^2 \alpha.$$ The energy of the corresponding phase is given by $$\label{enphase2}
E( \alpha) = \alpha \partial_\alpha \ln(Z(\alpha)) = N^2 \alpha.$$ The entropy of this phase is given by $$\label{entphase2}
S( \alpha) = \ln Z(\alpha) -E(\alpha) \ln \frac{ \alpha}{N^{q-3} p}
= N^2\left(1-\log \left(\frac{\alpha}{pN^{q-3}}\right)\right)\alpha.$$ Eliminating $\alpha$ between and we obtain $$\label{enten2}
S(E) = E \left(1-\log \left(\frac{E}{pN^{q-1}}\right)\right).$$ Note that matches with the leading and 1st subleading term in .
The holonomy effective action with weak interactions {#sec4}
====================================================
In the previous section we studied the free energy of the mass deformed SYK model in the zero coupling $\frac{J}{m} =0$. In this section we will study corrections to the results of the previous section in a power series expansion in the coupling constant. For simplicity we also study the special case $N_F=1$ in .
In principle the leading large $N$ contribution to $S_{\text{eff}}$ is given as follows (we restrict attention to the massless case for simplicity in this paragraph). Consider the gap equation . We are instructed to solve this gap equation on a thermal circle, subject to the requirement that the solution respect the boundary conditions $$\begin{split}\label{bcs}
&G\left(t_1+ \frac{\beta}{2}, t_2\right)= -U G\left(t_1- \frac{\beta}{2}, t_2\right)\\
&G\left(t_1, t_2 + \frac{\beta}{2}\right)= -G\left(t_1, t_2- \frac{\beta}{2}\right) U^{-1}\\
&\Sigma\left(t_1, t_2+ \frac{\beta}{2}\right)= -U
\Sigma\left(t_1, t_2- \frac{\beta}{2}\right) \\
&\Sigma\left(t_1+ \frac{\beta}{2}, t_2\right)= -\Sigma\left(t_1- \frac{\beta}{2}, t_2\right) U^{-1}\\
\end{split}$$ We must then plug this solution into and the corresponding result is represented by $S_{\text{eff}}(U).$ While this prescription is clear it is rather difficult to implement in practice. In order to get some intuition for the effect of interactions on $S_{\text{eff}}(U)$ present some perturbative results for this object.
The thermal partition function of theory is given, as usual, by the Euclidean path integral of the theory on a thermal circle of circumference $\beta$. The free result is obtained by integrating out all fermions at at ‘one loop’ (i.e. by computing fermionic determinants -we explain how this works in more detail below). Corrections to are obtained by including the contribution of more general diagrams.
It was demonstrated in [@Witten:2016iux] that, in the strict large $N$ limit of interest to this paper, the only graphs that contribute are melonic graphs. One way of organising the graphs that contribute to our computation is by the number of melons a graph contains. We will refer to a graph with $n$ melons as an $n^{th}$ order graph. Such graphs are proportional to $J^{2n}$. As in the previous section we will be interested in the effective action as a function of holonomies, $S_{\text{eff}}(U)$. Let the contribution to $S_{\text{eff}}(U)$ from graphs of $n^{th}$ order be denoted by $S_n(U)$. We have $$\label{ssnq}
S_{\text{eff}}(U)= \sum_{n=0}^\infty S_n(U).$$ As in the previous section we will principally be interested in the partition function in the scaling limit . In this limit the temperature is very small and so $\beta$ is very large $\beta \sim \ln N$. For this reason it is important to keep track of explicit multiplicative factors of $\beta$ (as opposed, for instance, to factors of $x=e^{-\beta m}$) in our results. Below we will demonstrate that $n^{th}$ order graphs have at least one and at most $n$ explicit multiplicative factors of $\beta$. It follows that the contributions of $n^{th}$ order graphs to the effective action can be organised in series $$\label{nogs}
S_n(U)= \frac{J^{2n} \beta^n}{m^n}
\sum_{a=0}^{n-1} \left( \frac{1}{m \beta} \right)^{a}
f^n_a(x, U) \equiv -\left(\frac{J }{m}\right)^{2n}F_{2n} (m \beta,x,U).$$ Substituting into , we can rearrange the sum over graphs as $$\label{ssn}\begin{split}
S_{\text{eff}}(U)&= \sum_{k=0}^\infty \left( \frac{J}{m} \right)^{2k}
H_k( \frac{J^2 \beta}{m}, x, U),\\
H_k( \frac{J^2 \beta}{m}, x, U)&= \sum_{n=k}^\infty
\left( \frac{J^2 \beta }{m}\right)^{n-k} f_k^n(x, U).
\end{split}$$ As we are interested in the scaling limit it follows that: $$\label{tildeq} \begin{split}
&H_k\left( \frac{J^2 \beta}{m}, x, U\right)= {\tilde H}_k\left(\frac{J^2 \beta}{m}\right)
x \prod_{i=1}^{q-1} \operatorname{Tr}U_i, \\
&f_k^n(x, U)= f_k^n x \prod_{i=1}^{q-1}\operatorname{Tr}U_i, \\
& H_k\left( \frac{J^2 \beta}{m}\right)= \sum_{n=k}^\infty
\left( \frac{J^2 \beta }{m}\right)^{n-k} {\tilde f}_k^n, \\
&S_{\rm eff}(U)= x \prod_{i=1}^{q-1} \operatorname{Tr}U_i \times
\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left( \frac{J}{m} \right)^{2k}
{\tilde H}_k\left( \frac{J^2 \beta}{m}\right),
\end{split}$$ where we will present an argument for the $u$ dependences asserted here below.
represents an interesting reorganisation of usual perturbation theory. This reorganisation is particularly useful at small $\frac{J^2}{m^2} \ll 1$ but finite values of $\frac{J^2 \beta}{m}$. As $\beta \sim \frac{m}{\ln N}$ in the scaling limit, it follows that $\frac{J^2 \beta}{m}$ is fixed only for $\frac{J^2}{m^2} \sim \frac{1}{\ln N}$. At these small values of the coupling, $S_{\rm eff}(U)$ is well approximated by the first term in the expansion in , i.e. by the term proportional to ${\tilde H}_0$. We will explicitly evaluate ${\tilde H}_0$ in this section and so reliably determine the partition function when $\frac{J^2}{m^2}$ is in the parametric range described above. [^42]
In the rest of this section we present the results of our explicit perturbative computations. Although we are principally interested in the function $H_0$ in the scaling limit, to set notations and for practice we first present the results of simpler computations. To start with we work out the partition function at level zero and recover the free partition function of the previous section. We then work out the partition function at level 1 (i.e. including graphs with a single melon). Next we present our results at level 2 (i.e. including all graphs with two melons). Finally we turn to the problem of principal interest to us, namely the sum of the infinite set of graphs that generates $H_0$. As preparation for all these computations we first briefly discuss the structure of the free Greens function.
Free Greens Function
--------------------
Consider the free fermionic Greens function $$\langle \psi^a(t) \bar{ \psi }_b(0) \rangle.$$ We work in a colour basis in which the holonomy $U$ is diagonal. In this basis in which the action of holonomies on the fermions is given by $$\label{holferm} \begin{split}
U \psi^{a} & = e^{i \theta_a} \psi^a, \\
U {\bar \psi}_a&= e^{-i \theta_a} \psi_a.\\
\end{split}$$ The free fermionic Greens function at finite temperature is given by $$\label{propexp}
\begin{aligned}
\langle \psi^a(t) \bar{ \psi }_b(0) \rangle = & G_0(t) \delta^{a}_b, \ G_0(t)=f(t,m,\theta_a), \ \ \textit{for \ $ -\beta \leq t\leq \beta $ }\\
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{propexpt}
\begin{aligned}
f(t,m,\theta_a) = & \frac{1}{2} e^{-(m+i\theta_a)t}\left[\text{sgn}(t)+\tanh\left(\frac{1}{2}(m+i\theta_a)\beta\right)\right]\\
=& \frac{e^{-(m+i\theta_a)t}}{1+x \ e^{-i\theta_a \beta}}
\left[ \Theta(t)-\Theta(-t) \ x \ e^{-i\theta_a \beta} \right].
\end{aligned}$$ Note that the function $f$ obeys the identity $$\begin{aligned}
f\left(\frac{\beta}{2}+t,m,\theta_a\right)=-f\left(-\frac{\beta}{2}+t,m,\theta_a\right) \ \ \textit{for \ $0 \leq t<\frac{\beta}{2}$},
\end{aligned}$$ from which it follows that the Greens function is antiperiodic on the circle as required on physical grounds.
Note that we have presented the Greens function only in the ‘fundamental domain’ $- \beta < t < \beta$. Our fermionic Greens function is taken by definition to be a periodic function of $t$ with period $2 \beta$; this property plus the explicit results and can be used to define the Greens function at every value of Euclidean time as required. The extended Greens function defined in this manner has singularities at $t= n \beta$ for every integral value of $n$, and is smooth everywhere else.
Note also that the ‘reversed’ Greens function $\langle {\bar \psi}_a (t) \psi^bb(0) \rangle$ is also given in terms of the function $G_0$ by the formula [^43] $$\begin{aligned}
\langle {\bar \psi}_a (t) \psi^b(0)\rangle = -G_0(-t)\delta^b_a.
\end{aligned}$$ This formula is also manifestation of symmetry of mass deformed SYK Lagrangian under the simultaneous swaps ${\bar \psi} \leftrightarrow \psi$, $U \leftrightarrow U^{-1}$, $m \leftrightarrow -m$.
Level zero: Free theory
-----------------------
In this brief subsection we compute $S_{\text{eff}}$ at one loop, i.e. in the free theory. The result for $S_{\text{eff}}(U)$ was already presented in the previous subsection; we obtain that result here from a one loop computation as a simple practice exercise. Let $$\label{omn}
\omega_n=\frac{2 \pi}{\beta} \left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right).$$ The fields $\psi^a$ and ${\bar \psi}_a$ can be independently expanded in Fourier space as $$\label{frequency space}
\begin{aligned}
\psi(t)=\sum_n \psi^n e^{-i \omega_n t}\ ,
\ \bar{\psi}(t)=\sum_n \bar{\psi}_n e^{+i \omega_n t}.
\end{aligned}$$ When substituted the free part of action becomes $$\label{fr}
\begin{aligned}
S=\sum_{n,a} \bar{\psi}_{a,n}[\beta(-i \omega_n+m+i\theta_a)]\psi^{a,n}.
\end{aligned}$$ Fermionic integration gives: $$\begin{aligned}
Z_F=& \prod _{a} \prod _{n=-\infty}^{n=+\infty}\left[\beta(-i \omega_n+m+i\theta_a)\right]\\
=& \prod _{a} \prod _{n=-\infty}^{n=+\infty}\left[-i (2 \pi n+\pi)+m \beta+i\theta_a \beta\right]\\
=& \prod _{a} \prod _{n=-\infty}^{n=+\infty}\left[-i 2 \pi n+c(\theta_a)\right]\\
=& \prod _{a}c(\theta_a)^2 \prod _{n=1}^{n=+\infty}\left[(-i 2 \pi n+c(\theta_a))(+i 2 \pi n+c(\theta_a))\right]\\
=& \prod _{a}c(\theta_a)^2 \prod _{n=1}^{n=+\infty}\left[ (2 \pi n)^2+c(\theta_a)^2\right]\\
=& \prod _{a}c(\theta_a)^2 \left(\prod _{n=1}^{n=+\infty}(2 \pi n)^2\right) \prod _{n=1}^{n=+\infty} \left[ 1+\left(\frac{c(\theta_a)/2}{ \pi n}\right)^2\right]\\
=& \prod _{a} c(\theta_a)^2 \left(\prod _{n=1}^{n=+\infty}(2 \pi n)^2\right) \left[ \frac{\sinh \frac{c(\theta_a)}{2} }{\frac{c(\theta_a)}{2}} \right]\\
=& N \prod _{a} \left[ \sinh \frac{c(\theta_a)}{2} \right] \sim \prod _{a} e^{\frac{c(\theta_a)}{2} } (1-e^{-c(\theta_a)}),\\
\end{aligned}$$ where $$c(\theta_a)=m \beta+i\theta_a \beta-i \pi$$ and $$N= \prod _{a} \prod _{n=1}^{n=+\infty}(2 \sqrt{2} \pi n)^2$$ is an infinite holonomy independent constant. As for every $\theta_a$ there is $-\theta_a$ to be taken into account $\prod _{a} e^{\frac{c(\theta_a)}{2} }$ becomes independent of holonomy. Keeping only holonomy dependent terms [^44] $$\label{oth exact}
\begin{aligned}
\ln Z= \sum_a \log[1+x e^{-i\theta_a \beta}] \ , \ \ x=e^{-m \beta},
\end{aligned}$$ In other words $$\label{ot}
\begin{aligned}
\ln Z= \operatorname{Tr}\ln [1+x U].
\end{aligned}$$ Expanding in a power series in $x$ we recover at $N_F=1$. In the scaling limit we recover .
Level one: single melon graphs
------------------------------
The contributions of graphs with a single melon to the Free energy is given by $$\label{smg}
F_2= \frac{1}{2!}\ ^2C_{\frac{2}{2}}\ (-1)^{q/2}q \ m^2 \int \prod_{k=1}^q G_0(t_{1}-t_{2},\theta_{a_k}) \ dt_1 dt_2,$$
![Single loop contribution to free energy.[]{data-label="1loop"}](1loop.pdf)
In this graph we contract each of fields in the interaction vertex $\psi^q$ with one of the fields in ${\bar \psi}^q$. Consider any particular $\psi$ field. This $\psi$ field has to contract with one of the $q$ ${\bar \psi}$ fields in the second interaction vertex. It is thus clear that there are $q$ choices for this contraction (the choices of which ${\bar \psi}$ our specified $\psi$ pairs up with). Once this choice has been made, if we are interested - as we are- in graphs that contribute only at leading order in large $N$ there are no further choices in our contraction. Recall that every one of the remaining $\psi$’s (respectively $\bar{\psi}$’s) has exactly one colour common with the $\psi$ (resp $\bar{\psi}$) that we have just contracted together. The leading large $N$ behaviour is obtained only if the $\psi$ that shares any given gauge index with our special contracted $\psi$ is now contracted with the $\bar{\psi}$ that shares the same gauge index with the special contracted ${\bar \psi}$. This rule specifies a unique contraction structure for the remaining fields. It follows that, up to a sign, the symmetry factor is simply $q$. The sign in question is simply $(-1)^{(q-1)+(q-2)+..+1}$ Recalling that $q$ is even, it is easy to see that this phase $=(-1)^{q/2}$.
The integral in is very easy to perform. To see this note that the analytic structure of the integrand as a function of $t=t_1-t_2$ takes the form $$e^{-qm t} (A_q \ \text{sgn}(t)+B_q),$$ for various different values of $q$. The integrand is integrated from $-\frac{\beta}{2}$ to $\frac{\beta}{2}$. The integral over $t_1+t_2$ produces an overall factor of $\beta$. The integrals are all trivial to do; evaluating them we find the final answer $$\label{2nd order}
\begin{aligned}
F_2=\frac{(-1)^{q/2}}{2!}\ ^2C_{\frac{2}{2}}\ q\, m \beta \ I^{(2)}_1(q,x),
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{2nd order exact}
\begin{aligned}
I^{(2)}_1(q,x)= \frac{1-x^q}{q} {\rm Tr}_F \prod_{k=1}^q \left( \frac{1}{1+x \tilde{U}_k} \right).
\end{aligned}$$ The expression $\operatorname{Tr}_F(...)$ in the equation above represents the trace over an operator built on a particular Auxiliary Hilbert space. The operator in question is a function of the elementary operators ${\tilde U}_k$ that act on this Hilbert space. We will now carefully define the relevant Hilbert space and the operators ${\tilde U}_k$ and so give meaning to .
The operators ${\tilde U}_k$ in have the following meaning. These operators are unitary operators that act on a vector space whose dimensionality is $N^{\frac{q}{2} (q-1)}$. The vector space in question is the tenor product of $q-1$ factors, each of which has dimension $N^{\frac{q}{2}}$. Each factor described above is associated with one of the $q-1$ gauge groups. Let us focus on any one gauge group, say the first. The factor associated with this gauge group consists of $\frac{q}{2}$ distinct factors of isomorphic $N$ dimensional spaces on which the $N\times N$ holonomy matrices of the first gauge group naturally act.
Recall that each $\psi$ field that appears in an interaction has exactly one gauge index contraction with every other $\psi$ field. This means, in particular, that the indices of gauge group 1 are contracted between $\frac{q}{2}$ pairs of $\psi$s. This fact is the origin of the $\frac{q}{2}$ distinct factors of the space on which the holonomy matrices of the first gauge group act.
With all this preparation we now explain the form of the operators $\tilde{U}_k$. Each $\tilde{U}_k$ acts as $U_1$ (the holonomy of the first $O(N)$ gauge group) on one of the $\frac{q}{2}$ copies of the $N$ dimensional vector space associated with the first $O(N)$, and as identity on the remaining $\frac{q}{2} -1$ copies of this space. In a similar fashion it acts as $U_2$ on one of the $\frac{q}{2}$ copies of the $N$ dimensional vector space associated with the second $O(N)$, and as identity on the remaining $\frac{q}{2} -1$ copies of this space. And so on. Exactly two $\tilde{U}_k$s act as $U_1$ on the same Hilbert space. Exactly two $\tilde{U}_k$s act as $U_2$ on the same Hilbert space, etc. Finally every two $\tilde{U}_k$s act on the same Hilbert space for one and only one gauge group.[^45] The symbol ${\rm Tr}_F$ in that equation denotes the trace over the full $N^{\frac{q}{2} (q-1)}$ dimensional Hilbert space.
From a practical point of view it is less complicated to use the definitions of the ${\tilde U}_k$ operators than it might at first seem. We could, for instance, expand the result in a power series in $x$. The formal looking expressions of traces of sums of products of ${\tilde U}_k$ operators that appear as coefficients in this expansion can easily be evaluated in terms of traces of powers of the holonomy matrices $U_1 \ldots U_{q-1}$ of the factors of $O(N)$.
A little thought will allow the reader to convince herself that the rules described above imply that, for instance $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rules}
{\rm Tr} \left( \sum_{k=1}^{q} {\tilde U}_k \right)
&=&q N^{\frac{(q-2)(q-1)}{2}}
{\rm Tr} U_1 {\rm Tr} ~ U_2 \ldots {\rm Tr} U_{q-1}, \\
{\rm Tr} \left( \sum_{k_1 \neq k_2}^{q} {\tilde U}_{k_1}
{\tilde U}_{k_2} \right)
&=& q N^{\frac{q^2 -5q +6}{2}}
\left[\prod_{k=1}^{q-1} {\rm Tr} U_1^2 ~ ({\rm Tr} U_2)^2 \ldots ({\rm Tr} U_{q-1})^2
\right.\nonumber\\&&\left.~~~~~~~~~~~+ (1 \leftrightarrow 2) + (1 \leftrightarrow 3) + \ldots (1 \leftrightarrow
q-1) \right], \\
{\rm Tr} \left( \sum_{k=1}^{q} {\tilde U}^2_k \right)
&=& q N^{\frac{(q-2)(q-1)}{2}}
\left( {\rm Tr} U^2_1 ~ {\rm Tr} U^2_2 \ldots {\rm Tr} U_{q-1}^2 \right).\end{aligned}$$ As an illustration of these rules let us evaluate the partition function in the low energy scaling limit described in the previous section. Recall that in the limit of interest $x \sim \frac{1}{N^{q-3}}$ and we are instructed to retain only those contributions to $S_{\text{eff}}(U)$ that are linear in $x$; terms of higher order in $x$ can be discarded. It follows that the partition function in this limit may be evaluated by Taylor expanding in $x$ and discarding all terms that are quadratic or higher order in $x$. Using the first of we conclude immediately that $$\label{2nd order1}
\begin{aligned}
F_2=\frac{(-1)^{q/2}}{2!}\ ^2C_{2/2}\ q\, m \beta \ N^{q-1} (-x) \prod_{m=1}^{q-1} \rho^1_m.
\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho^1_m= \frac{{\rm \operatorname{Tr}} U_m}{N}$ as in the previous section, and we have dropped the terms of order $x^0$ which are independent of $U_m$.
Level 2: 2 melon graphs {#2-melon}
-----------------------
At level 2 we once again have contributions from a single Feynman diagram Fig \[2loop\]. In order to evaluate this graph we must evaluate in integral $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2nd order2}
F_4&=&\frac{1}{4!}\ ^4C_{4/2}\ (-1)2 (q^2)^2 \int \prod_{i=1}^4 dt_i \ \left( \prod_{i=1}^{q-1} G_0(t_{12},\theta_{a_i}) \right)
\left( \prod_{i=1}^{q-1} G_0(t_{34},\theta_{b_i}) \right) \nonumber\\
&&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`\times
G_0(t_{32},\theta_{c_2})G_0(t_{14},\theta_{c_1}).~~~~~~~~~\end{aligned}$$
![Two loop contribution to free energy.[]{data-label="2loop"}](2loop.pdf)
We give some details of this expression and the evaluation of this integral in the Appendix \[perturb-melon\]. We have completely evaluated this integral with the help of mathematica (see Appendix \[all-beta\] for arbitrary number of melons), but the final result for $S_{\text{eff}}(U)$ in the general case is too complicated to transfer to text. As before, however, the answer simplifies dramatically in the low energy scaling limit of the previous section (see Appendix \[2-melons\]) and we find $$\label{2nd order3}
\begin{aligned}
&F_4=\frac{(-1)}{4!}\ ^4C_{4/2}\ 2 (q^2)^2 [m \beta \ I^{(4)}_1(q)+m^2 \beta^2 \ I^{(4)}_2(q)] \ N^{q-1}x \prod_{m=1}^{q-1} \rho^1_m,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} & I^{(4)}_1(q)=-\frac{2}{q}(2q-3),\\
& I^{(4)}_2(q)=-1.
\end{aligned}$$ Note that the final answer had two terms; one proportional to an overall factor of $\beta$ and the second proportional to $\beta^2$. In the next subsection we will argue that a graph at level $n$, in the low temperature scaling limit, has terms proportional to $\beta^q$ for $q=1 \ldots n$.
The infinite sum $H_0$
----------------------
We will now turns to a study of the free energy at level $n$. As in the previous subsection we will focus on the start at the low energy scaling limit of the previous section, and so retain only those terms in all graphs that are proportional to $x$. As we will see below, general graphs in the scaling limit and at level $n$ break up into different pieces that are proportional to $\beta^{k}$ for $k=1 \ldots n$.[^46] We will further focus our attention on the graph with the largest power of $\beta$, i.e. in this subsection we will contribute that piece of the level $n$ answer that scales like $\beta^n x$. It turns out that this piece is rather easy to extract as we now explain.
Let us first recall that the propagator in our theory takes the following form:$$\label{proparg}
\begin{aligned}
\langle \psi_a(t) {\bar \psi}^b (0) \rangle
=& \frac{e^{-(m+i\theta_a)t}}{1+x \ e^{-i\theta_a \beta}}
\left[ \Theta(t)-\Theta(-t) \ x \ e^{-i\theta_a \beta} \right].
\end{aligned}$$ It will turn out (and we will see explicitly below) that the denominator in only contributes at order $\beta^{n-1}$ or lower in free energy linear in $x$. For the purposes of the current subsection, therefore (where we wish to ignore terms at order $x^2$ or higher and only keep highest power of $\beta$) this denominator can be dropped, and we can work with the simplified propagator[^47]
$$\label{propargs}
\begin{aligned}
\langle \psi_a(t) {\bar \psi}^b (0) \rangle
=& e^{-(m+ i \theta_a) t }
\left[ \Theta(t)-\Theta(-t) \ x \ e^{-i\theta_a \beta} \right].
\end{aligned}$$
In this subsection we assume $m>0$; the case $m<0$ can be argued in a completely analogous manner with the role of $\psi$ and ${\bar \psi}$ reversed in the analysis below. In the computation of Feynman diagrams on the circle we will need to choose a ‘fundamental domain’ on the circle; our (arbitrary but convenient) choice of fundamental domain is $$\label{fdomain}
-\frac{\beta}{2} < t < \frac{\beta}{2}$$ Finally some terminology. We will call the part of the propagator that is proportional to $\theta(t)$ the ‘forward’ (‘normal’) part of the propagator, and the part of the propagator proportional to $\theta(-t)$ the ‘reverse’ part of the propagator. Note that the normal part of the propagator ranges is modulus from $1$ to $\sqrt{x}$; it is maximum (i.e. unity) at $t=0$ and minimum (i.e. $\sqrt{x}$) at $t=\frac{\beta}{2}$. The modulus of the reverse part of the propagator varies in magnitude from $\sqrt{x}$ to $x$. It is minimum (i.e. equal to $x$) at $t=0$ and maximum (i.e. equal to $\sqrt{x}$) at $t=-\frac{\beta}{2}$.
With all this preparation we are now ready to isolate the parts of the level $n$ diagrams whose contribution is proportional to $x \beta^n$.
![Circle diagram: a, b represents respectively insertions of $\psi$, $\bar{\psi}$. Direction of arrow is from $\psi$ to $\bar{\psi}$. The diagram is drawn for $q=4$.[]{data-label="nloop"}](nloop.pdf)
To start with let us consider the simple $n^{th}$ level ring diagram depicted in Fig. \[nloop\]. In this diagram we have $n$ $a$ type vertices and $n$ $b$ type vertices. In this graphs we have $q-1$ propagators connecting adjacent $a$ and $b$ type vertices, but only a single propagator connecting $b$ to $a$ type vertices.
Consider any propagator between $a$ and $b$ type vortices - which has $a$ type vertex $A$ at time $t_1$ and its adjacent $b$ type vertex $B$ at time $t_2$. Depending on whether $t_1>t_2$ or $t_1 <t_2$, all the $q-1$ propagators from $A$ to $B$ are either simultaneously all reverse or simultaneously all normal. If all propagators are reverse, the modulus of these propagators is less than $\sqrt{x}^{q-1} < x$ (recall $q \geq 4$). It follows that configurations in which the propagators from $A$ to $B$ do not contribute in the scaling limit, and so all propagators from $A$ to $B$ must be normal. Given that these propagators are all normal their modulus is proportional to $e^{-m (q-1)|t_1-t_2|}$. It is intuitively clear that separating $t_1$ from $t_2$ over a finite fraction of the circle forces us to pay a high cost in factors of $x$; it can be shown (this will be clearer in a bit) that such configurations do not contribute to the result in the scaling limit. In the scaling limit we only receive contributions from configurations in which $|t_1-t_2|$ is of order $\frac{1}{m}$. It follows that for parametric purposes, we can simply regard $t_1$ and $t_2$ as the same point, replacing the integral over $t_1-t_2$ by $\frac{1}{m}$. For parametric purposes, in other words, each of the melons in Fig. \[nloop\] can be thought of as a single interaction vertex, inserted at a single ‘self energy vertex’, inserted at a single time, with effective an effective insertion factor of order $\frac{J^2}{m}$.
Now let us turn to the propagators between $b$ and $a$ type vertices. These are now $n$ different propagators connecting the effective self energy blobs described in the previous paragraph. Let the effective times of insertions of these self energy blobs be $T_1$, $T_2 \ldots T_{n}$. Our graph is proportional to the product of $n$ propagators, the first from $T_1$ to $T_2$, the second from $T_2$ to $T_3$ $\ldots$ and the last from $T_{n}$ to $T_1 + w \beta$ where $w$ is an integer. As each reverse propagator contributes a factor of at least $\sqrt{x}$ to the integrand, no more than two of these propagators can be reverse.
Let us first consider diagrams in which all propagators are forward. As all propagators move forward in time, the final propagator in the sequence must end not at time $T_1$ but at time $T_1 + w \beta$ where $w$ is a positive integer. The modulus of the product of these propagators is then easily seen to be proportional to $e^{-w m \beta}= x^w$. In the scaling limit of interest to us, the only option is $w=1$. Once we set $w=1$, the integrand of the diagram is now independent of the effective insertion times $T_i$. The integral over these $n$ insertion times thus gives a factor $\beta^n$, and the contribution of the graph in question is proportional to $x \beta^n$ as desired.
Now let us consider diagrams in which one of the propagators between the effective self energy vertices is reverse, and the rest are forward. It is easy to verify that the modulus of the product of propagators in such a graphs is proportional to $x e^{-w m \beta}$ where $w=0, 1, \ldots $. In the scaling limit under consideration we are interested only in $w=0$. Once again the modulus of these graphs is independent of the insertion positions of the effective self energy vertices, and integration over their locations produces a result proportional to $x \beta^n$ as required.
Diagrams in which two of the propagators are reverse are kinematically very constrained. Similar argument as above shows these graphs are proportional to $x$ only if $w=-1$,i.e, if the two reverse propagators each have length $\frac{\beta}{2}$ (up to corrections of order $\frac{1}{m}$) and so all the forward propagators have length zero, again up to corrections of order $\frac{1}{m}$. These constraints ensure that such graphs are proportional to $\beta$ but no higher power of $\beta$ (certainly not $\beta^n$) and so are not of interest to the current section.
In summary, graphs of the form depicted in Fig. \[nloop\] only contribute at order $x \beta^n$ if all propagators from $a$ to adjacent $b$ type vertices are normal, if the separation between $a$ and adjacent $b$ type vertices is of order $\frac{1}{m}$, and if the propagators between adjacent melons are either all normal with net winding number one or one reverse and the rest normal with net winding number zero. Once we have identified the parts of these graphs that contribute at order $x\beta^n$, the computation of these contributions is very simple (see below).
Let us now turn to more general graphs than those drawn in Fig. \[nloop\]. All graphs that contribute to the free energy at leading order in the large $N$ limit are of the general structure depicted in \[nloop\], but with the melons in Fig \[nloop\] replaced by effective melons or ‘cactus graphs’. The net effect of this is to replace the bare propagators between $a$ and $b$ type vertices in Fig. \[nloop\] by exact propagators. Recall that we are only interested in the propagator corrections at times $t=|t_1 -t_2| \sim \frac{1}{m} \ll \beta$. The $k^{th}$ order correction to the forward propagator at short times takes the schematic form $$\label{kpst}
G(t) \sim \frac{|J|^{2k} t^k}{m^k} \sum_{n=0}^k C_n \left( \frac{m}{t} \right)^n$$ As all values of $t$ that contribute to our integrand in the low energy scaling limit of interest to this paper are of order $\frac{1}{m}$, it follows that all terms on the RHS of are of order $\frac{J^{2k}}{m^{2k}}$. As compared to the contribution of the graphs of Fig. \[nloop\], in other words, these graphs have extra powers of $J^2$ but no compensating factors of $\beta$. It follows that The contribution of such graphs at level $n$ is always of the form $x \beta^{h}$ with $h$ strictly less than $n$. Consequently all such graphs can be ignored.
In summary, the only graphs that contribute at terms proportional to $x \beta^n$ at level $n$ are the very simple ‘necklace’ graphs depicted in Fig. \[nloop\]. We have already explained above that the contribution of each of these graphs is easily evaluated in the scaling limit. It follows that the computation of the sum of these graphs is a relatively simple job.
Relegating all further details to the Appendix \[n-melons\] we simply list our results. The contribution of order $x \beta^n$ to $S_{\text{eff}}(U)$ from graphs of level $n$ is given, for $n\geq 2$ by $$\label{oin}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{J^{2n}}{m^{2n}}F_{2n} = 2x \ N^{q-1} \left( \prod_{m=1}^{q-1} \rho^1_m \right) \ \frac{1}{(n-1)!} \left[ \gamma(q)\ \frac{(-\beta)}{m}|J|^2 \right]^n\left(2-\frac{2^{n-1}}{n}\right)+\mathcal{O}(\beta^{n-1}),
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{gde}
\begin{aligned}
\gamma(q)=(-1)^{\frac{q}{2}(q-1)} \frac{q}{2}.
\end{aligned}$$ Summing these contributions over all $n=2$ to infinity and adding the separate contribution of $n=1$ we find $H_0$. $$\label{parfmo}
\begin{aligned}
H_0=& 2x \ N^{q-1} \left( \prod_{m=1}^{q-1} \rho^1_m \right) \left[\sum_{n=2}^{\infty} \ \frac{1}{(n-1)!} \left[\gamma(q)\ \frac{(-\beta)}{m}|J|^2 \right]^n\left(2-\frac{2^{n-1}}{n}\right)-\frac{(-1)^{q/2}}{2}q^2 \ \beta \frac{|J|^2}{m} \right] \\
=& 2x \ N^{q-1} \left( \prod_{m=1}^{q-1} \rho^1_m \right)
\left[ \frac{1}{2}+2\gamma(q)\ \frac{(-\beta)}{m}|J|^2 e^{\gamma(q)\ \frac{(-\beta)}{m}|J|^2}-\frac{1}{2}e^{2 \gamma(q)\ \frac{(-\beta)}{m}|J|^2} -\frac{(-1)^{q/2}}{2} q \ \beta \frac{|J|^2}{m} \right],
\end{aligned}$$ so that the free holonomy effective action takes the form with $F_0$ in that equation given by $H_0$ in .
Note that $\gamma(q)$ is positive for $q=4, 8, 12 \ldots $ but is negative for $q= 6, 10, 14 \ldots$. It follows that the exponential terms in decay at large $\frac{J^2 \beta}{m}$ for the first set of values of $q$ but blow up for the second set of values of $q$. It would be interesting to better understand the meaning and consequences of this observation.
Thermodynamics
--------------
At sufficiently weak coupling we have demonstrated in the previous subsection that the free result for $S_{\text{eff}}(U)$ in the scaling limit, , is replaced by the formula $$\label{sfa}
-S_{\text{eff}}(U)= N^{q-1} \left(\prod_{m=1}^{q-1} \rho^1_m \right)
x{\tilde H}_0,$$ where $H_0$ was computed in the previous subsection.
Note that has the same structure of $U$ dependence as ; it follows that the partition function obtained by integrating $e^{-S_{\text eff}(U)}$ over $U$ is simply $Z( \tilde{x})$ (where the function $Z(x)$ was defined in ). At small enough coupling ${\tilde x}$ is close to $x$, and the structure of the canonical partition function generated by is very similar to the results described in detail for the free theory in the previous section.
What does consequence does the replacement of $x$ by ${\tilde x}$ have for the micro canonical partition function? Let us first recall a simple formal result. Let $$e^{-\beta m} \rightarrow e^{-m \beta}(1+\epsilon \ h_0(\beta)).$$ By linearizing the usual thermodynamical formulae it is easy to show that this replacement results in the replacement $$\label{repla}
S(E)=S_0(E)+\epsilon \frac{E}{m}h_0 \left[\frac{\partial S_0(E)}{\partial E} \right]+\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2),$$ (this result holds provided we expand about an analytic point in the phase diagram, i.e. away from phase transitions). Clearly in our context this result applies if $\frac{J^2}{m^2}
\sim \frac{\alpha }{\ln N}$ and $\alpha$ is taken to be small. However our results for the partition function are valid over a larger parametric regime; they are definitely valid whenever $\frac{J^2}{m^2} \sim \frac{\alpha }{\ln N}$ even at finite values of $\alpha$. In order to understand the effect ${\tilde H}_0$ has on the entropy as a function of energy at such values of $\alpha$ we take a slightly different route.
Define a ‘particle mass probability function’ $p(m)$ by the following requirement $$\label{pde}
\int dm' e^{-\beta m'} p(m')= x H_0.$$ Intuitively $p(m)$ denotes a spread in the mass density function (which was a $\delta$ function for the free theory) that mimics the effects of interactions in thermodynamics.
A little thought demonstrates that the following ansatz for $p(m')$ reproduces the structure of our perturbative expansion for $x H_0$ $$\label{alli}
\begin{aligned}
p(m')=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{m}g_k \left( \frac{m'-m}{|J|^2/m} \right) \left( \frac{|J|}{m} \right)^{2k-2},
\end{aligned}$$ where the functions $g_k(y)$ do not depend on $J$. Working with the probability distribution is equivalent to replacing $x$ by $$\begin{aligned} \label{conf}
x \rightarrow \int_0^{\infty}e^{-\beta m'}p(m')dm'=x \sum_{n,k=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n!} \left(-\frac{|J|^2 \beta}{m} \right)^n \left(\frac{|J| }{m} \right)^{2k} \int_{-m^2/J^2}^{\infty}u^ng_k(u)du.
\end{aligned}$$ The lower limit of the integration in can safely be approximated by $-\infty$. If we want the RHS of to equal ${\tilde x}$ we must choose $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}g_0(u)du =1 \ , \
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}u \ g_0(u)du =\frac{2}{q}\gamma(q),\\
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}u^n \ g_0(u)du = 4n\left(1-\frac{2^{n-2}}{n}\right)\gamma(q)^n \ , \ \textit{n $\geq$ 2}
\end{aligned}$$ These relationships determine the moments the as yet unknown $g_0$. Inverting these relations we find $$\label{leadingmassdistribution}
\begin{aligned}
p(m')=& 2\delta(m'-m)- \delta\left(m'-m-2 \gamma(q)\tfrac{|J|^2}{m} \right)
\\&-4\gamma(q)\frac{|J|^2}{m}\delta'\left(m'-m-\gamma(q)\tfrac{|J|^2}{m}\right)
\end{aligned}$$ Recall that the function $p(m')$ in the free theory was just a $\delta$ function localised at $m'=m$. The interaction effects considered in this section split this $\delta$ function into a set of 4 localised $\delta$ (or $\delta'$) spikes, distributed in a width of order $\frac{J^2}{m}$ around $m'=m$. As an aside we note the striking fact that interaction effects - at least at the order we have computed them - do not smoothen the free spectral function out.
It is not difficult to convince oneself that the function $S(E)$ that follows from is qualitatively similar to the entropy as a function of energy derived in detail for the free theory in the previous section, and in particular displays faster than Hagedorn growth.
Discussion
==========
In these notes we have argued that the quantum mechanical model - which is known to agree with the SYK model in the strict large $N$ limit - displays qualitatively new dynamics at subleading orders in $\frac{1}{N}$. We argued that the fluctuation spectrum about the finite temperature saddle point in this theory has new light modes - that originate in time dependent $O(N)^{q-1}$ transformations - in addition to the modes that arise from conformal diffeomorphisms and that were present also in the original SYK theory. The total number of new light modes is $(q-1)\frac{N^2}{2}$ and so is very large in the large $N$ limit. We have also proposed that the dynamics of these new modes is governed by the sigma action , with a normalisation constant ${\cal{A}}$ whose value we have not been able to calculate.
Assuming that our proposal for the new light modes is correct, it raises several interesting questions. It should be possible to check our proposal for the structure for the effective action by performing an independent computation of the four point function of four operators in the theory (by summing ladder diagrams) and comparing the long time behaviour of this computation with what one obtains directly from . Such a procedure should also permit the direct computation of the as yet unknown constant ${\cal A}$.
It is also natural to attempt to find a bulk interpretation of our new modes. One natural suggestion is that these modes are dual to gauge fields in $AdS_2$ [^48] If this is the case it is interesting that the rank of the bulk gauge fields diverges in the effectively classical $N \to \infty$ limit. In other words the bulk classical dual of this theory is given in terms of a weakly coupled theory of an [*infinite*]{} number of classical fields. The situation is somewhat reminiscent of the proliferation of ‘light states’ in the duality of [@Gaberdiel:2012uj], and also the situation with ABJ ‘triality’ in the ABJM limit [@Chang:2012kt] (although in this context the number of bulk Vasiliev fields is never both parametrically large and parametrically weakly coupled). It would be very interesting to investigate this further.
We have also shown that the density of states in an extreme mass deformation of the model displays a faster than Hagedorn growth at energies of order $N^2$. In our opinion this is also a very striking result; the phase that displays this rapid growth is the ‘thermal graviton’ or ‘string gas’ phase. The rapid growth in the density of states of this phase presumably means it cannot thermally equilibriate with another system. It would be interesting to understand what consequences this rapid growth has for potential bulk duals of mass deformed versions of the theory .
Finally we have performed detailed calculations for the holonomy effective action of the mass deformed theory away from the strict large mass limit. In a particular scaling limit that zooms in on the dynamics of the theory at energies of order $N^2$ we demonstrated that the holonomy effective action of our theory, $S_{\rm eff}(U)$ takes a simple universal form. We were able to capture the leading interaction effects by summing the appropriate infinite class of graphs and obtain a very simple effective action that captures the leading deviation away from free behaviour. It should certainly be possible to generalise our perturbative computation of ${\tilde H}_0$ to a computation of ${\tilde H}_1$. More ambitiously, it may eventually prove possible to completely sum this perturbative expansion. We leave investigation of this possibility to the future.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank S. Jain, I. Klebanov, C. Krishnan, J. Maldacena, G. Mandal, P. Nayak, S. Sachdev, S. Shenker, D. Stanford, J. Yoon and E. Witten for useful discussions. We would like to thank S. Mazumdar, Y. Dandekar and S. Wadia for collaborations at the initial stages of this work. The work of all authors was supported in part by a UGC/ISF Indo Israel grant, and the Infosys Endowment for Research into the Quantum Structure of Spacetime. Finally we would all like to acknowledge our debt to the steady support of the people of India for research in the basic sciences.
Conformal Kernel {#ConformalKernel}
================
In this appendix following main result is proved $$\begin{aligned}
\int dt_3 \ dt_4 \ \tilde{K_c}(t_1,t_2;t_3,t_4)(g_c)_a^{\ b}(t_3,t_4)=\frac{1}{|J|^2} \ (g_c)_a^{\ b}(t_1,t_2),
\end{aligned}$$ where relevant quantities are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{K_c}(t_1,t_2;t_3,t_4)=&-|G_c(t_1,t_2)|^{\frac{q-2}{2}}G_c(t_1,t_3)G_c(t_2,t_4)|G_c(t_3,t_4)|^{\frac{q-2}{2}} ,\\
g_c(t_1,t_2) = &|G_c(t_1,t_2)|^{\frac{q-2}{2}} G_c(t_1,t_2)[H(t_1)-H(t_2)].
\end{aligned}$$ Important part of the integration is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
Q(t_1,t_2) \equiv & \int dt_3 \ dt_4 \ G_c(t_1,t_3)G_c(t_2,t_4)G_c(t_3,t_4)^{q-1}[H(t_3)-H(t_4)] \\ =& -\frac{1}{|J|^2} \int dt_3 \ G_c(t_1,t_3) H(t_3) \int dt_4 \ G_c(t_2,t_4)\ |J|^2 G_c(t_4,t_3)^{q-1} \\
& -\frac{1}{|J|^2} \int dt_4 \ G_c(t_2,t_4) H(t_4) \int dt_3 \ G_c(t_1,t_3)\ |J|^2 G_c(t_3,t_4)^{q-1}\\
=&-\frac{1}{|J|^2} \int dt_3 \ G_c(t_1,t_3) H(t_3) (-\delta(t_2-t_3)) -\frac{1}{|J|^2} \int dt_4 \ G_c(t_2,t_4) H(t_4) (-\delta(t_1-t_4))\\
=& \frac{1}{|J|^2}\left[ G_c(t_1,t_2) H(t_2)+ G_c(t_2,t_1) H(t_1)\right]\\
=& -\frac{1}{|J|^2} G_c(t_1,t_2) \left[H(t_1)-H(t_2)\right].
\end{aligned}$$ This proves claimed result when multiplied with $-|G_c(t_1,t_2)|^{\frac{q-2}{2}}$.
Details of the perturbative computations {#perturb-melon}
========================================
Leading Power of $\beta$
------------------------
### Two melon graphs {#2-melons}
In this subsection we consider the contribution to the free energy given by fig. \[2loop\_details\]. First non-trivial effect of winding is seen at this level as explained below. The term whose Wick contraction is calculated is $\frac{1}{4!}(J \psi^4+h.c.)^4$ - where each of $^4C_{4/2}$ terms contribute the same.
![Direction of arrow is from $\psi$ to $\bar{\psi}$. The diagram is drawn for $q=4$.[]{data-label="2loop_details"}](2loop_details.pdf)
The symmetry factor is calculated as follows. Any one of $q$ number of $\psi$’s of first $\psi$-vortex contracts with any one of $q$ number of $\bar{\psi}$’s of any one of two $\bar{\psi}$-vortex to give a factor of $2 q^2$. Any one of $q$ number of $\psi$’s of second $\psi$-vortex contracts with any one of $q$ number of $\bar{\psi}$’s of remaining $\bar{\psi}$-vortex to give a factor of $q^2$. In large-N only non-suppressed diagram is obtained by joining $\psi$ to $\bar{\psi}$ (of same vortex) of same common colour. Choice of external propagator gives $q-1$ possibilities at each blob. Sign of the symmetry factor comes from noticing as there are two identical ’blobs’ sign of contraction of each blob cancel and overall sign is just because of contraction between two ’blobs’, it turns out to be -1. Contribution of symmetry factor at this order becomes $$\begin{aligned}
& F_4=\frac{1}{4!}\ ^4C_{4/2}\ (-1)2 [q^2(q-1)]^2 I^{(4)},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} & I^{(4)}=\int \prod_{i=1}^4 dt_i \ \left( \prod_{i=1}^{q-1} G_0(t_{12},\theta_{a_i}) \right)
\left( \prod_{i=1}^{q-1} G_0(t_{34},\theta_{b_i}) \right)
G_0(t_{32},\theta_{c_2})G_0(t_{14},\theta_{c_1}).
\end{aligned}$$ Where $\theta$s are holonomies on different propagators. Here time differences are not necessarily single valued and to satisfy the constraint $$t_{12}+t_{23}+t_{34}+t_{41}=w \beta,$$ where $w=0,\pm 1, \pm 2$ (note that each $t_{ik}$ is in $( -\frac{\beta}{2},\frac{\beta}{2} ) $, and this restricts allowed values of $n$) we introduce dimensionless Lagrange multiplier integration $$P \equiv \beta \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{ds}{2 \pi} e^{i s (t_{12}+t_{23}+t_{34}+t_{41}-w \beta)}=\delta\left(\frac{t_{12}+t_{23}+t_{34}+t_{41}-w \beta}{\beta }\right).$$ In the scaling limit (assuming $m>0$), the propagator becomes $$\begin{aligned}
G_0(t)=e^{-(m+i\theta_a)t} \theta(t)-x e^{-i\theta_a \beta} e^{-(m+i\theta_a)t} \theta(t)-x^{1/2} e^{-m\beta/2} e^{-i\theta_a \beta} e^{-(m+i\theta_a)t} \theta(-t).
\end{aligned}$$ This way of writing ensures in each of three parts of $G_0$ excluding explicit $x$ dependence integration over $-\frac{\beta}{2}$ to $\frac{\beta}{2}$ gives only positive powers of $x$. We will refer to these three parts of $G_0$ as $x^0,x,x^{1/2}$ contributions.
In the scaling limit of interest $\ I^{(4)}$ can receive contribution from 5 different types of integration $$\begin{aligned}
I^{(4)}= & \textit{$x^{0}$ everywhere}+ \textit{$x^{1/2}$ on one of the outer ($\theta_{c_1},\theta_{c_2}$) lines} + \textit{$x^{1/2}$ on both of the outer lines}\\+
& \textit{$x$ on one of the outer lines}+\textit{$x$ on one of the inner lines ($\theta_{a_1}, \theta_{a_2} \dots \theta_{a_{q-1}},\theta_{b_1},\theta_{b_2} \dots \theta_{b_{q-1}}$)}.
\end{aligned}$$ Note that choosing $x^{1/2}$ on one of the inner propagators will force choosing all the inner propagators in the same blob to be $x^{1/2}$ term due to unit step function. Therefore this choice is ignored in scaling limit calculation. Here we’ll present the calculation corresponding to the first one and mention results for others.
Consider $x^{1/2}$ on $\theta_{c_1}$ say, and on all others we choose x independent part of $G_0$. This ensures following time ordering for non-zero integrand $t_{12}>0,t_{32}>0,t_{34}>0, t_{41}>0$, with which only consistent values of $n$ are $0,1$. Contribution to $I^{(4)}$ becomes, omitting $\beta (-x^{1/2}) e^{-i \theta_{c_1} \beta}e^{+i \theta_{c_1} w \beta} $ (for a contribution like $F_0$ we must have $n=0$ which is shown to be true below) $$\begin{aligned}
I^{(4)} \sim & \ \beta (-x^{1/2}) e^{-i \theta_{c_1} \beta}e^{+i \theta_{c_1} w \beta} \int \frac{ds}{2 \pi} \ dt_{12} \ dt_{32} \ dt_{34} \ dt_{41} \ e^{-i s w \beta} \ e^{-(m(q-1)-is)t_{12}} \times \\& \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ e^{-(m(q-1)-is)t_{34}} \ e^{+(m+is)t_{41}-m \beta/2} e^{-(m+is)t_{32}} \\
= &-\beta (-x^{1/2}) e^{-i \theta_{c_1} \beta}e^{+i \theta_{c_1} w \beta}\int \frac{ds}{2 \pi} \ \frac{(e^{i s \beta /2}-x^{1/2})(x^{1/2}e^{-i s \beta /2}-1)}{(s+i(q-1)m)^2(s-im)^2} e^{-is w \beta}+ \mathcal{O}(x^{3/2}),
\end{aligned}$$ where we ignored higher order contributions in $x$. Simplifying the numerator gives 3 terms: $x$ independent piece that comes with a non-zero phase factor $e^{i s \beta /2}$ (which will give a factor of $\beta$ upon integration because only $w=0$ will contribute), $x^{1/2}$ term that comes with no non-trivial phase (cannot give a $\beta$ upon integration), $x$ term drops out in scaling limit. Rest of the integration can be done easily choosing proper contour (semi-circle on upper or lower half plane as required by convergence) to ensure only $w=0$ term contributes to give the following result $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{w,0} x^{1/2} \frac{2}{(qm)^3}\left(-1+\frac{q}{4} m \beta\right).
\end{aligned}$$ All other integrations can be performed similarly to give leading order contribution to free energy $$\begin{aligned}
F_4 = \frac{1}{4!}\ ^4C_{4/2}\ 2 q^4 \frac{(q-1)^2}{q^2}m^2 \beta^2 \ N^{(q-1)^2} x \prod_{m=1}^{q-1} \rho^1_m+\mathcal{O}(\beta).
\end{aligned}$$
### n melon graphs {#n-melons}
Here a circle diagram with $n \geq 2$ blobs is considered and leading term in $\beta$ is calculated using methods demonstrated in previous sub-section.
Symmetry factor for the diagram in large N limit is [^49] $$\label{symmetryfactor}
\frac{(-1)^{\frac{nq}{2}+n+1}}{(n!)^2} \ \ n! \ (q^2)^n \ (n-1)!.$$ The leading order contribution in $\beta$ comes from two distinct choices - i) considering $x^{1/2}$ in any one of the $n$ external propagators (with holonomy $\theta_{a}$ say) with $x^0$ part of the free propagator in all others and ii) $x^0$ part of the free propagator in all propagators.
Contribution from the integral due to choice (i) is easily seen to be $$\begin{aligned}
& -x^{1/2}|g|^n \ e^{-i\theta_a \beta+i w \theta_a \beta} \ \beta \int \frac{d s}{2 \pi} \ e^{-i(w-\frac{1}{2}) s \beta} \ \frac{1}{(-i s +m(q-1) )^n(is+m )^n}\\
&= -2x \ |g|^n\ e^{-i \theta_a \beta} \frac{1}{(n-1)!} \left( \frac{\beta}{2 m q} \right)^n \ \delta_{w,0},
\end{aligned}$$ where we have kept only highest power of $\beta$. Note that extra powers of beta $\beta^{n-1}$ came from the integration because of evaluation of residue around a pole of order $n$. This contribution is to be multiplied with a factor of $n$ due to freedom in choosing one external propagator on which $x^{1/2}$ is considered.
Now we turn to the choice (ii). In this case contribution to the integral is $$\begin{aligned}
& |g|^n \ e^{i w \theta_a \beta} \ \beta \int \frac{d s}{2 \pi} \ e^{-iw s \beta} \ \frac{(1-x^{1/2}e^{-is \frac{\beta}{2}})^n}{(-i s +m(q-1) )^n(is+m )^n}\\
&= 2x \ |g|^n\ e^{-i \theta_a \beta} \frac{1}{(n-1)!} \left( \frac{\beta}{2 m q} \right)^n \left(\frac{2^{n-1}}{n}-1 \right) \ \delta_{w,1}.
\end{aligned}$$ As before we have kept only highest power of $\beta$. Note that this contribution vanishes for $n=2$.
After summing over the holonomies, and canceling loop N’s with that of scaling of $g$, contribution to free energy becomes $$\begin{aligned}
F_{2n} = 2x \ N^{q-1} \left( \prod_{m=1}^{q-1} \rho^1_m \right) \ \frac{1}{(n-1)!} \left[ \gamma(q)\ \frac{(-\beta)}{m}|J|^2 \right]^n\left(2-\frac{2^{n-1}}{n}\right)+\mathcal{O}(\beta^{n-1}),
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma(q)=(-1)^{\frac{q}{2}(q-1)} \frac{q}{2}.
\end{aligned}$$
All powers of $\beta$ in a circle diagram {#all-beta}
-----------------------------------------
 \[n-melon\]
In this subsection we shall compute explicitly the integral involved in computing the contribution to the free energy in the scaling limit linear in $x=e^{-m\beta}$. The free fermionic Green’s function at any finite temperature is given by, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \psi(t) \bar{\psi}(0) \rangle &\equiv& G_0(t) \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{1}{2} e^{-(m+i\alpha_j)t}\Big[\textrm{sgn}(t)+\tanh\Big(\frac{\beta}{2}(m+i\alpha_j)\Big)\Big]\nonumber \\
&=& e^{-(m+i\alpha_j)t}\Big[\theta(t)-x e^{-i \alpha_j \beta}\Big]\, ,\end{aligned}$$ where, $ x=e^{-m \beta}<<1$ (scaling limit). Hence, one can also write the ‘reversed’ Green’s function at finite temperature as, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \bar{\psi}(0) \psi(t) \rangle = G_0^*(-m)&=& \frac{1}{2} e^{(m+i\alpha_j)t}\Big[\textrm{sgn}(t)-\tanh \Big(\frac{\beta}{2}(m+i\alpha_j)\Big)\Big].\end{aligned}$$ Here $\alpha_j$ are holonomies, satisfying the following constraint $$\begin{aligned}
\sum\limits_{j=1}^{q} \alpha_j=0\, .
\label{holoconstraint}\end{aligned}$$ Now in the computation we use discrete representation of the delta function $$\begin{aligned}
&&\delta(t_{21}+t_{32}+t_{43}+t_{54}+t_{65}+ \ . \ . \ .-t_{\overline{2n-1}\ \overline{2n}}+t_{1\ \overline{2n}})\nonumber \\
&&={1\over 2\pi \beta}\sum\limits_{\omega=-\infty}^{\infty}e^{-2\pi i {\omega\over \beta}(t_{21}+t_{32}+t_{43}+t_{54}+t_{65}+ \ . \ . \ . \ -t_{\overline{2n-1}\ \overline{2n}}+t_{1\ \overline{2n}}\ )}.\end{aligned}$$
### Evaluating the integral
Let us focus on the diagram which can be computed as using the integral, $$\begin{aligned}
I^{(2n)}&=&\tfrac{1}{2\pi\beta}\left(\tfrac{J}{4}\right)^{2n}\sum\limits_{\omega=-\infty}^{\infty}\left[\int_{-\beta/2}^{\beta/2} dt_1 \ e^{-t_1 \left(m+i \alpha _q\right)} e^{-2\pi i \frac{\omega}{\beta } t_1} \left( \textrm{sgn}(t_1)+\tanh(\tfrac{m\beta+i\alpha_q\beta}{2})\right) \right. \nonumber \\
&&\hspace{3cm}\left.\int_{-\beta/2}^{\beta/2} dt_q \ e^{t_q \left((q-1)m-i \alpha _q\right)} e^{-2\pi i \frac{\omega}{\beta } t_q} \left(A \ \textrm{sgn}(t_q)-B)\right)\right]^{n}\, .
\label{Fn}\end{aligned}$$ Here the first integral inside the sum is a single propagator while the second one represents the melon with $q-1$ propagatrs, where $A$ and $B$ are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\prod\limits_{j=1}^{q-1}\left[ \textrm{sgn}(t_q)-\tanh(\tfrac{m\beta+i\alpha_j\beta}{2})\right]=(-1)^q\left(A \ \textrm{sgn}(t_q)-B\right)\, .
\label{AndB}\end{aligned}$$ We integrate over the time intervals of these propagators in (\[Fn\]) and since there are $n$ of them we raise it to the power $n$. However, we would also have to implement the constraint that the times add up to an integral of $\beta$. This is achieved by repesenting the delta function on a circle of length $\beta$ as an infinite sum. This contributes a factor of $e^{2\pi i \tfrac{\omega}{\beta}t_i}$ in each of the propagators as shown in (\[Fn\]).
Now we would like to focus on the integrals within the box brackets in (\[Fn\]) $$\begin{aligned}
F^{(2n)}&=&\sum\limits_{\omega=-\infty}^{\infty}\left[I^{(q)}_\omega\right]^n.\end{aligned}$$ Upon integrating over $t_1$ and $t_q$ one finds that $$\begin{aligned}
I^{(q)}_\omega &=& \frac{f_1+f_2}{((q-1)m-i\alpha_q+z)(m+i\alpha_q-z)},\,\,\,z =-\frac{2\pi i\omega}{\beta}\end{aligned}$$ Here $f_1$ consists of terms with $e^{\pm k z \beta}$ where $k\in{\mathbb{Z_{\rm even}}}$ while $f_2$ consists of terms $e^{\pm kz\beta/2}$ where $k\in{\mathbb{Z_{\rm odd}}}$. Its is evident that upon raising $I^{(q)}_\omega$ to $n$ one would have to evaluate sums in $z$ of the form $$\begin{aligned}
S_1&=&\sum\limits_{\omega=-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{e^{\pm kz\beta}}{(((q-1)m-i\alpha_q+z)(m+i\alpha_q-z))^n},\,k\in{\mathbb{Z_{\rm even}}}\cr
S_2&=&\sum\limits_{\omega=-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{e^{\pm kz\beta/2}}{(((q-1)m-i\alpha_q+z)(m+i\alpha_q-z))^n},\,k\in{\mathbb{Z_{\rm odd}}}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $z=-\tfrac{2\pi i \omega}{\beta}$ we see that these reduce to $$\begin{aligned}
S_1&=&\sum\limits_{\omega=-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{1}{(((q-1)m-i\alpha_q+z)(m+i\alpha_q-z))^n},\cr
S_2&=&\sum\limits_{\omega=-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{e^{z\beta/2}}{(((q-1)m-i\alpha_q+z)(m+i\alpha_q-z))^n}.
\label{sums}\end{aligned}$$
We will use the technique of Matsubara summation to evaluate the above, where a weighting function is included to replace the sum by a contour integral. So, first let us evaluate $S_1$. With a weighting function $f(z)=\frac{1}{1-e^{z\beta}}$, one can replace the above summation with the following contour integral, $$S_{1}= \oint \frac{dz}{(1-e^{z\beta})(((q-1)m-i\alpha_q+z)(m+i\alpha_q-z))^n}$$ Notice that the integrand has two poles at $z \equiv z_a=-(q-1)m+i \alpha_q$ and $z \equiv z_b=m+i \alpha_q$ and both are of $n$-th order. Using the residue theorem, one can evaluate the above integral as, $$\begin{aligned}
S_{1}=\lim_{z \to z_a} {1\over (n-1)!} \partial_z^{(n-1)}\frac{1}{(1-e^{z\beta})(z-z_b)^n} +\lim_{z \to z_b} {1\over (n-1)!} \partial_z^{(n-1)}\frac{1}{(1-e^{z\beta})(z-z_a)^n}
\label{Sevensum}\end{aligned}$$ Now, it is very easy to verify that for any function $f(z)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_z^{(n-1)}\Big[f(z) \frac{1}{(z-z_a)^n}\Big]=\sum\limits_{k=0}^{n-1}(-1)^k \
{{}^{(n-1)}C_{k}} \ {(n+k-1)!\over (n-1)!} \ \frac{\partial_z^{(n-k-1)}f(z)}{(z-z_a)^{n+k}}
\label{nthderv}\end{aligned}$$ In the present case, taking $f(z)={1\over (1-e^{\beta z})}$, one can evaluate $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_z^{(n)}\Big[\frac{1}{1-e^{\beta z}}\Big]={\beta^n e^{-\beta z}\over (e^{-\beta z}-1)^{n+1}}A(n)
\label{nthderv1}\end{aligned}$$ where, $A(n)$ is the Eulerian polynomial in $e^{-\beta z}$, given by, $$\begin{aligned}
A(n)=\sum\limits_{m=0}^{n-1}\sum\limits_{k=0}^{m+1}(-1)^k \ {{}^{n+1}C_{k}}(m+1-k)^n \ e^{-\beta z m}
\label{EulerianPolyA}\end{aligned}$$ Using equation (\[nthderv1\]) and (\[EulerianPolyA\]), one can easily obtain, $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_z^{(n-k-1)}f(z)&=&\partial_z^{(n-k-1)}\Big[\frac{1}{1-e^{\beta z}}\Big]\nonumber \\
&=&{\beta^{n-k-1}\over (e^{-\beta z}-1)^{n-k}}
\sum\limits_{m=0}^{n-k-2}\sum\limits_{l=0}^{m+1} (-1)^l \ {{}^{n-k}C_{l}} \ (m+1-l)^{n-k-1}e^{-\beta(m+1)z}\nonumber \\
&+&{1\over 1-e^{\beta z}}\delta_{n-k-1,0}
\label{nthderv1final}\end{aligned}$$ Finally Substituting equation (\[nthderv1final\]) into equation (\[nthderv\]), we have, $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_z^{(n-1)} \Big[{f(z)\over (z-z_a)^n}\Big]&=&\partial_z^{(n-1)} \Big[\frac{1}{(1-e^{\beta z})(z-z_a)^n}\Big]\nonumber \\
&=&\sum\limits_{k=0}^{n-1}{(-1)^k\over (z-z_a)^{n+k}} \ {{}^{(n-1)}C_{k}} \ {(n+k-1)!\over (n-1)!} \Big[
{\beta^{n-k-1}\over (e^{-\beta z}-1)^{n-k}} \sum\limits_{m=0}^{n-k-2}\sum\limits_{l=0}^{m+1} (-1)^l \nonumber \\
&&\ {{}^{n-k}C_{l}} \ (m+1-l)^{n-k-1}e^{-\beta(m+1)z}+{1\over 1-e^{\beta z}}\delta_{n-k-1,0}\Big] \end{aligned}$$ Evaluating the above expression at both the poles $z=z_a$ and $z_b$, one can compute $S_{1}$ as expressed in equation (\[Sevensum\]).
Now let us discuss about evaluating the summation $S_2$ as given in equation (\[sums\]). With a weighting function $f(z)=\frac{\ e^{\beta z/2}}{1-e^{\beta z}}$, one can replace the above summation with the following contour integral, $$S_{2}= \oint \frac{ e^{\beta z/2} dz}{(1-e^{\beta z})(((q-1)m-i\alpha_q+z)(m+i\alpha_q-z))^n}
\label{oddint}$$ Notice that we encounter the same $n$-th order poles in the contour integral as we had with $S_1$. The residue computation for evaluating this contour integral needs to evaluate the following term as before, $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_z^{(n)}f(z)=\partial_z^{(n)}\Big[\frac{e^{\beta z/2}}{1-e^{\beta z}}\Big]={ \beta ^n e^{-\beta z/2}\over 2^n(e^{-\beta z}-1)^{n+1}}B(n)
\label{nthderv2}\end{aligned}$$ where, $B(n)$ is the Eulerian polynomial of type-B in $e^{-\beta z}$, given by, $$\begin{aligned}
B(n)=\sum\limits_{m=0}^{n}\sum\limits_{k=0}^{m}(-1)^{m-k} \ {{}^{n+1}C_{m-k}}(2k+1)^n \ e^{-\beta z m}
\label{EulerianPolyB}\end{aligned}$$ Finally, using equation (\[nthderv\]), (\[nthderv2\]) and (\[EulerianPolyB\]), one can obtain, $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_z^{(n-1)} \Big[\frac{f(z)}{(z-z_a)^n}\Big]&=&\partial_z^{(n-1)} \Big[\frac{e^{\beta z/2}}{(1-e^{\beta z})(z-z_a)^n}\Big]\nonumber \\ &=&
\sum\limits_{k=0}^{n-1}{(-1)^k\over (z-z_a)^{n+k}} \ {{}^{(n-1)}C_{k}} \ {(n+k-1)!\over (n-1)!}
{\beta^{n-k-1}\over 2^{n-k-1}(e^{-\beta z}-1)^{n-k}} \nonumber \\
&&\sum\limits_{m=0}^{n-k-1}\sum\limits_{l=0}^{m} (-1)^{m-l} \ {{}^{n-k}C_{m-l}} \ (2l+1)^{n-k-1}e^{-(2m+1)\beta z/2}\end{aligned}$$ Now using the above equation one can compute the residue and hence the integral (\[oddint\]). This finishes the computation of $S_{2}$ as given in equation (\[sums\]). One finds that $S_1$ depends only linearly on $x=e^{-m\beta}$ while $S_2$ depends as $\sqrt{x}$. Further noting that the difference in $A$ and $B$ in (\[AndB\]) behaves as $A-B={\mathcal{O}}(x^{q-1})$ we find that $f_1=(A-B){\mathcal{O}}(x^{\tfrac{-q}{2}+1})={\mathcal{O}}(x^{q/2})$ and $f_2=(A-B){\mathcal{O}}(x^{\tfrac{-q+1}{2}})={\mathcal{O}}(x^{\tfrac{q}{2}-1})$. Therefore in the scaling limit one can take $A=B=2^{q-2}\left(1-x\sum\limits_{j=1}^{q-1}e^{-i\beta\alpha_j}\right)$. Therefore evaluating $(f_1+f_2)^N\approx F_1+F_2$ in the scaling limit- where once again $F_1$ consists of terms with $e^{\pm k z \beta}$ where $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ while $F_2$ consists of terms $e^{\pm kz\beta/2}$ where $k\in{\mathbb{Z_{\rm odd}}}$, $F^{(n)}=S_1 \bar{F}_1+S_2 \bar{F}_2$. Here $\bar{F}_{1,2}=F_{1,2}(z=0)$[^50]. The fact that only these two type of summations contribute for any integer value of $k$, makes it easier to evaluate equation (\[Fn\]) in the scaling limit as, $$\begin{aligned}
I^{(2n)}\!\!\!&=&\!\!\!J^{2n}\sum\limits_{k=0}^{n-2}\frac{2^{(q-1)n}x\beta^{n-k}}{(mq)^{n+k}\Gamma(n)^2}(2^n-2^{2+k}n)(^{n-1}C_k)\Gamma(n+k)\prod_{m=1}^{q-1}\rho^1_m\end{aligned}$$ which can be re-written as $$\begin{aligned}
I^{(2n)}\!\!\!&=&\!\!\!\left(\frac{J^2\beta}{mq}\right)^{n}\,\,\sum\limits_{k=0}^{n-2}\left(\frac{J^2}{m^2}\right)^k\left(\frac{m}{qJ^2\beta}\right)^k\frac{2^{(q-1)n}x}{\Gamma(n)^2}(2^n-2^{2+k}n)(^{n-1}C_k)\Gamma(n+k)\prod_{m=1}^{q-1}\rho^1_m\cr
&&\hspace{11cm}+{\mathcal{O}(\beta)}\end{aligned}$$ or equivalently keep all orders in $\beta$ as $$\begin{aligned}
I^{(2n)}={J^{2n}\over m^{2n}q^n}\frac{(-1)^{q(n-1)}}{ (n-1)! } \bigg[ && \frac{(2n-2)!}{(n-1)! \ q^{n-1}}m\beta \bigg(1 -n \Big(q -2 n+3 \Big)
\bigg) \\ && + \sum _{k=0}^{n-2} \frac{(n+k-1)!}{k!(n-k-1)! \ q^k}(1-2^{k+2-n} n)(m\beta)^{n-k} \ \bigg ] \ x
\left( \prod_{m=1}^{q-1} \rho^1_m \right). \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ This multiplied with $\times N^{q-1}$ gives contribution of a circle diagram with n melons.
Evaluating the subleading correction
------------------------------------
We end this appendix by presenting a technical result which we do not use in the main text of the paper, but record here anyway, just in case this result finds application subsequent work.
The technical result we report here is the evaluation of the Feynman integral for diagram Fig. (\[subleading\_diagram\]) (the figure is drawn for $q=4$ but we present the evaluation in general), which is one of the diagrams that would contribute to the generalization of the results presented in this paper to subleading orders in $\frac{1}{\beta}$. We present the result for the Feynman diagram ignoring the symmetry factor (which can easily be independently evaluated). We evaluate the diagram of Fig. (\[subleading\_diagram\]) as follows. In order to get the integrand of the diagram we first multiply together all the propgators that make it up, keeping careful track of holonomy factors and making use of the fact that holonomies at any interaction vertex sum to zero. The integrand is the term in the big square bracket in with $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$ temporarily set to zero. The first two lines on the RHS of are the $n-2$ factors on the in the diagram Fig.(\[subleading\_diagram\_parts\]). [^51]
The next four lines on the RHS of represent the second factor in Fig.(\[subleading\_diagram\_parts\]). Lines 3-6 on the RHS of are the remaing factors (the propagators outside the square bracket) in Fig.(\[subleading\_diagram\_parts\]). [^52]
![subleading diagram[]{data-label="subleading_diagram"}](subleading_2.pdf){width="6in" height="4in"}
$$\begin{aligned}
I^{(2n-2)}&=&\left(\tfrac{1}{2\pi\beta}\right)^2\sum\limits_{\omega_1,\omega_2=-\infty}^{\infty}
\left[\left(\int_{-\beta/2}^{\beta/2}dt_1 e^{-(m+i\alpha_1+i\tfrac{\epsilon_1}{\beta})t_1}\left({\rm sgn}(t_1)+\tanh(\tfrac{m\beta+i\alpha_1\beta}{2})\right)\right.\right.\cr
&&\left.\hspace{3.5cm}\int_{-\beta/2}^{\beta/2}dt_2e^{((q-1)m-i\alpha_1-i\tfrac{\epsilon_1}{\beta})t_2}\left({\rm sgn}(t_2)A_1-B_1\right)\right)^{n-2}\cr
&&\hspace{3.5cm}\int_{-\beta/2}^{\beta/2}dt_1e^{-(m+i\alpha_1+i\tfrac{\epsilon_1}{\beta})t_1}\left({\rm sgn}(t_1)+\tanh(\tfrac{m\beta+i\alpha_1\beta}{2})\right)\cr
&&\hspace{3.5cm}\left(\int_{-\beta/2}^{\beta/2}dt_3e^{(m+i\alpha_2+i\tfrac{\epsilon_2}{\beta})t_3}\left({\rm sgn}(t_3)-\tanh(\tfrac{m\beta+i\alpha_2\beta}{2})\right)\right)^2\cr
&&\hspace{3.5cm}\int_{-\beta/2}^{\beta/2}dt_4e^{((q-2)m-i(\alpha_1+\alpha_2)-i\tfrac{(\epsilon_1+\epsilon_2)}{\beta})t_4}\left({\rm sgn}(t_4)A_{1,2}-B_{1,2}\right)\cr
&&\left.\hspace{3.5cm}\int_{-\beta/2}^{\beta/2}dt_5e^{(-(q-1)m+i\alpha_2+i\tfrac{\epsilon_2}{\beta})t_5}
\left({\rm sgn}(t_5)A_2+B_2\right)\right]
\label{bigstuff}\end{aligned}$$
![parts of subleading diagram[]{data-label="subleading_diagram_parts"}](melons_subleading_3_2.pdf)
After evaluating the integrand we need to perform the integrals. Roughly speaking we must integrate all propagator lengths in the integrand above from $-\frac{\beta}{2}$ to $\frac{\beta}{2}$. However we need to do this subject to the constraint that as we go round either of the two circles in the diagram Fig.(\[subleading\_diagram\]) we come back to the same time as we started out, modulo $\beta$. This is where the parameters $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$ in come in. $\epsilon_1$ couples to the sum of lengths of propagators in units of $\beta$ around the big circle in Fig.(\[subleading\_diagram\]), while $\epsilon_2$ multiplies the sum of the lengths of all the propagators as we go around the small circle - again in units of $\beta$ in Fig.(\[subleading\_diagram\]). The constraint that these lengths evaluate to an integral multiple of $\beta$ can then be implemented by setting $\epsilon_{1,2}=2\pi \omega_{1,2}$ and then summing $\omega_i$ over all integral values, as we have done in .
In order to proceed we perform the time integrals in an unconstrained manner. The result can be rearranged (according to its $\omega_i$ dependence) as a sum of four types of terms.
1. Terms containing $e^{k(z_1+z_2)\beta}$ where $k\in {\mathbb{Z}}$
2. those with $e^{kz_1\beta/2}$ where $k\in {\mathbb{Z}_{\rm odd}}$
3. with $e^{kz_2\beta/2}$ where $k\in {\mathbb{Z}_{\rm odd}}$
4. and $e^{k(z_1+z_2)\beta/2}$ where $k\in {\mathbb{Z}_{\rm odd}}$;
where $z_i = -\frac{2 \pi i}{\beta}\omega_i.$
We deal with these four classes of terms spearately; for each class we explicitly perform the sum over $\omega_i$ (by reducing it to a contour integral as in the previous subsection) and expand the resultant expression in a Taylor series in $x$ (again as in the previous subsection), keep only the terms that are linear in $x$. Combining together the results from each of the four classes we obtain our final result
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{poi}
I^{(2n-2)}\!\!&=&\!\!-\left(\frac{J^2\beta}{mq}\right)^n\sum\limits_{k=0}^{n-4}\frac{x(q-1)}{(mq\beta)^{k+1}}\frac{2^{(q-1)n}(2^n+(n-1)2^{3+k})(2n+k-2)\Gamma(n+k-1)}{\Gamma(n-k-1)\Gamma(n)\Gamma(1+k)}\prod_{m=1}^{q-1}\rho^1_m\cr
&&\hspace{11cm}+{\mathcal{O}(\beta^2)}\end{aligned}$$
(the terms ${\mathcal{O}(\beta^2)}$ that we have omitted to list in are the terms with $k=n-3$ and $k=n-2$ which exist in the final answer but the values of whose coefficients do not follow the uniform rule of the other terms).
Note that scales like $\frac{1}{\beta}$ in coordinated large $\beta$ small $J$ limit in which $J^2 \beta$ is held fixed.
The holonomy effective action from the sigma model {#sec5}
===================================================
In this section we ask the following question: what is the contribution to $S_{\text{eff}}(U)$ - the effective action for holonomies - resulting from integrating out the new light degrees of freedom discovered in the massless tensor model in early sections in this paper? In the bulk of this section we address this question at the technical level. At the end of the section we turn to a quick discussion of its physical import.
Turning on holonomy is equivalent to putting appropriate boundary condition on fermion fields. This translates into boundary condition on $V_l$, given by $V_l(-\frac{\beta}{2})=UV_l(+\frac{\beta}{2})$, $U \in O(N)$. This boundary condition is equivalent to the computation of the partition function $$\label{tpfo}
Z= e^{-S_{\text{eff}}(U)}= \operatorname{Tr}e^{-\beta H} {\hat U},$$ where $H$ is the Hamiltonian of the quantum mechanical system and $U$ is the quantum mechanical operator that implements left rotations on the sigma model by the $O(N)^{q-1}$ group rotation $U$. The partition function is the product of $q-1$ factors, associated with the sigma models on the $q-1$ gauge groups. It follows that the effective action $S_{\text{eff}}(U)$ that follows from this computation takes the form $$\label{seffu}
S_{\text{eff}}(U) = \sum_i S(U_i).$$ In the rest of this section we compute the functions $S(U_i)$
Let us first note that the Hilbert $H$ space on which any one of the factors of $q-1$ distinct factors the sigma model acts is given as follows. The Hamiltonian acts on the Hilbert space $H$ $$\label{hspace}
H= \sum_{R_i} {\tilde R_i} \otimes {\tilde R_i}.$$ The sum $R_i$ runs over all genuine (as opposed to spinorial) representations of $O(N)$. ${\tilde R_i}$ denotes the vector space on which $O(N)$ acts in the $i^{th}$ representation. The space ${\tilde R_i} \otimes {\tilde R_i}$ transforms in the representation $R_i \times R_i$ under $O(N)_L \times O(N)_R$; the operator ${\hat U}$ acts as an $O(N)$ rotation on the first ${\tilde R_i}$ but as identity on the second ${\tilde R_i}$. The Hamiltonian corresponding to action is diagonal under the decomposition ; the energy of the $i^{th}$ factor of the Hilbert space is $\frac{J C_2(R_i)}{2 {\mathcal A}
N^{q-2} }$.
Representations of $O(N)$ are conveniently labeled by the highest weights $(h_1, h_2, h_3 \ldots )$, the charges under rotations in mutually orthogonal two planes. Let $h = \sum_i h_i$. At leading order in the large $N$ limit the dimensionality of the representation $R_i$ depends only on $h$ and is given by $$d(R_i)= \frac{N^h}{h!}.$$ Moreover the Casimir $C_2(R_i)$ of representations of $O(N)$ also depends only on $h$ at leading order in the large $N$ limit and is given by $$C_2(R_i)= N h.$$
Let $\chi_{R_i}(U)$ denote the character in the $R_i$ representation of $O(N)$ and let $$\label{pro}
\chi_n(U)= \sum_{R_i \in {\hat n}} \chi_{R_i}(U),$$ where ${\hat n}$ denotes the collection of all representations of $O(N)$ with $h=n$. In other words $\chi_n(U)$ is the sum over the characters of all representations with $h=n$.
Note that all representations with $h =n$ can be constructed - and can be constructed exactly once - from the direct products of $n$ vectors of $O(N)$ (this is true when $N \gg n$ as we assume). [^53] Let $P_n$ denote the projector onto representations with $h=n$ $$\label{defpn}
P_n \left[ f(U)) \right] = \int dU' \sum_{R_i \in {\hat n} } \chi_{R_i}(U) \chi^*_{R_i}(U') f(U').$$ It follows that $$\label{chn}
\chi_n(U) = P_n \left[ (\operatorname{Tr}U)^n \right].$$ where $U$ on the RHS of represents the group element in the vector representation of $O(N)$.
Finally we define $$\label{zdef}
z= e^{- \frac{J}{2 A N^{q-3}} }.$$
It follows immediately from all the facts and definitions presented above that $$\label{fsu}
e^{-S(U_i)} = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{(z N)^n}{n!} \chi_n(U_i).$$ Using , can be rewritten in the (perhaps deceptively) elegant form $$\label{decelf}
e^{-S(U_i)} = P_{z \partial_z} e^{ N z \operatorname{Tr}(U_i) }.$$ Note that $$\label{proj}
\int dU e^{-S(U)} =1.$$ This is an immediate consequence of the fact that the vacuum is the only representation in the spectrum of the group sigma model that is a singlet under $O(N)_L$. It follows that the partition function generated by $S(U)$ by itself is trivial. However $S(U)$ is only one piece of the effective action for $U$ in the massless tensor model ; we get other contributions to the effective action by integrating out the fermionic fields themselves (as was explicitly done earlier in this paper for the case of massive fermions). When put together with other contributions the effective action could have a significant impact on the partition function, especially at temperatures scaled to ensure that the matter contribution to the effective action - like the contribution of the sigma model considered in this section - is of order $N^2$.
[^1]: sayantan@theory.tifr.res.in
[^2]: anshuman@theory.tifr.res.in
[^3]: indranil.halder@tifr.res.in
[^4]: lavneet@theory.tifr.res.in
[^5]: minwalla@theory.tifr.res.in
[^6]: ronp@theory.tifr.res.in
[^7]: We thank S. Sachdev for discussion on this point.
[^8]: For this simplest case $N_F=1$ this model was presented in Eq 3.23 of [@Klebanov:2016xxf].
[^9]: We would like to thank J. Yoon for explaining the Round Robin scheduling process to us and clearing up our misconceptions about uniqueness of the contraction structure for $q >4$.
[^10]: See [@Nishinaka:2016nxg; @Peng:2016mxj; @Krishnan:2016bvg; @Ferrari:2017ryl; @Gurau:2017xhf; @Bonzom:2017pqs; @Krishnan:2017ztz; @Narayan:2017qtw; @Chaudhuri:2017vrv; @Azeyanagi:2017drg; @Giombi:2017dtl] for other recent work on the model and its close relatives.
[^11]: A potential subtlety is that path integral of the quantum mechanical system has a degree of freedom that is absent in the original SYK model, namely the holonomy of the gauge group $O(N)^{q-1}$. As for the SYK model, integrating out the fermions leads to an effective action - proportional to $N^{q-1}$ - whose fields are a two point function of the fermions, a self energy and the holonomy of the gauge group. As in the case of the original SYK model, at leading order in the large $N$ limit the free energy of the system is captured by the saddle point of this effectively classical action. If we work at temperatures that are held fixed as $N \to \infty$ it is highly plausible that this effective action is minimised when the holonomy is the identity matrix (see \[sec3\] below). Under this assumption the saddle point of the quantum mechanical system coincides with that of the SYK model.
[^12]: applies both the the case that the group $O(N)^{q-1}$ is global and local. In the latter case this equation applies in the gauge $\partial_0 A_0=0$. Assuming that the holonomy degree of freedom is frozen to identity at large $N$, the gauged and global model coincide.
[^13]: They also argued for some mixing between the diffeomorphism and $U(1)$ long distance modes.
[^14]: We would like to thank J. Maldacena for a discussion of this point.
[^15]: See [@Yoon:2017nig] for related work.
[^16]: In the case that the mass is negative, most of our formulae below go through once under the replacement $ m \rightarrow |m|$.
[^17]: We emphasize that, in the limit under consideration, modes corresponding to diffeomorphisms or $V(t)$ are no longer light - and so are irrelevant. However the holonomy continues to be potentially important.
[^18]: For orientation, we remind the reader that the integral over the holonomy is the device the path integral uses to ensure that the partition function only counts those states that obey the $A_0$ equation of motion, i.e. the Gauss law constraint. Restated, the integral over holonomies ensures that the partition function only counts those states in the matter Hilbert space that are singlets under the gauge group.
[^19]: The generalization of these results to a model with $N_B$ bosons and $N_F$ fermions yields the holonomy effective action $$\label{fneq}
S_{\text{eff}}(U_i)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty (N_B+ (-1)^{n+1} N_F) \ x^n \frac{ \left( \prod_{i=1}^{q-1} \operatorname{Tr}U_i^n
\right) }{n} .$$ As we will see below, in the scaling limit of interest to this paper, only the term with $n=1$ is important. In the strictly free limit it follows that most the results presented above apply also to a theory with $N_F$ fermions and $N_B$ bosons once we make the replacement $N_F \rightarrow N_F+N_B$.
[^20]: We note that the first order phase transitions described in [@Aharony:2005bq] were strongly first order (i.e. not on the edge between first and second order) only after turning on gauge interactions. In the current context, in contrast, the phase transition in our system is strongly first order even in the absence of interactions.
[^21]: These rules have their origin in the generalized ‘tentrahedronal’ contraction structure described in the introduction. For values of $q$ at which the basic interaction structure has an ambiguity, we make one choice; for instance we adopt the ‘Round Robin’ scheme to fix the ambiguities. As far as we can tell, none of our results depend on the details of the choice we make.
[^22]: Note that we have scaled $G$ fluctuations and $\Sigma$ fluctuations with factors that are inverses of each other ensures that our change of variables does not change the path integral measure. The scalings of fluctuations in are chosen to ensure that the second line of takes the schematic form $gg$ rather than $g K' G$ where $K'$ is an appropriate Kernel. We emphasise that the scaling factor $|G(t_1,t_2)|^{\pm \frac{q-2}{2}}$ in represents the power of a function; no matrices are involved.
[^23]: Here factors of $N$ comes from trace over other colour index $\delta$-functions that multiply $H_l$ of any colour.
[^24]: Using the fact that $g_c$ is an eigenfunction of $\tilde{K}_c$ with eigenvalue $\frac{1}{|J|^2}$ rung contributions can easily be summed up to $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\text{eff}}^{\text{rung}}=-\frac{1}{2} (q-2)\frac{1}{|J^2|}\int (g_c)_a^{\ b} (t_1,t_2) \ f_0(t_1,t_2)\ (g_c)_b^{\ a}(t_1,t_2) \ dt_1 dt_2.
\end{aligned}$$ This expression is not by itself useful as the integral that appears in it has a $\log$ divergence once numerically determined form of $f_0(\tau_1,\tau_2) \xrightarrow[|\tau_1-\tau_2|\rightarrow 0]{}\frac{1}{|\tau_1-\tau_2|}$ (from [@Maldacena:2016hyu]) is used; follows from $$g_c(\tau_1,\tau_2) = |G_c(\tau_1,\tau_2)|^{\frac{q-2}{2}} G_c(\tau_1,\tau_2)[H(\tau_1)-H(\tau_2)]
\xrightarrow[|\tau_1-\tau_2|\rightarrow 0]{} \frac{\textrm{sgn}(\tau_1-\tau_2) }{|\tau_1-\tau_2|}H'(\tau_1)(\tau_1-\tau_2)\sim O(|\tau_1-\tau_2|^0).$$
[^25]: Here overall factor of 2 comes from symmetry of the integrations and $\frac{q-2}{2}$ comes from rung part.
[^26]: As before $\frac{q-2}{2}\times 2$ comes from rung part.
[^27]: Note that $$\label{expct}
C_1= \int dt \ \delta (t) G_c(t) \ t.$$ Plugging the formula $$\label{gc}
G_c= b\frac{ {\rm sgn} (t)}{ |Jt |^{\frac{2}{q}}},\\$$ into we find, formally, that $$C_1 \propto \int dt |t|^{1-\frac{2}{q}} \delta(t)=0,$$ (where we have used the fact that $q>2$). As explained above, we expect that the vanishing of $C_1$ is not a physical result but rather is a consequence of inappropriate use of approximations. We assume that $C_1 \rightarrow \frac{\cal A}{|J|}$ in what follows where ${\cal A}$ is an unknown dimensionless number.
[^28]: Non-trivial holonomy can be turned on for these new light modes, details of contribution of these light modes to effective action for holonomy is presented in Appendix \[sec5\].
[^29]: A dot over a quantity indicates derivative with respect to time.
[^30]: It is assumed in what follows that this basis puts the Killing form in a form proportional to identity.
[^31]: Let us focus on the special case $N_F=1$. In this case the Hilbert space of our quantum mechanical problem is simply the sum of $q$ forms of the group $O(N^3)$ with $q$ running from $1$ to $N^3$. The exponential in is the character of this Hilbert space w.r.t the subgroup $O(N)^3$, with representations coming from $q$ forms in $O(N^3)$ graded by $x^q$. (In order to view the exponential as a character one must use ). The integral in projects onto the singlet subspace, and so counts the number of $O(N)^3$ singlets. Note that it was very important for this discussions that the fundamental fermions in this paper are complex. The case of real fermions was studied from this point of view in [@Krishnan:2017txw]. In this case the Hilbert space of the $N_F=1$ theory consists of spinors of $O(N^3)$, and the decomposition of this representation content into representations of $O(N)^3$ appears to be a very different problem; it was suggested in [@Krishnan:2017txw] that this decomposition contains no singlets. We thank C. Krishnan for discusssions on this point.
[^32]: As explained in the introduction, in the free limit we could as well study bosons coupled to the gauge field in which case we would have $p= N_B+N_F$ where $N_B$ is the number of bosons.
[^33]: This eigenvalue densities produced above solve the GWW saddle point equations $$\frac{2 N}{g_m} \sin \theta^n_m= \sum_{j \neq n} \cot\left( \frac{\theta^j_m - \theta^n_m}{2}\right),$$ in the large $N$ limit.
[^34]: Equivalently $u_m$s are either all less than half or all greater than half. Equivalently the matrix models for $U_m$ are all simultaneously in the wavy phase or simultaneously in the gapped phase.
[^35]: Actually all solutions are equal up to sign - however saddle points that differ by sign assignments are actually essentially identical - they can be mapped to each other by $U \rightarrow -U$, so we ignore this issue.
[^36]: The factor of $\frac{1}{2}$ in the exponent of the first equation in is a consequence of the fact that we are working with the orthogonal model. The analogous formula for the partition function of the unitary model, , is the square of the partition function listed here and so does not have the factor of half in the exponential.
[^37]: Note that $u = \frac{ \operatorname{Tr}U}{N} \leq 1$.
[^38]: The formula for $u_{max}, u_{min}$ as a function of $\alpha$ is complicated in general. However the formula simplifies at large $\alpha$ and we find $$\label{largeu}
u_{max}= \left(\frac{1}{\alpha}\right)^{\frac{1}{q-3}} \ , \
u_{min}= 1+\frac{1}{-4 \alpha +q-2}+\frac{q^2-3 q+2}{2 (-4 \alpha +q-2)^3}+\ldots$$
[^39]: In the text of this paragraph and the next we have assumed that $\alpha_{pt} < \alpha_{1pt}$ as is the case for $q=4$. For $q\geq 6$ the order above is reversed, and the discussion has obvious modifications.
[^40]: More generally the variables $\rho^m_n$ are constrained by the requirement that the function $\rho_m(\theta)= \frac{1}{2 \pi } \sum_{n} \rho^n_m e^{-i n \theta},$ is positive for every value of $\theta$. This constraint is trivial when all $\rho^n_m$ as is effectively the case for the perturbative evaluations discussed above.
[^41]: As mentioned above, the difference between this measure and $d \theta_m^{j}$ is sub-dominant in large $N$ limit.
[^42]: Although this is far from guaranteed, it is possible that the approximation $S_{\text{eff}} \sim H_0$ has a larger range of validity. Let us consider the parametric regime in which $\frac{J^2}{m^2}$ is small compared to unity but large compared to $\frac{1}{m\beta}$. In this regime $\frac{J^2 \beta}{m}$ is effectively scaled to infinity. Let us define $$\label{rra}
r_k=\lim_{\frac{J^2 \beta}{m} \to \infty} \frac{H_k}{H_0}.$$ If it turns out that $r_k$ is bounded (finite) then it follows that $H_0$ is in fact also a good approximation to the partition function for all values of $\beta$ assuming only that $\frac{J^2}{m^2} \ll 1$. It would be interesting to investigate whether $r_k$ above are actually bounded for all $k$; however we leave that to future work.
[^43]: Owing to time translation symmetry.
[^44]: Note that this also ensures for $\beta \to \infty$ partition function is 1 and for $\beta \to 0$ total number of states for a given $a$ are 2.
[^45]: This means that if $U_1$ and $U_3$ act on the same copy of the Hilbert space for gauge group 1, then they necessarily act on different copies of the Hilbert space for all the other gauge groups.
[^46]: For instance the level one graph computed above was proportional to $\beta$ while the level two graph was the sum of one term proportional to $\beta$ and another term proportional to $\beta^2$.
[^47]: The role that of the overall holonomy dependent phase factors above is quite subtle. Naively these overall factors can be dropped in their contribution to free energy diagrams. The naive argument for this is that the net contribution to of these phase factors at any interaction vertex is proportional to $ \prod_a e^{i (\theta_a)t_1}$ where the sum runs over the phases $\theta_a$ of all the $q$ propagators that end at that interaction vertex. As the interaction vertex is a gauge singlet, $\sum \theta_a$ vanishes, so it might at first seem that the contribution of all these phase factors drops out. This is in general incorrect. The subtlety is that $t_1$ is not single valued on the circle. In diagrams in which propagators ‘wind’ as they go around the circle, one of the factors in the product may effectively be evaluated at, e.g. $t_1 + \beta$ and so the net contribution of this phase factor could turn out to be $e^{i \beta \theta_a}$. While this contribution is constant (independent of $t_1$), it is nontrivial in nonzero winding sectors. Such a contribution will play an important role in our computation below.
[^48]: We thank J. Maldacena for this suggestion.
[^49]: Here an extra factor of $(n-1)!$ comes as compared to $n=2$ case because of freedom of joining $n$ blobs with one another.
[^50]: Since their $z$ dependences were where taken into account in evaluating $S_1$ and $S_2$
[^51]: $t_1$ in this term is the length of the straight line in these factors, while $t_2$ is the length of the 3 (or more generally $q-1$) melonic lines in the part Fig.(\[subleading\_diagram\_parts\]) that is enclosed in the square bracket. Really there are $n-1$ different $t_1$s and $n-2$ different $t_2$. As $t_1$ and $t_2$ are dummy variables that we integrate over, we have used the same symbol for all of them.
[^52]: The third line in is the straight line in this part of Fig.(\[subleading\_diagram\_parts\]). The last and secondlast lines in are, respectively, the blobs of $q-1$ and $q-2$ propagators in this part of Fig.(\[subleading\_diagram\_parts\]). Finally the fourth line in is the product of the two proagatogrs that run between the ‘$q-1$ blob’ and the ‘$q-2$ blob’. The times in all these terms represent the lengths of the corresponding propagators.
[^53]: Note, however, that not every representation of $n$ vectors has $h=n$; the product space includes representations (formed by contracting 2 vector indices) with $h=n-2$, and representations (formed by contracting 4 vector indices) with $h=n-4$ ….
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We construct new compactifications with good properties of moduli spaces of maps from nonsingular marked curves to a large class of GIT quotients. This generalizes from a unified perspective many particular examples considered earlier in the literature.'
address:
- 'School of Mathematics, University of Minnesota, 206 Church St. SE, Minneapolis MN, 55455, andSchool of Mathematics, Korea Institute for Advanced Study, 85 Hoegiro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, 130-722, Korea'
- 'School of Mathematics, Korea Institute for Advanced Study, 85 Hoegiro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, 130-722, Korea'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA '
author:
- 'Ionuţ Ciocan-Fontanine'
- Bumsig Kim
- Davesh Maulik
title: Stable quasimaps to GIT quotients
---
Introduction
============
The aim of this paper is to introduce new virtually smooth modular compactifications of spaces of maps from curves to a large class of targets.
Let $C$ be a nonsingular complex projective curve, let $X$ be a nonsingular complex projective variety, and let $\beta\in H_2(X,\ZZ)$ be an effective curve class. The standard way of putting a scheme structure on the set $\mathrm{Map}_\beta(C, X)$ of algebraic maps from $C$ to $X$ of class $\beta$ is by viewing it as an open subset in the Hilbert scheme of the product $C\times X$, via the identification of a map with its graph. The restriction of the universal family on the Hilbert scheme gives a universal map $$\begin{array}{ccc}
C\times\mathrm{Map}_\beta(C,X)&\stackrel f{\longrightarrow}& X\\ \\
\downarrow \pi& & \\ \\
\mathrm{Map}_\beta(C,X)& &
\end{array}$$ The obstruction theory of the Hilbert scheme restricts to the obstruction theory $$\label{obstheory}\left (R^\bullet\pi_*f^*T_X\right)^\vee$$ of the space of maps. While is a perfect obstruction theory, and therefore $\mathrm{Map}_\beta(C,X)$ is virtually smooth, it is well-known that the obstruction theory of the Hilbert scheme fails to be perfect at points corresponding to subschemes which are not local complete intersections. Hence the compactification provided by the Hilbert scheme is not suitable to defining invariants of $X$ via intersection theory. For a few special cases of varieties $X$, other compactifications have been used which do not suffer from this defect. Specifically,
$(i)$ when $X$ is a Grassmannian, the Quot schemes on $C$ carry a perfect obstruction theory, see [@MO] and [@CiKa2];
$(ii)$ when $X$ is a toric variety, the “toric compactifications" (or linear sigma models) of Givental and Morrison-Plesser also carry perfect obstruction theories;
$(iii)$ when $X$ is the Hilbert scheme of points in $\CC^2$, Diaconescu’s moduli spaces of ADHM sheaves, [@D], give partial compactifications carrying perfect obstruction theories.
All these spaces have the common feature that the curve $C$ is kept fixed and the map degenerates, so that points in the boundary correspond to [*rational*]{} maps $C - -{\rightarrow}X$.
In the case of a general $X$, Kontsevich approached the problem by insisting that in the compactification the boundary points still parametrize honest maps. This requires that the domain curve degenerates. It is then natural also to allow the domain curve to vary in moduli (and to consider markings). The approach leads to the virtually smooth moduli stacks of stable maps ${\overline{M}_{g,k}}(X,\beta)$ used to define the Gromov-Witten invariants of $X$. For stable map spaces, (\[obstheory\]) becomes a relative perfect obstruction theory over the moduli Artin stack ${\mathfrak{M}_{g,k}}$ of (prestable) domain curves. In particular, the graph space $\overline{M}_{g,0}(X\times C, (\beta, 1))$ provides a virtually smooth compactification of $\mathrm{Map}_\beta(C,X)$.
The paper [@MOP] introduced, in case $X$ is a Grassmannian, a hybrid version of these compactifications, called the moduli of stable quotients. It allows both the domain curve to vary, and the map to acquire base points. Then [@MOP] shows that after imposing an appropriate stability condition, the resulting moduli space is a proper Deligne-Mumford stack of finite type, carrying a relative perfect obstruction theory over ${\mathfrak{M}_{g,k}}$ and hence a virtual fundamental class.
The paper [@CK] treated the toric counterpart of the story, that is, the hybrid version of the compactifications in $(ii)$ above when the domain curve is allowed to degenerate and to carry markings. The resulting objects, called [*stable toric quasimaps*]{}, are proven there to form a proper DM stack of finite type. Furthermore, it is observed that it is more natural to view the moduli spaces as stacks over (products of) [*Picard stacks over*]{} ${\mathfrak{M}_{g,k}}$, the corresponding relative obstruction theory being that of sections of line bundles on curves.
This suggests that the common feature of examples $(i)$-$(iii)$ which should be exploited is that they are all GIT quotients. The obstruction theory that needs then to be studied is that of sections of fibrations associated to principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundles over curves, with ${{\bf G}}$ a reductive complex algebraic group. Once this is recognized, the most natural way to view the problem is in a stack-theoretic context.
Let $X={W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ be a (nonsingular, projective) GIT quotient obtained from a linearized ${{\bf G}}$-action on a quasiprojective variety $W$ for which the stable and semistable loci coincide. Let ${{\mathcal{A}}}=[W/{{\bf G}}]$ be the [*stack quotient*]{}. A map from a prestable curve $C$ to ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ corresponds to a pair $(P,u)$, with $P$ a principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundle on $C$ and $u$ a section of the induced fiber bundle $P\times_{{\bf G}}W{\longrightarrow}C$ with fiber $W$. It has a “homology" class $\beta\in \Hom_\ZZ({{\mathrm{Pic}}}({{\mathcal{A}}}),\ZZ)$. We then have the moduli stack ${\mathfrak{M}_{g,k}}([W/{{\bf G}}],\beta)$ parametrizing families of tuples $$((C,p_1,\dots,p_k),P,u)$$ with $(C,p_1,\dots,p_k)$ a prestable $k$-pointed curve of genus $g$. While ${\mathfrak{M}_{g,k}}([W/{{\bf G}}],\beta)$ contains the Deligne-Mumford stack $$M_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)$$ of maps from nonsingular pointed curves to ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ as an open substack, it is in general a nonseparated Artin stack of infinite type.
A sophisticated study of stacks of the type ${\mathfrak{M}_{g,k}}([W/{{\bf G}}],\beta)$ was begun in [@FTT], with the goal to produce an algebro-geometric version of the “Gromov-Witten gauge invariants" introduced in symplectic geometry via solutions to vortex equations (see [@CGS00; @CGMiRS02; @MiR03; @MiRT04; @GW08; @GW09]). The point of view we pursue in this paper is different in that we seek to obtain moduli stacks with good properties by imposing additional conditions on the maps we consider, as well as on the variety $W$. Namely, we will want our moduli stacks to be open substacks in ${\mathfrak{M}_{g,k}}([W/{{\bf G}}],\beta)$ which are of finite type, Deligne-Mumford, proper, and to carry a perfect obstruction theory extending the natural such obstruction theory on the stack $M_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)$. This will allow us to construct systems of numerical “invariants" (in fact, new Cohomological Field Theories) on the cohomology of the target varieties.
We highlight here the main points:
- If we restrict to $((C,p_1,\dots,p_k),P,u)$ such that $u$ sends the generic point of each irreducible component of $C$ to the GIT-[*stable locus*]{} $W^s\subset W$, the resulting moduli stack is of finite type over ${\mathfrak{M}_{g,k}}$. We call these $((C,p_1,\dots,p_k),P,u)$ [*quasimaps to*]{} ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$. The closed points $y\in C$ with $u(y)\in W\setminus W^s$ are called the [*base-points*]{} of the quasimap (we assume throughout that there are no strictly semistable points in $W$).
- To ensure separatedness, we restrict to quasimaps whose base-points (if any) are away from the nodes and markings of $C$.
- To obtain a Deligne-Mumford stack of finite type, we require the quasimaps to satisfy a stability condition.
- To ensure properness we require $W$ to be [*affine*]{}.
- To ensure that the natural obstruction theory is perfect we require that $W$ has at most local complete intersection singularities.
The stability condition we consider initially generalizes the ones from [@MOP], [@CK] and we call the resulting objects stable quasimaps to ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$. It is a simple fact that Kontsevich’s stable maps to ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ are also obtained by imposing a stability condition of the same kind on quasimaps. Moreover, generalizing the observation of [@MM1], [@MM2] for target $\PP^n$ (extended in [@Toda] to Grassmannians), we show that there is a one-parameter family of stability conditions producing open substacks of ${\mathfrak{M}_{g,k}}([W/{{\bf G}}],\beta)$ with all the good properties we require, and which interpolate between stable maps and stable quasimaps. The virtual classes of these moduli spaces will potentially differ over loci in their boundaries. At the level of invariants, a correspondence between the stable quasimap and Gromov-Witten theories of ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ will then require a (generally nontrivial) transformation which records wall-crossing contributions. In this paper we restrict ourselves to setting up the foundations of quasimap theory, leaving the investigation of the correspondence to future work.
We now describe in more detail the contents and organization of the paper.
Section 2 is devoted to a description of the general set-up that will be used for the rest of the paper: we consider nonsingular GIT quotients obtained from the action of a reductive complex algebraic group ${{\bf G}}$ on an affine complex algebraic variety $W={{\mathrm{Spec}}}(A)$, linearized by a character of ${{\bf G}}$. The quotient ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ is always projective over the “affine quotient" ${{\mathrm{Spec}}}(A^{{\bf G}})$ of $W$ by ${{\bf G}}$, but we do not require the affine quotient to be a point. We also include here a quick discussion of the moduli stack ${\mathfrak{B}un_{\bf {G}}}$ parametrizing principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundles on (varying) prestable marked curves.
In section 3 the notions of quasimaps and stable quasimaps to ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ are introduced. We then prove various boundedness results for families of quasimaps and stable quasimaps.
The main properties of the moduli stack ${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}$ of stable quasimaps to ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ with fixed numerical data $(g,k,\beta)$ are established in Section 4. While the fact that ${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}$ is an Artin stack locally of finite type follows quite easily by combining some results in [@Lieblich] and [@AOV], we give a straightforward direct construction which exhibits it as a stack with a schematic morphism to ${\mathfrak{B}un_{\bf {G}}}$, whose fibers are open subschemes in appropriate Hilbert schemes. Boundedness is used to show that the stack is of finite type, while stability implies that it is Deligne-Mumford. Finally, we prove that ${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}$ is proper over the affine quotient. Our argument uses crucially the assumption that $W$ is affine.
The usefulness of the construction of the moduli stack described above is that it provides us immediately with a canonical obstruction theory for ${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}$, relative to the smooth stack ${\mathfrak{B}un_{\bf {G}}}$, given by the deformation theory of Hilbert schemes. When $W$ is nonsingular it is very easy to see that this obstruction theory is perfect. By a more elaborate argument we prove that the obstruction theory remains perfect if lci singularities only are allowed in the unstable locus of $W$. It is also clear from the description of the obstruction theory that the result is optimal: as long as the stability condition allows base points, the obstruction theory will fail to be perfect if the singularities are worse than lci. In particular, this answers a question of Marian, Oprea, and Pandharipande in [@MOP] by showing that the “moduli of stable quotients" to a projective subvariety $X\subset\PP^n$ carries a natural virtual class only when $X$ is a complete intersection. On the other hand, since the stability condition that leads to the usual Kontsevich stable maps forbids base points, the unstable locus in $W$ plays no role and we obtain a perfect obstruction theory inducing the usual virtual class of ${\overline{M}_{g,k}}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)$ for all targets ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$.
A short alternative construction is described in Section 5 for the case when $W=V$ is a vector space. It leads naturally to a simple description of the [*absolute*]{} perfect obstruction theory and the corresponding virtual class of $\mathrm{Qmap}$ is shown to be globally a refined top Chern class of a vector bundle on a smooth Deligne-Mumford stack. It is worth pointing out that in this case both the tangent bundle of ${V/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ and the obstruction theory of ${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({V/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}$ may be presented using generalized “Euler sequences", which facilitate computations in many instances.
Section 6 introduces the descendent quasimap integrals, as well as the analogues in quasimap theory of the twisted Gromov-Witten invariants of Coates and Givental for proper targets ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$. Furthermore, equivariant invariants for non-proper targets endowed with torus actions having proper fixed points loci are also discussed (Nakajima quiver varieties are a large class of particularly interesting examples of such targets).
Finally, Section 7 deals with two variants of our construction. The first is the variation of stability condition mentioned above. Namely, we introduce for each positive rational number $\epsilon$ the notion of $\epsilon$-stable quasimaps. When $\epsilon$ is sufficiently close to zero, this coincides with the notion of stable quasimap, while when $\epsilon$ is sufficiently large it recovers stable maps to ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$. The arguments from sections 3 and 4 extend in a straightforward manner to prove that the moduli stacks of $\epsilon$-stable quasimaps are Deligne-Mumford, of finite type, proper over the affine quotient, and carry natural perfect obstruction theories under the same condition on the singularities of $W$. For a fixed class $\beta$, the interval $(0,+\infty)$ over which the stability parameter $\epsilon$ ranges is divided into chambers by finitely many walls of the form $\epsilon=1/m$ such that the moduli stack is constant in each chamber.
The second variant we discuss is that of stable quasimaps with one parametrized component. These are most interesting in genus zero and the corresponding moduli stacks are the analogues for quasimaps of the “graph spaces" $\overline{M}_{0,k}(X\times\PP^1,(\beta,1))$ used prominently by Givental in his proofs of mirror theorems. They are used to extend the definition of Givental’s small $I$-functions, and of the big $I$-functions in [@CK], from toric targets to general GIT quotient targets ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$. We expect there is a natural way to express the “mirror maps" transforming $I$ into the $J$-function of ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ via wall-crossing for $\epsilon$-stable quasimaps with one parametrized component.
Acknowledgments
---------------
During the preparation of the paper we benefited from conversations with Daewoong Cheong, Max Lieblich, Rahul Pandharipande, and Jason Starr. Ciocan-Fontanine thanks KIAS for financial support, excellent working conditions, and an inspiring research environment. I.C.-F. was partially supported by the NSF grant DMS-0702871, and the NSA grant H98230-11-1-0125. B.K. was supported by the KRF grant 2007-341-C00006. D.M. was supported by a Clay Research Fellowship.
Preliminaries
=============
Throughout the paper we work over the base field $\CC$. We fix a reductive (hence linearly reductive) complex algebraic group ${{\bf G}}$.
Recall that a principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundle $P$ over a base algebraic space $B$ is an algebraic space $P$ with a free (right) ${{\bf G}}$-action and a ${{\bf G}}$-equivariant map $\pi: P{\longrightarrow}B$ (where $B$ has the trivial action) which is [' e]{}tale-locally trivial.
For a scheme $W$ with (right) ${{\bf G}}$-action, one can form the [*mixed construction*]{} $$\label{mixed}P\times_{{\bf G}}W:=[(P\times W)/{{\bf G}}],$$ where the quotient is taken with respect to the diagonal action of ${{\bf G}}$. It is an algebraic space with a morphism $$\rho : P\times_{{\bf G}}W{\longrightarrow}B$$ which is (in the [' e]{}tale topology) a locally trivial fibration with fiber $W$.
Principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundles on curves
---------------------------------------
By ${\mathfrak{M}_{g,k}}$ we denote the moduli stack of prestable $k$-pointed curves of genus $g$, and by ${\overline{M}_{g,k}}$ we denote the moduli stack of stable $k$-pointed curves of genus $g$. Recall that ${\mathfrak{M}_{g,k}}$ is a smooth Artin stack, locally of finite type, while ${\overline{M}_{g,k}}$ is a smooth Deligne-Mumford stack of finite type, which is proper. Usually ${\mathfrak{C}_{g,k}}$ and ${\mathcal{C}_{g,k}}$ will stand for the universal curves over ${\mathfrak{M}_{g,k}}$ and ${\overline{M}_{g,k}}$, respectively. The projection maps from the universal curves to their base will all be denoted $\pi$; this should not lead to confusion.
We will also consider the relative moduli stack $${\mathfrak{B}un_{\bf {G}}}\stackrel\phi\lra{\mathfrak{M}_{g,k}}$$ of principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundles on the fibers of ${\mathfrak{C}_{g,k}}$. It is again an Artin stack, locally of finite type, as can be deduced immediately from [@Lieblich Prop. 2.18] and [@AOV Lemma C.5]). By [@Behrend], the morphism $\phi$ has smooth geometric fibers. In fact, $\phi$ is a smooth morphism, hence ${\mathfrak{B}un_{\bf {G}}}$ is smooth. For convenience, we include a direct proof of these facts in the following proposition. See also the recent preprint [@Wang].
\[bunG\] The stack ${\mathfrak{B}un_{\bf {G}}}$ is a smooth Artin stack, locally of finite type over $\CC$.
We check the requirements in the definition of an Artin stack.
1\. The diagonal map $\Delta$ is representable, quasicompact, and separated:
a\) We first prove this for the case ${{\bf G}}=GL(r)$. Let $T$ be a $\CC$-scheme. Consider two vector bundles $E_1, E_2$ of rank $r$ on a projective scheme $Y/T$ with $\pi _{Y/T}$ the flat structural map $Y{\rightarrow}T$. We let $\mathrm{Isom}_{T}(E_1, E_2)$ be the functor from the $T$-scheme category $\mathrm{Sch} /T$ to the set category $\mathrm{Sets}$ sending $T'/T$ to $\mathrm{Hom}_{T'}(E_1|_{T'}, E_2|_{T'})$. Then the stack $\mathrm{Isom}_{T}(E_1, E_2)$ over $T$ is representable by a locally closed subscheme of the total space of the vector bundle associated to the locally free sheaf $(\pi _{Y/T})_*(E_1^\vee{\otimes}E_2 (n))$ for some large enough integer $n$. Hence, $\mathrm{Isom}_{T}(E_1, E_2)$ is a quasicompact separated $T$-scheme. Now consider two vector bundles $F_1, F_2$ on two families $C_i/S$ of $m$-marked [*stable*]{} curves over a $\CC$-scheme $S$, respectively. Notice that $\mathrm{Isom}_S(C_1, C_2)$ is a quasi-projective scheme over $S$. The stack $\mathrm{Isom}_S(F_1, F_2)$ over $S$ is representable by a quasicompact separated $T$-scheme $\mathrm{Isom}_{T}(\pi _1^*F_1, f^*F_2)$, where $T= \mathrm{Isom}_S(C_1, C_2)$, $Y=C_1\times _S T$, $\pi _1: Y{\rightarrow}C_1$ is the first projection, and $f$ is the evaluation map $Y {\rightarrow}C_2$. However, in general, $C_i$ are families of prestable curves. In this case, by adding additional local markings, there is an étale covering $\{S_j\}$ of $S$ such that $C_{ij}=C_i|_{S_j}$ is a projective scheme over $S_j$. Now glue $\mathrm{Isom}_{S_j}(F_1|_{S_j}, F_2|_{S_j})$ to obtain an algebraic space over $S$, representing $\mathrm{Isom}_S(F_1, F_2)$. This shows that $\Delta$ is representable, quasicompact, and separated.
b\) For a general reductive algebraic group ${{\bf G}}\subset GL(r)$, consider extensions $P_i':= P_i\times _{{\bf G}}GL(r)$, $i=1,2$, and the associated sections $s_i : C {\rightarrow}P_i'/{{\bf G}}$. Then $\mathrm{Isom}_S(P_1, P_2)$ is the closed algebraic subspace of $\mathrm{Isom}_S(P_1', P_2')$ parametrizing the isomorphisms compatible with $s_i$.
2\. There is a smooth surjective morphism from a $\CC$-scheme locally of finite type to ${\mathfrak{B}un_{\bf {G}}}$:
Let $S$ be a $\CC$-scheme of finite type. For every pair of positive integers $n, N$ and every family $C/S$ of prestable curves with relatively ample line bundle $\mathcal{O}_C(1)$, consider an open subscheme $Z_{N, n}$ of Quot schemes parameterizing the locally free rank $r$ quotients of $\mathcal{O}_C^{\oplus N}(n)$. Then when ${{\bf G}}=GL(r)$ the natural forgetful morphism from the disjoint union $Z:=\coprod _{N, n} Z_{N,n}$ to the stack ${\mathfrak{B}un_{\bf {G}}}(C/S)$ of principal $G$-bundles on $C/S$ is surjective and smooth. For a general reductive algebraic group ${{\bf G}}\subset GL(r)$, we consider the natural morphism $$\mathrm{Hom}_{Z} (C\times _S Z , \mathcal{P}/{{\bf G}}){\rightarrow}{\mathfrak{B}un_{\bf {G}}}(C/S),$$ where $\mathcal{P}$ is the universal $GL(r)$-principal bundle on $C\times _S Z$. Since $GL(r)/{{\bf G}}$ is quasi-projective, and hence $\mathcal{P}/{{\bf G}}$ is quasi-projective over $Z$ (see for example [@Sorger §3.6.7]), we see that $\mathrm{Hom}_{Z} (C\times _S Z , \mathcal{P}/{{\bf G}})$ is a quasi-projective scheme over $Z$. Now by this and the fact that ${\mathfrak{M}_{g,k}}$ is an Artin stack, we can build a scheme locally of finite type, smoothly covering ${\mathfrak{B}un_{\bf {G}}}$.
3\. We show the smoothness of ${\mathfrak{B}un_{\bf {G}}}$. It is enough to show that ${\mathfrak{B}un_{\bf {G}}}$ is formally smooth, i.e., the deformation problem for the corresponding moduli functor is unobstructed:
Let $S_0$ be the spectrum of a finitely generated $\CC$-algebra $A_0$ and let $S={{\mathrm{Spec}}}(A)$, with $A$ a square zero extension by a finite $A_0$-module $M$. Let $C_0, C$ be families of prestable curves over $S_0$, respectively over $S$, with $C$ an extension of $C_0$. Note that for any principal ${{\bf G}}$ bundle $P'$ on a scheme $Y$, $\mathrm{Aut}(P') = \mathrm{Hom}_{{\bf G}}(P', {{\bf G}}) = \Gamma (Y, P'\times _{{\bf G}}{{\bf G}})$, where the ${{\bf G}}$-action on ${{\bf G}}$ is the adjoint action. From this it is classical to derive that the obstruction to extending a principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundle on $C_0$ to $C$ lies in $H^2 (C_0, P\times _{{\bf G}}\mathfrak{g}){\otimes}_{A_0}M$. The fibers of $C_0/S_0$ are one-dimensional and $S_0$ is affine, hence the $A_0$-module $H^2 (C_0, P\times _{{\bf G}}\mathfrak{g})$ vanishes. Since ${\mathfrak{M}_{g,k}}$ is a smooth stack over $\CC$, we conclude the proof.
A class of GIT quotients {#setup}
------------------------
Let $W={{\mathrm{Spec}}}(A)$ be an affine algebraic variety with an action by the reductive algebraic group ${{\bf G}}$. There are two natural quotients associated with this action: the [*quotient stack*]{} $[W/{{\bf G}}]$, and the [*affine quotient*]{} $W/_{\mathrm {aff}}{{\bf G}}=\mathrm{Spec}(A^{{\bf G}})$.
Let $\chi({{\bf G}})$ be the character group of ${{\bf G}}$ and denote by ${{\mathrm{Pic}}}^{{\bf G}}(W)$ the group of isomorphism classes of ${{\bf G}}$-linearized line bundles on $W$. Any character $\xi\in\chi({{\bf G}})$ determines a one-dimensional representation $\CC_\xi$ of ${{\bf G}}$, hence a linearized line bundle $$L_\xi=W\times \CC_\xi$$ in ${{\mathrm{Pic}}}^{{\bf G}}(W)$.
Fix once and for all a character $\theta\in\chi({{\bf G}})$. Since ${{\bf G}}$ is reductive, the graded algebra $$S(L_\theta):=\oplus_{n\geq 0}\Gamma(W,L_\theta^{\otimes n})^{{\bf G}}$$ is finitely generated and we have the associated [*GIT quotient*]{} $${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}:=W/\!\!/_{\theta}{{\bf G}}:=\mathrm{Proj}(S(L_\theta)),$$ which is a quasiprojective variety, with a projective morphism $${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}{\longrightarrow}W/_{\mathrm{aff}}{{\bf G}}$$ to the affine quotient (see [@King]). The GIT quotient is projective precisely when $W/_{\mathrm{aff}}{{\bf G}}$ is a point, i.e., when the only ${{\bf G}}$-invariant functions on $W$ are the constant functions.
Let $$W^s=W^s(\theta)\;\;\;\; {\mathrm {and}}\;\;\;\; W^{ss}=W^{ss}(\theta)$$ be the open subsets of stable (respectively, semistable) points determined by the choice of linearization (again, see [@King] for the definitions). From now on the following assumptions will be in force:
$(i)$ $\emptyset\neq W^s=W^{ss}.$
$(ii)$ $W^s$ is nonsingular.
$(iii)$ ${{\bf G}}$ acts freely on $W^s$.
It follows from Luna’s slice theorem that $W^s\stackrel\rho{\longrightarrow}{W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ is a principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundle in the étale topology. Hence ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ is a nonsingular variety, which coincides with $[W^s/{{\bf G}}]$, the stack quotient of the stable locus. In particular, it is naturally an open substack in $[W/{{\bf G}}]$.
Note that ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ comes with a (relative) polarization: the line bundle $L_\theta$ descends to a line bundle $${{\mathcal{O}}}_{{W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}}(\theta)=W^s\times_{{\bf G}}(L_\theta |_{W^s})$$ which is relatively ample over the affine quotient (the right-hand side is the mixed construction ). Replacing $\theta$ by a positive integer multiple gives the same quotient ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$, but with polarization ${{\mathcal{O}}}_{{W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}}(m\theta)={{\mathcal{O}}}_{{W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}}(\theta)^{{\otimes}m}$.
\[orbifold\] The assumption $(iii)$ above can in fact be dropped, in which case one considers the smooth Deligne-Mumford open substack $[W^s/{{\bf G}}] \subset [W/G]$, with coarse moduli space ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$, as the base of the principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundle. This leads to the theory of “orbifold" (or twisted) stable quasimaps to $[W^s/{{\bf G}}]$, which can be developed with the same methods we introduce here. For clarity, we decided to treat only the case of manifold targets in this paper. The orbifold theory will be discussed in a forthcoming paper, [@CCK].
Maps from curves to $[W/{{\bf G}}]$
-----------------------------------
Let $(C,x_1,\dots ,x_k)$ be a prestable pointed curve, i.e., a connected projective curve (of some arithmetic genus $g$), with at most nodes as singularities, together with $k$ distinct and nonsingular marked points on it. We will be interested in various moduli spaces of maps from such curves to the quotient stack $[W/{{\bf G}}]$. By the definition of quotient stacks, a map $[u]:C{\longrightarrow}[W/{{\bf G}}] $ corresponds to a pair $(P,\tilde{u})$, with $$P{\longrightarrow}C$$ a principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundle on $C$ and $$\tilde{u}:P{\longrightarrow}W$$ a ${{\bf G}}$-equivariant morphism. Equivalently (and most often), we will consider the data $(P,u)$, with $$u:C{\longrightarrow}P\times_{{\bf G}}W$$ a section of the fiber bundle $\rho : P\times_{{\bf G}}W{\longrightarrow}C$. Then $[u]: C {\rightarrow}[W/{{\bf G}}]$ is obtained as the composite $$C\stackrel{u}{\ra} P\times _{{\bf G}}W {\rightarrow}[W/{{\bf G}}].$$ Note also that the composition $$C\stackrel{[u]}{\ra} [W/{{\bf G}}]{\rightarrow}W/_{\mathrm {aff}}{{\bf G}}$$ is always a constant map, since $C$ is projective.
We denote by $ {{\mathrm{Map}}}(C, [W/{{\bf G}}])$ the Artin stack parametrizing such pairs $(P,u)$.
Induced line bundles and the degree of maps
-------------------------------------------
Recall that $L\mapsto [L/{{\bf G}}]$ gives an identification ${{\mathrm{Pic}}}^{{\bf G}}(W) = {{\mathrm{Pic}}}([W/{{\bf G}}])$.
Let $(C,P,u)$ be as above. For a ${{\bf G}}$-equivariant line bundle $L$ on $W$, we have a cartesian diagram $$\begin{CD} P\times _{{\bf G}}W @<<< P\times _{{\bf G}}L \\
@VVV @VVV\\
[W/{{\bf G}}] @<<< [L/{{\bf G}}]
\end{CD} .$$ Hence we get an induced line bundle $u^*(P\times _{{\bf G}}L) = [u]^*([L/{{\bf G}}])$ on $C$.
\[degree\] The [*degree*]{} $\beta$ of $(P,u)\in {{\mathrm{Map}}}(C, [W/{{\bf G}}])$ is the homomorphism $$\beta:{{\mathrm{Pic}}}^{{{\bf G}}}(W) {\rightarrow}\ZZ,\;\;\;
\beta(L) =\deg _C(u^*(P\times _{{\bf G}}L)).$$
In fact, under the natural map $H_{2}^{{\bf G}}(W){\rightarrow}{{\mathrm{Hom}}}({{\mathrm{Pic}}}^{{\bf G}}(W),\ZZ)$, $\beta$ is the image of the class of the equivariant cycle $$\begin{CD} P @>>> W\\
@VVV @.\\
C @.
\end{CD}$$ given by $(C,P,\tilde{u})$. Here $H_{2}^{{\bf G}}(W)$ denotes the ${{\bf G}}$-equivariant homology. As a consequence we will also call $\beta$ the (equivariant homology) [*class*]{} of $(C,P,u)$.
Finally, we note that any ${{\bf G}}$-equivariant section $t\in \Gamma(W,L)^{{\bf G}}$ induces a section of $[L/{{\bf G}}]$, hence a section $u^*t=[u]^*t$ of $u^*(P\times _{{\bf G}}L)$.
Quotients of vector spaces {#vspace1}
--------------------------
An important special case is when $W=V$ is a finite dimensional $\CC$-vector space equipped with a [*linear*]{} action, i.e., ${{\bf G}}$ acts via a representation ${{\bf G}}{\longrightarrow}\mathrm{GL}(V)$. As an algebraic variety, $V$ is an affine space and its Picard group is trivial. Hence there is an identification $$\chi({{\bf G}})\cong{{\mathrm{Pic}}}^{{\bf G}}(V).$$
Let $C$ be a nodal curve and let $(P,u)\in {{\mathrm{Map}}}(C, [V/{{\bf G}}])$ be as above. If $\xi$ is a character with associated representation $\CC_\xi$, then there is an isomorphism of line bundles on $C$ $$\label{fiberprod}
u^*(P\times _{{\bf G}}L_\xi)\cong P\times_{{\bf G}}\CC_\xi.$$ Therefore in this case the degree $$\beta=\beta_P\in \Hom_\ZZ(\chi({{\bf G}}),\ZZ)$$ is the usual degree of the principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundle on a curve.
Equation is a consequence of the following fact, which we will tacitly use from now on. Given ${{\bf G}}$-schemes $W$ and $E$ and a map $(C,P,u)$ to $[W/{{\bf G}}]$, let $$\rho :P\times_{{\bf G}}(W\times E){\longrightarrow}P\times_{{\bf G}}W$$ be the map induced by the first projection $W\times E{\rightarrow}W$. Then there is a canonical isomorphism of $C$-schemes $$P\times_{{\bf G}}E\cong C\times _{P\times_{{\bf G}}W} (P\times_{{\bf G}}(W\times E)),$$ where in the right-hand side we have the fiber product over the section $u:C{\rightarrow}P\times_{{\bf G}}W$ and the map $\rho$.
The following well-known fact will be used later in the paper. It can be found in many standard texts on Invariant Theory (see e.g. [@LeP], page 94).
\[embedding\] Let $W$ be an affine algebraic variety over $\CC$ and let ${{\bf G}}$ be a reductive group acting on $W$. There exists a finite dimensional vector space $V$ with a linear ${{\bf G}}$-action, and a ${{\bf G}}$-equivariant closed embedding $W\hookrightarrow V$.
Quasimaps and stable quasimaps to ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$
======================================================
We keep the set-up from the previous section: we are given an affine variety $W$ with an action of ${{\bf G}}$ linearized by a character $\theta\in\chi({{\bf G}})$, satisfying the assumptions $(i)-(iii)$ from §\[setup\].
Quasimaps and stable quasimaps
------------------------------
Fix integers $k,g\geq0$ and a class $\beta\in \Hom_\ZZ({{\mathrm{Pic}}}^{{\bf G}}(W),\ZZ)$.
\[qmap\] A $k$-pointed, genus $g$ [[quasimap]{}]{} of class $\beta$ to ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ consists of the data
$$( C, p_1,\dots , p_k, P, u),$$ where
- $(C, p_1,\dots , p_k)$ is a connected, at most nodal, $k$-pointed projective curve of genus $g$,
- $P$ is a principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundle on $C$,
- $u$ is a section of the induced fiber bundle $P\times_{{\bf G}}W$ with fiber $W$ on $C$ such that $(P,u)$ is of class $\beta$.
satisfying the following generic nondegeneracy condition:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{generic-ndeg}
&{there\; is\; a\; finite\; (possibly\; empty)\; set}\; B\subset C\;
{such\; that}\; \\ &\nonumber {for\; every}\;
p\in C\setminus B\; {we\; have}\; u(p)\in W^s.\end{aligned}$$
In other words, a quasimap is a map to the quotient stack $[W/{{\bf G}}]$ such that $u$ sends the generic point of each irreducible component of $C$ to the stable locus $W^s$. The points in $B$ will be called the [*base points*]{} of the quasimap.
\[stability\]The quasimap $( C,p_1,\dots ,p_k, P, u)$ is called [prestable]{} if the base points are disjoint from the nodes and markings on $C$.
It is called [stable]{} if it is prestable and the line bundle $\omega _C(\sum_{i=1}^kp_i) {\otimes}{\mathcal L}^\epsilon $ is ample for every rational number $\epsilon > 0$, where $${\mathcal L}:={{\mathcal{L}}}_\theta=u^*(P\times_{{\bf G}}L_\theta)\cong P\times_{{\bf G}}\CC_\theta
.$$
These definitions generalize and are motivated by two previous constructions in the literature.
[*Stable quotients:*]{} Consider, for $r \leq n$, the vector space $V = \mathrm{Hom}({{\mathbb C}}^r, {{\mathbb C}}^n)=\mathrm{Mat}(n\times r)$ of $n\times r$ complex matrices, equipped with the action of ${{\bf G}}= GL(r)$ via right multiplication and with stability induced by the determinant character. In this case, the associated GIT quotient is the Grassmannian $\mathrm{G}(r,n)$ and the definition of a stable quasimap to ${V/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ simply recovers the definition of stable quotients first studied in [@MOP]. It is shown there that quasimaps and stable maps to $\mathrm{G}(r,n)$ give essentially identical numerical invariants.
[*Stable toric quasimaps:*]{} Suppose we are given a complete nonsingular fan $\Sigma \subset \RR^{n}$ generated by $l$ one-dimensional integral rays inside an $n$-dimensional lattice. There is a smooth $n$-dimensional projective toric variety $X_\Sigma$ associated to the fan, which can be expressed as a GIT quotient of $V = \CC^{l}$ by the torus ${{\bf G}}= (\CC^*)^{l-n}$. In this case, we obtain stable toric quasimaps studied in [@CK]. Already in this setting, the relation between stable quasimaps and stable maps is much more complicated, even at the numerical level.
An isomorphism between two quasimaps $$( C,p_1,\dots ,p_k, P, u),$$ and $$( C',p'_1,\dots ,p'_k, P', u'),$$ consists of an isomorphism $f: C \rightarrow C'$ of the underlying curves, along with an isomorphism $\sigma: P \rightarrow f^*P'$, such that the markings and the section are preserved: $$f(p_j) = p'_{j}, \sigma_{W}(u) = f^*(u'),$$ where $\sigma_W: P\times_{{\bf G}}W \rightarrow P'\times_{{\bf G}}W$ is the isomorphism of fiber bundles induced by $\sigma$.
\[family\] A family of (stable) quasimaps to ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ over a base scheme $S$ consists of the data $$(\pi: {{\mathcal{C}}}\rightarrow S, \{p_i: S \rightarrow {{\mathcal{C}}}\}_{i=1,\dots,k}, {{\mathcal{P}}}, u)$$ where
- $\pi: {{\mathcal{C}}}\rightarrow S$ is a flat family of curves over $S$, that is a flat proper morphism of relative dimension one,
- $p_i, i=1,\dots, k$ are sections of $\pi$,
- ${{\mathcal{P}}}$ is a principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundle on ${{\mathcal{C}}}$,
- $u:{{\mathcal{C}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal{P}}}\times_{{\bf G}}W$ is a section
such that the restriction to every geometric fiber ${{\mathcal{C}}}_s$ of $\pi$ is a (stable) $k$-pointed quasimap of genus $g$ and class $\beta$. An isomorphism between two such families $({{\mathcal{C}}}\rightarrow S,\dots)$ and $({{\mathcal{C}}}' \rightarrow S, \dots)$ consists of an isomorphism of $S$-schemes $f:{{\mathcal{C}}}\rightarrow {{\mathcal{C}}}'$, and an isomorphism of ${{\bf G}}$-bundles $\sigma: {{\mathcal{P}}}\rightarrow f^*{{\mathcal{P}}}'$, which preserve the markings and the section.
Stability of a quasimap $(C, p_1, \dots, p_k, P, u)$ implies immediately the following properties:
- Every rational component of the underlying curve $C$ has at least two nodal or marked points and $\deg({{\mathcal{L}}})>0$ on any such component with exactly two special points; in particular, this forces the inequality $2g-2+k\geq 0$.
- The automorphism group of a stable quasimap is finite and reduced. Indeed, it suffices to restrict to any rational component $C'$ of $C$ with exactly two special points $q_1$ and $q_2$. If the automorphism group $\CC^* = \mathrm{Aut}(C', q_1,q_2)$ preserves the section $u$, this forces $u$ to have no base points and $P|_{C'}$ to be trivial. However, this violates stability.
Boundedness {#bdd}
-----------
We prove in this subsection that quasimaps with fixed domain curve $C$ and class $\beta$, as well as stable quasimaps with fixed numerical type $(g, k, \beta )$ form bounded families.
We start with the following important observation.
\[effective\] If $(C,P,u)$ is a quasimap, then $\beta (L_\theta) \ge 0$; and $\beta (L_\theta) =0$ if and only if $\beta = 0$, if and only if the quasimap is a constant map to ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$. Furthermore, the same holds for any subcurve $C'$ and the induced quasimap.
It is enough to prove the the lemma when $C$ is irreducible.
Recall that the equivariant line bundle $L_\theta$ on $W$ descends to a line bundle ${{\mathcal{O}}}(\theta)$ on ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ which is relatively ample over the affine quotient. Pick $m> 0$ such that ${{\mathcal{O}}}(m\theta)$ is relatively very ample and let $$\label{projemb}{W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}\hookrightarrow \PP_{A(W)^{{\bf G}}}((\Gamma(W,L_{m\theta})^\vee)^{{\bf G}})$$ be the corresponding embedding over ${{\mathrm{Spec}}}(A(W)^{{\bf G}})$. If $u$ has image contained in $P\times_{{\bf G}}W^s$, then it corresponds to a regular map $f:C\lra{W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ and $\beta (L_\theta) =\deg_C f^*{{\mathcal{O}}}(\theta)$. The claim is clear in this case. Assume now that there is a base-point $x\in C$ (so that $u(x)$ is unstable). Via composition with the inclusion (\[projemb\]), we view the quasimap as a [*rational*]{} map $$C- - {\rightarrow}\PP_{A(W)^{{\bf G}}}((\Gamma(W,L_{m\theta})^\vee)^{{\bf G}})$$ with a base-point at $x$. It follows that every ${{\bf G}}$-equivariant section $t$ of $L_{m\theta}$ must satisfy $u^*t(x)=0$. On the other hand, since the image of the generic point is stable, the line bundle ${{\mathcal{L}}}_{m\theta} =u^*(P\times_{{\bf G}}L_{m\theta})$ on $C$ has a nonzero section of the form $u^*t$. Hence $m\beta(L_\theta)=\deg({{\mathcal{L}}}_{m\theta})>0$.
\[eff-semigroup\] We will call elements $$\beta\in\Hom_\ZZ({{\mathrm{Pic}}}^{{\bf G}}(W),\ZZ)$$ which are realized as classes of quasimaps (possibly with disconnected domain curve) to $W/\!\!/_\theta{{\bf G}}$ (${{\bf G}}$-equivariant) [*$L_\theta$-effective classes*]{}. These $L_\theta$-effective classes form a semigroup, denoted $\mathrm {Eff}(W,{{\bf G}},\theta)$.
Hence, if $\beta\in \mathrm {Eff}(W,{{\bf G}},\theta)$, then either $\beta=0$ or $\beta (L_\theta ) >0$.
An immediate consequence of Lemma \[effective\] is a boundedness result for the underlying curves of stable quasimaps:
\[boundedness-curve\] The number of irreducible components of the underlying curve of a [*stable*]{} quasimap to ${V/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ is bounded in terms of $g,k$, and $\beta$ only.
See Corollary 3.1.5 in [@CK].
Next we bound quasimaps with given class $\beta$ on a nodal curve.
\[boundedness-qmap\] Let $\beta\in\Hom_\ZZ({{\mathrm{Pic}}}^{{\bf G}}(W),\ZZ)$ and a nodal curve $C$ be fixed. The family of quasimaps of class $\beta$ from $C$ to ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ is bounded.
We begin by making some reductions.
First, by Proposition \[embedding\], it suffices to assume that $W=V$ is a vector space. Indeed, given a ${{\bf G}}$-equivariant embedding $W\subset V$, every quasimap $(C,P,u)$ to ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ is also a quasimap to ${V/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$, where we use the same linearization $\theta\in\chi({{\bf G}})$ to define the stable and semistable loci on $V$. Note that the class of the quasimap to ${V/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ is the image of $\beta$ under the natural map $$\Hom({{\mathrm{Pic}}}^{{{\bf G}}}(W),\ZZ)\lra\Hom({{\mathrm{Pic}}}^{{{\bf G}}}(V),\ZZ)=\Hom(\chi({{\bf G}}),\ZZ),$$ and is in fact just the degree of the underlying principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundle $P$. Strictly speaking, we are in a slightly more general situation since the linearized action on $V$ may fail to satisfy the assumptions in $\S 2.2$: there may be strictly semistable points in $V$, and points in $V^s\setminus W^s$ may have nontrivial stabilizers. However, the proof will only use that $V^s\neq\emptyset$, and that the representation ${{\bf G}}{\longrightarrow}GL(V)$ has finite kernel. These follow respectively from the fact that $W^s$ is nonempty, and from the freeness of the ${{\bf G}}$-action on $W^s$ (which implies the kernel is trivial).
Second, notice that the quasimaps $(C,P,u)$ to ${V/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ with fixed projective, connected nodal curve $C$ and fixed principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundle $P$ on it, are parametrized by an open subset of the space of global sections of the induced [*vector bundle*]{} $${{\mathcal{V}}}_P=P\times_{{\bf G}}V$$ on C. Hence, after fixing $C$ and a degree $$\beta\in \Hom({{\mathrm{Pic}}}^{{\bf G}}(V),\ZZ)=\Hom(\chi({{\bf G}}),\ZZ),$$ it suffices to bound the set $S$ of principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundles $P$ on $C$ admitting a quasimap $(P, u)$ of class $\beta$ to ${V/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$.
Finally, a principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundle on a nodal curve $C$ is given by a principal bundle $\widetilde{P}$ on the normalization $\widetilde{C}$, together with identifications of the fibers $\widetilde{P}_x$ and $\widetilde{P}_y$ for each pair of preimages of a node. For each node, these identifications are parametrized by the group ${{\bf G}}$. It follows that we may assume that the curve $C$ is irreducible and nonsingular.
Hence Theorem \[boundedness-qmap\] is a consequence of the following result:
\[boundedness-bundle\] Let $\beta\in\Hom_\ZZ(\chi({{\bf G}}),\ZZ)$ and a smooth projective curve $C$ be fixed. Let $V$ be a vector space with an action of ${{\bf G}}$ via a representation ${{\bf G}}{\longrightarrow}GL(V)$ with finite kernel and let $\theta\in\chi({{\bf G}})$ be a character such that $V^s({{\bf G}},\theta)\neq\emptyset$. Then the family of principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundles $P$ on $C$ of degree $\beta$ such that the vector bundle ${{\mathcal{V}}}_P=P\times_{{\bf G}}V$ admits a section $u$ which sends the generic point of $C$ to $V^s({{\bf G}},\theta)$ is bounded.
We first prove the Theorem under the additional assumption that ${{\bf G}}$ is [*connected*]{}, using an argument similar to the one employed by Behrend [@Behrend] to show boundedness for semistable principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundles of fixed degree on a curve. Essentially the same proof also appeared later in the paper [@Hol-Nar] of Holla and Narasimhan. It is based on two general auxiliary results which we state below.
Let ${{\bf T}}$ be a maximal torus in ${{\bf G}}$ and let ${{\bf B}}$ be a Borel subgroup of ${{\bf G}}$ with ${{\bf T}}\subset {{\bf B}}$. Let ${{\bf B}}_{r}$ be the unipotent radical of ${{\bf B}}$. Note that the composition ${{\bf T}}\subset {{\bf B}}\rightarrow {{\bf B}}/{{\bf B}}_{r}$ provides an isomorophism ${{\bf T}}\cong {{\bf B}}/{{\bf B}}_r$; and $\chi ({{\bf T}})=\chi ({{\bf B}})$ since the unipotent radical has only the trivial character.
\[Breduction\] Every principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundle on a smooth projective curve admits a reduction to a principal ${{\bf B}}$-bundle.
This is a corollary of Springer’s result that any principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundle on a projective smooth curve $C$ is locally trivial in the Zariski topology of $C$ (see [@Ram §2.11]).
\[Tbounded\] Let $S$ be a set of principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundles on $C$ with chosen ${{\bf B}}$-reductions $P'$ of $P$ for each $P\in S$ and consider the set of associated ${{\bf T}}={{\bf B}}/{{\bf B}}_r$-bundles $$\label{R} R := \{ \overline{P'}=P'/{{\bf B}}_r : P\in S\}.$$ If $R$ is bounded, then $S$ is also bounded. Furthermore, $R$ is bounded if the set of degrees $$\label{degrees}\{d_{\overline{P'}}:\chi({{\bf T}})\lra{{\mathbb Z}}: \overline{P'}\in R \}$$ is a finite set. (Recall that $d_{\overline{P'}}$ is defined by $d_{\overline{P'}}(\xi)=\deg(\overline{P'}\times_{{\bf T}}\CC_\xi)$.)
See [@Hol-Nar Proposition 3.1] and [@Hol-Nar Lemma 3.3].
Now let $S$ be the set of principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundles in Theorem \[boundedness-bundle\] and for each $P\in S$ pick a ${{\bf B}}$-reduction $P'$. This is possible by Lemma \[Breduction\]. The following Lemma is the main step in the proof.
\[BddLemma\] There is a $\mathbb{Q}$-basis $\{\theta_i\}$ of $\chi ({{\bf T}}){\otimes}\QQ$ such that:
1. For each $i$, and each $P'$, the line bundle $$P'\times _{{\bf B}}\mathbb{C} _{\theta _i} = P'/{{\bf B}}_r \times _{{\bf T}}\mathbb{C}_{\theta_i}$$ on $C$ has nonnegative degree.
2. $\theta = \sum a_i \theta_i$ for some nonnegative rational numbers $a_i$, where $\theta$ is considered as a character of ${{\bf T}}$.
There is an open neighborhood $A$ of $\theta$ in $\chi ({{\bf T}})\otimes \mathbb{Q}$ such that $$\label{inc} V^s({{\bf T}}, \theta ) \subset V^{ss}({{\bf T}}, \xi )$$ for every $\xi \in A$. Here $V^{s}({{\bf T}}, \theta )$ (resp. $V^{ss}({{\bf T}}, \xi )$) denotes the $\theta$-stable (resp. $\xi$-semistable) locus of $V$ for the action of ${{\bf T}}$ linearized by the given character; and a point $p\in V$ is said to be $\xi$-semistable if it is so for some positive integer $\ell$ making $\ell\xi$ an integral character in $\chi ({{\bf T}})$. The existence of $A$ can be seen by Mumford’s Numerical Criterion for (semi)stability, in the form Proposition 2.5 in [@King], as follows.
Decompose $V$ as a direct sum of one-dimensional ${{\bf T}}$-eigenspaces with (not necessarily distinct) weights $\delta _j$. By the Numerical Criterion, a point $p=(p_1,\dots ,p_{\dim V})\in V$ is $\theta$-stable if and only if $(a_1p_1,\dots ,a_{\dim V}p_{\dim V})$ is $\theta$-stable for every $a_i\in \mathbb{C} ^*$. Hence it is enough to check the inclusion only at the points $p$ with coordinates $p_j=0$ or $1$. For such a point $p$ which is $\theta$-stable, consider the cone $\sigma (p)$ in $(\chi ({{\bf T}})\otimes \mathbb{Q})^\vee$ consisting of $\lambda$ such that $\langle \delta _j, \lambda \rangle \ge 0$ for every $j$ with $p_j=1$. If we let $A$ be the intersection of the (finitely many) dual open cones $\sigma (p) ^\vee$, then follows immediately from the Numerical Criterion.
Via the homomorphism ${{\bf G}}{\longrightarrow}GL(V)$, the image of the Borel subgroup ${{\bf B}}$ is contained in a Borel subgroup of $GL(V)$. It follows that we have a decomposition $$\label{dec} V = \oplus _{l=1}^{\dim V} V_l/V_{l-1}$$ such that $V_l$ is a ${{\bf B}}$-invariant $l$-dimensional subspace of $V$. The two sides of are isomorphic as ${{\bf T}}$-representation spaces. Hence from the ${{\bf B}}$-equivariant map $$\begin{array}{ccccc} P' &\rightarrow & P'\times _{{\bf B}}{{\bf G}}= P &\rightarrow & V \\
p' &\mapsto &(p',e) & \mapsto & u(p',e) \end{array}$$ given by a quasimap $u$ we obtain a ${{\bf T}}$-equivariant map $$\label{Tequiv}P'/{{\bf B}}_r \rightarrow \oplus _{l=1}^{\dim V} V_l/V_{l-1}$$ Via composition with , any ${{\bf T}}$-equivariant map $$s: \oplus _{l=1}^{\dim V} V_l/V_{l-1}=V \rightarrow \mathbb{C}_\xi$$ induces a section $[s]$ of $P'/{{\bf B}}_r \times _{{\bf T}}\mathbb{C}_\xi$. Since $V^{s}({{\bf G}}, \theta)\subset V^s({{\bf T}}, \theta ) \subset V^{ss}({{\bf T}}, \xi)$ for $\xi \in A$, and $u$ is a quasimap, this section is nonzero at the generic point of $C$. Hence $\deg(P'/{{\bf B}}_r \times _{{\bf T}}\mathbb{C}_\xi)\geq 0$ for every $\xi\in A$. It is clear that there is a basis $\{\theta_i\}$ of $\chi({{\bf T}})\ot\QQ$ contained in $A$ and satisfying condition $(2)$ of the Lemma.
The proof of Theorem \[boundedness-bundle\] for connected ${{\bf G}}$ is now immediate. First, $\beta(\theta)\geq 0$ by Lemma \[effective\]. Next, by Lemma \[BddLemma\] $$\beta(\theta)=\deg (P\times _{{\bf G}}\mathbb{C}_\theta) =\deg (P'\times _{{\bf B}}\mathbb{C}_{\sum a_i\theta _i} )= \sum a_i \deg (P'\times _{{\bf B}}\mathbb{C}_{\theta _i}),$$ for every $P$. Since all $a_i$’s are nonnegative, we see that $$0\le \deg (P'\times _{{\bf B}}\mathbb{C} _{\theta _i})=\deg( \overline{P'} \times _{{\bf T}}\mathbb{C} _{\theta _i} )$$ is uniformly bounded above as $P$ varies. Since the $\theta_i$’s form a basis of $\chi({{\bf T}})\ot\QQ$, it follows that the set of degrees in is finite, so we conclude by Lemma \[Tbounded\].
We now consider the case of a general reductive group ${{\bf G}}$. Let ${{\bf G}}_\circ$ be the connected component of the identity $e\in {{\bf G}}$. It is a normal subgroup and ${{\bf G}}/{{\bf G}}_\circ$ is a finite group. Given a principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundle $P$ on $C$ we have a factorization $$\begin{array}{ccc}P&\stackrel\pi{\longrightarrow}&P/{{\bf G}}_\circ \\
\;\;\;\rho\searrow& &\swarrow q\;\;\;\;\;\;\\
&C &
\end{array}$$ with $P{\longrightarrow}P/{{\bf G}}_\circ$ a principal ${{\bf G}}_\circ$-bundle and $P/{{\bf G}}_\circ\stackrel q{\longrightarrow}C$ a principal ${{\bf G}}/{{\bf G}}_\circ$-bundle, so that $\widetilde{C}:=P/{{\bf G}}_\circ$ is a nonsingular projective curve and $q$ is a finite [' e]{}tale map of degree $m:=|{{\bf G}}/{{\bf G}}_\circ|$. Note that there are only finitely many possibilities for $\widetilde{C}$ when $P$ varies, since there are only finitely many principal ${{\bf G}}/{{\bf G}}_\circ$-bundles on $C$.
Let $\widetilde{\beta}:\chi({{\bf G}}_\circ)\ra\ZZ$ be the degree of the ${{\bf G}}_\circ$-principal bundle $P\lra\widetilde{C}$. Then $\beta(\theta)=m\widetilde{\beta}(\theta)$, where we view $\theta$ as a character of ${{\bf G}}_\circ$ by restriction, so $\widetilde{\beta}(\theta)$ is fixed, independent on the principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundle $P$ of degree $\beta$.
Finally, any ${{\bf G}}$-equivariant map $P{\longrightarrow}V$ is also ${{\bf G}}_\circ$-equivariant; furthermore $$V^{ss}({{\bf G}},\theta)=V^{ss}({{\bf G}}_\circ,\theta)\; {\mathrm {and}}\; V^{s}({{\bf G}},\theta)=V^{s}({{\bf G}}_\circ,\theta)$$ by [@Mumford Prop 1.15]. Hence if $P\times_{{\bf G}}V{\longrightarrow}C$ admits a section $u$ as in the Theorem, so does $P\times_{{{\bf G}}_\circ} V{\longrightarrow}\widetilde{C}$. Noting that the proof in the case of connected group only used that $\beta(\theta)$ was fixed, we conclude from that case that the sub-family of $P$’s with fixed $\widetilde{C}$ is bounded, so we are done by virtue of the finiteness of the set of $\widetilde{C}$’s.
For later use in section \[vspace\] we record the following immediate consequence of Theorem \[boundedness-bundle\].
\[regularity\] Let $$({{\mathcal{C}}}{\longrightarrow}S, p_1,\dots, p_k: S\lra{{\mathcal{C}}}, {{\mathcal{P}}}, u)$$ be a family of quasimaps of genus $g$ and class $\beta$ to ${V/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ with $S$ a scheme of finite type and let ${{\mathcal{O}}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(1)$ be an $S$-relatively ample line bundle on ${{\mathcal{C}}}$. There exists an integer $m>\!\!> 0$, depending on $k,g$, and $\beta$, but on ${{\mathcal{P}}}$ and $u$, such that the restriction to every geometric fiber of the vector bundle ${{\mathcal{V}}}_{{\mathcal{P}}}(m)=({{\mathcal{P}}}\times_{{\bf G}}V)\ot{{\mathcal{O}}}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(m)$ on ${{\mathcal{C}}}$ has vanishing higher cohomology.
As we already observed, the proof of Theorem \[boundedness-bundle\] only required that $\beta(L_\theta)$ is fixed. The same is true about the proof of Corollary \[boundedness-curve\]. It follows from the results of this subsection that for fixed $d\in\ZZ_{\geq 0}$ there are only finitely many $\beta\in \mathrm {Eff}(W,{{\bf G}},\theta)$ with $\beta(L_\theta)=d$.
Moduli of stable quasimaps to ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$
==================================================
The moduli stack
----------------
Let $k, g$ be fixed with $2g-2+k\geq 0$, and let $\beta$ be a $L_\theta$-effective class. The moduli stack $$\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)$$ of $k$-pointed quasimaps of genus $g$ and class $\beta$ to ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ is the stack parametrizing families as in Definition \[family\]
Strictly speaking, we only have a prestack, but it is straightforward to check the sheaf condition.
There are natural forgetful morphisms of stacks $${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}\stackrel\mu{\longrightarrow}{\mathfrak{B}un_{{\bf G}}}\;\;\;\mathrm{and}\;\;\; {\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}\stackrel\nu\lra{\mathfrak{M}_{g,k}}.$$
\[Thm1\] The moduli stack $\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)$ is a Deligne-Mumford stack of finite type, with a canonical relative obstruction theory over ${\mathfrak{B}un_{{\bf G}}}$. If $W$ has only lci singularities, then the obstruction theory is perfect. If ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ is projective, then ${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}$ is proper over ${{\mathrm{Spec}}}(\CC)$. In general, it has a natural proper morphism $${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}{\longrightarrow}\mathrm{Spec}(A(W)^{{\bf G}}).$$
We will split the proof of the Theorem over several subsections below.
The moduli stack is Deligne-Mumford and of finite type {#construction}
------------------------------------------------------
Consider the forgetful morphisms $${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}\stackrel\mu{\longrightarrow}{\mathfrak{B}un_{{\bf G}}}\;\;\;\mathrm{and}\;\;\; {\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}\stackrel\nu\lra{\mathfrak{M}_{g,k}}.$$
By a standard argument it follows from Corollary \[boundedness-curve\] that the map $\nu$ factors through an open substack of finite type ${\mathfrak{S}}\subset{\mathfrak{M}_{g,k}}$. Further, by Theorem \[boundedness-bundle\] there is an open substack of finite type ${\mathfrak{B}un_{{{\bf G}},\beta}}\subset{\mathfrak{B}un_{{\bf G}}}$, fitting in a commutative diagram $$\begin{array}{ccc}
{\mathfrak{B}un_{{{\bf G}},\beta}}&\subset &{\mathfrak{B}un_{{\bf G}}}\\
\downarrow & &\downarrow \\
{\mathfrak{S}}&\subset &{\mathfrak{M}_{g,k}}\end{array}$$ and such that $\mu$ factors through ${\mathfrak{B}un_{{{\bf G}},\beta}}$. This is again standard for ${{\bf G}}=GL_n$: the stack ${\mathfrak{S}}\times_{{\mathfrak{M}_{g,k}}}{\mathfrak{B}un_{{\bf G}}}$ has a smooth surjective cover $\mathcal{U}$ which is an infinite disjoint union of quot schemes and Theorem \[boundedness-bundle\] implies that $\mu$ factors through the image of only finitely many such quot schemes; we take ${\mathfrak{B}un_{{{\bf G}},\beta}}$ to be this image. The case general of a general group ${{\bf G}}$ is reduced to $GL_n$ as in the proof of Proposition \[bunG\].
[*Claim*]{}: The morphism $\mu$ is representable and of finite type. More precisely, its fibers are open subschemes in appropriate Hilbert schemes.
Granting the claim, it follows that ${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}$ is an Artin stack of finite type. By stability, the automorphism group of a stable quasimap is finite and reduced, so we get in fact a DM stack.
[*Proof of the Claim.*]{} Let ${{\mathfrak{C}}}\stackrel\pi\lra{\mathfrak{B}un_{{{\bf G}},\beta}}$ be the universal curve, with universal sections $\mathfrak{p}_i,\; i=1,\dots,k$, and let ${{\mathfrak{P}}}$ be the universal principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundle over ${{\mathfrak{C}}}$. If $\omega_{{\mathfrak{C}}}$ denotes the relative dualizing sheaf, then we have line bundles $$\mathfrak{L}=\mathfrak{L}_\theta={{\mathfrak{P}}}\times_{{\bf G}}\CC_\theta \;\; \mathrm{and}\;\; \omega_{{\mathfrak{C}}}(\sum\mathfrak{p}_i)\otimes\mathfrak{L}^{{\otimes}\epsilon},\; \epsilon\in\QQ$$ on ${{\mathfrak{C}}}$. There is an open substack ${\mathfrak{B}un_{{{\bf G}},\beta}}^\circ\subset{\mathfrak{B}un_{{{\bf G}},\beta}}$ obtained by requiring that $\omega_{{\mathfrak{C}}}(\sum\mathfrak{p}_i)\otimes\mathfrak{L}^{{\otimes}\epsilon}$ is $\pi$-relatively ample for some positive $\epsilon$. We will continue to denote by ${{\mathfrak{C}}}\stackrel\pi\lra{\mathfrak{B}un_{{{\bf G}},\beta}}^\circ$ and ${{\mathfrak{P}}}$ the universal curve and universal principal ${{\bf G}}$ bundle restricted to this open substack. Note that $\pi$ is now a [*projective*]{} morphism.
Forming the induced bundle ${{\mathfrak{P}}}\times_{{\bf G}}W$ with fiber $W$, we have a commutative diagram of projections $$\begin{array}{ccc}{{\mathfrak{P}}}\times_{{\bf G}}W&\stackrel\varrho{\longrightarrow}&{{\mathfrak{C}}}\\ \\
\;\;\;\;\;q\searrow& &\swarrow\pi \;\;\;\;\;\;\\ \\
&{\mathfrak{B}un_{{{\bf G}},\beta}}^\circ &
\end{array}$$ The fiber of $q$ over a $\CC$-point $(C,p_1,\dots, p_k, P)$ of ${\mathfrak{B}un_{{{\bf G}},\beta}}^\circ$ is $P\times_{{\bf G}}W$.
Let $\overline{W}$ be a projective ${{\bf G}}$-equivariant completion of $W$. For each scheme $T$ with a morphism $$T\lra{\mathfrak{B}un_{{{\bf G}},\beta}}^\circ,$$ consider the pulled-back universal curve ${{\mathcal{C}}}_T\stackrel\pi{\longrightarrow}T$ and universal bundle $P_T$ on ${{\mathcal{C}}}_T$. A section $u$ of $$P_T\times_{{\bf G}}\overline{W}\stackrel\varrho\lra{{\mathcal{C}}}_T$$ can be identified with its image inside $P_T\times_{{\bf G}}\overline{W}$. It is easily checked that the Hilbert polynomial of the image is determined by $g$ and $\beta$, hence $u$ corresponds to a point in the (relative) Hilbert scheme $$\mathrm{Hilb}_{\beta,g}(P_T\times_{{\bf G}}\overline{W}/T){\longrightarrow}T.$$
In the terminology of [@LM §14], associating this Hilbert scheme to each $T\lra{\mathfrak{B}un_{{{\bf G}},\beta}}$ gives a [*schematic local construction of finite type*]{}, so we have an Artin stack with a schematic morphism of finite type $$\mathfrak{Hilb}_{\beta, g}({{\mathfrak{P}}}\times_{{\bf G}}\overline{W}/{\mathfrak{B}un_{{{\bf G}},\beta}}^\circ)\stackrel\mu\lra{\mathfrak{B}un_{{{\bf G}},\beta}}^\circ,$$ whose points parametrize closed subschemes $Y$ (with Hilbert polynomials specified as above) in the fibers of the projection $$q: {{\mathfrak{P}}}\times_{{\bf G}}\overline{W}\lra{\mathfrak{B}un_{{{\bf G}},\beta}}^\circ.$$ We now define a substack ${{\mathcal{H}}}$ of $\mathfrak{Hilb}_{\beta, g}({{\mathfrak{P}}}\times_{{\bf G}}\overline{W}/{\mathfrak{B}un_{{{\bf G}},\beta}}^\circ)$ by successively imposing the following requirements:
1. the subscheme $Y$ lies inside $P\times_{{\bf G}}W$
2. $Y$ is the image of a section $u:C{\longrightarrow}P\times_{{\bf G}}W$
3. the section $u$ maps the generic points of components of $C$, the nodes, and the markings into $P\times_{{\bf G}}W^s$
4. stability holds, i.e., $\omega_C(\sum p_i)\otimes{{\mathcal{L}}}^{\ot\epsilon}$ is ample for [*every*]{} $\epsilon >0$.
Since each of these is an open condition, ${{\mathcal{H}}}$ is an open substack, which is obviously identified with ${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}$. The claim is proved.
\[general\] Let ${\mathfrak{M}_{g,k}}([W/{{\bf G}}],\beta)$ denote the moduli stack parametrizing maps of class $\beta$ from prestable $k$-pointed curve of genus $g$ to the quotient stack $[W/{{\bf G}}]$. Using the representability of the Hilbert functor in algebraic spaces, the argument above shows that the natural morphism $$\mu:{\mathfrak{M}_{g,k}}([W/{{\bf G}}],\beta)\lra{\mathfrak{B}un_{{\bf G}}}$$ is representable and of finite type. Hence the stack ${\mathfrak{M}_{g,k}}([W/{{\bf G}}],\beta)$ is algebraic and locally of finite type. (As for ${\mathfrak{B}un_{\bf {G}}}$, this conclusion also follows immediately from [@Lieblich Prop. 2.18] and [@AOV Lemma C.5].) Theorem \[boundedness-qmap\] then shows that imposing the quasimap condition (Definition \[qmap\]) determines an open substack of ${\mathfrak{M}_{g,k}}([W/{{\bf G}}],\beta)$ which is of finite type over ${\mathfrak{M}_{g,k}}$. Finally, imposing in addition a stability condition on quasimaps, such as the one in Definition \[stability\], gives an open substack which is Deligne-Mumford and of finite type.
Properness
----------
\[propernessProp\] The stack ${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}$ is proper over the affine quotient ${{\mathrm{Spec}}}(A(W)^{{\bf G}})$.
Assume first for simplicity that $A(W)^{{\bf G}}=\CC$, so that ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ is projective. The proof that ${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}$ is separated follows from the valuative criterion by an argument identical to the one for the toric case, given in section $4.1$ of [@CK] (in turn, that argument is a straightforward modification of the one for stable quotients in [@MOP]). For the more general case here, one needs the statement that if two principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundles on a regular complex surface $S$ agree outside finitely many points, then they agree on $S$. This follows from Hartogs’ theorem. We should also point out that the “prestable" assumption that the base-points of stable quasimaps are away from nodes and markings is crucially used in the proof.
It remains to show completeness. For this we use the valuative criterion and standard semistable reduction techniques. Let $(\Delta, 0)$ be a smooth curve with a point $0$ and let $\Delta ^\circ = \Delta \setminus\{0\}$. Let $((C, p_i), P, u)$ be a $\Delta ^\circ$-family of stable quasimaps. It is enough to show that, possibly after replacing $(\Delta, 0)$ by making a base-change ramified over $0$, there is a stable quasimap extension of $((C, p_i), P, u)$ over $\Delta$. Let $B$ denote the base locus of this family with reduced scheme structure. As in [@Ful-Pan; @MOP; @CK], after possibly shrinking $\Delta$ and making an ' etale base change, we may regard $B$ as additional sections $y_j$. Then $(C,p_i,y_j)\lra\Delta^\circ$ is a family of prestable curves. Further, we may assume that $C\lra\Delta^\circ$ has smooth irreducible fibers and that the total space is a smooth surface.
The given family of quasimaps $((C, p_i), P, u)$ gives a rational map $$[u]:C - - {\rightarrow}W/\!\!/G,$$ which is regular on $C\setminus B$. Since ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ is projective, after shrinking $\Delta$ if necessary, it extends to a regular map, denoted by $[u_{reg}]$, on all of $C$. Stability of the quasimaps implies immediately that $((C,p_i,y_j),[u_{reg}])$ is a $\Delta^\circ$-family of [*stable maps*]{} to ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$. We may view it also as a family of quasimaps, and as such it has a class $\beta_{reg}\in \Hom({{\mathrm{Pic}}}^{{\bf G}}(W),\ZZ)$; the image of $\beta_{reg}$ in $\Hom({{\mathrm{Pic}}}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}),\ZZ)$ is the element determined by the usual homology class of the stable map. In general $\beta$ and $\beta_{reg}$ are different. In fact, by Lemma \[degree-splitting\] from §7 below, $\beta -\beta_{reg}$ is $L_\theta$-effective and it is nonzero if the base locus is nonempty.
By the properness of the stable map functor, there is a family of stable maps $$(\widehat{C},p_i,y_j)\lra\Delta,\;\;\;\; [\widehat{u}]:\widehat{C}\lra{W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$$ extending $((C,p_i,y_j),[u_{reg}])$. The surface $\widehat{C}$ is normal and may have singularities only at nodes in the central fiber.
Pulling back via $[\widehat{u}]$ the principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundle $W^s\lra{W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$, we obtain a pair $$\label{Phat}(\widehat{P},\widehat{u})$$ consisting of a principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundle $\widehat{P}$ on $\widehat{C}$ and an induced section $\widehat{u}:\widehat{C}{\longrightarrow}\widehat{P}\times_{{\bf G}}W$.
The central fiber $\widehat{C}_0$ of $\widehat{C}$ may contain “rational tails" with respect to the original set of markings. Specifically, consider all maximal trees $\Gamma_1,\dots,\Gamma_N$ of rational curves in $\widehat{C}_0$ such that each $\Gamma_l$ contains none of the markings $p_i$ and meets the rest of the curve $\overline{(\widehat{C}_0\setminus\Gamma_l)}$ in a single point $z_l$. Each of these trees can be contracted by a succession of blow-downs of $(-1)$-curves.
Denote by $\bar{C}$ the surface obtained by contracting the trees $\Gamma_1,\dots,\Gamma_N$. It is a $\Delta$-family of prestable curves with markings $p_i$, while some of the additional sections $y_j$ may come together at points $z_l$ in the central fiber where contracted trees were attached. Note that each of $z_1,\dots, z_N$ is a nonsingular point of $\bar{C}$. The pair $(\widehat{P},\widehat{u})$ from restricts to a pair $(P_1,u_1)$ on the open subset $$U_1:=\bar{C}\setminus ((\cup_j y_j)\cup\{z_1,\dots,z_N\}).$$ On the other hand, we have the original pair $(P,u)$ on the open subset $$U_2:=\bar{C}\setminus\bar{C}_0\cong C.$$ By construction, $(P_1,u_1)$ and $(P,u)$ agree on the intersection $U_1\cap U_2$, hence they glue together to give a pair $(\bar{P}^0,\bar{u}^0)$ defined on all of $\bar{C}$, except at the points $z_l$ where rational tails were contracted, and at the intersections of the sections $y_j$ with the central fiber. These points are all away from the nodes and markings in the central fiber.
Now, Lemma \[Pext\] below gives an extension $\bar{P}$ of $\bar{P}^0$ to $\bar{C}$. Furthermore, $\bar{u}^0$ is a section of $\bar{P}\times _G W$ defined over $\bar{C}$ except at finitely many nonsingular points in the central fiber. By Hartogs’ theorem, we can extend the section as well to a section $\bar{u}$ defined on all of $\bar{C}$. This is the key place where $W$ affine is important for the argument.
We have constructed a family of prestable quasimaps $$((\bar{C},p_i),\bar{P},\bar{u}).$$ The limit quasimap will have base-points precisely at the points $z_l$ where rational tails were contracted, and at the intersections of the sections $y_j$ with the central fiber. This is because the rational tails in the stable map limit $((\widehat{C}_0,p_i,y_j), [\widehat{u}]|_{\widehat{C}_0})$ all carried either a nonzero part of $\beta_{reg}$, or some of the points $y_j$ (or both), while each of the points $y_j$ correspond to a nonzero part of the difference $\beta-\beta_{reg} $. (For a more precise analysis of the degrees carried by the base points, see the proof of Theorem \[Thm3\] in §7.) It is now immediate to see that the limit is in fact stable. Indeed, we need to check that the line bundle ${{\mathcal{L}}}_\theta$ is nontrivial on rational components with only two special points (nodes or markings $p_i$) in the central fiber. This is clear if the quasimap has a base-point on the component. However, if such a component doesn’t contain any of the points $y_j$ and $z_l$, then by construction the restriction of the quasimap to it is a stable map to ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$, hence non-constant, and ${{\mathcal{L}}}_\theta$ is the pullback of the polarization on ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$. From the valuative criterion we conclude that ${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}$ is proper.
Assume now that we are in the general situation when we have a projective morphism $${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}\lra{{\mathrm{Spec}}}(A(W)^{{\bf G}}).$$ The morphism from ${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}$ to the affine quotient is obtained as follows: First of all, it is well-known that $$q:W\lra\mathrm{Spec}(A(W)^{{\bf G}})$$ is a categorical quotient for the ${{\bf G}}$-action on $W$. Therefore, for every quasimap $$(C,P,\tilde{u}:P{\longrightarrow}W)$$ the ${{\bf G}}$-equivariant morphism $\tilde{u}$ induces a map $$C\lra\mathrm{Spec}(A(W)^{{\bf G}}),$$ which must be constant, since $C$ is projective and $\mathrm{Spec}(A(W)^{{\bf G}})$ is affine.
More generally, the universal family $$({{\mathcal{C}}}\lra{\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}, {{\mathfrak{P}}},\tilde{u}:{{\mathfrak{P}}}{\longrightarrow}W)$$ induces a map from the universal curve ${{\mathcal{C}}}$ to the affine quotient. By the previous paragraph, this map is constant on the fibers of the projection $\pi:{{\mathcal{C}}}\lra{\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}$. Hence it descends to our desired morphism $$\eta:{\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}{\longrightarrow}\mathrm{Spec}(A(W)^{{\bf G}}).$$
The properness of $\eta$ now follows from the valuative criterion, by the relative version of argument given above in the absolute case.
\[Pext\] Let $S$ be an algebraic surface (irreducible and reduced) and let $P^0$ be a principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundle on $S$ minus a finite set of nonsingular points. Then $P^0$ extends to a principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundle on $S$.
Replacing $S$ by its nonsingular locus if necessary, we may assume that it is nonsingular. Let $U$ denote the complement of a finite set over which $P^0$ is defined.
In the case ${{\bf G}}= GL(n)$, we can replace $P^0$ with a rank $n$ vector bundle $E^0$ over $U$. It suffices to show that this extends to $S$. There exists a rank $n$ coherent sheaf $E$ on $S$ extending $E^0$; by replacing $E$ with its double-dual, we can assume $E$ is reflexive. Since $S$ is two-dimensional and regular, this forces $E$ to be locally free, giving the extension of $P^0$.
In the case of general ${{\bf G}}$, we choose some embedding ${{\bf G}}\subset GL(n)$. Let $Q^0 = P^0\times_{{{\bf G}}} GL(n)$ be the associated $GL(n)$-bundle over $U$. By the last paragraph, $Q^0$ extends to a $GL(n)$-bundle $Q$ over all of $S$. Reductions of $Q$ to a principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundle correspond to sections of the associated $GL(n)/{{\bf G}}$-bundle $Q/{{\bf G}}$ over $S$. Since ${{\bf G}}$ is reductive, it follows from Matsushima’s criterion [@matsushima] that the homogeneous space $GL(n)/{{\bf G}}$ is affine. Moreover, by assumption, $Q/{{\bf G}}$ admits a section over $U$. Thus, by Hartogs’ theorem, this section extends over $S$.
Note that the statement of the lemma is false if ${{\bf G}}$ is not reductive: for any linear algebraic group with nontrivial unipotent radical, there exist principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundles over $U = \CC^2\setminus \{0\}$ which do not extend to the entire plane. Indeed, for ${{\bf G}}= {{\bf G}}_a$, principal bundles over $U$ are classified by $H^1(U, \mathcal{O}_U)\ne 0$. Since any unipotent ${{\bf G}}$ is built from ${{\bf G}}_a$ by taking successive extensions, the same calculation yields the statement for unipotent groups. Finally if ${{\bf G}}$ has nontrivial unipotent radical $\mathbf{U}$, then the long exact sequence for group cohomology shows that the natural map $H^{1}(U,\mathbf{U}) \rightarrow H^{1}(U,{{\bf G}})$ is injective and any elements in its image cannot be extended to the plane.
Obstruction theory
------------------
Let $${{\mathcal{C}}}\stackrel\pi\lra{\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}$$ be the universal curve, with universal principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundle $\mathfrak{P}$ on it. ($\mathfrak{P}$ is the pull-back of the universal bundle on the universal curve over ${\mathfrak{B}un_{{\bf G}}}$.) Let $$\varrho : \mathfrak{P}\times_{{\bf G}}W\lra{{\mathcal{C}}}$$ be the induced bundle with fiber $W$ and let $$u:{{\mathcal{C}}}{\longrightarrow}\mathfrak{P}\times_{{\bf G}}W$$ be the universal section.
Recall from the construction in $\S\ref{construction}$ that the fibers of the map $$\mu:{\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}\lra{\mathfrak{B}un_{{\bf G}}}$$ are open in Hilbert schemes, with points corresponding to graphs of the sections $u$. It follows that there is a [*canonical*]{} relative obstruction theory for ${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}$ over ${\mathfrak{B}un_{{\bf G}}}$ given by $$\label{relobstruction}
E_\mu^\bullet:=\left (R^\bullet\pi_*({{{\mathcal{H}}}}om(\mathbb{L}_u,{{\mathcal{O}}}_{{\mathcal{C}}})[1])\right )^\vee$$ where $\mathbb{L}_u$ is the relative cotangent complex of $u$.
\[smooth\] If $W$ is smooth, then the relative obstruction theory over ${\mathfrak{B}un_{{\bf G}}}$ is perfect.
When $W$ is smooth the morphism $u$ is an lci closed embedding, hence its cotangent complex is quasi-isomprphic to a single locally free sheaf in degree $-1$ (the conormal bundle of the section). Since $\pi$ is projective of relative dimension 1, the proposition follows.
Perfect obstruction theory when $W$ has lci singularities
---------------------------------------------------------
Note that since $u$ is a section of $\varrho$, we have $$\mathbb{L}_u\cong u^*\mathbb{L}_\varrho[1],$$ hence we can rewrite the relative obstruction theory as $$\left (R^\bullet\pi_*(u^*\mathbb{R}T_\varrho)\right )^\vee,$$ with $\mathbb{R}T_\varrho$ the relative tangent complex of $\varrho$.
Assume now that $W$ has lci singularities only (contained in $W\setminus W^s$). Choose a nonsingular ${{\bf G}}$-variety $V$ and a ${{\bf G}}$-equivariant embedding $W\hookrightarrow V$ corresponding to an ideal sheaf $I\subset {{\mathcal{O}}}_V$. For example, we can take $V$ to be a vector space, as in Proposition \[embedding\]. The tangent complex of $W$ is then the two-term complex of vector bundles $$\mathbb{R}T_W=[T_V|_W{\longrightarrow}(I/I^2)^\vee]$$ up to quasi-isomorphism.
We have an induced complex of vector bundles $$[\mathfrak{P}\times_{{\bf G}}T_V|_W{\longrightarrow}\mathfrak{P}\times_{{\bf G}}(I/I^2)^\vee]$$ on $\mathfrak{P}\times_{{\bf G}}W$ which is quasi-isomorphic to $\mathbb{R}T_\varrho$. Denote by $$F^\bullet=[F^0{\longrightarrow}F^1]$$ its pull-back to ${{\mathcal{C}}}$ via $u$.
Let $C$ be a geometric fiber of ${{\mathcal{C}}}\stackrel\pi{\longrightarrow}{\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}$. Then $H^1(F^\bullet|_C)$ is a torsion sheaf on C.
Let $B\subset C$ be the set of base points of the stable quasimap. On $C\setminus B$ the complex $F^\bullet$ is quasi-isomorphic to the pull-back of the tangent bundle of the (smooth) stable locus $W^s$ via $u|_{C\setminus B}$.
Under the assumption that $W$ has at most lci singularities, the relative obstruction theory $\left (R^\bullet\pi_*(u^*\mathbb{R}T_\varrho)\right )^\vee$ is perfect.
We need to check that $R^\bullet\pi_*(F^\bullet)$ is perfect, of amplitude in $[0,1]$.
Using the Lemma, a spectral sequence computation shows that the second hypercohomology group $$\mathbb{H}^2(F^\bullet |_C)$$ vanishes. The assertion now follows by standard arguments.
Since ${\mathfrak{B}un_{{\bf G}}}$ is a smooth Artin stack, it follows that there is an absolute perfect obstruction theory on ${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}$, $$E^\bullet=Cone(f)[-1],$$ the shifted cone of the composite morphism $$f:E_\mu^\bullet\lra\mathbb{L}_\mu{\longrightarrow}\mu^*\mathbb{L}_{{\mathfrak{B}un_{{\bf G}}}}[1].$$
Furthermore, since $\phi:{\mathfrak{B}un_{{\bf G}}}\lra{\mathfrak{M}_{g,k}}$ is a smooth map between smooth Artin stacks (see §2.1), we also have an induced perfect obstruction theory $E_\nu^\bullet$ relative to $$\nu:{\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}\lra{\mathfrak{M}_{g,k}},$$ fitting in a distinguished triangle $$E_\nu^\bullet{\longrightarrow}E_\mu^\bullet\lra\mu^*\mathbb{L}_\phi[1].$$
One sees immediately that the absolute obstruction theories corresponding to $E_\mu^\bullet$ and $E_\nu^\bullet$ coincide. It is a well-known fact (see, e.g. [@KKP Proposition 3]) that in this case all three perfect obstruction theories determine the same virtual fundamental class $[{\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}]^{vir}$.
\[stablemaps\] The arguments in this section show that any open DM substack of the Artin stack of quasimaps to ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ obtained by imposing a stability condition has the canonical relative obstruction theory (\[relobstruction\]) over ${\mathfrak{B}un_{{\bf G}}}$. For example, if the stability condition imposed is that the image of $u$ is contained in the stable locus $W^s$ (i.e., there are [*no*]{} base points) and that the line bundle $$\omega _C(\sum_{i=1}^kp_i) {\otimes}{\mathcal L}_\theta^{{\otimes}3}$$ is ample, then we obtain the Kontsevich moduli stack ${\overline{M}_{g,k}}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)$ of stable maps to ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$. The proof of Proposition \[smooth\] shows that the obstruction theory is perfect in this case, irrespective of the nature of singularities of $W\setminus W^s$. The induced relative obstruction theory over ${\mathfrak{M}_{g,k}}$ is the usual obstruction theory of stable map spaces, so the virtual classes are again the same.
In fact, as we discuss in §7 below there is a one-parameter family of stability conditions interpolating between stable maps and stable quasimaps, giving DM moduli stacks with perfect obstruction theories relative to ${\mathfrak{B}un_{{\bf G}}}$ given by .
In particular, all these Deligne-Mumford stacks, together with their canonical perfect obstruction theories, will agree over the open substacks parametrizing honest stable maps with [*semistable*]{} underlying curve.
\[ci\] The typical context where the results of this subsection apply is a generalization of the case (suggested in [@MOP]) of complete intersections in $\PP^n$.
Namely, let $V$ be a vector space with ${{\bf G}}$-action linearized by a character $\theta$ satisfying the assumptions in $\S 2.2$. Let $E$ be a linear ${{\bf G}}$-representation and consider the ${{\bf G}}$-equivariant vector bundle $V\times E$ on $V$. It induces a vector bundle $$\overline{E}:=V^s\times_{{\bf G}}E$$ on $Y:={V/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$. Let $t\in\Gamma(V,V\times E)^{{{\bf G}}}$ be a regular ${{\bf G}}$-invariant section and let $$W:=Z(t)\subset V$$ be its zero locus, which we assume to be not entirely contained in the unstable locus in $V$. The section $t$ descends to a section $\overline{t}$ of $\overline{E}$ on $Y={V/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$, whose zero locus $$X:=Z(\overline{t})\subset Y$$ is identified with ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$. We assume that $X$ is nonsingular (or, equivalently, that $W^s=W\cap V^s$ is nonsingular).
Since (after forgetting the ${{\bf G}}$-action) $t$ is identified with a $\rm{rank}(E)$-tuple of functions on $V$, we deduce that $W$ is an affine complete intersection subscheme of $V$ and therefore we have the moduli stacks ${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}$ carrying canonical perfect obstruction theories.
In particular, if $Y=\PP^n=\CC^{n+1}/\!\!/\CC^*$, the above construction gives precisely the nonsingular complete intersections $X\subset \PP^n$, with $W$ the affine cone over $X$.
Note, however, that for an arbitrary nonsingular projective subvariety $X\subset\PP^n$ the affine cone $W$ may have a worse than lci singularity at the origin, and the obstruction theory of $\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}(W/\!\!/\CC^*,\beta)$ will [*not*]{} be perfect in general.
Marian, Oprea, and Pandharipande introduced a “moduli space of stable quotients on a projective subvariety $X\subset\PP^n$" as the closed substack of $\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}(\CC^{n+1}/\!\!/\CC^*,d)$ given by the ideal sheaf induced by the equations of $X$ in $\PP^n$ (see §10.1 of [@MOP]). They also suggested there that this moduli space carries a natural perfect obstruction theory when $X$ is a complete intersection and asked if this holds for arbitrary $X$. The above discussion answers their question. Indeed, it is easy to see that their moduli space is the disjoint union of $\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}(W/\!\!/\CC^*,\beta)$ over all curve classes $\beta$ which are sent to $d$ via the map $$\Hom({{\mathrm{Pic}}}^{\CC^*}(W),\ZZ)\lra\Hom({{\mathrm{Pic}}}^{\CC^*}(V),\ZZ)\cong \ZZ.$$
Dependence on GIT presentation
------------------------------
Given a reductive group ${{\bf G}}$, a quasiprojective scheme $W$ equipped with a ${{\bf G}}$-action, and a ${{\bf G}}$-linearized ample line bundle $L$, we can consider the pair of Artin stacks $${{\mathcal{A}}}= [W/{{\bf G}}], {{\mathcal{A}}}^{ss} = [W^{ss}/G],$$ where $[W/{{\bf G}}]$ denotes the stack quotient and $W^{ss}$ denotes the locus of semistable point in $W$ with respect to $L$. We say that the data $({{\bf G}}, W, L)$ is a GIT presentation for the pair $({{\mathcal{A}}}, {{\mathcal{A}}}^{ss})$.
One can ask to what extent the moduli stack of quasimaps depends on the choice of GIT presentation. It is easy to see that if one presentation satisfies the conditions stated at the beginning of this section, so does any other. Also, the space of curve classes is simply the dual of $\mathrm{Pic}({{\mathcal{A}}})$ so is independent of presentation. The following proposition is then immediate from the results of this section.
The moduli stack $\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)$ and its perfect obstruction theory only depend on the underlying pair $({{\mathcal{A}}}, {{\mathcal{A}}}^{ss})$.
Notice that this is weaker than claiming that the theory of quasimaps depends on either the GIT quotient or the stack quotient alone. Given an Artin stack ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ with reductive stabilizers, an approach to defining Gromov-Witten invariants intrinsically to ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ has been initiated in [@FTT]. It would be interesting to compare their construction with ours.
Quasimaps to quotients of vector spaces {#vspace}
=======================================
In this section we discuss an alternative construction of the stable quasimaps moduli in the important case when $W=V$ is a vector space. This is a situation general enough to include many interesting instances of GIT quotient targets, such as toric varieties and flag manifolds of type $A$. One reason this approach could be potentially useful is that it comes automatically with an easy and concrete description of the virtual fundamental class: the moduli space is realized as the zero locus of a section of a vector bundle on an appropriate [*nonsingular*]{} Deligne-Mumford stack and the virtual class is simply given by the Fulton-MacPherson refined top Chern class of this vector bundle.
The construction presented here is a straightforward extension of the one used in [@CK] for the moduli of stable toric quasimaps. Note also that it recovers the moduli of stable quotients with its virtual class by an approach different than that of [@MOP].
A generalized Euler sequence
----------------------------
Recall our setup. Let $V$ be a finite dimensional $\CC$-vector space equipped with a ${{\bf G}}$-action via a representation ${{\bf G}}{\longrightarrow}\mathrm{GL}(V)$. We fix a linearization $\theta\in\chi({{\bf G}})={{\mathrm{Pic}}}^{{\bf G}}(V)$ satisfying $(i)$ $\emptyset\neq V^s=V^{ss}$.
$(ii)$ ${{\bf G}}$ acts freely on $V^s$.
Let $\rho:V^s\lra{V/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}=V^s/{{\bf G}}$ be the projection.
It is useful to note the following presentation of the tangent bundle of ${V/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$. Namely, the infinitesimal action of ${{\bf G}}$ on $V^s$ induces an exact sequence of vector bundles $$0 {\longrightarrow}V^s \times \mathfrak{g} {\longrightarrow}TV^s = V^s \times V {\longrightarrow}\rho^*T({V/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}) {\longrightarrow}0$$ where $\mathfrak{g}$ is the Lie algebra of ${{\bf G}}$. This sequence is ${{\bf G}}$-equivariant with respect to the adjoint action on $\mathfrak{g}$, so descends to an exact sequence $$\label{Eulerseq}
0{\longrightarrow}V^s\times_{{\bf G}}\mathfrak{g}{\longrightarrow}V^s\times_{{\bf G}}V{\longrightarrow}T_{{V/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}}{\longrightarrow}0.$$ This construction generalizes the Euler sequence presentation of the tangent bundle of projective space.
Quasimaps from curves to ${V/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$
---------------------------------------------
To give a quasimap of class $\beta$ to ${V/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ on a curve $C$ is the same as giving a principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundle $P$ on $C$ of degree $\beta_P=\beta$ and a global section $$u \in \Gamma (C, {{\mathcal{V}}}_P )$$ of the induced vector bundle ${{\mathcal{V}}}_P:=P\times_{{\bf G}}V$, satisfying the generic nondegeneracy condition .
Let $k, g$ be fixed with $2g-2+k\geq 0$, and let $\beta$ be a $L_\theta$-effective class. We have the moduli stack $$\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({V/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)$$ of $k$-pointed, genus $g$ stable quasimaps of class $\beta$ to ${V/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$.
\[Thm2\] $\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({V/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)$ is a finite type Deligne-Mumford stack, proper over the affine quotient $V/_{\mathrm{aff}}{{\bf G}}={{\mathrm{Spec}}}(\mathrm{Sym}(V^\vee)^{{\bf G}})$, and it carries a perfect obstruction theory.
Given the boundedness results we established in $\S \ref{bdd}$, the argument is almost identical to the one given in [@CK] for the special case of toric varieties.
There are forgetful morphisms of stacks making a commutative diagram $$\begin{array}{ccc}
{\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({V/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}& =&{\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({V/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}\\ \\
\mu\downarrow & &\downarrow\nu \\ \\
{\mathfrak{B}un_{{\bf G}}}&{\longrightarrow}&{\mathfrak{M}_{g,k}}\end{array}$$ By Corollary \[boundedness-curve\], the image of $\nu$ is contained in an open and closed substack of finite type $\mathfrak{S}\subset{\mathfrak{M}_{g,k}}$. By Corollary \[boundedness-curve\] and Theorem \[boundedness-bundle\], the image of $\mu$ is contained in an open and closed substack of finite type $\mathfrak{B}un_{{{\bf G}},\beta}\subset{\mathfrak{B}un_{{\bf G}}}$, lying over ${\mathfrak{S}}$.
On the universal curve $\mathfrak{C}\stackrel\pi\lra{\mathfrak{B}un_{{{\bf G}},\beta}}$ we have the universal principal bundle $\mathfrak{P}$ and the induced universal vector bundle $\mathcal{V}_\mathfrak{P}=\mathfrak{P}\times_{{\bf G}}V$. As in §\[construction\], after replacing ${\mathfrak{B}un_{{{\bf G}},\beta}}$ by an open substack, we may assume that $\pi$ is a projective morphism. Let ${{\mathcal{O}}}_\mathfrak{C}(1)$ be a $\pi$-relatively ample line bundle and fix a global section $0\lra{{\mathcal{O}}}_\mathfrak{C}\lra{{\mathcal{O}}}_\mathfrak{C}(1)$. Define a sheaf $\mathcal{G}_m$ on $\mathfrak{C}$ by the exact sequence $$0\lra{{\mathcal{V}}}_\mathfrak{P}\lra{{\mathcal{V}}}_\mathfrak{P}(m)\lra\mathcal{G}_m{\longrightarrow}0.$$ By Corollary \[regularity\] there is an $m>\!\!>0$, which we will fix from now on, such that $$\pi_*({{\mathcal{V}}}_\mathfrak{P}(m))\;\;\;\mathrm{and}\;\;\ \pi_*(\mathcal{G}_m)$$ are vector bundles on ${\mathfrak{B}un_{{{\bf G}},\beta}}$.
Let $\mathfrak{X}$ be the total space of the vector bundle $\pi_*({{\mathcal{V}}}_\mathfrak{P}(m))$. It is a smooth Artin stack of finite type, whose $\CC$-points parametrize tuples $$\label{ambient}
(C,p_1,\dots, p_k, P, u\in\Gamma(C,{{\mathcal{V}}}_P(m))).$$ Let ${{\mathcal{X}}}^\circ$ be the open substack in $\mathfrak{X}$ determined by imposing the requirements
- $u$ sends all but possibly finitely many points of $C$ to $V^s$; here we identify the fibers of ${{\mathcal{V}}}_P(m)$ with $V$.[^1]
- the line bundle $\omega _C(\sum_{i=1}^kp_i) {\otimes}{\mathcal L}^\epsilon $ is ample for every rational $\epsilon > 0$, where ${\mathcal L}=P\times_{{\bf G}}L_\theta$.
By stability, ${{\mathcal{X}}}^\circ$ is a smooth Deligne-Mumford stack. It comes with a projection $p:{{\mathcal{X}}}^\circ\lra{\mathfrak{B}un_{{{\bf G}},\beta}}$. The vector bundle $${{\mathcal{F}}}:=p^*(\pi_*(\mathcal{G}_m))\label{bundle}$$ on ${{\mathcal{X}}}^\circ$ has a tautological section $s$ induced by the maps $$\Gamma(\mathfrak{C},{{\mathcal{V}}}_\mathfrak{P}(m))\lra\Gamma(\mathfrak{C},\mathcal{G}_m).$$ Its zero locus $Z(s)$ is the closed substack parametrizing tuples as in , but with $u\in\Gamma(C,{{\mathcal{V}}}_P)\subset\Gamma(C,{{\mathcal{V}}}_P(m))$.
Finally, ${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({V/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}$ is identified with the open substack of $Z(s)$ obtained by imposing the strong nondegeneracy condition that the base-points are away from nodes and markings, and is therefore a Deligne-Mumford stack of finite type.
Properness has been proved more generally in the previous section.
Finally, it is easy now to describe the relative and absolute obstruction theories. For this, we note first that the order in which the last two conditions were imposed in the construction of ${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({V/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}$ may be in principle reversed. Namely, there is an open substack ${{\mathcal{E}}}\subset {{\mathcal{X}}}^\circ$ (which is necessarily DM and smooth) such that ${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({V/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}$ is cut out in ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ as the zero locus $Z(s)$ of the tautological section of the bundle (\[bundle\]) [*restricted*]{} to ${{\mathcal{E}}}$.
Let $$\mathfrak{C}\stackrel\pi\lra{\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({V/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}$$ be the universal curve. The above description gives an absolute perfect obstruction theory $$[{{\mathcal{F}}}^\vee|_\mathrm{Qmap}\stackrel{ds^\vee}{\longrightarrow}\Omega^1_{{{\mathcal{E}}}}|_\mathrm{Qmap}]$$ on ${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({V/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}$, whose virtual class is the refined top Chern class of ${{\mathcal{F}}}^\vee|_\mathrm{Qmap}$.
As explained in [@CK §5], the induced relative obstruction theory over ${\mathfrak{B}un_{{\bf G}}}$ is $$[{{\mathcal{F}}}^\vee|_\mathrm{Qmap}\stackrel{ds^\vee}{\longrightarrow}\Omega^1_{{{\mathcal{E}}}/{\mathfrak{B}un_{{{\bf G}},\beta}}}|_\mathrm{Qmap}]\;\;
\stackrel{\mathrm{qis}}\sim \;\;(R^\bullet\pi_*({{\mathcal{V}}}_\mathfrak{P}))^\vee$$ and the relative obstruction theory over ${\mathfrak{M}_{g,k}}$ is $$(R^\bullet\pi_*({{\mathcal{Q}}}))^\vee,$$ where ${{\mathcal{Q}}}$ is defined by the “Euler sequence" on $\mathfrak{C}$ $$0\lra\mathfrak{P}\times_G\mathfrak{g}\lra{{\mathcal{V}}}_\mathfrak{P}\lra{{\mathcal{Q}}}{\longrightarrow}0$$ induced by .
If $W$ is a ${{\bf G}}$-invariant affine subvariety of $V$, then we have the induced GIT quotient ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ (using the same linearization $\theta$). By restricting only to quasimaps $((C,p_i),P,u)$ for which $$u(C)\subset P\times_{{\bf G}}W\subset P\times_{{\bf G}}V$$ we obtain a closed substack of ${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({V/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}$. It is obvious that this substack is identified with $$\coprod_{\widetilde{\beta}\mapsto\beta}\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}(W/\!\!/{{\bf G}},\widetilde{\beta}),$$ with the disjoint union over all curve classes $\widetilde{\beta}$ which are mapped to $\beta$ via the morphism $$\Hom({{\mathrm{Pic}}}^{{{\bf G}}}(W),\ZZ)\lra\Hom({{\mathrm{Pic}}}^{{{\bf G}}}(V),\ZZ)$$ induced by the pull-back ${{\mathrm{Pic}}}^{{\bf G}}(V)\lra{{\mathrm{Pic}}}^{{\bf G}}(W)$. Hence Theorem \[Thm2\] provides a different proof of the fact that $\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}(W/\!\!/{{\bf G}},\widetilde{\beta})$ is a Deligne-Mumford stack of finite type for these targets ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$.
Quasimap invariants
===================
Descendant invariants
---------------------
Throughout this subsection and the next we assume that ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ is projective. Since the moduli spaces ${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}$ are proper Deligne-Mumford stacks with perfect obstruction theories, a system of invariants is obtained by integrating natural cohomology classes against the virtual class. Precisely, we have the following canonical structures:
- Evaluation maps $${ev}_i :{\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}{\longrightarrow}{W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}, \;\;\ i=1,\dots, k$$ at the marked points. These are well-defined since base-points cannot occur at markings.
- Cotangent line bundles $$M_i:= s_i^*(\omega_{{{\mathcal{C}}}/{\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}}),\;\; i=1,\dots, k$$ where ${{\mathcal{C}}}$ is the universal curve, $\omega_{{{\mathcal{C}}}/{\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}}$ is the relative dualizing sheaf (which is a line bundle), and $$s_i:{\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}\lra{{\mathcal{C}}}$$ are the universal sections. We denote $${\psi}_i:=c_1(M_i).$$
The descendant quasimap invariants are $$\langle \tau_{n_1}(\gamma_1),\dots,\tau_{n_k}(\gamma_k)\rangle_{g,k,\beta}^{quasi}:=
\int_{[{\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}]^{\mathrm{vir}}}\prod_{i=1}^k{\psi}_i^{n_i}{ev}_i^*(\gamma_i),$$ with $\gamma_1,\dots ,\gamma_k\in H^*({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\QQ)$ and $n_1,\dots,n_k$ nonnegative integers.
As explained in [@CK], the quasimap invariants satisfy the analogue of the Splitting Axiom in Gromov-Witten theory. Furthermore, there is a natural map $$f:{\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}\lra{\overline{M}_{g,k}}$$ which forgets the principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundle and the section, and contracts the unstable components of the underlying pointed curve. We may define [*quasimap classes*]{} in $H^*({\overline{M}_{g,k}},\QQ)$ by $$f_*(\prod_{i=1}^k{\psi}_i^{n_i}{ev}_i^*(\gamma_i)),$$ which by the splitting property give rise to a [*Cohomological Field Theory*]{} on $H^*({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\QQ)$.
On the other hand, the universal curve over ${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}$ is [*not*]{} isomorphic to $\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)$, and in general there are no maps $$\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k+1}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)\lra{\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}$$ which forget one marking. Note that the corresponding maps for the Kontsevich moduli spaces of stable maps are crucially used in the proofs of the string and divisor equations for descendant Gromov-Witten invariants. Some examples showing that the exact analogue of the string and divisor equations fail for quasimap invariants of certain non-Fano toric varieties are given in [@CK]. However, the quasimap and Gromov-Witten theories of Grassmannians are shown to coincide in [@MOP]; the same was conjectured to hold for Fano toric varieties, see [@CK], and is proved in [@CK2]. Furthermore, for general targets we expect that the two theories are related by “wall-crossing" formulas involving the $\epsilon$-stable quasimaps described in §\[e-stable\] below (this will be addressed elsewhere). Consequently, the quasimap invariants should still satisfy some modified versions of the equations. At the moment it is not yet clear to us if reasonable general formulae can be written down.
Twisted invariants {#twisted}
------------------
In Gromov-Witten theory, twisted invariants have been introduced and studied by Coates and Givental, [@CG]. Their counterparts in quasimap theory are easily obtained.
Let $${{\mathcal{C}}}\stackrel\pi\lra{\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}$$ be the universal curve, with universal principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundle $\mathfrak{P}$ on it. Let $$\tilde{u}:{{\mathfrak{P}}}{\longrightarrow}W$$ be the universal ${{\bf G}}$-equivariant map and let $$u:{{\mathcal{C}}}\lra{{\mathfrak{P}}}\times_{{\bf G}}W$$ be the induced universal section. Let $E$ be any ${{\bf G}}$-equivariant vector bundle on $W$ (for example, we could take a linear ${{\bf G}}$-representation $E$ and, by slight abuse of notation, denote also by $E$ the associated ${{\bf G}}$-equivariant vector bundle $W\times E$) and let $\overline{E}=[E|_{W^s}/G]$ be the induced vector bundle on ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$. Then ${{\mathfrak{P}}}\times_{{\bf G}}E$ is a vector bundle on ${{\mathfrak{P}}}\times_{{\bf G}}W$ and we consider the vector bundle $$E_{g,k,\beta}:=u^*({{\mathfrak{P}}}\times_{{\bf G}}E)$$ on the universal curve.
.2in
[*Claim*]{}: $R^\bullet\pi_*E_{g,k,\beta}:=[R^0\pi_*E_{g,k,\beta}]-[R^1\pi_*E_{g,k,\beta}]$ is an element in $$K^\circ({\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}),$$ the $K$ group of vector bundles on ${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}$.
Let ${{\mathcal{O}}}(1)$ be a $\pi$-relatively ample line bundle on ${{\mathcal{C}}}$. For $m>\!\!>0$, we have a surjection $$B{\longrightarrow}E_{g,k,\beta}(m){\longrightarrow}0,$$ with $B$ a trivial vector bundle. The kernel, call it $A$, is also a vector bundle on ${{\mathcal{C}}}$, and there is an exact sequence $$0{\longrightarrow}A(-m){\longrightarrow}B(-m){\longrightarrow}E_{g,k,\beta}{\longrightarrow}0.$$ Since $$R^0\pi_*(A(-m))=R^0\pi_*(B(-m))=0,$$ we have a complex of vector bundles $$R^1\pi_*(A(-m)){\longrightarrow}R^1\pi_*(B(-m))$$ whose cohomology is precisely $R^\bullet\pi_*E_{g,k,\beta}$.
Let $\CC^*$ act trivially on $\mathrm{Qmap}={\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}$, with equivariant parameter $\lambda$, so that $$H^*_{\CC^*}(\mathrm{Qmap},\QQ)\cong H^*(\mathrm{Qmap},\QQ)\otimes_{{\mathbb Q}}\QQ[\lambda].$$ Similarly, the rational Grothendieck group of $\CC^*$-equivariant vector bundles is $$K^\circ_{\CC^*}(\mathrm{Qmap})\cong K^\circ(\mathrm{Qmap})\otimes \QQ[\lambda,\lambda^{-1}].$$
Now fix an invertible multiplicative class $c$, that is, a homomorphism $$c:K^\circ_{\CC^*}(\mathrm{Qmap}){\longrightarrow}U(H^*(\mathrm{Qmap},\QQ)\otimes\QQ[\lambda,\lambda^{-1}])$$ to the group of units in the localized $\CC^*$-equivariant cohomology ring. In addition, fix a ${{\bf G}}$-equivariant bundle $E$ on $W$. Let $\CC_\lambda$ denote the 1-dimensional representation of $\CC^*$ with weight $\lambda$. Applying the construction described earlier in this subsection to the ${{\bf G}}\times \CC^*$-equivariant bundle $E\otimes\CC_\lambda$ (for the trivial action of $\CC^*$ on $W$) yields an element $$R^\bullet\pi_*E_{g,k,\beta}(\lambda)\in K^\circ(\mathrm{Qmap})\otimes \QQ[\lambda,\lambda^{-1}].$$
The $(E, c)$-twisted quasimap invariants are $$\langle \tau_{n_1}(\gamma_1),\dots,\tau_{n_k}(\gamma_k)\rangle_{g,k,\beta}^{quasi, (c,E)}:=
\int_{[\mathrm{Qmap}]^{\mathrm{vir}}}c(R^\bullet\pi_*E_{g,k,\beta}(\lambda))\prod_{i=1}^k{\psi}_i^{n_i}{ev}_i^*(\gamma_i).$$
By definition, the twisted invariants lie in $\QQ[\lambda,\lambda^{-1}]$.
We discuss next an important example of this construction. A typical choice of multiplicative class for twisting is the equivariant Euler class. For an ordinary bundle $F$ of rank $r$ on a space $Y$, with Chern roots $f_1,\dots,f_r$, the Euler class of $F\otimes\CC_\lambda$ is $$e(F\otimes\CC_\lambda)=\prod_{i=1}^r(f_i+\lambda)=\lambda^r+\lambda^{r-1}c_1(F)+\dots+c_r(F),$$ i.e., a version of the Chern polynomial of $F$.
Suppose now that we are in the situation described in Example \[ci\]: $V$ is a vector space, $E$ is the bundle $V\times E$ coming from a linear ${{\bf G}}$-representation, $W=Z(t)$ is the zero locus of a regular section $t\in\Gamma(V,E)^{{\bf G}}$, and $W\cap V^s$ is nonsingular. For equivariant curve classes $\beta\in \Hom({{\mathrm{Pic}}}^{{\bf G}}(V),\ZZ)$ and $\tilde{\beta}\in\Hom({{\mathrm{Pic}}}^{{\bf G}}(W),\ZZ)$ we write $\tilde{\beta}\mapsto\beta$ if $\tilde{\beta}$ is sent to $\beta$ under the natural map between the duals of equivariant Picard groups. Put $${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}:=\coprod_{\tilde{\beta}\mapsto\beta}\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\tilde{\beta}).$$ There is an induced closed embedding of stacks $$i:{\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}\lra{\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({V/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}.$$
\[pushforward\] Assume that $R^1\pi_*E_{g,k,\beta}=0$. Then $$\nonumber\begin{split}
i_*[&{\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}]^{\mathrm{vir}} =e(R^\bullet\pi_*E_{g,k,\beta})\cap[{\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({V/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}]^{\mathrm{vir}}\\&=
(e(R^\bullet\pi_*E_{g,k,\beta}(\lambda))\cap[{\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({V/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}]^{\mathrm{vir}})|_{\lambda=0}.\end{split}$$
The assumed vanishing implies that $R^0\pi_*E_{g,k,\beta}$ is a vector bundle. The second equality is now immediate from the definitions, while the first follows from [@KKP] by the same argument as the one given there for moduli of stable maps.
As we already mentioned in the proof, Proposition \[pushforward\] holds for stable maps, however, the required vanishing is true only for $g=0$. It is a very important unsolved problem in Gromov-Witten theory to find a useful expression for the push-forward of the virtual class in the proposition when $g\geq 1$. As observed in [@MOP] (for the special case of complete intersections in $\PP^n$), one can do slightly better in quasimap theory. We will say that a character $\eta\in\chi({{\bf G}})$ is [*positive*]{} with respect to our given linearization $\theta$ if $V^s(\theta)=V^s(\eta)=V^{ss}(\eta)$ (in particular, the line bundle induced by $\eta$ on ${V/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ is ample), and we will say it is [*semi-positive*]{} if $V^s(\theta)\subset V^{ss}(\eta)$.
\[vanishing\] The vanishing $R^1\pi_*E_{g,k,\beta}=0$, hence the conclusion of Proposition \[pushforward\], holds in the following cases:
$(i)$ $g=0$, $k$ arbitrary, and $E=\oplus_{i=1}^r\CC_{\eta_i}$, with each $\eta_i$ semi-positive.
$(ii)$ $g=1$, $k=0$, and $E=\oplus_{i=1}^r\CC_{\eta_i}$, with each $\eta_i$ positive.
Let $C$ be a geometric fiber of the universal curve, let $P$ be the corresponding principal bundle, and let $u:C{\longrightarrow}P\times_{{\bf G}}V$ be the corresponding section. The restriction to any irreducible component $C'$ of $C$ of the vector bundle $$u^*(P\times_{{\bf G}}(V\times E))$$ decomposes as the direct sum of line bundles $$\oplus_iu^*(P|_{C'}\times_{{\bf G}}(V\times \CC_{\eta_i}))\cong\oplus_i(P|_{C'}\times_{{\bf G}}\CC_{\eta_i}).$$
In case $(i)$ each irreducible component $C'$ of $C$ is a rational curve. The semi-positivity assumption implies that each of the line bundles has nonnegative degree on $C'$ by the argument of Lemma \[effective\]. We deduce that $$H^1(C,u^*(P\times_{{\bf G}}(V\times E)))=0,$$ from which the vanishing follows.
In case $(ii)$ the underlying curve of a stable quasimap is either an irreducible elliptic curve, or a cycle of rational curves (this last case includes the cycle of length one, i.e., an irreducible nodal curve of arithmetic genus one) . Since there are no special line bundles of positive degree on such curves, the vanishing follows from the positivity of the $\eta_i$’s.
It is clear that in $(i)$ it suffices to assume that $E$ is a representation such that the bundle $V\times E$ is generated by ${{\bf G}}$-equivariant global sections.
Invariants for noncompact $W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}$ {#noncompact}
--------------------------------------------
Recall that when ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ is not projective we have only a proper morphism to the affine quotient $${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}{\longrightarrow}\mathrm{Spec}(A(W)^{{\bf G}}).$$
As is the case in Gromov-Witten theory, even though the integrals against the virtual class are not well-defined due to the lack of properness of ${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}$, there are many situations for which one can get an interesting theory of [*equivariant*]{} invariants via the virtual localization formula of [@GP]. This happens when there is a torus ${{\bf S}}\cong (\CC^*)^m$ with an action on $W$, commuting with the given ${{\bf G}}$-action, and such that the fixed locus of the induced ${{\bf S}}$-action on ${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}$ is proper.
The ${{\bf S}}$-action on ${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}$, is given on $\CC$-points by $$s\cdot ((C,p_1,\dots,p_k),P,u)=((C,p_1,\dots,p_k),P,s\circ u).$$ Here we view $s\in{{\bf S}}$ as an automorphism of $W$, giving rise to a $C$-automorphism of the fibration $P\times_{{\bf G}}W{\longrightarrow}C$, still denoted by $s$.
Note that the map $$\mu:{\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}\lra{\mathfrak{B}un_{{{\bf G}},\beta}}$$ is ${{\bf S}}$-equivariant, where ${{\bf S}}$ acts trivially on ${\mathfrak{B}un_{{{\bf G}},\beta}}$.
From its description in (\[relobstruction\]), it is clear that the $\mu$-relative obstruction theory is ${{\bf S}}$-equivariant, hence the same holds for the absolute obstruction theory as well.
Furthermore, the stack ${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}$ admits an ${{\bf S}}$-equivariant closed embedding into a smooth Deligne-Mumford stack. When $W=V$ is a vector space, this is shown already by the construction in §\[vspace\]; in general, one can essentially deduce it from this case using Proposition \[embedding\] (some care is need to handle the fact that $V$ may have strictly semistable points and stable points with nontrivial stabilizer).
It follows from [@GP] that each component $F$ of the fixed point locus ${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}^{{{\bf S}}}$ has a virtual fundamental class and a virtual normal bundle, whose Euler class is invertible in $H^*_{{\bf S}}(F,\QQ)\otimes\QQ(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_m)$. Here $\lambda_1,\dots, \lambda_m$ denote the equivariant parameters, so that $$H^*_{{{\bf S}}}(\mathrm{pt},\QQ)=H^*(B{{\bf S}})\cong\QQ[\lambda_1,\dots, \lambda_m].$$
Finally, as mentioned above, we will make the following
The ${{\bf S}}$-fixed closed substack ${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}^{{{\bf S}}}$ is proper.
For example, this will always hold when the fixed point locus for the induced ${{\bf S}}$-action on the affine quotient $\mathrm{Spec}(A(W)^{{\bf G}})$ is proper – and therefore a finite set of points. This follows immediately from the fact that the map $\eta:{\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}{\longrightarrow}\mathrm{Spec}(A(W)^{{\bf G}})$ is ${{\bf S}}$-equivariant and proper.
We can then define invariants as sums of equivariant residues via the virtual localization formula: for equivariant cohomology classes $\gamma_1,\dots ,\gamma_k\in H^*_{{{\bf S}}}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\QQ)$ and nonnegative integers $n_1,\dots,n_k$, the equivariant descendant quasimap invariant is $$\langle \tau_{n_1}(\gamma_1),\dots,\tau_{n_k}(\gamma_k)\rangle_{g,k,\beta}^{quasi}:=
\sum_F\int_{[F]^{\mathrm{vir}}}\frac{i_F^*(\prod_{i=1}^k{\psi}_i^{n_i}{ev}_i^*(\gamma_i))}{e(N_F^{\mathrm{vir}})},$$ the sum over the connected components $F$ of the fixed point locus ${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}^{{{\bf S}}}$, with equivariant embeddings $$i_F:F\lra{\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}.$$ By the above definition, the quasimap invariants lie in $\QQ(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_m)$.
Similarly, we may also define twisted invariants as in §\[twisted\], using invertible multiplicative classes of ${{\bf S}}$-equivariant vector bundles.
The main examples we have in mind of noncompact targets with a well-defined theory of quasimap invariants are found among quiver varieties.
[**Nakajima quiver varieties**]{}. Let $\Gamma$ be an oriented graph on a finite set of vertices $S$ with edge set $E$, equipped with source and target maps $$i, o: E \rightarrow S.$$ Suppose we are given two dimension vectors $$\overrightarrow{v}, \overrightarrow{u} \in (\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0})^{S}.$$ The Nakajima quiver variety associated to this data is defined as follows. For each vertex $s \in S$, we fix vector spaces $V_s$, $U_s$ of dimension $v_s$ and $u_s$ respectively. Consider the associated affine space $$\mathbb{H} = \bigoplus_{e \in E} \left( \Hom(V_{i(e)}, V_{o(e)}) \oplus
\Hom(V_{o(e)}, V_{i(e)}) \right)\bigoplus_{s\in S} \left(\Hom(U_s, V_s)
\oplus \Hom(V_s, U_s)\right).$$
Given an element $(A_e, B_e, i_s, j_s)_{e\in E, s\in S} \in \mathbb{H}$, and a vertex $s \in S$, we can associate the following endomorphism $$\phi_s = \sum_{e, i(e) = s} [A_e,B_e] - \sum_{e, o(e) = s}[A_e,B_e] +
i_s\circ j_s \in \mathrm{End}(V_s).$$ Let ${{\bf G}}= \prod_{s\in S} GL(V_s)$ act on $\mathbb{H}$ with polarization given by the determinant character. We are interested in the GIT quotient of the ${{\bf G}}$-invariant affine variety $W$ defined by the equations $\phi_s = 0$: $$\mathcal{M}(\overrightarrow{v}, \overrightarrow{u}) = \{h \in \mathbb{H}
| \phi_s = 0 \textrm{ for all } s\} /\!\!/{{\bf G}}.$$
These quotients are typically noncompact. However, if one considers the ${{\bf S}}=\mathbb{C}^*$-action defined by scaling $A_e$ and $i_s$, it is easy to see that it preserves $W$ and $({{\mathrm{Spec}}}\mathbb{C}[W]^{{\bf G}})^{\mathbb{C}^*}$ is compact (see, for instance [@nakajima]).
In particular, this gives us a rich source of examples where the noncompact invariants make sense.
For other applications of quasimap theory with noncompact targets the reader is referred to the papers [@Kim3], [@KL].
Variants and applications
=========================
$\epsilon$-stable quasimaps {#e-stable}
---------------------------
As we have observed in §4 (see in particular Remarks \[general\] and \[stablemaps\]) one may view the moduli spaces of stable quasimaps and stable maps with target ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ as two instances of the same construction: they are (relatively) proper, finite type, Deligne-Mumford substacks of the Artin stack, locally of finite type parametrizing prestable quasimaps to ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$, obtained by imposing a stability condition. Furthermore, one may think loosely of passing from stable maps to stable quasimaps as a process in which, by changing the stability condition, rational tails are replaced with base points that keep track of their degrees (cf. the proof of Proposition \[propernessProp\]). It is natural to try to do this sequentially, removing first rational tails of lowest degree, then those of next lowest degree and so on.
In the case of target $\PP^n$, this loose interpretation is literally true, and the result of the procedure is the factorization of a natural morphism from the moduli of stable maps to the moduli of stable quasimaps into a sequence of blow-downs to intermediate moduli spaces. These intermediate spaces correspond to stability conditions depending on a rational parameter $\epsilon$. This was first noticed and proved some time ago by Mustaţă and Mustaţă in [@MM1; @MM2].
More recently, using moduli of stable quotients, Toda ([@Toda]) has extended the story to Grassmannian targets $\mathrm{G} (r, n)$. In this case, there are typically no morphisms between the various $\epsilon$-stable moduli spaces, so one obtains an instance of the general wall-crossing phenomenon when varying the stability condition.
In this subsection we treat the variation of stability for general targets ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$. Recall that a quasimap is said to be prestable if the base points are away from nodes and markings.
\[length\] The [*length*]{} $\ell(x)$ at a point $x\in C$ of a prestable quasimap $((C,p_i),P,u)$ to ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ is defined by $$\ell(x):= \min \left\{ \frac{(u^*s)_x}{m} \ | \;\; \ s\in H^0(W, L_{m\theta})^{{\bf G}},\; u^*s\not\equiv 0, \;\; m>0\right\},$$ where $(u^*s)_x$ is the coefficient of the divisor $(u^*s)$ at $x$.
The following properties follow easily:
- For every $x\in C$ we have $$\beta(L_\theta)\geq\ell(x)\geq 0$$ and $\ell(x)>0$ if and only if $x$ is a base point of the quasimap. This is because the scheme-theoretic unstable locus $W^{us}$ is the subscheme defined by the ideal $J_{W^{us}}\subset A(W)$ generated by $\{s \; |\; s\in H^0(W, L_{m\theta})^{{\bf G}},\; m>0\}$.
- If $H^0(W,L_\theta)^{{\bf G}}$ generates $\oplus_{m\geq 0}H^0(W,L_{m\theta})^{{\bf G}}$ as an algebra over $A(W)^{{\bf G}}$ (for example, if the relatively ample line bundle ${{\mathcal{O}}}(\theta)$ induced by $L_\theta$ on ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ is relatively very ample over the affine quotient) then we can also write $$\label{rescaled}\ell(x)= \min \left\{ (u^*s)_x \ | \;\; \ s\in H^0(W, L_{m\theta})^{{\bf G}},\; u^*s\not\equiv 0,\;\; m>0\right\}.$$ Alternatively, consider the ideal sheaf $\mathcal{J}$ of the closed subscheme $P\times_{{\bf G}}W^{us}$ of $P\times_{{\bf G}}W$. Then it is clear that $\ell(x)$ from satisfies $$\label{multiplicity}\ell(x)=\mathrm{length}_x(\mathrm{coker}(u^*\mathcal{J}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal{O}}}_C)),$$ which may be viewed as the order of contact of $u(C)$ with the unstable subscheme $P\times_{{\bf G}}W^{us}$ at $u(x)$.
Let $((C,p_i),P,u)$ be a prestable quasimap of class $\beta$. Let $B\subset C$ be the base locus. Let $$[u]:C\setminus B {\rightarrow}{W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$$ be the induced map. By the prestable condition and the projectivity of ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}\lra{{\mathrm{Spec}}}(A(W)^{{\bf G}})$, $[u]$ extends to a regular map $$[u_{reg}]:C{\longrightarrow}{W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}.$$ Let $P_{reg}$ be the principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundle on $C$ which is obtained as the pull-back of $W^s\lra{W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ via $[u_{reg}]$. Let $u_{reg} : C{\longrightarrow}P_{reg}\times_G W$ be the induced section. The data $$((C,p_i),P_{reg}, u_{reg})$$ is also a quasimap to ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$, so it has a class $\beta_{reg}\in \Hom({{\mathrm{Pic}}}^{{\bf G}}(W),\ZZ)$.
\[degree-splitting\] We have $$\label{split}(\beta-\beta_{reg})(L_\theta)=\sum_{x\in B}\ell(x).$$ In particular, $\beta-\beta_{reg}$ is $L_\theta$-effective.
It suffices to assume that $L_\theta$ descends to a relatively very ample line bundle on ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$, since the equality is invariant under replacing $\theta$ by a positive multiple. But in this case the equality is immediate.
Fix a positive rational number $\epsilon$.
\[eDef\] A prestable quasimap $((C,p_i),P ,u)$ is called [*$\epsilon$-stable*]{} if
1. $\omega _C (\sum p_i ) \otimes \mathcal{L}_{\theta} ^\epsilon$ is ample.
2. $\epsilon \ell(x) \le 1$ for every point $x$ in $C$.
The notion of $\epsilon$-stability depends obviously on $\theta$. However, this dependence is very simple under rescaling: for a positive integer $m$, the quasimap $((C,p_i),P ,u)$ is $\epsilon$-stable with respect to $\theta$ if and only if it is $(\frac{\epsilon}{ m})$-stable with respect to $m\theta$.
As a consequence, we may assume (and will assume from now on) that the polarization ${{\mathcal{O}}}(\theta)$ on ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ is relatively very ample over the affine quotient. Hence we can use and as (equivalent) definitions of length. In particular, $\ell(x)\in\ZZ_+$ for every point $x$ of $C$.
Again, we list some immediate consequences of this definition.
- The underlying curve of an $\epsilon$-stable quasimap may have rational components containing only one special point (i.e., rational tails). However, any such component $C'$ must satisfy $$\label{tail}
\epsilon\deg({{\mathcal{L}}}_\theta|_{C'})>1.$$ In addition, the degree of ${{\mathcal{L}}}_\theta$ must be positive on rational components containing exactly two special points.
- A prestable quasimap $((C,p_i),P ,u)$ of some class $\beta$ is a stable quasimap (as in Definition \[stability\]) if and only it is an $\epsilon$-stable quasimap for some $\epsilon \leq 1/\beta (L_\theta )$.
- Assume that $(g,k)\neq(0,0)$. Then a prestable quasimap is a stable map to ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ if and only if it is an $\epsilon$-stable quasimap for some $\epsilon >1 $. In the case $(g,k)=(0,0)$ the same is true but with $\epsilon >2$.
Therefore, for the extremal values of $\epsilon$ we recover the notions of stable quasimaps and stable maps, respectively.
\[finite autom\] Let $\epsilon >0$ be fixed. The automorphism group of an $\epsilon$-stable quasimap is finite and reduced.
Assume first $(g,k)\neq (0,0)$. It suffices to check what happens on rational tails of the underlying curve $C$. Let $C'$ be a rational tail and let $\beta_{C'}$ be the class of the induced quasimap on $C'$. Any automorphism of the quasimap must preserve the map $[u_{reg}]$, as well as the base points. If $[u_{reg}]|_{C'}$ is not a constant map we are done, so assume it is constant. Let $B'$ be the base locus supported on $C'$. By Lemma \[degree-splitting\] and we get $$\sum_{x\in B'}\ell(x)=\beta_{C'}(L_\theta) >\frac{1}{\epsilon}.$$ If $B'$ is a single point $x$, then $x$ violates condition $(2)$ in Definition \[eDef\]. Hence $B'$ must contain at least two distinct points.
If $(g,k)=(0,0)$, we have the additional case of a rational curve $C$ with no special points. The same argument will work, using now that $\beta_{C}(L_\theta) >\frac{2}{\epsilon}$.
\[Thm3\] The stack ${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}^\epsilon({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}$ is a separated Deligne-Mumford stack of finite type, admitting a canonical obstruction theory. If $W$ has at most lci singularities, then the obstruction theory is perfect. Furthermore, there is a natural morphism $${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}^\epsilon({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}{\longrightarrow}\mathrm{Spec}(A(W)^{{\bf G}})$$ which is proper.
Most of the proof of Theorem \[Thm1\] from §4 carries over unchanged. First, the proof of Corollary \[boundedness-curve\] works for any $\epsilon$, so we obtain (see Remark \[general\]) that the stack is algebraic and of finite type. Proposition \[finite autom\] is then used to conclude that the stack is Deligne-Mumford. The natural obstruction theory is the $\mu$-relative obstruction theory for the forgetful map $$\mu:{\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}^\epsilon({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}\lra{\mathfrak{B}un_{{\bf G}}},$$ which is given by . It is perfect if $W$ has at worst lci singularities (cf. Remark \[stablemaps\]).
In fact, the only part of the argument that needs modification is the proof of completeness in Proposition \[propernessProp\]. Namely, when passing from $\widehat{C}$ to $\bar{C}$ as in that proof, we do so by contracting only some of the trees $\Gamma_i$ in the central fiber $\widehat{C}_0$. We go briefly through the details.
Let $(\Delta, 0)$ be a smooth pointed curve and let $\Delta ^\circ = \Delta \setminus\{0\}$. Let $((C, p_i), P, u)$ be a $\Delta ^\circ$-family of $\epsilon$-stable quasimaps. Let $B$ denote the base locus of the family. We may regard $B$ as additional sections $y_j$, and assume that $(C,p_i,y_j)\lra\Delta^\circ$ is a family of prestable pointed curves with irreducible fibers and nonsingular total space $C$. By shrinking $\Delta$ if necessary, we may also assume that the length of the quasimaps in the family along each section $y_j$ is constant. Denote this length by $\ell(y_j)$. By assumption we have $\ell(y_j)\leq 1/\epsilon$.
Let $[u]:C\setminus B{\longrightarrow}W/\!\!/G$ be the induced map and let $[u_{reg}]$ be its extension to $C$ (shrink $\Delta$, if needed). The proof of Proposition \[finite autom\] shows that $((C,p_i,y_j),[u_{reg}])$ is a $\Delta^\circ$-family of stable maps to ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$, of class $\beta_{reg}$. By Lemma \[degree-splitting\] we have $$\label{equ1}\beta(L_\theta)-\beta_{reg}(L_\theta)=\sum_j \ell(y_j).$$ Let $$(\widehat{C},p_i,y_j)\lra\Delta,\;\;\;\; [\widehat{u}]:\widehat{C}\lra{W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$$ be the unique family of stable maps extending $((C,p_i,y_j),[u_{reg}])$. For each subcurve $D$ in the central fiber $\widehat{C}_0$ we define its total degree with respect to $L_\theta$ to be $$\label{degD}\deg(D,L_\theta):=\beta_{reg}|_D(L_\theta) +\sum_{y_{j,0}\in D}\ell(y_j),$$ where $y_{j,0}$ denotes the intersection point of the section $y_j$ with $\widehat{C}_0$.
Let $\Gamma$ be a tree of rational curves in $\widehat{C}_0$ which contains none of the markings $p_i$ and meets the rest of the curve $\overline{(\widehat{C}_0\setminus\Gamma)}$ in a single point $z$. Note that such a tree always has positive total degree with respect to $L_\theta$ by stability of the map $[u_{reg}]$. We contract the tree $\Gamma$ exactly when its total degree satisfies $$\label{degGamma}\deg(\Gamma,L _{\theta})\leq\frac{1}{\epsilon}.$$
Now the exact same reasoning as in the proof of Proposition \[propernessProp\] gives a family of prestable quasimaps $$((\bar{C},p_i),\bar{P},\bar{u})$$ of class $\beta$, extending the original family over $\Delta^\circ$. We claim that the limit quasimap is also $\epsilon$-stable. Let $\Gamma_1,\dots , \Gamma_N$ be all trees satisfying that have been contracted and let $z_1,\dots z_N$ be their respective attaching points in the special fiber $\bar{C}_0$. Then $$\label{equ2}
\beta(L_\theta)=\beta_{reg}\left|_{\overline{\widehat{C}_0\setminus\cup_l\Gamma_l}}\right.(L_\theta)+\sum_{l=1}^N\ell(z_l)
+\sum_{y_{j,0}\not\in \cup_l\Gamma_l}\ell(y_{j,0})$$ by Lemma \[degree-splitting\] applied to the limit quasimap.
By a semicontinuity argument we have $$\label{equ3}
\ell(y_j)\leq \ell(y_{j,0}),\;\;\;\; \forall y_{j,0}\not\in\cup_l\Gamma_l.$$ The length at an attachment point $z_l$ is made out of contributions from two sources. First, it is clear that the restriction of the stable map $[u_{reg}]$ to $\Gamma_l$ contributes $\beta_{reg}|_{\Gamma_l}(L_\theta)$ to $\ell(z_l)$. Second, each of the points $y_{j,0}\in\Gamma_l$ contributes at least $\ell(y_j)$ by semicontinuity. We deduce $$\label{equ4}\deg(\Gamma_l,L _{\theta})=\beta_{reg}|_{\Gamma_l}(L_\theta)+\sum_{y_{j,0}\in \Gamma_l}\ell(y_j)\leq\ell(z_l),\;\;\; l=1,\dots, N$$ From , , , and , $$\begin{split}
\beta(L_\theta)&=\beta_{reg}(L_\theta)+\sum_j \ell(y_j)\\
&=\beta_{reg}\left|_{\overline{\widehat{C}_0\setminus\cup_l\Gamma_l}}\right.(L_\theta)
+\sum_l\beta_{reg}|_{\Gamma_l}(L_\theta)+\sum_j \ell(y_j)\\
&\leq \beta_{reg}\left|_{\overline{\widehat{C}_0\setminus\cup_l\Gamma_l}}\right.(L_\theta) +\sum_{l=1}^N\ell(z_l)+
\sum_{y_{j,0}\not\in \cup_l\Gamma_l}\ell(y_{j,0})=\beta(L_\theta).
\end{split}\nonumber$$ It follows that all inequalities in and must be equalities. Hence, for every $1\leq l\leq N$ and every $y_{j,0}\not\in \cup_l\Gamma_l$ $$\ell(z_l)=\deg(\Gamma,L _{\theta})\leq\frac{1}{\epsilon}\;\;\mathrm{and}\;\; \ell(y_{j,0})=\ell(y_j)\leq\frac{1}{\epsilon}$$ satisfy condition $(2)$ in Definition \[eDef\]. The ampleness condition $(1)$ of Definition \[eDef\] holds by construction on the remaining rational tails in $\bar{C}$, while on rational components with exactly two special points it is verified in the same way as in the proof of Proposition \[propernessProp\]. We conclude that the limit thus constructed is an $\epsilon$-stable quasimap.
Theorem \[Thm3\] is a generalization of the corresponding results in [@MM1; @MM2] for projective spaces and [@Toda] for Grassmannians. The chamber structure for the stability parameter also extends to general targets ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$. We restrict for brevity to describing it when $(g,k)\neq(0,0),(0,1)$ and leave the remaining cases to the reader. We have already noted that $${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}^\epsilon({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}={\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}\;\; \mathrm{for}\;\; \epsilon\in\left(0,\frac{1}{\beta(L_\theta)}\right],$$ while $${\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}^\epsilon({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)}=\overline{M}_{g,k} ({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta) \;\; \mathrm{for}\;\; \epsilon\in(1,\infty).$$ It is equally easy to see that for every integer $1\leq m\leq \beta(L_\theta)-1$, the moduli space of $\epsilon$-stable quasimaps to ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ with fixed numerical data $(g,k,\beta)$ stays constant when $\epsilon\in\left(\frac{1}{m+1},\frac{1}{m}\right]$. The underlying curve of a quasimap parametrized by this constant moduli space is allowed only rational tails of total degree at least $m+1$ (with respect to $L_\theta$), while the order of contact of the quasimap with the unstable locus $W^{us}$ at each base point must be at most ${m}$.
In contrast with Toda’s results for Grassmannians in [@Toda], it is not true in general that $\epsilon$-quasimap invariants remain unchanged when crossing a wall $\epsilon=\frac{1}{m}$. Some aspects of this are discussed in the work [@CK2], where it is proved for example that the equality still holds for toric Fano varieties, but fails in the absence of the Fano condition. The wall-crossing contributions in the non-Fano case (and genus zero) may be viewed as being responsible for Givental’s mirror formulas, [@G]. Similar interpretations may be given for $K$-nef complete intersections in toric varieties. We believe this is a general phenomenon and plan to study it elsewhere.
Quasimaps with one parametrized component
-----------------------------------------
This version of quasimap moduli spaces is discussed in detail in [@CK] for the case of toric varieties. They are the quasimap analogues of the so-called [*graph spaces*]{} in Gromov-Witten theory and lead to extensions of the $I$-functions introduced by Givental to the large parameter space, i.e., to the entire Frobenius manifold given by the Gromov-Witten theory of a target space ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$.
The quasimaps with one parametrized $\PP^1$ and the associated $I$-functions will play a significant role in the forthcoming work [@CK2], which will deal with comparisons between quasimap and GW theories for certain classes of targets. We restrict here to giving the definitions and a few basic facts.
Fix integers $g,k\geq 0$, a GIT quotient ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ with $W$ affine and lci as in §4, and a curve class $\beta$. In addition, fix a nonsingular irreducible projective curve $D$.
\[parametrized qmap\] A stable, $k$-pointed quasimap of genus $g$ and class $\beta$ to ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ is specified by the data $$( (C,p_1,\dots ,p_k), P, u, \varphi),$$ where
- $(C,p_1,\dots ,p_k)$ is a connected, at most nodal, projective curve of genus $g$, and $p_i$ are distinct nonsingular points of $C$,
- $P$ is a principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundle on $C$,
- $u$ is a section of the fiber bundle $$P\times_{{{\bf G}}}W\rightarrow C ,$$
- $\varphi : C{\longrightarrow}D$ is a regular map,
subject to the conditions:
1. (parametrized component) $\varphi_*[C]=[D]$. Equivalently, there is a distinguished component $C_0$ of $C$ such that $\varphi$ restricts to an isomorphism $C_0\cong D$ and $\varphi (C\setminus C_0)$ is zero-dimensional (or empty, if $C=C_0$).
2. (generic nondegeneracy) There is a finite (possibly empty) set of points $B\subset C$ such that $u(C\setminus B)$ is contained in the stable locus $P\times_{{{\bf G}}}W^s$.
3. (prestable) The base locus $B$ is disjoint from the nodes and markings on $C$.
4. (stability) The line bundle $$\omega _{{C}}(p_1+\dots +p_k) {\otimes}{\mathcal L}^\epsilon {\otimes}\varphi^*(\omega_D^{-1}\ot{\mathcal M})$$ is ample for every rational $\epsilon > 0$, where ${{\mathcal{L}}}:={{\mathcal{L}}}_\theta=P\times_{{{\bf G}}}\CC_\theta $ and ${\mathcal M}$ is any ample line bundle on $D$. (Equivalently, $\omega _{\tilde{C}}(\sum p_i+\sum q_j) {\otimes}{\mathcal L}^\epsilon$ is ample, where $\tilde{C}$ is the closure of $C\setminus C_0$, $p_i$ are the markings on $\tilde{C}$, and $q_j$ are the nodes $\tilde{C}\cap C_0$.)
5. the class of the quasimap $( (C,p_1,\dots ,p_k), P, u)$ is $\beta$.
We denote by $$\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta; D)$$ the stack parametrizing the stable quasimaps in Definition \[parametrized qmap\]. Note that it is empty if $g< g(D)$. However, since stability imposes no condition on the distinguished component, the inequality $2g-2+k\geq 0$ is not required anymore. By the same arguments as in §4 we obtain the following.
\[Thm4\] If ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ is a proper, then $\mathrm{Qmap}_{g,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta; D)$ is a proper Deligne-Mumford stack of finite type, with a perfect obstruction theory. In general, it is proper over the affine quotient $\mathrm{Spec}(A(W)^{{\bf G}})$.
The most interesting case is when $g=0$ and (necessarily) $D=\PP^1$, to which we restrict from now on. The underlying curve for a point in $\mathrm{Qmap}_{0,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta; \PP^1)$ is a $k$-pointed tree of rational curves with one parametrized component $C_0\cong\PP^1$, that is, a point in the stack $\widetilde{\PP^1[k]}$, the Fulton-MacPherson space of (not necessarily stable) configurations of $k$ distinct points on $\PP^1$. This is a smooth Artin stack, locally of finite type (see §2.8 in [@KKO]). As in §1, we have a smooth Artin stack $${\mathfrak{B}un_{{\bf G}}}\lra\widetilde{\PP^1[k]},$$ parametrizing principal ${{\bf G}}$-bundles on the fibers of the universal curve over $\widetilde{\PP^1[k]}$.
Forgetting the appropriate data, we obtain morphisms of stacks $$\mu:\mathrm{Qmap}_{0,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta; \PP^1)\lra{\mathfrak{B}un_{{\bf G}}}$$ and $$\nu:\mathrm{Qmap}_{0,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta; \PP^1){\longrightarrow}\widetilde{\PP^1[k]}.$$ The natural obstruction theory to consider is the $\mu$-relative one, given again by .
As before, if $W=V$ is a vector space, one sees easily that we have an Euler sequence $$0\lra\mathfrak{P}\times_{{{\bf G}}}\mathfrak{g}\lra\mathfrak{P}\times_{{{\bf G}}}V\lra{{\mathcal{F}}}{\longrightarrow}0$$ on the universal curve $$\pi: {{\mathcal{C}}}{\longrightarrow}\mathrm{Qmap}_{0,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta; \PP^1)$$ and that the $\mu$-relative perfect obstruction theory is given by $$\left( R^\bullet \pi_*(\mathfrak{P}\times_{{{\bf G}}}V)\right )^\vee ,$$ while the $\nu$-relative perfect obstruction theory is $$\left( R^\bullet \pi_*{{\mathcal{F}}}\right )^\vee .$$
The unpointed genus zero quasimap moduli spaces compactify the $\Hom$-schemes parametrizing maps from $\PP^1$ to ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ and have been studied extensively earlier for several special cases of targets, though it was not widely recognized before that the important common feature of all these examples is that they are all GIT quotients.
- Let $W=\CC^N$ and ${{\bf G}}=(\CC^*)^r$. Then $W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}$ is a toric variety and $\mathrm{Qmap}_{0,0}(W/\!\!/{{\bf G}},\beta;\PP^1)$ is the “toric compactification" of $\mathrm{Map}_{\beta}(\PP^1,W/\!/{{\bf G}})$ introduced by Givental, and by Morrison and Plesser [@G], [@MP].
- Let $W={{\mathrm{Hom}}}(\CC^r,\CC^n)$ and ${{\bf G}}=GL(r,\CC)$ with the obvious action, linearized by the determinant. Then $W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}$ is the Grassmannian $\mathrm{G}(r,n)$ of $r$-dimensional subspaces in $\CC^n$ and $\mathrm{Qmap}_{0,0}(W/\!\!/{{\bf G}},d;\PP^1)$ is the Quot scheme parametrizing degree $d$ and rank $n-r$ quotients of $\mathcal{O}_{\PP^1}^{\oplus n}$ on $\PP^1$, first studied in detail by Strømme, [@S]. More generally, the “Laumon spaces", or “hyperquot schemes" on $\PP^1$ of [@L], see also [@C], [@Kim2] are quasimap moduli spaces to flag varieties of type $A$, viewed as GIT quotients of a vector space by a product of $GL$’s, as described e.g. in [@BCK2].
- Consider the vector space $$V:=\Hom(\CC^n,\CC^n)\oplus\Hom(\CC^n,\CC^n)\oplus\Hom(\CC^r,\CC^n)
\oplus\Hom(\CC^n,\CC^r)$$ and let ${{\bf G}}=GL(n,\CC)$ act on the right by $$(A,B,i,j)\cdot g=(g^{-1}Ag,g^{-1}Bg,g^{-1}i,jg),$$ with linearization given by the determinant character.
Let $W$ be the ${{\bf G}}$-invariant nonsingular affine subvariety given by the ADHM equation $$[A,B]-ij=0.$$
Then $W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}$ is the moduli space of rank $r$ torsion-free sheaves on $\PP^2$, trivialized on the line at infinity (in particular, for $r=1$ we get the Hilbert scheme $\mathrm{Hilb}_n(\CC^2)$ of $n$ points in the plane), see e.g. [@N], and $\mathrm{Qmap}_{0,0}(W/\!\!/{{\bf G}},d;\PP^1)$ is Diaconescu’s moduli space of ADHM sheaves on $\PP^1$, see [@D].
Note that $W$ is the zero locus of a section of the equivariant ${{\bf G}}$-bundle $\Hom(\CC^n,\CC^n)\times V$, as discussed in Example \[ci\]. Note also that neither ${V/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$, nor ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ are proper; in fact, these examples are special cases of quiver variety targets, as discussed in §\[noncompact\]
\[e-parametrized\] It is immediate to extend Definition \[parametrized qmap\] and Theorem \[Thm4\] to include all $\epsilon$-stability conditions, as in §\[e-stable\]. The same is true about the material on $I$-functions discussed in §\[I\] below. We leave this to the reader.
The $I$-function of $W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}$ {#I}
--------------------------------------
One of the most important objects in genus zero Gromov-Witten theory is the $J$-function of a target variety. For smooth toric varieties Givental introduced in [@G] their [*small $I$-functions*]{} via the unpointed genus zero parametrized quasimap spaces and proved that they are related to the small $J$-functions via “mirror transformations". In [@CK], the parametrized quasimap spaces with markings were used to define the big $I$-function of a smooth toric variety. Here we generalize these notions to all GIT quotients ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$.
The moduli spaces $\mathrm{Qmap}_{0,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta; \PP^1)$ come equipped with a natural $\CC^*$-action, induced from the usual action on $\PP^1$. The $I$-function will be defined via certain equivariant residues for this action, so we start by describing the $\CC^*$-fixed loci in $\mathrm{Qmap}_{0,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta; \PP^1)$.
A stable quasimap $$( (C,p_1,\dots ,p_k), P, u, \varphi)$$ is fixed by $\CC^*$ if and only if it satisfies the following properties:
- $C_0\cap \overline{(C\setminus C_0)}\subset\{ 0,\infty\}$; here $C_0$ is identified with $\PP^1$ via $\varphi$.
- There are no markings on $C_0\setminus \{0,\infty\}$.
- The curve class $\beta$ is “concentrated at $0$ or $\infty$". Precisely, this means the following: there are no base points on $C_0\setminus \{0,\infty\}$ and the resulting map $$C_0\setminus \{0,\infty\} {\longrightarrow}{W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$$ is constant.
The absolute perfect obstruction theory $$\mathbb{E}^\bullet=[E^{-1}{\longrightarrow}E^0]$$ of $\mathrm{Qmap}_{0,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta; \PP^1)$ is $\CC^*$-equivariant, hence each component $F$ of the fixed point locus has an induced perfect obstruction theory, given by the $\CC^*$-fixed part $\mathbb{E}^{\bullet, f}_F$ of the complex $\mathbb{E}^{\bullet}|_F$, and a virtual normal bundle $N_{F}^\mathrm{vir}$ given by the moving part $\mathbb{E}^{\bullet, m}_F$.
In fact, for defining the $I$-function we are only interested in the component ${F_0}$ of the fixed point locus for which the curve class $\beta$ is concentrated only at $0\in C_0$, i.e., the component parametrizing $\CC^*$-fixed quasimaps for which $C_0\cap \overline{(C\setminus C_0)}=\{0\}$ and there is no base point or marking at $\infty$. The cases $k=0$ and $k\geq 1$ exhibit different behavior.
[*Case $k\geq 1$*]{}: We have ${F_0}\cong\mathrm{Qmap}_{0,k+1}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)$ and $\mathbb{E}^{\bullet, f}_{F_0}$ is the usual obstruction theory of $\mathrm{Qmap}_{0,k+1}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)$. The (virtual) codimension of $F_0$ in $\mathrm{Qmap}_{0,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta; \PP^1)$ is equal to $2$. As explained in Lemma 7.2.7 of [@CK], the virtual normal bundle has equivariant Euler class $$e^{\CC^*}(N_{F_0}^\mathrm{vir})=z(z-\psi),$$ where $\psi=\psi_{k+1}$ is the cotangent class at the last marking and $z$ is the equivariant parameter (i.e., $H^*_{\CC^*}(point)\cong\CC[z]$).
Associating to each $\CC^*$-fixed stable quasimap in $F_0$ the point in ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ which is the image of the constant map $$C_0\setminus \{0,\infty\} {\longrightarrow}{W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},$$ gives a morphism $$\label{eval}
F_0\lra{W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$$ which is clearly just the evaluation map $$ev_{k+1}:\mathrm{Qmap}_{0,k+1}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)\lra{W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$$ at the last marking.
[*Case $k=0$*]{}: In this case the above identification of $F_0$ with a space of unparametrized quasimaps is not possible, as $\mathrm{Qmap}_{0,1}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)$ doesn’t exist.
For toric varieties, when ${{\bf G}}=(\CC^*)^n$ is a torus and $W$ is a vector space, $F_0$ is identified with a certain nonsingular subvariety of ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ (depending on $\beta$). Its virtual class is the usual fundamental class and the virtual normal bundle can be explicitly computed using appropriate Euler sequences, see e.g. [@G], [@CK]. For now, we contend ourselves to remark that in the general case the set-theoretic “evaluation" map defined as in (\[eval\]) can easily be seen to give a morphism $$ev:F_0{\longrightarrow}{W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}.$$ In the toric case, this is simply the embedding of $F_0$ in ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$. For ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ a Grassmannian, the quasimap space with parametrized $\PP^1$ and no markings is a Quot scheme on $\PP^1$. The fixed locus $F_0$ is identified with a disjoint union of flag bundles over the Grassmannian, while the evaluation map is the projection. Again, the top Chern class of the virtual normal bundle, as well as its push-forward by the evaluation map, can be calculated via appropriate Euler sequences, see [@BCK1]. One can extend this description of $F_0$ and the calculation of the normal bundle in a straightforward manner to all quotients of a vector space by a general linear group.
We are now ready to define the $I$-function. Recall from Definition \[eff-semigroup\] that the curve classes of quasimaps form a semigroup $\mathrm {Eff}(W,{{\bf G}},\theta)$. We let $N(W,{{\bf G}},\theta)$ denote the Novikov ring of formal power series $$N(W,{{\bf G}},\theta)=\{ \sum_{\beta\in \mathrm{Eff}(W,{{\bf G}},\theta)} a_\beta Q^\beta | a_\beta\in \CC\},$$ the $Q$-adic completion of the semigroup ring $\CC[\mathrm {Eff}(W,{{\bf G}},\theta)]$.
\[I-fcn\] The (big) $I$-function of ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
I_{{W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}}({\bf t})&=1+\frac{{\bf t}}{z}+\sum_{\beta\neq 0 }Q^\beta ev_*\left(\frac{[F_0]^{\mathrm{vir}}}{e^{\CC^*}(N_{F_0}^\mathrm{vir})}\right)
\nonumber \\
&+\sum_{\beta}Q^{\beta}
\sum_{k\geq 1}\frac{1}{k!}({ev}_{k+1})_*\left (\frac{[\mathrm{Qmap}_{0,k+1}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta)]^{\mathrm{vir}}}{z(z-{\psi})}\prod_{j=1}^{k}{ev}_j^*({\bf t})\right ).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
It is a formal function of ${\bf t}\in H^{*}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\CC)$, taking values in $$H^{*}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\CC)\otimes_{{\mathbb C}}N(W,{{\bf G}},\theta)\left\{\!\!\left\{\frac{1}{z}\right\}\!\!\right\}.$$
The above definition is an exact analogue of Givental’s big $J$-function of ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ in Gromov-Witten theory, with the graph spaces $$G_{k,\beta}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}):=\overline{M}_{0,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}\times\PP^1,(\beta,1))$$ replaced by the quasimap spaces with one parametrized component. Each of the terms in the sums is the push-forward via the appropriate evaluation map of the residue at $F_0$ of the class $$[\mathrm{Qmap}_{0,k}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\beta; \PP^1)]^{\mathrm{vir}}\cap\prod_{j=1}^{k}{ev}_j^*({\bf t}).$$ In fact, as mentioned in Remark \[e-parametrized\], we may define by the same formula an $\epsilon$-$I$-function for each $\epsilon >0$, using the virtual classes of $\epsilon$-stable parametrized quasimaps. When $\epsilon >1$ this definition reproduces precisely the usual definition of the $J$-function.
The [*small*]{} $I$-function is defined by restriction to the so-called small parameter space: $$I_{{W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}}^{\mathrm{small}}({\bf t}^0,{\bf t}^2)=I_{{W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}}({\bf t}_{\mathrm{small}}),$$ with $${\bf t}_{\mathrm{small}}={\bf t}^0+{\bf t}^2\in H^{0}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\CC)\oplus H^{2}({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\CC).$$
By analogy with [@G], we also define formally [*Givental’s small*]{} $I$-function by the formula $$\begin{split}
I_{{W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}}^{\mathrm{Givental}}({\bf t}^0,{\bf t}^2)
&=e^{({\bf{t}}^0+{\bf{t}}^2)/z}(1+\sum_{\beta\neq 0 }Q^\beta e^{\beta({\bf t}^2)} I_{\beta}^{\mathrm{Givental}}) \\ &:=
e^{({\bf{t}}^0+{\bf{t}}^2)/z}\left(1+\sum_{\beta\neq 0 }Q^\beta e^{\beta({\bf t}^2)} ev_*\left(\frac{[F_0]^{\mathrm{vir}}}{e^{\CC^*}(N_{F_0}^\mathrm{vir})}\right)\right).
\end{split}$$ (To avoid technicalities with the definition of $\beta({\bf t}^2)$, assume here that we have an identification between effective ${{\bf G}}$-equivariant curve classes and actual effective curve classes $\beta\in H_2({W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}},\ZZ)$.) When quasimap integrals of ${W/\!\!/{{\bf G}}}$ satisfy both the string and divisor equations, the two small $I$-functions coincide, however, they will be different in general.
[9999]{}
Abramovich, D; Olsson, M; Vistoli, A: Twisted stable maps to tame Artin stacks. J. Algebraic Geom. 20 (2011), 399-477
Behrend, K.: The Lefschetz trace formula for the moduli stack of principal bundles. Thesis (Ph.D.)-University of California, Berkeley. 1991
Bertram, A.; Ciocan-Fontanine, I.; Kim, B.: Two proofs of a conjecture of Hori and Vafa. Duke Math. J. 126 (2005), no. 1, 101-136
Bertram, A.; Ciocan-Fontanine, I.; Kim, B.: Gromov-Witten invariants for abelian and nonabelian quotients. J. Algebraic Geom. 17 (2008), no. 2, 275-294
Cheong, D.; Ciocan-Fontanine, I; Kim, B.: in preparation
Cieliebak, K.; Gaio, A. R.; Mundet i Riera, I.; Salamon, D. A.: The symplectic vortex equations and invariants of Hamiltonian group actions. J. Symplectic Geom. 1 (2002), no. 3, 543-645
Cieliebak, K.; Gaio, A. R.; Salamon, D. A.: J-holomorphic curves, moment maps, and invariants of Hamiltonian group actions. Internat. Math. Res. Notices 16 (2000), 831-882
Ciocan-Fontanine, I.: On quantum cohomology rings of partial flag varieties. Duke Math. J. 98 (1999), no. 3, 485-524
Ciocan-Fontanine, I; Kapranov, M: Virtual fundamental classes via dg-manifolds. Geom. Topol. 13 (2009), no. 3, 1779-1804
Ciocan-Fontanine, I.; Kim, B.: Moduli stacks of stable toric quasimaps. Adv. Math. 225 (2010), no. 6, 3022-3051
Ciocan-Fontanine, I; Kim, B.: in preparation
Coates, T.; Givental, A.: Quantum Riemann-Roch, Lefschetz and Serre. Ann. of Math. (2) 165 (2007), no. 1, 15-53
Diaconescu, D.-E.: Moduli of ADHM sheaves and local Donaldson-Thomas theory, [arXiv:0801.0820]{}
Frenkel, E.; Teleman, C.; Tolland, A.J.: Gromov-Witten gauge theory I. [arXiv:0904.4834]{}
Fulton, W.; Pandharipande, R.: Notes on stable maps and quantum cohomology. Algebraic geometry-Santa Cruz 1995, 45-96, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., 62, Part 2, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1997
Givental, A.: A mirror theorem for toric complete intersections. In: Topological field theory, primitive forms and related topics (Kyoto, 1996). Progr. Math., 160, Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, MA, 1998, 141-175
Gonzalez, E; Woodward, C.: Area dependence in gauged Gromov-Witten theory. [arXiv:0811.3358]{}
Gonzalez, E; Woodward, C.: Gauged Gromov-Witten theory for small spheres. [arXiv:0907.3869]{}
Graber, T.; Pandharipande, R.: Localization of virtual classes, Invent. Math. 135 (1999), no. 2, 487-518
Holla, Y. I.; Narasimhan, M. S.: A generalisation of Nagata’s theorem on ruled surfaces. Compositio Math. 127 (2001), no. 3, 321-332
Kim, B.: Quantum hyperplane section theorem for homogeneous spaces. Acta Math. 183 (1999), no. 1, 71Ð99
Kim, B.: Gromov-Witten invariants for flag manifolds. Thesis (Ph.D.)-University of California, Berkeley. 1996
Kim, B.: Stable quasimaps to holomorphic symplectic quotients. [arXiv:1005.4125]{}
Kim, B.; Lee, H.: Wall-crossings for twisted quiver bundles. [arXiv:1101.4156]{}
Kim, B.; Kresch, A.; Oh, Y.: A compactification of the space of maps from curves. [arXiv:1105.6143]{}
Kim, B.; Kresch, A.; Pantev, T.: Functoriality in intersection theory and a conjecture of Cox, Katz, and Lee. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 179 (2003), no. 1-2, 127Ð136
King, A. D.: Moduli of representations of finite-dimensional algebras. Quart. J. Math. Oxford Ser. (2) 45 (1994), no. 180, 515Ð530
Laumon, G.: Faisceaux automorphes li«es aux s«eries dÕEisenstein. Automorphic forms, Shimura varieties, and L-functions, Vol. I (Ann Arbor, MI, 1988), 227-281, Perspect. Math., 10, Academic Press, Boston, MA, 1990
Laumon, G.; Moret-Bailly, L.: Champs algébriques. Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete. 3. Folge. A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics
Lee, Y.-P.: Quantum Lefschetz hyperplane theorem. Invent. Math. 145 (2001), no. 1, 121-149
Le Poitiers, J.: Lectures on vector bundles. Translated by A. Maciocia. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, 54. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997
Lieblich, M.: Remarks on the stack of coherent algebras. Int. Math. Res. Not. 2006, Art. ID 75273, 12 pp
Matsushima, Y.: Espaces homogénes de Stein des groupes de Lie complexes. Nagoya Math J. 16 (1960), 205-218
Marian, A.; Oprea, D.: Virtual intersections on the Quot scheme and Vafa-Intriligator formulas. Duke Math. J. 136 (2007), no. 1, 81-113
Marian, A.; Oprea, D.; Pandharipande, R.: The moduli space of stable quotients. [arXiv:0904.2992]{}
Morrison, D.; R. Plesser, R.: Summing the instantons: quantum cohomology and mirror symmetry in toric varieties. Nuclear Phys. B [**440**]{} (1995), no. 1-2, 279-354
Mumford, D.; Fogarty, J.; Kirwan, F.: Geometric Invariant Theory. Third edition. Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete (2) \[Results in Mathematics and Related Areas (2)\], 34. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994
Mundet i Riera, I: Hamiltonian Gromov-Witten invariants. Topology 42 (2003), no. 3, 525-553
Mundet i Riera, I.; Tian, G: A compactification of the moduli space of twisted holomorphic maps. Adv. Math. 222 (2009), no. 4, 1117-1196
Mustaţǎ, A; Mustaţǎ, A.: Intermediate moduli spaces of stable maps. Invent. Math. 167 (2007), no. 1, 47-90
Mustaţǎ, A; Mustaţǎ, A.: The Chow ring of $\overline{M}_{0,m}({{\mathbb P}}^n, d)$. J. Reine Angew. Math. 615 (2008), 93-119
Nakajima, H.: Lectures on Hilbert schemes of points on surfaces. University Lecture Series, 18. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1999
Nakajima, H: Instantons on ALE spaces, quiver varieties, and Kac-Moody algebras. Duke Math. J. 76 (1994), no. 2, 365-416.
Ramanathan, A.: Moduli for principal bundles over algebraic curves I. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. Math. Sci. 106 (1996), no. 3, 301-328
Sorger, C.: Lectures on moduli of principal G-bundles over algebraic curves. School on Algebraic Geometry (Trieste, 1999), 1-57, ICTP Lect. Notes, 1, Abdus Salam Int. Cent. Theoret. Phys., Trieste, 2000
Strømme, S.-A.: On parametrized rational curves in Grassmann varieties. Space curves (Rocca di Papa, 1985), 251Ð272, Lecture Notes in Math., 1266, Springer, Berlin, 1987
Toda, Y.: Moduli spaces of stable quotients and the wall-crossing phenomena. [arXiv:1005.3743]{}
Wang, J.: The moduli stack of $G$-bundles. [arXiv:1104.4828]{}
[^1]: Apriori, this identification only makes sense locally, in a trivialization $\{U_i, \varphi_i\}$ of ${{\mathcal{V}}}_P(m)$ on $C$. However, one checks that the local $V^s\times U_i$ glue together into a global open subscheme ${{\mathcal{V}}}_P(m)^s\subset{{\mathcal{V}}}_P(m)$ under the transition functions of ${{\mathcal{V}}}_P(m)$. This is so since the ${{\bf G}}$-invariant locus $V^{ss}=V^s$ is also invariant under the scaling action by the homotheties of $V$. In turn, this invariance follows easily from the definition of $\theta$-semistable points and the fact that the group of homotheties is identified with the center of $GL(V)$, and therefore its action on $V$ commutes with the action of ${{\bf G}}$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we obtain new estimates on generalization of Hermite-Hadamard, Simpson and Ostrowski type inequalities for functions whose second derivatives is $\varphi -$convex via fractional integrals.'
address:
- '\[Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, University of Cumhuriyet, 58140, Sivas, Turkey'
- '\[Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science and Arts, University of Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam, 46100, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey'
- '\[Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science and Arts, University of Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam, 46100, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey'
author:
- 'M. E YILDIRIM'
- A AKKURT
- H YILDIRIM
title: 'S I I F F W S D A $\varphi -$C B U F I'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
The following inequality is called Hermite-Hadamard Inequality;$$\begin{array}{c}
f\left( \dfrac{a+b}{2}\right) \leq \dfrac{1}{b-a}\int\limits_{a}^{b}f(x)dx%
\leq \dfrac{f(a)+f(b)}{2},%
\end{array}
\label{1.2}$$where $f:I\subseteq
%TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }%
%BeginExpansion
\mathbb{R}
%EndExpansion
\rightarrow
%TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }%
%BeginExpansion
\mathbb{R}
%EndExpansion
$ is a convex function and $a,b\in I\ $with $a<b$. If $f$ is concave, then both inequalities hold in the reversed direction .
The inequality \[1.2\] inequality was first discovered by Hermite in 1881 in the Journal Mathesis. This inequality was known as Hermite-Hadamard Inequlity, because this inequality was found by Mitrinovic Hermite and Hadamard’ note in Mathesis in 1974.
The inequality \[1.2\] is studied by many authors, see ([@Be48]-[Is13-2]{}, [@KAO11]-[@OAK-archiv], [@Pa14], [@SO12]-[TY-archiv]{}) where further references are listed.
Firstly, we need to recall some concepts of convexity concerning our work.
[@Is13-1] A function $f:I\subset
%TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }%
%BeginExpansion
\mathbb{R}
%EndExpansion
\rightarrow
%TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }%
%BeginExpansion
\mathbb{R}
%EndExpansion
$ is said to be convex on $I\ $if inequality $$\begin{array}{c}
f(ta+(1-t)b)\leq tf(a)+(1-t)f(b),%
\end{array}
\label{1.1}$$holds for all $a,b\in I\ $and $t\in \lbrack 0,1].$
[@Is-15] Let $s\in (0,1].\ $A function $f:I\subseteq
%TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }%
%BeginExpansion
\mathbb{R}
%EndExpansion
_{0}=[0,\infty )\rightarrow
%TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }%
%BeginExpansion
\mathbb{R}
%EndExpansion
$ is said to be $s-$convex in the second sense if$$\begin{array}{c}
f(ta+(1-t)b)\leq t^{s}f(a)+(1-t)^{s}f(b),%
\end{array}
\label{1.3}$$holds for all $a,b\in I\ $and $t\in \lbrack 0,1].$
Tunç and Yildirim in [@TY-archiv] introduced the following defination as follows:
*A function* $f$:$I\subseteq \mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ *is said to belong to the class of* $MT\left( I\right) $ *if it is nonnegative and for all* $x,y\in I$ *and* $t\in \left(
0,1\right) $ *satisfies the inequality*;$$f\left( tx+\left( 1-t\right) y\right) \leq \frac{\sqrt{t}}{2\sqrt{1-t}}%
f\left( x\right) +\frac{\sqrt{1-t}}{2\sqrt{t}}f\left( y\right) .$$
Dragomir in [@Dr15] introduced the following defination as follows:
[@Dr15] Let* *$\varphi :\left( 0,1\right) \rightarrow \left(
0,\infty \right) $ be a measurable function. We say that the function $%
f:I\rightarrow \left[ 0,\infty \right) $ *is a* $\varphi -$convex function on the interval $I$ if $x,y\in I$ we have$$f\left( tx+\left( 1-t\right) y\right) \leq t\varphi \left( t\right) f\left(
x\right) +\left( 1-t\right) \varphi \left( 1-t\right) f\left( y\right) .$$
According to defination $4$ for the special choose of $\varphi $ we can obtain following
If we take $\varphi (t)\equiv 1$, we obtain classical convex.
If we take $\varphi (t)=t^{s-1}$, we obtain $s-$convex.
If we take $\varphi (t)=\dfrac{1}{2\sqrt{t}\sqrt{1-t}}$, we obtain $MT-$convex.
Now, we will give some definitions and notations of fractional calculus theory which are used later in this paper. Samko et al. in [@Sam] used following definations as follows:
\[d1\][@Sam] The Riemann-Liouville fractional integrals $%
J_{a^{+}}^{\alpha }f$ and $J_{b^{-}}^{\alpha }f$ of order $\alpha >0$ with $%
a\geq 0$ are defined by$$J_{a^{+}}^{\alpha }f(x)=\frac{1}{\Gamma \left( \alpha \right) }%
\dint\limits_{a}^{x}\left( x-t\right) ^{\alpha -1}f(t)dt,\ x>a \label{1.4}$$and$$J_{b^{-}}^{\alpha }f(x)=\frac{1}{\Gamma \left( \alpha \right) }%
\dint\limits_{x}^{b}\left( t-x\right) ^{\alpha -1}f(t)dt,\ x<b \label{1.5}$$where $f\in L_{1}\left[ a,b\right] $, respectively. Note that, $\Gamma
\left( \alpha \right) \ $is the Gamma function and $%
J_{a^{+}}^{0}f(x)=J_{b^{-}}^{\alpha }f(x)=f(x)$.
[@Sam] The Euler Beta function is defined as follows:$$\beta \left( x,y\right) =\dint\limits_{0}^{1}t^{x-1}\left( 1-t\right)
^{y-1}dt,\text{ }x,y>0.$$The incomplate beta function is defined as follows:$$\beta \left( a,x,y\right) =\dint\limits_{0}^{a}t^{x-1}\left( 1-t\right)
^{y-1}dt,\text{ }x,y>0,\text{ }0<\alpha <1.$$
Main results
============
Througout this paper, we use $S_{f}$ as follows;$$\begin{array}{ll}
S_{f}\left( x,\lambda ,\alpha ;a,b\right) & \equiv \left( 1-\lambda \right)
\left \{ \frac{\left( b-x\right) ^{\alpha +1}-\left( x-a\right) ^{\alpha +1}%
}{b-a}\right \} f^{\prime }\left( x\right) \\
& \\
& +\left( 1+\alpha -\lambda \right) \left \{ \frac{\left( x-a\right)
^{\alpha }+\left( b-x\right) ^{\alpha }}{b-a}\right \} f\left( x\right) \\
& \\
& +\lambda \left \{ \frac{\left( x-a\right) ^{\alpha }(f\left( a\right)
+\left( b-x\right) ^{\alpha }f\left( b\right) }{b-a}\right \} \\
& \\
& -\frac{\Gamma \left( \alpha +2\right) }{b-a}\left \{ J_{x^{-}}^{\alpha
}f\left( a\right) +J_{x^{+}}^{\alpha }f\left( b\right) \right \} ,%
\end{array}%$$for any $x\in \left[ a,b\right] ,$ $\lambda \in \left[ 0,1\right] $ and $%
\alpha >0.$
In ([@Pa15]), Jaekeun Park established the following lemma which is necessary to prove our main results:
*Let* $f$: $I\subseteq
%TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }%
%BeginExpansion
\mathbb{R}
%EndExpansion
\rightarrow
%TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }%
%BeginExpansion
\mathbb{R}
%EndExpansion
$ *be a twice differentiable function on the interior* $I^{0}$ *of an interval* $I$* such that* $f^{\prime \prime }\in L_{1}%
\left[ a,b\right] $, *where* $a,b\in I$ *with* $a<b$. *Then, for any* $x\in \left[ a,b\right] $, $\lambda \in \left[ 0,1\right] $ *and* $\alpha >0$ *we have*$$\begin{array}{cc}
S_{f}\left( x,\lambda ,\alpha ;a,b\right) & =\frac{\left( x-a\right)
^{\alpha +2}}{b-a}\int_{0}^{1}t\left( \lambda -t^{\alpha }\right) f^{\prime
\prime }\left( tx+\left( 1-t\right) a\right) dt \\
& \\
& +\frac{\left( b-x\right) ^{\alpha +2}}{b-a}\int_{0}^{1}t\left( \lambda
-t^{\alpha }\right) f^{\prime \prime }\left( tx+\left( 1-t\right) b\right)
dt.%
\end{array}%$$
Let* *$\varphi :\left( 0,1\right) \rightarrow \left( 0,\infty
\right) $ be a measurable function. Assume also that $f:I\subset \lbrack
0,\infty )\rightarrow
%TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }%
%BeginExpansion
\mathbb{R}
%EndExpansion
$ *be a twice differentiable function on the interior* $I^{0}$ *of an interval* $I$* such that* $f^{\prime \prime }\in L_{1}%
\left[ a,b\right] $, *where* $a,b\in I^{0}$ *with* $a<b$. *If* $\left\vert f^{\prime \prime }\right\vert ^{q}$ *is* $%
\varphi -$*convex on* $\left[ a,b\right] $ *for some fixed* $%
q\geq 1$, *then for any* $x=ta+\left( 1-t\right) b,t\in \left[ 0,1%
\right] ,\lambda \in \left[ 0,1\right] $, *and* $\alpha >0$:$$\begin{array}{l}
\left\vert S_{f}\left( x,\lambda ,\alpha ,t,\varphi ;a,b\right) \right\vert
\leq A_{1}^{1-\frac{1}{q}}\left( \alpha ,\lambda \right) \left[ \frac{\left(
x-a\right) ^{\alpha +2}}{b-a}\left\{ A_{2}(\alpha ,\lambda ,t,\varphi
)\left\vert f^{\prime \prime }\left( x\right) \right\vert ^{q}\right. \right.
\\
\\
\left. +A_{3}\left( \alpha ,\lambda ,t,\varphi \right) \left\vert f^{\prime
\prime }\left( a\right) \right\vert ^{q}\right\} ^{\frac{1}{q}} \\
\\
\left. +\frac{\left( b-x\right) ^{\alpha +2}}{b-a}\left\{ A_{2}\left( \alpha
,\lambda ,t,\varphi \right) \left\vert f^{\prime \prime }\left( x\right)
\right\vert ^{q}+A_{3}\left( \alpha ,\lambda ,t,\varphi \right) \left\vert
f^{\prime \prime }\left( b\right) \right\vert ^{q}\right\} ^{\frac{1}{q}}%
\right] ,%
\end{array}
\label{1.6}$$*the above inequality for fractional integrals holds*, *where*
$$\begin{array}{ll}
A_{1}\left( \alpha ,\lambda \right) & =\frac{\alpha \lambda ^{1+\frac{2}{%
\alpha }}+1}{\alpha +2}-\frac{\lambda }{2}, \\
A_{2}\left( \alpha ,\lambda ,t,\varphi \right) & =\int_{0}^{1}\left \vert
t\left( \lambda -t^{\alpha }\right) \right \vert t\varphi \left( t\right) dt,
\\
A_{3}\left( \alpha ,\lambda ,t,\varphi \right) & =\int_{0}^{1}\left \vert
t\left( \lambda -t^{\alpha }\right) \right \vert \left( 1-t\right) \varphi
\left( 1-t\right) dt.%
\end{array}%$$
By using Lemma 1, the power mean inequality, then we get$$\begin{array}{l}
\left\vert S_{f}\left( x,\lambda ,\alpha ,t,\varphi ;a,b\right) \right\vert
\\
\leq \frac{\left( x-a\right) ^{\alpha +2}}{b-a}\left( \int_{0}^{1}\left\vert
t\left( \lambda -t^{\alpha }\right) \right\vert dt\right) ^{1-\frac{1}{q}%
}\left( \int_{0}^{1}\left\vert t\left( \lambda -t^{\alpha }\right)
\right\vert \left\vert f^{\prime \prime }\left( tx+\left( 1-t\right)
a\right) \right\vert ^{q}dt\right) ^{\frac{1}{q}} \\
\\
+\frac{\left( b-x\right) ^{\alpha +2}}{b-a}\left( \int_{0}^{1}\left\vert
t\left( \lambda -t^{\alpha }\right) \right\vert dt\right) ^{1-\frac{1}{q}%
}\left( \int_{0}^{1}\left\vert t\left( \lambda -t^{\alpha }\right)
\right\vert \left\vert f^{\prime \prime }\left( tx+\left( 1-t\right)
b\right) \right\vert dt\right) ^{\frac{1}{q}} \\
\\
=A_{1}^{1-\frac{1}{q}}\left( \alpha ,\lambda \right) \left[ \frac{\left(
x-a\right) ^{\alpha +2}}{b-a}\left( \int_{0}^{1}\left\vert t(\lambda
-t^{\alpha })\right\vert \left\vert f^{\prime \prime }\left( tx+\left(
1-t\right) a\right) \right\vert ^{q}dt\right) ^{\frac{1}{q}}\right. \\
\\
\left. +\frac{\left( b-x\right) ^{\alpha +2}}{b-a}\left(
\int_{0}^{1}\left\vert t(\lambda -t^{\alpha })\right\vert \left\vert
f^{\prime \prime }\left( tx+\left( 1-t\right) b\right) \right\vert
^{q}dt\right) ^{\frac{1}{q}}\right] ,%
\end{array}
\label{1.7}$$where$$A_{1}\left( \alpha ,\lambda \right) =\int_{0}^{1}\left\vert t\left( \lambda
-t^{\alpha }\right) \right\vert dt=\left( \frac{\alpha \lambda ^{1+\frac{2}{%
\alpha }}+1}{\alpha +2}-\frac{\lambda }{2}\right) .$$
Since $\left \vert f^{\prime \prime }\right \vert ^{q}$ is $\varphi -$convex on $\left[ a,b\right] $, we have$$\begin{array}{ll}
I_{1} & =\int_{0}^{1}\left \vert t\left( \lambda -t^{\alpha }\right) \right
\vert \left \vert f^{\prime \prime }\left( tx+\left( 1-t\right) a\right)
\right \vert ^{q}dt \\
& \\
& \leq \int_{0}^{1}\left \vert t\left( \lambda -t^{\alpha }\right) \right
\vert \left \{ t\varphi \left( t\right) \left \vert f^{\prime \prime }\left(
x\right) \right \vert ^{q}+\left( 1-t\right) \varphi \left( 1-t\right) \left
\vert f^{\prime \prime }\left( a\right) \right \vert ^{q}\right \} dt \\
& \\
& =A_{2}\left( \alpha ,\lambda ,t,\varphi \right) \left \vert f^{\prime
\prime }\left( x\right) \right \vert ^{q}+A_{3}\left( \alpha ,\lambda
,t,\varphi \right) \left \vert f^{\prime \prime }\left( a\right) \right
\vert ^{q},%
\end{array}
\label{1.8}$$and similarly we can obtain$$\begin{array}{ll}
I_{2} & =\int_{0}^{1}\left \vert t\left( \lambda -t^{\alpha }\right) \right
\vert \left \vert f^{\prime \prime }\left( tx+\left( 1-t\right) b\right)
\right \vert ^{q}dt \\
& \\
& \leq \int_{0}^{1}\left \vert t\left( \lambda -t^{\alpha }\right) \right
\vert \left \{ t\varphi \left( t\right) \left \vert f^{\prime \prime }\left(
x\right) \right \vert ^{q}+\left( 1-t\right) \varphi \left( 1-t\right) \left
\vert f^{\prime \prime }\left( b\right) \right \vert ^{q}\right \} dt \\
& \\
& =A_{2}\left( \alpha ,\lambda ,t,\varphi \right) \left \vert f^{\prime
\prime }\left( x\right) \right \vert ^{q}+A_{3}\left( \alpha ,\lambda
,t,\varphi \right) \left \vert f^{\prime \prime }\left( b\right) \right
\vert ^{q}.%
\end{array}
\label{1.9}$$By substituting (\[1.8\]) and (\[1.9\]) in (\[1.7\]), we get$$\begin{array}{l}
\left \vert S_{f}\left( x,\lambda ,\alpha ,t,\varphi ;a,b\right) \right \vert
\\
\\
\leq \left( \frac{\alpha \lambda ^{1+\frac{2}{\alpha }}+1}{\alpha +2}-\frac{%
\lambda }{2}\right) ^{1-\frac{1}{q}}\left[ \frac{\left( x-a\right) ^{\alpha
+2}}{b-a}\left \{ \left \vert f^{\prime \prime }\left( x\right) \right \vert
^{q}\int_{0}^{1}\left \vert t\left( \lambda -t^{\alpha }\right) \right \vert
t\varphi \left( t\right) dt\right. \right. \\
\\
\left. +\left \vert f^{\prime \prime }\left( a\right) \right \vert
^{q}\int_{0}^{1}\left \vert t\left( \lambda -t^{\alpha }\right) \right \vert
\left( 1-t\right) \varphi \left( 1-t\right) dt\right \} ^{^{\frac{1}{q}}} \\
\\
+\frac{\left( b-x\right) ^{\alpha +2}}{b-a}\left \{ \left \vert f^{\prime
\prime }\left( x\right) \right \vert ^{q}\int_{0}^{1}\left \vert t\left(
\lambda -t^{\alpha }\right) \right \vert t\varphi \left( t\right) dt\right.
\\
\\
\left. \left. +\left \vert f^{\prime \prime }\left( b\right) \right \vert
^{q}\int_{0}^{1}\left \vert t\left( \lambda -t^{\alpha }\right) \right \vert
\left( 1-t\right) \varphi \left( 1-t\right) dt\right \} ^{^{\frac{1}{q}}}%
\right] .%
\end{array}%$$Thus the proof is complated.
Let $\varphi \left( t\right) =1$ *in Theorem 1, then we get the following inequality*:$$\begin{array}{l}
\left\vert S_{f}\left( x,\lambda ,\alpha ;a,b\right) \right\vert \\
\\
\leq \left( \frac{\alpha \lambda ^{1+\frac{2}{\alpha }}+1}{\alpha +2}-\frac{%
\lambda }{2}\right) ^{1-\frac{1}{q}}\left[ \frac{\left( x-a\right) ^{\alpha
+2}}{b-a}\left\{ A_{2}\left( \alpha ,\lambda \right) \left\vert f^{\prime
\prime }\left( x\right) \right\vert ^{q}+A_{3}\left( \alpha ,\lambda \right)
\left\vert f^{\prime \prime }\left( a\right) \right\vert ^{q}\right\} \right.
\\
\\
\left. +\frac{\left( b-x\right) ^{\alpha +2}}{b-a}\{A_{2}\left( \alpha
,\lambda \right) \left\vert f^{\prime \prime }\left( x\right) \right\vert
^{q}+A_{3}\left( \alpha ,\lambda \right) \left\vert f^{\prime \prime }\left(
b\right) \right\vert ^{q}\}\right] .%
\end{array}%$$Where$$\begin{array}{ll}
A_{2}\left( \alpha ,\lambda \right) & =\int_{0}^{1}\left\vert t\left(
\lambda -t^{\alpha }\right) \right\vert tdt=\dfrac{3-\left( \alpha +3\right)
\lambda +2\alpha \lambda ^{1+\frac{3}{\alpha }}}{3\left( \alpha +3\right) }%
\end{array}%$$and$$\begin{array}{ll}
A_{3}\left( \alpha ,\lambda \right) & =\int_{0}^{1}\left\vert t\left(
\lambda -t^{\alpha }\right) \right\vert \left( 1-t\right) dt \\
& \\
& =\dfrac{\alpha \lambda ^{1+\frac{2}{\alpha }}}{\alpha +2}-\dfrac{2\lambda
^{1+\frac{3}{\alpha }}}{3\left( \alpha +3\right) }+\dfrac{\alpha \lambda }{6}%
-\dfrac{\alpha }{\left( \alpha +2\right) \left( \alpha +3\right) }.%
\end{array}%$$
*If we choose* $\varphi \left( t\right) =1$ and $x=\frac{a+b}{2}$ in *Theorem 1, we can obtain the corollary 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 in* ([@Pa15]), respectively for $\lambda =\frac{1}{3}$, $\lambda =0$, $\lambda =1$.
Let $\varphi \left( t\right) =t^{s-1}$ *in Theorem 1,* *then* we have$$\begin{array}{l}
\left \vert S_{f}\left( x,\lambda ,\alpha ,t,\varphi ;a,b\right) \right \vert
\\
\\
\leq \left( \frac{\alpha \lambda ^{1+\frac{2}{\alpha }}+1}{\alpha +2}-\frac{%
\lambda }{2}\right) ^{1-\frac{1}{q}}\left[ \frac{\left( x-a\right) ^{\alpha
+2}}{b-a}\left \{ \left \vert f^{\prime \prime }\left( x\right) \right \vert
^{q}A_{4}\left( \alpha ,\lambda ,s\right) +\left \vert f^{\prime \prime
}\left( a\right) \right \vert ^{q}A_{5}\left( \alpha ,\lambda ,t,\varphi
\right) \right \} ^{\frac{1}{q}}\right. \\
\\
\left. +\frac{\left( b-x\right) ^{\alpha +2}}{b-a}\left \{ \left \vert
f^{\prime \prime }\left( x\right) \right \vert ^{q}A_{4}\left( \alpha
,\lambda ,s\right) +\left \vert f^{\prime \prime }\left( b\right) \right
\vert ^{q}A_{5}\left( \alpha ,\lambda ,t,\varphi \right) \right \} ^{\frac{1%
}{q}}\right] .%
\end{array}%$$Where$$\begin{array}{ll}
A_{4}\left( \alpha ,\lambda ,s\right) & =2\dfrac{\lambda ^{\frac{s+2}{\alpha
}+1}}{s+2}-2\dfrac{\lambda ^{\frac{s+2}{\alpha }+1}}{\alpha +s+2}+\dfrac{1}{%
\alpha +s+2} \\
& \\
A_{5}\left( \alpha ,\lambda ,t,\varphi \right) & =\lambda \beta \left(
\lambda ^{\frac{1}{\alpha }},2,s+1\right) -\beta \left( \lambda ^{\frac{1}{%
\alpha }},\alpha +2,s+1\right) \\
& \\
& +\beta \left( 1-\lambda ^{\frac{1}{\alpha }},\alpha +2,s+1\right) -\lambda
\beta \left( 1-\lambda ^{\frac{1}{\alpha }},2,s+1\right) .%
\end{array}%$$
Let* *$\varphi :\left( 0,1\right) \rightarrow \left( 0,\infty
\right) $ be a measurable function. For $f:I\subset \lbrack 0,\infty
)\rightarrow
%TCIMACRO{\U{211d} }%
%BeginExpansion
\mathbb{R}
%EndExpansion
$ *be a twice differentiable function on the interior* $I^{0}$ assume also that $f^{\prime \prime }\in L_{1}\left[ a,b\right] $, *where* $%
a,b\in I^{0}$ *with* $a<b$. *If* $\left\vert f^{\prime \prime
}\right\vert ^{q}$ *is* $\varphi -$*convex on* $\left[ a,b%
\right] $ *for some fixed* $q>1$ *with* $\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q%
}=1$, *then for any* $x\in \left[ a,b\right] ,\lambda \in \left[ 0,1%
\right] $ *and* $\alpha >0$ *the following inequality holds*$$\begin{array}{l}
\left\vert S_{f}\left( x,\lambda ,\alpha ,t,\varphi ;a,b\right) \right\vert
\\
\\
\leq B^{\frac{1}{p}}\left( \alpha ,\lambda ,p\right) \left[ \frac{\left(
x-a\right) ^{\alpha +2}}{b-a}\left\{ \left( \left\vert f^{\prime \prime
}\left( x\right) \right\vert ^{q}+\left\vert f^{\prime \prime }\left(
a\right) \right\vert ^{q}\right) \int_{0}^{1}t\varphi \left( t\right)
dt\right\} ^{\frac{1}{q}}\right. \\
\\
\left. +\frac{\left( b-x\right) ^{\alpha +2}}{b-a}\left\{ \left( \left\vert
f^{\prime \prime }\left( x\right) \right\vert ^{q}+\left\vert f^{\prime
\prime }\left( b\right) \right\vert ^{q}\right) \int_{0}^{1}t\varphi \left(
t\right) dt\right\} ^{\frac{1}{q}}\right] \text{,}%
\end{array}
\label{1.10}$$*where*$$\begin{array}{l}
B\left( \alpha ,\lambda ,p\right) =\frac{\lambda ^{\frac{1+p+\alpha p}{%
\alpha }}}{\alpha }\left\{ \Gamma \left( 1+p\right) \Gamma \left( \frac{%
1+p+\alpha }{\alpha }\right) \text{ }\left( _{2}F_{1}\left( 1,1+p,2+p+\frac{%
1+p}{\alpha },1\right) \right) \right. \\
\\
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \left. +\beta
\left( 1+p,-\frac{1+p+\alpha p}{\alpha }\right) -\beta \left( \lambda ,1+p,-%
\frac{1+p+\alpha p}{\alpha }\right) \right\} \text{,}%
\end{array}%$$*also, for* $0<b<c$ *and* $\left\vert z\right\vert <1,\
{}_{2}F_{1}$ *is hypergeometric function defined by* $$_{2}F_{1}\left( a,b,c,z\right) =\frac{1}{\beta \left( b,c-b\right) }%
\int_{0}^{1}t^{b-1}\left( 1-t\right) ^{c-b-1}\left( 1-zt\right) ^{-a}dt.$$
By using Lemma 1 and the Hölder inequality, we have the below inequality$$\begin{array}{l}
\left\vert S_{f}\left( x,\lambda ,\alpha ,t,\varphi ;a,b\right) \right\vert
\\
\\
\leq \frac{\left( x-a\right) ^{\alpha +2}}{b-a}\left( \int_{0}^{1}\left\vert
t\left( \lambda -t^{\alpha }\right) \right\vert ^{p}dt\right) ^{\frac{1}{p}%
}\left( \int_{0}^{1}\left\vert f^{\prime \prime }\left( tx+\left( 1-t\right)
a\right) \right\vert ^{q}dt\right) ^{\frac{1}{q}} \\
\\
+\frac{\left( b-x\right) ^{\alpha +2}}{b-a}\left( \int_{0}^{1}\left\vert
t\left( \lambda -t^{\alpha }\right) \right\vert ^{p}dt\right) ^{\frac{1}{p}%
}\left( \int_{0}^{1}\left\vert f^{\prime \prime }\left( tx+\left( 1-t\right)
b\right) \right\vert ^{q}dt\right) ^{\frac{1}{q}} \\
\\
=\left( \int_{0}^{1}\left\vert t\left( \lambda -t^{\alpha }\right)
\right\vert ^{p}\right) ^{\frac{1}{p}}\left[ \frac{\left( x-a\right)
^{\alpha +2}}{b-a}\left( \int_{0}^{1}\left\vert f^{\prime \prime }\left(
tx+\left( 1-t\right) a\right) \right\vert ^{q}dt\right) ^{\frac{1}{q}}\right.
\\
\\
\left. +\frac{\left( b-x\right) ^{\alpha +2}}{b-a}\left(
\int_{0}^{1}\left\vert f^{\prime \prime }\left( tx+\left( 1-t\right)
b\right) \right\vert ^{q}dt\right) ^{\frac{1}{q}}\right] .%
\end{array}
\label{1.11}$$Since $\left\vert f^{\prime \prime }\right\vert $ is $\varphi -$convex on $%
\left[ a,b\right] $, we have$$\begin{array}{ll}
\int_{0}^{1}\left\vert f^{\prime \prime }\left( tx+\left( 1-t\right)
a\right) \right\vert ^{q}dt & \leq \int_{0}^{1}t\varphi \left( t\right)
\left\vert f^{\prime \prime }\left( x\right) \right\vert ^{q}dt \\
& \\
& +\int_{0}^{1}\left( 1-t\right) \varphi \left( 1-t\right) \left\vert
f^{\prime \prime }\left( a\right) \right\vert ^{q}dt \\
& \\
& =\left( \left\vert f^{\prime \prime }\left( x\right) \right\vert
^{q}+\left\vert f^{\prime \prime }\left( a\right) \right\vert ^{q}\right)
\int_{0}^{1}t\varphi \left( t\right) dt,%
\end{array}
\label{1.12}$$and using same tecnique, we get$$\begin{array}{ll}
\int_{0}^{1}\left\vert f^{\prime \prime }\left( tx+\left( 1-t\right)
b\right) \right\vert ^{q}dt & \leq \int_{0}^{1}t\varphi \left( t\right)
\left\vert f^{\prime \prime }\left( x\right) \right\vert ^{q}dt \\
& \\
& +\int_{0}^{1}\left( 1-t\right) \varphi \left( 1-t\right) \left\vert
f^{\prime \prime }\left( b\right) \right\vert ^{q}dt \\
& \\
& =\left( \left\vert f^{\prime \prime }\left( x\right) \right\vert
^{q}+\left\vert f^{\prime \prime }\left( b\right) \right\vert ^{q}\right)
\int_{0}^{1}t\varphi \left( t\right) dt.%
\end{array}
\label{1.13}$$On the other hand we can obtain the following equality;$$\begin{array}{ll}
B\left( \alpha ,\lambda ,p\right) & =\int_{0}^{1}\left\vert t\left( \lambda
-t^{\alpha }\right) \right\vert ^{p}dt \\
& \\
& =\int_{0}^{\lambda ^{\frac{1}{\alpha }}}\left\{ t(\lambda -t^{\alpha
})\right\} ^{p}dt+\int_{\lambda ^{\frac{1}{\alpha }}}^{1}\left\{ t\left(
t^{\alpha }-\lambda \right) \right\} ^{p}dt \\
& \\
& =C_{1}\left( \alpha ,\lambda ,p\right) +C_{2}\left( \alpha ,\lambda
,p\right) .%
\end{array}
\label{1.14}$$By letting $\lambda -t^{\alpha }=u$ and $t^{\alpha }=u$, respectively, we have$$\begin{array}{ll}
C_{1}\left( \alpha ,\lambda ,p\right) & =\int_{0}^{\lambda ^{\frac{1}{\alpha
}}}\left\{ t\left( \lambda -t^{\alpha }\right) \right\} ^{p}dt \\
& \\
& =\frac{1}{\alpha }\int_{0}^{\lambda }u^{p}\left( \lambda -u\right) ^{\frac{%
1+p-\alpha }{\alpha }}du \\
& \\
& =\frac{1}{\alpha }\int_{0}^{1}\lambda ^{p}y^{p}\lambda ^{\frac{1+p-\alpha
}{\alpha }}\left( 1-y\right) ^{\frac{1-\alpha +p}{\alpha }}\lambda dy \\
& \\
& =\dfrac{\lambda ^{\frac{p\alpha +1+p}{\alpha }}}{\alpha }%
\int_{0}^{1}y^{p}\left( 1-y\right) ^{\frac{1+p}{\alpha }}\left( 1-y\right)
^{-1}dy \\
& \\
& =\frac{\lambda ^{\frac{1+p+\alpha p}{\alpha }}}{\alpha }\Gamma \left(
1+p\right) \Gamma \left( \frac{1+p+\alpha }{\alpha }\right) _{2}F_{1}\left(
1,1+p,2+p+\frac{1+p}{\alpha },1\right) ,%
\end{array}
\label{1.15}$$and $$\begin{array}{ll}
C_{2}\left( \alpha ,\lambda ,p\right) & =\int_{\lambda ^{\frac{1}{\alpha }%
}}^{1}\left\{ t\left( t^{\alpha }-\lambda \right) \right\} ^{p}dt \\
& \\
& =\frac{1}{\alpha }\int_{\lambda ^{u}}^{1}\frac{1+p-\alpha }{\alpha }\left(
u-\lambda \right) ^{p}du \\
& \\
& =\frac{\lambda ^{\frac{1+p+\alpha p}{\alpha }}}{\alpha }\left\{ \beta
\left( 1+p,-\frac{1+p+\alpha p}{\alpha }\right) -\beta \left( \lambda ,1+p,-%
\frac{1+p+\alpha p}{\alpha }\right) \right\} .%
\end{array}
\label{1.16}$$Thus, we get the desired result.
Let $\varphi \left( t\right) =1$ *in Theorem 2*, *then we get the following inequality* for *any* $x\in \left[ a,b\right] ,\lambda
\in \left[ 0,1\right] $ *and* $\alpha >0$*;*$$\begin{array}{l}
\left\vert S_{f}\left( x,\lambda ,\alpha ,t,\varphi ;a,b\right) \right\vert
\\
\leq \left( \int_{0}^{1}\left\vert t\left( \lambda -t^{\alpha }\right)
\right\vert ^{p}dt\right) ^{\frac{1}{p}}\left[ \frac{\left( x-a\right)
^{\alpha +2}}{b-a}\left\{ \frac{\left( \left\vert f^{\prime \prime }\left(
x\right) \right\vert ^{q}+\left\vert f^{\prime \prime }\left( a\right)
\right\vert ^{q}\right) }{2}\right\} ^{\frac{1}{q}}\right. \\
\left. +\frac{\left( b-x\right) ^{\alpha +2}}{b-a}\left\{ \frac{\left(
\left\vert f^{\prime \prime }\left( x\right) \right\vert ^{q}+\left\vert
f^{\prime \prime }\left( b\right) \right\vert ^{q}\right) }{2}\right\} ^{%
\frac{1}{q}}\right] .%
\end{array}%$$
*If we choose* $\varphi \left( t\right) =1$ and $x=\frac{a+b}{2}$ in *Theorem 2, we can obtain the corollary 2.6, 2.7, 2.8 in* ([@Pa15]), respectively for $\lambda =\frac{1}{3}$, $\lambda =0$, $\lambda =1$.
Let *in* $\varphi \left( t\right) =t^{s-1}$* Theorem* 2, *then we obtain*$$\begin{array}{l}
\left\vert S_{f}\left( x,\lambda ,\alpha ,t,\varphi ;a,b\right) \right\vert
\\
\leq \left( \int_{0}^{1}\left\vert t\left( \lambda -t^{\alpha }\right)
\right\vert ^{p}dt\right) ^{\frac{1}{p}}\left[ \frac{\left( x-a\right)
^{\alpha +2}}{b-a}\left\{ \frac{\left( \left\vert f^{\prime \prime }\left(
x\right) \right\vert ^{q}+\left\vert f^{\prime \prime }\left( a\right)
\right\vert ^{q}\right) }{s+1}\right\} ^{\frac{1}{q}}\right. \\
\left. +\frac{\left( b-x\right) ^{\alpha +2}}{b-a}\left\{ \frac{\left(
\left\vert f^{\prime \prime }\left( x\right) \right\vert ^{q}+\left\vert
f^{\prime \prime }\left( b\right) \right\vert ^{q}\right) }{s+1}\right\} ^{%
\frac{1}{q}}\right] \text{.}%
\end{array}%$$
[99]{} E. F. Beckenbach, Convex functions, *Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.*, **54** (1948) 439-460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/s0002-9904-1948-08994-7
Z. Dahmani, On Minkowski and Hermite-Hadamard integral inequalities via fractional integration, *Ann. Funct. Anal.*, 1(**1**) (2010) 51-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.15352/afa/1399900993
S. S. Dragomir, Inequalities of Jensen type for $\varphi $-convex functions, *Fasc. Math.* **55** (2015) 35-52
H. Hudzik and L. Maligranda, Some remarks on s-convex functions, Aequationes Math., 48 (1994), no. 1, 100-111.
I. Işcan, K. Bekar, S. Numan, Hermite-Hadamard an Simpson type inequalities for differentiable quasi-geometrically convex func- tions, *Turkish* $J.$* of Anal. and Number Theory*, 2(**2**) (2014) 42-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.12691/tjant-2-2-3
I. Işcan, New estimates on generalization of some integral inequalities for ds-convex functions and their applications, *Int. J. Pure Appl. Math.*, 86(4) (2013) 727-746. http://dx.doi.org/10.12732/ijpam.v86i4.11
I. Işcan, Generalization of different type integral inequalities via fractional integrals for functions whose second derivatives absolute value are quasi-convex *Konuralp Journal of Mathematics*, 1(2) (2013) 67-79.
I. Işcan, On generalization of different type integral inequalities for $s$-convex functions via fractional integrals presented
H. Kavurmaci, M. Avci, M. E. Özdemir, New inequalities of Hermite- Hadamard’s type for convex functions with applications, *Journ. of In*-*equal. and Appl*., 2011:86 (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1029-242x-2011-86
V. G. Mihesan, A generalization of the convexity, *Seminar on Functional Equations, Approx. and Convex, Cluj-Napoca, Romania* (1993).
M. E. Özdemir, M. Avic, H. Kavurmaci, Hermite-Hadamard type inequalities for $s$-convex and $s$-concave functions via fractional integrals, arXiv:1202.0380v1\[math.CA\].
J. Park, Generalization of some Simpson-like type inequalities via differentiable $s$-convex mappings in the second sense, *In*- *ter. J. of Math. and Math. Sci*., 2011 Art No: 493531, 13 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/493531
Jaekeun Park, Some new Hermite-Hadamard-like type inequalities on ge- ometrically convex functions, *Inter. J. of Math. Anal*., 8(**16**) (2014),793-802. http://dx.doi.org/10.12988/ijma.2014.4243
Jaekeun Park, On Some Integral Inequalities for Twice Differentiable Quasi-Convex and Convex Functions via Fractional Integrals, *Applied Mathematical Sciences*, Vol. 9(62) (2015), 3057-3069 HIKARI Ltd, www.m-hikari.com. http://dx.doi.org/10.12988/ams.2015.53248.
Samko, S.G., Kilbas A.A. and Marichev, O.I., Fractional Integrals and Derivatives, Theory and Applications, *Gordon and Breach*, 1993, ISBN 2881248640.
M. Z. Sarikaya, H. Ogunmez, On new inequalities via Riemann-Liouville fractional integration, *Abstract and applied analysis*, 2012 (2012) 10 pages, Art ID:428983. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/428983
M. Z. Sarikaya, E. Set, H. Yildiz, N. Basak, Hermite- Hadamard’s inequalities for fractional integrals and related frac- tional inequalities, *Math. and Comput. Model*., 2011 (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2011.12.048
E. Set, M. Z. Sarikaya, M. E. Özdemir, Some Ostrowski’s type Inequalities for functions whose second derivatives are $s$-convex in the second sense, arXiv:1*006.24* 88v1 \[*math*. CA\] 12 *June 2010*.
E. Set, E. Ozdemir, M. Z. Sarikaya, F. Karako, Hermite-Hadamard type inequalities for mappings whose derivatives are $s$-convex in the second sense via fractional integrals, *Khayyam J. Math.,* 1(1) (2015) 62-70.
Gh. Toader, On a generalization of the convexity, *Mathematica*, 30(53) (1988), 83-87.
M.Tunc, On some new inequalities for convex functions, *Turk. J. Math*., **35** (2011), 1-7.
M. Tunc, H. Yildirim, *On MT-Convexity, arXiv: 1205.5453 \[math. CA\] 24 May 2012*
[^1]: M.E. Yildirim was partially supported by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK Programme 2228-B)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
[Some Aspects of Modeling Dependence in Copula-based Markov chains]{}
Martial Longla **** and Magda Peligrad **[^1]**
**To appear in Journal of Multivatiate Analysis (2012)**
Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Cincinnati, PO Box 210025, Cincinnati, Oh 45221-0025, USA.
E-mail addresses: martiala@mail.uc.edu and peligrm@ucmail.uc.edu
Abstract
Dependence coefficients have been widely studied for Markov processes defined by a set of transition probabilities and an initial distribution. This work clarifies some aspects of the theory of dependence structure of Markov chains generated by copulas that are useful in time series econometrics and other applied fields. The main aim of this paper is to clarify the relationship between the notions of geometric ergodicity and geometric $\rho$-mixing; namely, to point out that for a large number of well known copulas, such as Clayton, Gumbel or Student, these notions are equivalent. Some of the results published in the last years appear to be redundant if one takes into account this fact. We apply this equivalence to show that any mixture of Clayton, Gumbel or Student copulas generates both geometrically ergodic and geometric $\rho-$mixing stationary Markov chains, answering in this way an open question in the literature. We shall also point out that a sufficient condition for $\rho-$mixing, used in the literature, actually implies Doeblin recurrence.
Key words: Markov chains, copula, mixing conditions, reversible processes.
AMS 2000 Subject Classification: Primary 60J20, 60J35, 37A30.
Introduction
============
[In recent years copula-based methods have become a popular tool for analyzing temporal dependence of time series. A ]{}${2}$[-copula is a bivariate distribution function]{} ${C}$ [with uniform marginal distributions on $[0,1]$. Given a stationary Markov chain ]{}${(X}_{n})_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}$ with marginal distribution function $F,$ the process is characterized by the bivariate distribution function of $(X_{1},X_{2})$ denoted by $H(x_{1},x_{2})=\Pr
(X_{1}\leq x_{1},X_{2}\leq x_{2}).$ Then, by Sklar’s theorem (see for instance Nelsen [@Nelsen]), one can express $H(x_{1},x_{2})$ in terms of a copula ${C(x}_{1}{,x}_{2}{)}$ and $F(x)$ via $$H(x_{1},x_{2})={C(F(x}_{1}{),F(x}_{2}{))}\text{ .}\label{*}$$ The copula is uniquely defined on the product of the range of $F$ by itself. So, it is unique if $F$ is continuous, and otherwise can be uniquely constructed using a bilinear interpolation; see, e.g., [@GNe]. Therefore one can specify a stationary Markov process by providing an invariant distribution function and a copula. The copula approach is flexible, since the marginal behavior characterized by $F$ can be separated from the temporal dependence described by $C.$ In their recent paper, de Vries, C. G. and Zhou, C. [@de; @Vries] point out two examples from economics where this separation is useful.
Many interesting patterns of temporal dependence in various applied fields of research can be generated by using certain copula functions. Various procedures for estimating these models have been proposed, ranging from parametric to nonparametric models (see for instance Chen and Fan [@Chen-Fan], Chen et al. [@Chen-wu], and the references therein). To establish the asymptotic properties of any of these estimators, one needs to know the temporal dependence properties of the Markov chains, usually described in terms of mixing coefficients. There are a large number of papers in the literature that address this problem. Among them we mention Chen and Fan [@Chen-Fan], Gagliardini and Gouriéroux [@Ga], Chen et al. [@Chen-wu], Ibragimov and Lentzas [@IL], Beare [@Beare1].
This work is motivated in fact by the paper by Chen et al. [@Chen-wu]. In their Proposition 2.1, it was shown that Markov processes generated by the Clayton, Gumbel or Student copulas are geometrically ergodic. Their method of proof is based on a sophisticated quantile transformations and construction of small sets for each individual copula. However it is not obvious how to construct small sets to handle for instance the mixture of these copulas. Wei Biao Wu raised the question whether convex combinations of these copulas generate geometrically ergodic Markov chains. We shall positively answer this question. The derivation of this result is based on the theory of the geometric ergodicity of reversible Markov chains developed by Roberts and Rosenthal [@Roberts], Roberts and Tweedie [@Roberts-Tweedie] and Kontoyiannis and Meyn [@KMeyn2]. This theory stresses the importance of estimating the maximal coefficient of correlation between two consecutive random variables in the Markov chain.
We shall also comment on a class of stationary Markov chains which Beare [@Beare Theorem 4.2] showed to be $\rho-$mixing. We shall actually show that this class satisfies a more restrictive condition, namely $\phi-$mixing, and so, the estimators will enjoy richer asymptotic properties. Precisely, we shall show that if the density of the absolutely continuous part of a copula is bounded away from $0$ on a set of Lebesgue measure $1$, then it generates $\phi-$mixing Markov chains.
Our paper is organized as follows. First we give a brief survey of three mixing coefficients that are closely related and formulate them in the specific copula terms. In Section 3 we discuss the equivalence between geometric ergodicity and geometric $\rho-$mixing for Markov chains with symmetric copulas. Section 4 treats Doeblin recurrence property. The mathematical arguments are included in Section 5.
Throughout the paper we denote by $I=[0,1],$ by $\mathcal{R}$ we denote the Borelian sets on $R$ and $\lambda$ denotes the Lebesgue measure. By $||g||_{p,\lambda}$ we denote $\left( \int_{I}|g(x)|^{p}d\lambda\right)
^{1/p}.$ For a random variable $X$ defined on a probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{K},\mathbb{P})$ we denote by $||X||_{p}=\mathbb{E}(|X|^{p})^{1/p}$. The notation a.s. stands for almost sure. By $dx$, $dy$, ... we denote the integral with respect to Lebesgue measure on $I$. For a function $f(x,y)$ we denote by $f_{,1}(x,y)$, $f_{,2}(x,y)$ and $f_{,12}(x,y)$ the partial derivative with respect to $x$, $y$, and second mixed derivative, respectively. For a set $B$ we denote by $B^{\prime}$ the complement of $B$.
Three mixing coefficients
=========================
In this paper we shall discuss the following three mixing coefficients. Let $(\Omega,\mathcal{K},\mathbb{P})$ be a probability space and let $\mathcal{A},\mathcal{B}$ be two $\sigma$-algebras included in $\mathcal{K}$. Define the absolutely regular coefficient between $\mathcal{A},\mathcal{B}$ by $$\beta(\mathcal{A},\mathcal{B})=\frac{1}{2}\sup_{\{A_{i}\},\{B_{j}\}}\sum
_{i=1}^{n}\sum_{j=1}^{m}|\mathbb{\Pr}(A_{i}\cap B_{j})-\mathbb{\Pr}(A_{i})\mathbb{\Pr}(B_{j})|\text{ ,}$$ where the supremum is taken over all positive integers $n$ and $m,$ and all finite partitions $\{A_{i}\},\{B_{j}\}$ of $\Omega$ with $A_{i}\in\mathcal{A}$ and $B_{j}\in\mathcal{B}$.
The maximal coefficient of correlation is defined by $$\rho(\mathcal{A},\mathcal{B})=\sup_{f,g}\{\text{corr}(f,g),\text{ }f\in\mathbb{L}_{2}(\mathcal{A}),\text{ }g\in\mathbb{L}_{2}(\mathcal{B})\}\text{ .}$$ where $\mathbb{L}_{2}(\mathcal{A})$ is the space of random variables that are $\mathcal{A}$ measurable and square integrable.
The uniform mixing coefficient is $$\phi(\mathcal{A},\mathcal{B})=\sup_{B\in\mathcal{B},A\in\mathcal{A},\mathbb{\Pr}(A)>0}|\mathbb{\Pr}(B|A)-\Pr(B)|\text{ .}$$
For a stationary sequence ${(X}_{n})_{n\in Z}$ let $\mathcal{P}=\sigma({X}_{k},k\leq0)$ be the information provided by the past of the process and $\mathcal{F}_{n}=\sigma({X}_{k},k\geq n)$ describes the future after $n$ steps. Then define $\beta_{n}=\beta(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{F}_{n}),$ $\rho
_{n}=\rho(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{F}_{n}),$ and $\phi_{n}=\phi(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{F}_{n})$. It is well known that $\beta_{n}\leq\phi_{n}$ and $\rho_{n}\leq2\sqrt{\phi_{n}}$ (see Proposition 3.11.a and c in [@Bradley])$.$ If in addition the sequence is Markov, the coefficients simplify and we have $\beta_{n}=\beta(\sigma({X}_{0}),\sigma({X}_{n})),$ $\rho_{n}=\rho
(\sigma({X}_{0}),\sigma({X}_{n})),$ and $\phi_{n}=\phi(\sigma({X}_{0}),\sigma({X}_{n}))$ (see Theorem 7.3 [@Bradley]). Moreover $\rho_{n}\leq(\rho_{1})^{n}$ and $(2\phi_{n})\leq(2\phi_{1})^{n}$ (see Theorem 7.4 in [@Bradley])$.$ There are examples of Markov chains such that $\rho
_{n}\rightarrow0$ but $\phi_{n}\nrightarrow0,$ and also $\rho_{n}\rightarrow0$ but $\beta_{n}\nrightarrow0$ or $\beta_{n}\rightarrow0$ but $\rho
_{n}\nrightarrow0$. For a convenient reference see Example 7.10, Example 7.11, Theorem 7.7 and Remarks 7.13 in Bradley [@Bradley].
In terms of conditional probabilities, denoted by $P^{n}(x,B)=\mathbb{\Pr
}(X_{n}\in B|X_{0}=x),$ and marginal distribution function $F(x),$ which generates the invariant measure $\pi(A)=\Pr(X_{0}\in A)$, using the equivalent definitions of the mixing coefficients (see Theorem 3.32 and Lemma 4.3 in [@Bradley]) we have$$\beta_{n}=\int_{R}\sup_{B\in\mathcal{R}}|P^{n}(x,B)-\pi(B)|dF\text{,}$$$$\rho_{n}=\sup_{g}\{\left( \int_{R}\left( \int_{R}g(y)P^{n}(x,dy)\right)
^{2}dF\right) ^{1/2},\text{ }\int_{R}g^{2}(y)dF(y)=1,\text{ }\mathbb{E}g=0\}\text{,}$$ and $$\phi_{n}=\sup_{B\in\mathcal{B}}\text{ess}\sup_{x\in R}|P^{n}(x,B)-\pi
(B)|\text{.}$$
We should mention that, all these mixing coefficients for stationary Markov chains are invariant under strictly increasing and continuous transformations of the variables. Then, if $X_{0}$ has a continuous and bounded distribution function $F$, without restricting the generality, we can replace in their computations $X_{n}$ by $U_{n}=F(X_{n})$. Since $U_{0}$ and $U_{n}$ are both uniformly distributed on $[0,1]$ these coefficients are characterized only by copulas.
In general, we say that a stationary Markov chain $(X_{i})_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}$ is generated by a marginal distribution $F$ and a copula $C$ if the joint distribution of $(X_{0},X_{1})$ is given by (\[\*\]).
We shall make the following convention:
**Convention:** Given a copula $C$ we shall refer to the stationary Markov chain $(U_{i})_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}$ it generates, without specifying its marginal distribution, if this distribution is uniform on $[0,1]$.
It is easy to see that the coefficients for $(U_{i})_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}$ with copula $C$ are robust in the following sense: The mixing coefficients of a Markov chain $(X_{i})_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}$ generated by a given copula $C$ and marginal distribution uniform on $[0,1]$, are larger than or equal to those of a Markov chain generated by the same copula and another marginal distribution $F,$ not necessarily continuous. To see this we consider the generalized inverse, $$F^{-1}(u)=\inf\{x,u\leq F(x)\}\text{ .}$$ Note that $x\geq F^{-1}(u)$ if and only if $F(x)\geq u.$ Given the stationary Markov chain $(U_{i})_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}$ generated by the copula $C$ and a uniform distribution on $[0,1]$, the stationary Markov chain $(F^{-1}(U_{i}))_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}$ has the marginal distribution function $F$ and the same copula. It remains to note that $\sigma(F^{-1}(U_{i}))\subset\sigma(U_{i}).$
We shall express next the mixing coefficients of a Markov chain in the specific terms of copula characteristics. One of the most important notions that facilitates the link is the fold product of copulas, defined by Relation (2.10) in Darsow et al. [@Darsow] as follows:
\[kernel\] Let $C_{1}(x,y)$ and $C_{2}(x,y)$ be two copulas. Their fold product is $$A(x,y)=C_{1}\ast C_{2}(x,y)=\int_{I}C_{1,2}(x,t)C_{2,1}(t,y)dt\text{ }.$$
This operation is associative, distributive over convex combinations of copulas and the set of copulas is closed under it. For more details about the product of copulas, see Darsow et al. [@Darsow] and also Nelsen [@Nelsen], where it is also proved that copulas are almost everywhere differentiable. Furthermore, for all $n\geq1$ and $y\in\lbrack0,1]$ the transition probabilities of the stationary Markov chain, $(U_{i})_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}$, with uniform marginal distributions and copula $C$ is given by $$\mathbb{\Pr}(U_{n}\leq y|U_{0}=x)=C_{,1}^{n}(x,y)\text{ a.s. ,}\label{defC,1}$$ where $C^{n}(x,y)$ is the $n$-th fold product of $C(x,y)=C^{1}(x,y)$ with itself. Then, we can construct a set $\Omega$ of Lesbegue measure $1$, such that for all $x\in\Omega$ we have $\mathbb{\Pr}(U_{n}\leq y|U_{0}=x)=C_{,1}^{n}(x,y)$ for all $y$ rational, and we deduce that for any $x$ in $\Omega$ and any Borelian $A$ $$P^{n}(x,A)=\mathbb{\Pr}(U_{n}\in A|U_{0}=x)=C_{,1}^{n}(x,A)\text{
,}\label{trans}$$ where by $C_{,1}^{n}(x,A)$ we denote the measure induced by $C_{,1}^{n}(x,y)=C_{,1}^{n}(x,[0,y]).$
Using these notations, we have the following reformulation of the mixing coefficients for $(U_{n})_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}$, a stationary Markov chain with uniform marginal distributions, in terms of copula $C^{n}(x,y)$ associated to variables $(U_{0},U_{n})$: $$\beta_{n}=\int_{0}^{1}\sup_{B\in\mathcal{R}\cap I}|C_{,1}^{n}(x,B)-\lambda
(B)|dx\text{,}$$$$\rho_{n}=\sup_{g}\left\{ \left( \int_{0}^{1}\left( \int_{0}^{1}g(y)C_{,1}^{n}(x,dy)\right) ^{2}dx\right) ^{1/2},\text{ }||g||_{2,\lambda
}=1,\text{ }\mathbb{E}g=0\right\}$$ and $$\phi_{n}=\sup_{B\in\mathcal{B}}\text{ess}\sup_{x\in I}|C_{,1}^{n}(x,B)-\lambda(B)|\text{ .}$$ If in addition the copula $C^{n}(x,y)$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\lambda^{2}$, and denoting its density by $c_{n}(x,y)$ then, these coefficients become$$\beta_{n}=\int_{0}^{1}\sup_{B\in\mathcal{R}\cap I}|\int_{B}(c_{n}(x,y)-1)dy|dx\text{ }.$$$$\rho_{n}=\sup_{f,g}\left\{ \int_{0}^{1}\int_{0}^{1}c_{n}(x,y)f(x)g(y)dxdy:||g||_{2,\lambda}=||f||_{2,\lambda}=1,\text{ }\mathbb{E}f=\mathbb{E}g=0\right\} \text{ ,}$$$$\phi_{n}=\sup_{B\subset\mathcal{R}\cap I}\text{ess}\sup_{x\in I}|\int
_{B}(c_{n}(x,y)-1)dy|\text{ .}\label{phy copula}$$
Geometric ergodicity
====================
An important notion for the Markov chains is the notion of absolute regularity. A stationary sequence is said to be absolutely regular if $\beta_{n}\rightarrow0$ as $n\rightarrow\infty.$ It is well known (see for instance Corollary 21.7 in Bradley [@Bradley]) that a strictly stationary Markov chain is absolutely regular (i.e. $\beta_{n}\rightarrow0$) if and only if it is irreducible, (i.e. Harris recurrent) and aperiodic. A Markov chain is irreducible if there exists a set $B$, such that $\pi(B)=1$ and the following holds: for all $x\in B$ and every set $A\in\mathcal{R}$ such that $\pi(A)>0$, there is a positive integer $n=n(x,A)$ for which $P^{n}(x,A)>0.$ An irreducible stationary Markov chain is aperiodic if and only if there is $A$ with $\pi(A)>0$ and a positive integer $n$ such that $P^{n}(x,A)>0$ and $P^{n+1}(x,A)>0$ for all $x$ $\in A$ (see Chan and Tong [@chan Theorem $3.3.1$] ).
By using these definitions along with measure theoretical arguments we shall prove the following general result, where we impose a less restrictive condition than Assumption 1 in Chen and Fan [@Chen-Fan].
\[general\] If the absolutely continuous part of a copula has a strictly positive density on a set of measure $1$, then it generates an absolutely regular Markov chain.
It is well known that any convex combination of copulas is still a copula. We shall comment next on the absolute regularity of such a mixture of copulas and point out that it will inherit this property from one of the copulas in the combination. We present this fact as a lemma that is needed for our proofs.
\[convreg\] Let $(C_{k}$; $1\leq k\leq n)$ be $n$ copulas such that for some $1\leq j\leq k$, $C_{j}$ generates an absolutely regular Markov chain. Any stationary Markov chain generated by a convex combination, $\sum_{k=1}^{n}a_{k}C_{k}$ with $\sum_{k=1}^{n}a_{k}=1,$ $0\leq a_{k}\leq1$, $a_{j}\neq0,$ is absolutely regular.
Speed of convergence
--------------------
The speed of convergence to $0$ of the mixing coefficients is a very important question for establishing limit theorems for estimators and their speed of convergence.
We shall say that a sequence is geometric $\beta-$mixing (or geometric absolutely regular) if there is $0<\gamma<1$ such that $\beta_{n}<\gamma^{n}.$
We say that the sequence is geometric $\rho-$mixing if there is $0<\delta<1$ such that $\rho_{n}\leq\delta^{n}.$ For a stationary Markov chain, because $\rho_{n}\leq\rho_{1}^{n},$ we have that $\rho_{1}<1$ implies $\rho_{n}\leq\delta^{n}$ with $\delta=\rho_{1}.$
In this section we are going to use an equivalent definition for $\rho-$mixing coefficients in terms of the operator associated to the Markov chain. As before, denote the marginal distribution by $\pi(A)=\mathbb{\Pr}(X_{0}\in A)$ and assume there is a regular conditional distribution for $X_{1}$ given $X_{0}$ denoted by $P(x,A)=\mathbb{\Pr}(X_{1}\in A|\,X_{0}=x)$. In addition $P$ denotes the Markov operator [acting via $(Pf)(x)=\int_{S}f(s)P(x,ds).$ Next let ]{}$\mathbb{L}_{2}^{0}(\pi)$[ be the set of measurable functions such that $\int f^{2}d\pi<\infty$ and $\int fd\pi=0.$ ]{}With these notations, the coefficient $\rho_{1}$ is simply the norm operator of $P:\mathbb{L}_{2}^{0}(\pi)\rightarrow\mathbb{L}_{2}^{0}(\pi)$, [ ]{}$$\rho_{1}=||P||_{\mathbb{L}_{2}^{0}(\pi)}=\sup_{g\in\mathbb{L}_{2}^{0}(\pi
)}\frac{||P(g)||_{2}}{||g||_{2}}\text{ .} \label{rho}$$
Still in this Markov setting, geometric $\beta-$mixing is equivalent to the notion of geometric ergodicity that means there exists a measurable function $A$ such that for some $0<\gamma<1$ and for all $n\geq1$$$||P^{n}(x,.)-\pi(.)||_{\text{tot var}}\leq A(x)\gamma^{n}\text{ a.s.}$$ A convenient reference to these results is Theorem 21.19 in Bradley [@Bradley], or Meyn and Tweedie [@Myen].
We say that the stationary Markov chain is reversible if $(X_{0},X_{1})$ and $(X_{1},X_{0})$ are identically distributed. Equivalently $P$ is self-adjoint. In the context of reversible irreducible and aperiodic Markov chains $1-\rho_{1}$ equals the so called spectral gap, and if $\rho_{1}<1$ we say that the operator $P$ has a spectral gap in $\mathbb{L}_{2}$. For a convenient reference to spectral theory we mention the book by Conway [@Conway]. See also the remarks above and after Theorem 2.1 in Roberts and Rosenthal [@Roberts] and Lemma 2.2 in Kontoyannis and Meyn [@KMeyn2].
Based partially on results of Roberts and Rosenthal [@Roberts], Roberts and Tweedie [@Roberts-Tweedie], Kontoyannis and Meyn [@KMeyn2], in their Proposition 1.2, state that any irreducible and aperiodic reversible Markov chain is geometrically ergodic if and only if has a spectral gap in $\mathbb{L}_{2}(\pi).$ In view of previous comments we formulate their result in the following language which is familiar to researchers in applied areas:
\[KM\]Any irreducible and aperiodic reversible Markov chain is geometrically ergodic if and only if $\rho_{1}<1.$
In one direction, the assumption of reversibility in Theorem \[KM\] cannot be relaxed. There are examples of irreducible and aperiodic reversible Markov chains which are geometrically ergodic but $\rho_{1}=1$ (see for instance Theorem 1.4 in [@KMeyn2]). In the opposite direction the reversibility is not needed (see Theorem 1.3 in [@KMeyn2]). So, in fact, an irreducible and aperiodic Markov chain satisfying $\rho_{1}<1$ is geometrically ergodic. This important result is the key for obtaining the following statement:
\[M2\] Let $(C_{k}$; $1\leq k\leq n)$ be $n$ symmetric copulas that generate geometrically ergodic Markov chains. Any stationary Markov chain generated by a convex combination of these copulas is geometrically ergodic and geometric $\rho-$mixing.
These results have rich implications. We shall give two corollaries that are useful in applications. Combining Proposition \[general\] and Theorem \[KM\] leads to:
\[CorKM\]A symmetric copula with the density of its absolutely continuous part strictly positive on a set of Lebesgue measure $1$ generates a geometrically ergodic stationary Markov chain if and only if $\rho_{1}<1.$
By combining now Lemma \[convreg\] with Theorem \[KM\] one obtains:
\[convex\] Assume $(C_{k}$; $1\leq k\leq n)$ are $n$ symmetric copulas and for some $1\leq j\leq n,$ $C_{j}$ has the density of its absolute continuous part strictly positive on a set of Lebesgue measure $1.$ Assume each one generates a $\rho-$mixing Markov chain. Then, any convex combination, $\sum_{k=1}^{n}a_{k}C_{k}$ with $\sum_{k=1}^{n}a_{k}=1,$ $0\leq a_{k}\leq1$, $a_{j}\neq0$ generates a geometrically ergodic Markov chain.
Based on these results we can give the following examples:
Examples
--------
1\. The Student $t$-copula, Clayton and Gumbel copulas generate geometric $\rho$-mixing Markov chains. It was shown by Chen et al. [@Chen-wu] that these copulas generate geometrically ergodic stationary Markov chains, and then, an application of Corollary \[CorKM\] proves our statement. It should be noticed that Beare [@Beare Remark 4.2], also states that the $t$ copula generates geometric $\rho$-mixing, but his reasoning contains a gap. It is based on a theorem that does not apply to the $t$-copula, since its density is not bounded away from $0$. He also made a numerical study that confirms our statement that Clayton and Gumbel copulas generate geometric $\rho$-mixing Markov chains.
The Student $t$-copula is given by $$C_{\rho,\nu}(u,v)=t_{\rho,\nu}(t_{\nu}^{-1}(u),t_{\nu}^{-1}(v)),\quad
|\rho|<1,\quad\nu\in(2,\infty)\text{ ,}$$ where $t_{\rho,\nu}(.,.)$ is the distribution function of the bivariate Student-t distribution with mean zero, the correlation matrix having off-diagonal element $\rho$, and $\nu$ degrees of freedom, and $t_{\nu}(.)$ is the distribution function of a univariate Student-t distribution with mean zero, and $\nu$ degrees of freedom.
2\. Any convex combination of Clayton, Gumbel and $t$-copulas generates a geometrically ergodic stationary Markov chain (and thus, geometric $\rho
$-mixing). This is due to the fact that all these copulas are symmetric in their variables and we apply then Theorem \[M2\]. This statement positively answers the question posed by Wei Biao Wu on this topic. The Clayton and Gumbel copulas are respectively $$C_{\theta}(u,v)=(u^{-\theta}+v^{-\theta}-1)^{-1/\theta},\quad\theta
\in(0,\infty)\text{ },$$$$C_{\beta}(u,v)=\exp(-[(-\ln u)^{\beta}+(-\ln v)^{\beta}]^{1/\beta}),\quad
\beta\in\lbrack1,\infty)\text{ }.$$
3\. All Archimedean copulas that were shown to be geometrically ergodic by Beare [@Beare1] and their convex combinations also generate geometric $\rho$-mixing by Theorem \[M2\].
Doeblin recurrence
===================
Beare, in [@Beare Theorem 4.2], based on arguments related to results in Breiman and Friedman [@Breiman] and Bryc [@Bryc], showed that if the density of the absolutely continuous part of a copula is bounded away from $0$ a.s., then $\rho_{1}<1$. Actually we shall prove that more can be said under this condition, namely this condition implies $\phi$-mixing and therefore geometric ergodicity for the generated Markov chain.
\[phy\]Assume the density of the absolutely continuous part of the copula $C$ exists and is bounded away from $0$ on a set of Lebesgue measure $1$, (that is $c(x,y)\geq c>0$ a.s.). Then the stationary Markov chain generated by the copula is $\phi-$mixing. This is equivalent to saying there are constants $D$ and $0<r<1$ such that for every $n\geq1$, and $B\in\mathcal{R}\cap I$ $$|\Pr(U_{n}\in B|U_{0}=x)-\lambda(B)|\leq Dr^{-n}\text{ a.s.}$$
This result also implies that the sequence is geometrically ergodic since $\beta_{n}\leq\phi_{n}\leq Dr^{-n}$.
**Example** The Marshall-Olkin copula is given by formula $$C_{\alpha,\beta}(u,v)=\min{(uv^{1-\alpha},vu^{1-\beta})},\quad0\leq
\alpha,\beta\leq1\text{ ,}$$ is geometric $\phi-$mixing for $0\leq\alpha,\beta<1$.
Proofs
======
**Proof of Proposition \[general\]**
Because for almost all $x$ we know that $C_{,1}(x,y)$ exists and is increasing in $y,$ we have that $C_{,12}(x,y)$ exists a.s. It follows that for all $y$ there is a set $\Omega_{y}$ with $\lambda(\Omega_{y})=1$ such that for all $x\in\Omega_{y}$ $$\mathbb{\Pr}(U_{1}\leq y|U_{0}=x)=C_{,1}(x,y)=\int_{0}^{y}C_{,12}(x,v)dv+S_{1}(x,y)\text{ ,}$$ where $C_{,12}(x,v)$ is the density of the absolute continuous part of the copula and $S_{1}(x,y)=C_{,1}(x,y)-\int_{0}^{y}C_{,12}(x,v)dv$ is the singular part of $C_{,1}(x,y).$ Since, by Lebesgue Theorem, $\int_{0}^{y}C_{,12}(x,v)dv\leq C_{,1}(x,y)-C_{,1}(x,0),$ we have $S_{1}(x,y)\geq0$. In the same way we argued the relation (\[trans\]), we find a set $\Omega$ of measure $1$ such that for all $x\in\Omega$ and all Borelians $A,$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{\Pr}(U_{1} & \in A|U_{0}=x)=C_{,1}(x,A)\label{C1}\\
& =\int_{A}C_{,12}(x,v)dv+S_{1}(x,A)\geq\int_{A}C_{,12}(x,v)dv>0\text{
,}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and irreducibility follows.
To prove aperiodicity, by Theorem 3.2 in Darsow et al. [@Darsow], we know that $$C^{2}(x,y)=\mathbb{\Pr}(U_{0}\leq x,U_{2}\leq y)=\int_{I}C_{,2}(x,t)C_{,1}(t,y)dt\text{ .}$$ By Fatou lemma we obtain, $$C_{,12}^{2}(x,y)\geq\int_{I}C_{,21}(x,t)C_{,12}(t,y)dt\text{ .}$$ Then, by Proposition 3.5 in Šremr [@Smr], (see also Lemma 1 of Walczak [@Wa]), we have $C_{,21}(x,y)=C_{,12}(x,y)\ $a.s. and by our assumption they are strictly positive a.s. Furthermore, by Fubini Theorem, for almost all $x$, $\lambda\{(t:$ $C_{,21}(x,t)>0)^{\prime}\}=0.$ Then we easily find a set of Lebesque measure $1$ such that, on that set, we have $C_{,12}^{2}(x,y)>0.$ By repeating the arguments above we find a set $\Omega^{\prime}$ of measure $1$ such that for all $x\in\Omega^{\prime}$ and all Borelians $A$ $$\mathbb{\Pr}(U_{2}\in A|U_{0}=x)>0\text{ ,} \label{C2}$$ The aperiodicity follows from (\[C1\]) and (\[C2\]), by taking $A=\Omega\cap\Omega^{\prime}.$ $\Diamond$
**Proof of Lemma \[convreg\]**
For simplicity, we shall argue the conclusion of the lemma only for two copulas. Define $C(x,y)=aC_{1}(x,y)+(1-a)C_{2}(x,y),$ with $0<a<1$. Their $n$-steps transition kernels are $\frac{\partial C_{1}^{n}}{\partial x}(x,A)$ a.s. and $\frac{\partial C_{2}^{n}}{\partial x}(x,A)$ a.s., as mentioned in relation (\[trans\]). The $n$-steps transition kernel of the Markov chain generated by $C(x,y)$ is $$P^{n}(x,A)=\frac{\partial}{\partial x}C^{n}(x,A)=\frac{\partial}{\partial
x}(aC_{1}+(1-a)C_{2})^{n}(x,A)\text{ },$$ for $x\in B$ with $\lambda(B)=1$ and all $A\in\mathcal{R}\cap I$. Due to distributivity and associativity of the fold product from Definition \[kernel\], we easily obtain $$P^{n}(x,A)\geq a^{n}\frac{\partial C_{1}^{n}}{\partial x}(x,A)+(1-a)^{n}\frac{\partial C_{2}^{n}}{\partial x}(x,A)\geq a^{n}\frac{\partial C_{1}^{n}}{\partial x}(x,A)\text{.}$$ for all $n\geq1,$ $x\in B$ with $\lambda(B)=1$ and all $A\in\mathcal{R}\cap
I$. Therefore the conclusion of this lemma follows by the definitions of irreducibility and aperiodicity given at the beginning of Section 3. $\Diamond$
**Proof of Theorem \[M2\]**
The convex combination generates an absolutely regular Markov chain by Lemma \[convreg\]. Because this combination is still a symmetric copula, it generates a stationary and reversible Markov chain. By Theorem \[KM\], in order to proof that it is geometrically ergodic, we have to show that its first $\rho-$mixing coefficient is strictly less than $1$. We shall argue that this holds and for simplicity we shall consider the case $n=2$. Denote by $\rho_{1}^{\prime}$, $\rho_{1}^{\prime\prime}$ and $\rho_{1}$ the corresponding first $\rho-$mixing coefficients for the stationary Markov chains generated by $C_{1}(x,y)$, $C_{2}(x,y)$ and by $C(x,y)=aC_{1}(x,y)+(1-a)C_{2}(x,y)$ with $0\leq a\leq1$, respectively. According to Theorem \[KM\], [we have]{} $\rho_{1}^{\prime}<1$ and $\rho_{1}^{\prime\prime}<1$. Then, by definition (\[rho\]) we easily derive that$$\rho_{1}\leq a\rho_{1}^{\prime}+(1-a)\rho_{1}^{\prime\prime}<1\text{ }$$ and the result follows. $\Diamond$
**Proof of Theorem \[phy\]**
The proof is based on Doeblin theory. We mention first that Doeblin’s condition, in the basic form (see Bradley, vol. 2 page 330, [@Bradley]), is implied by
\[D\]$\ $There exists $A\subset I$ with $\lambda(A)=1$ and $\varepsilon
\in(0,1)$ such that for all $x$ in $A$ and all $B\in\mathcal{R}\cap I,$ the relation $\lambda(B)\leq\varepsilon$ implies $C_{,1}(x,B)\leq1-\varepsilon.$
This condition implies that $\varphi_{1}<1-\varepsilon.$ Here is a short argument in terms of copula. Since $C_{,1}(x,B)-\lambda(B)=\lambda(B^{\prime
})-C_{,1}(x,B^{\prime}),$ we notice we do not need the absolute value in the definition of $\phi_{1}$. By Condition \[D\], $$\begin{gathered}
\sup_{B}|C_{,1}(x,B)-\lambda(B)|=\sup_{B}(C_{,1}(x,B)-\lambda(B))\leq\\
\max\{\sup_{B,\lambda(B)\leq\varepsilon}(C_{,1}(x,B)-\lambda(B)),\sup
_{B,\lambda(B)>\varepsilon}C_{,1}(x,B)-\lambda(B))\}\\
\leq\max(\sup_{B,\lambda(B)\leq\varepsilon}C_{,1}(x,B),\sup_{B,\lambda
(B^{\prime})\leq1-\varepsilon}\lambda(B^{\prime}))\leq1-\varepsilon\text{
\ a.s.}$$ This gives $$\varphi_{1}=\text{ess}\sup_{x}\sup_{B}|C_{,1}(x,B)-\lambda(B)|\leq
1-\varepsilon\text{ .}$$
On the other hand, by Proposition \[general\], we already know that the process is absolutely regular and thus is ergodic and aperiodic. Then, according to Doeblin theorem (see Comment 6 in Bradley, vol. 2, page 331 [@Bradley]) we have only to verify Condition \[D\].
Let $\varepsilon=c/(1+c).$ Let $A\in\mathcal{R}\cap I$ with $\lambda
(A)\leq\varepsilon$ or equivalently $\lambda(A^{\prime})>1-\varepsilon.$ Then, by the definition of $\varepsilon,$ for all $x$ in a set of measure $1$,$$1-C_{,1}(x,A)=C_{,1}(x,A^{\prime})\geq\int_{A^{\prime}}c(x,y)dy\geq
c\lambda(A^{\prime})\geq c(1-\varepsilon)=c/(1+c)=\varepsilon\text{ .}$$ So, for almost all $x$$$C_{,1}(x,A)\leq1-\varepsilon\text{ }.$$ The conclusion of Doeblin’s theorem is that the Markov chain is $\phi-$mixing. (see Bradley, vol. 2 page 331, Comments 4 and 5 and 6 [@Bradley]). $\Diamond$
**Acknowledgment**. The authors are indebted to the referees for carefully reading the manuscript and for helpful comments that improved the presentation of the paper.
[99]{}
B.K. Beare, Copulas and temporal dependence, ** Econometrica (2010) 395–410.
B. K. Beare, Archimedean copulas and temporal dependence, University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series 1549539 (2010). To appear in Econometric Theory.
R.C. Bradley, Introduction to strong mixing conditions. Vol 1, 2, 3. Kendrick Press, Heber City, 2007.
L. Breiman, J.H. Friedman, Estimating optimal transformations for multiple regression and correlation, ** J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 80 (1985) 580-598.
W. Bryc, Conditional moment representations for dependent random variables, Electron. J. Probab. 1 (1996) 1–14.
K. Chan, H. Tong, Chaos: A Statistical Perspective. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2001.
X. Chen, Y. Fan, Estimation of copula-based semiparametric time series models, J. Econometrics 130 (2006) 307–335.
X. Chen, W.B. Wu, Y. Yi, Efficient estimation of copula-based semi-parametric Markov models, Ann. Statist. 37 (2009) 4214-4253.
J.B. Conway, A course in functional analysis, 2nd ed., Springer-Verlag, New York, 1990.
W.F. Darsow, B. Nguyen, E.T. Olsen, Copulas and Markov processes, Illinois J. Math. 36 (1992) 600-642.
C.G. de Vries, C. Zhou, Discussion of Copulas: Tales and facts, by Thomas Mikosch, Extremes 9 (2006) 23-25.
P. Gagliardini, C. Gouriéroux, Duration time-series models with proportional hazard, Journal of Time Series Analysis 29 (2008) 74-124.
C. Genest, J. Nešlehová, A primer on copulas for count data, ASTIN Bull. 37 (2007) 475-515.
R. Ibragimov, G. Lentzas, Copulas and long memory, Harvard Institute of Economic Research Discussion Paper No. 2160, (2009).
I. Kontoyannis, S.P. Meyn, Geometric ergodicity and spectral gap of non-reversible real valued Markov chains, Probab. Theory and related Fields ** (2011) (papers to appear in subsequent numbers)*.*
S.P. Meyn, R.L. Tweedie, Markov Chains and Stochastic Stability, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, London, 2009.
R.B. Nelsen, An introduction to copulas. 2nd ed., Springer-Verlag, New York, 2006.
G.O. Roberts, R.L. Tweedie, Geometric $L_{2}$ and $L_{1}$ convergence are equivalent for reversible Markov chains, J. Appl. Probab. 38A (2001) 37–41.
G.O. Roberts, J.S. Rosenthal, Geometric ergodicity and hybrid Markov chains, ** Electron. Commun. Probab. 2 (1997) 13-25.
J. Šremr, Absolutely continuous functions of two variables in the sense of Carathéodory, Electron. J. Differential Equations, 154 (2010) 1-11.
S. Walczak, On the differentiability of absolutely continuous functions of several variables, remarks on the Rademacher theorem, Bull. Polish Acad. Sci. Math. 36 (1988) 513–520.
[^1]: Supported in part by the NSA grant H98230-11-1-0135 and a Charles Phelps Taft Memorial Fund grant
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'Kyle R. Williams'
title: 'Real-Time Stochastic Predictive Control for Hybrid Vehicle Energy Management'
---
HYBRID VEHICLE MODEL
====================
Hybrid Vehicle Background
-------------------------
The requirements of a given vehicle application are specified by speed and propulsion limits, and the vehicle transmission matches these requirements to engine capabilities. Figure \[fig:ApplicationCurves\] shows typical engine torque and power curves on the left, and a typical vehicle propulsion requirement curve on the right. The engine is typically sized to deliver a specified minimum torque and power over a range of speeds. In any given application, there is typically some maximum propulsion force required as indicated in the right figure of Fig. \[fig:ApplicationCurves\]. The corner power location is set by the maximum power available from the engine. The maximum available propulsion force decreases along a curve of constant power past the corner power location.
![Engine capabilities and vehicle propulsion requirements.[]{data-label="fig:ApplicationCurves"}](engTrqCurve){width="100.00000%"}
![Engine capabilities and vehicle propulsion requirements.[]{data-label="fig:ApplicationCurves"}](vehTrqCurve){width="100.00000%"}
Hydraulic hybrid vehicles (HHV) consist of a primary power path originating from an internal combustion engine and a secondary power path originating from a hydraulic accumulator. The arrangement of the primary and secondary power paths can be divided into three architectures: parallel in which the secondary power path is in parallel with the primary, series in which the secondary power path is in series with the primary, and series-parallel which combines features of the series and parallel arrangements. One of the defining features of all HHV architectures is regenerative braking, a process by which vehicle kinetic energy is transfered to the hydraulic accumulator to be released during a subsequent propulsion event.
### Accumulator Energy Storage
Energy storage in a hydraulic hybrid is accomplished through a hydraulic accumulator, typically of the bladder-type as shown in Fig. \[fig:Accum\].
![Bladder type hydraulic accumulator. Left: Schematic, Right: $p-V$ curves for two precharge pressures, for a fixed $V_0=50\times 10^{-3}~ m^3$.[]{data-label="fig:Accum"}](accumulatorPV){width="100.00000%"}
The top portion contains a bladder filled with Nitrogen gas. Hydraulic fluid can enter and exit the accumulator through a port on the lower side of the accumulator. The [precharge pressure]{}, $p_0$, is the gas pressure when no hydraulic fluid is present in the accumulator. The [minimum operating pressure]{}, $p_1$, is typically set to $110 \%$ of $p_0$ and, as its name suggests, is the lowest allowable operating pressure ensuring safe accumulator operation. The maximum allowable operating pressure is shown in the $p-V$ diagram of Fig. \[fig:Accum\] as $p_2$. Assuming the Nitrogen mass transfer between the tank and accumulator occurs under isentropic conditions (i.e. without heat transfer, corresponding to mass transfer with a perfectly insulated accumulator), the thermodynamic relationships within the Nitrogen gas bladder are $$\begin{aligned}
pV&=mRT~(\text{Ideal gas law}) ,~~
\frac{p}{p_0} = \left(\frac{T}{T_0}\right)^{\gamma/(\gamma-1)} $$ where $\gamma=1.4$ is the specific heat ratio of Nitrogen. Since the Nitrogen mass is constant throughout accumulator operation, these two equations can be combined to yield the pressure-volume relationship for the Nitrogen gas, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:3pVpolytropic}
pV^\gamma = p_0V_0^\gamma = c\end{aligned}$$ The energy stored in the accumulator between points 1 and 2 on the $p-V$ diagram of Fig. \[fig:Accum\] is given by, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:3AccumEnergyStorage}
E_{12}=
\int_{1}^{2}p dV=
-\frac{c^{1/\gamma}}{\gamma}\int_{1}^{2} p^{-1/\gamma} dp=
\frac{p_0^{1/\gamma}V_0}{(1-\gamma)}\left(p_2^{(1-1/\gamma)}-p_1^{(1-1/\gamma)}\right)\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the fact $0 = d\left(pV^\gamma \right) = V^\gamma dp + \gamma p V^{\gamma-1} dV$ as evident from Equation (\[eq:3pVpolytropic\]). Accumulator energy storage curves are shown in Fig. \[fig:AccumPE\]. Here, it is assumed that energy storage is in reference to point 1 on the $p-V$ curve (i.e. energy storage is zero at $(p_1,V_1)$), since this is the lowest pressure allowable during accumulator operation.
![Hydraulic accumulator energy storage curves for $V_0=50\times 10^{-3} ~m^3$, $p_1=1.1\times p_0$.[]{data-label="fig:AccumPE"}](accumulatorPE){width="100.00000%"}
An interesting observation is the curves for $p_0=60$ bar and $p_0=96$ bar terminate at nearly the same energy storage level, yet the curve associated with $p_0=60$ bar accomplishes a given energy level at a lower associated pressure for a larger range of operation. The accumulator can be designed by considering the energy storage required for a given application. For a given vehicle speed $v_{veh}$, the kinetic energy $E_{K}(v_{veh}) = \frac{1}{2}m_{veh}v_{veh}^2$ represents the maximum available energy that can be transfered to the accumulator. Precharge pressure $p_0$ and accumulator size $V_0$ can therefore be chosen by setting Equation (\[eq:3AccumEnergyStorage\]) equal to the desired value of $E_K$, using the constraint $p_1=1.1\times p_0$.
### Architectures
This subsection reviews basic operation and design considerations for the parallel, series, and series-parallel hydraulic hybrids. A comprehensive comparison between various series-parallel configurations is discussed in [@MahaCarl2006comparison]. An interesting use of a high-speed flywheel as the secondary energy source in a series-parallel configuration is found in [@MahaKumar2007study]. A novel concept known as the blended hybrid, whereby the hydraulic accumulator is passively disconnected when system differential pressure rises below accumulator pressure, is discussed in [@MahaSprengel2013investigation; @MahaBleazard2015optimal; @MahaSprengel2015implementation]. The intention of the blended hybrid is to allow the transmission to operate at lower pressures than accumulator pre-charge, lowering losses in the hydraulic circuit. The blended hybrid architecture is adapted to the series and series-parallel configurations in [@MahaSprengel2014recent].
#### Parallel HHV
The schematic of the parallel HHV is shown in Fig. \[fig:parallelHHV\]. Power from the engine can be supplemented with hydraulic power from a pump/motor unit, which can transfer power to/from the hydraulic accumulator.
Essentially, the parallel HHV is a conventional power train augmented with a secondary power path. As such, the engine can be downsized in the sense that maximum power can be achieved by supplementing available engine power with hydraulic power from the pump/motor unit.
#### Series HHV
The schematic of the series HHV with a two-stage output gearbox is shown in Fig. \[fig:seriesHHV\].
Power from the engine is transmitted to a hydraulic pump which converts the mechanical power into pressurized fluid flow. A hydraulic pump/motor unit converts the pressurized fluid flow into mechanical power as the source of vehicle propulsion. During regenerative braking, the pump/motor units operates as a pump charging the hydraulic accumulator by transferring fluid from low pressure to the accumulator. At low speeds the effective ratio between the motor and wheels, including the drive axle, is $k_2=k_{2,lo}$, while at higher speeds this ratio changes to $k_2=k_{2,hi}$. Positive net flow between the pump and motor is transferred into the hydraulic accumulator, while negative net flow indicates fluid is being transferred from the hydraulic accumulator. The pump/motor unit is designed such that, at maximum displacement $V_{m}^{max}$, maximum propulsive force can be achieved in low gear at some nominal system differential pressure $p^{\circ}$ $$\begin{aligned}
F_{p}^{max} = \frac{p^{\circ} V_m^{max}}{2\pi}\frac{k_{2,lo}}{r_{tire}}\end{aligned}$$ where system differential pressure is the difference between the hydraulic accumulator and low pressure, $p = p_{ha}-p_{lp}$. The pump unit can be designed to deliver required flow rate at high speed through the following flow balance $$\begin{aligned}
n_{eng}^{max}k_1V_p^{max} = \frac{v_{veh}^{max}}{r_{tire}}k_{2,hi}V_m^{max}\end{aligned}$$ Alternatively, the pump unit can be designed such that the engine can be loaded to maximum torque at some nominal system differential pressure $p^*$ through the following torque balance $$\begin{aligned}
p^* V_p^{max}\frac{k_1}{2\pi} = T_{eng}^{max}\end{aligned}$$
#### Series-Parallel HHV
The schematic of the series-parallel HHV is shown in Fig. \[fig:series-parallelHHV\].
A defining feature of the series-parallel HHV is the planetary gear connected to the engine. The planetary gear allows for power splitting between two separate paths. The engine connects to the planetary gear via carrier gear B, while the hydraulic pump/motor unit 1 connects via ring gear C, and the output shaft and hydraulic pump/motor unit 2 are connected via sun gear A. The planetary gear behavior is defined through the following speed, torque and power relationships between members $A,B,C$
\[eq:3PlanetaryGearEqs\] $$\begin{aligned}
& n_A-(1-k_0)n_B-k_0n_C = 0 \\
& T_A = \frac{1}{k_0-1} T_B\\
& T_C = \frac{-k_0}{k_0-1}T_B \\
\text{mech power path:}~~~& P_A = \frac{1}{k_0-1}\frac{n_A}{n_B}P_B\\
\text{hyd power path:}~~~& P_C = \left(1+\frac{1}{k_0-1}\frac{n_A}{n_B}\right) P_B
\end{aligned}$$
where planetary gear ratio $k_0$ is determined by the geometry of the planetary gear. The last two equations indicate that the power split between the mechanical path and the hydraulic path is determined by the ratio of vehicle speed to engine speed as indicated by the term $\frac{n_A}{n_B}$. From the last equation in Equation (\[eq:3PlanetaryGearEqs\]), the power through the hydraulic path becomes zero when the ratio of sun gear speed to carrier gear speed becomes $ \frac{n_A}{n_B} = 1-k_0$. This condition produces the most efficient point of power transfer within the series-parallel HHV known as the full-mechanical speed point given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:3series-parallelFullMech}
v_{mech} = {(1-k_0)n_{eng}}\frac{r_{tire}}{k_3}\end{aligned}$$ Efficiency vs. vehicle speed of the series-parallel HHV compared to the series HHV, assuming a fixed hydraulic path efficiency of 85%, is shown in Fig. \[fig:series-parallelEfficiency\].
![Series-parallel vs. series HHV efficiency.[]{data-label="fig:series-parallelEfficiency"}](series-parallelEfficiency){width="100.00000%"}
Efficiency of the series-parallel HHV declines past speed $v_{mech}$. As such, the planetary gear ratio $k_0$ and drive gear ratio $k_3$ can be designed according to Equation (\[eq:3series-parallelFullMech\]) so $v_{mech}$ occurs at some desired engine speed. Gear ratio $k_2$ can be designed such that the speed of unit II is limited to some maximum value considering the maximum vehicle speed $$\begin{aligned}
n_\text{II}^{max} = \frac{v_{veh}^{max}k_3k_2}{r_{tire}}\end{aligned}$$ Gear ratio $k_1$ can be designed considering maximum engine speed at zero vehicle speed, at which point unit I reaches maximum speed $$\begin{aligned}
n_\text{I}^{max} = \left.\frac{n_A-(1-k_0)n_{eng}^{max}}{k_0}k_1\right|_{n_A=0}\end{aligned}$$ Hydraulic unit II can be designed so that maximum propulsion force is achieved at some nominal system differential pressure, $p^\circ$ $$\begin{aligned}
F_{p}^{max} = p^{\circ}\frac{ V_\text{II}^{max}}{2\pi}\frac{k_{2}k_3}{r_{tire}}\end{aligned}$$ Finally, hydraulic unit I can be designed so the engine can be loaded to its maximum torque capability at some nominal system differential pressure $p^*$ $$\begin{aligned}
T_{eng}^{max} = p^*\frac{V_\text{I}^{max}}{2\pi}\frac{1-k_0}{k_0}k_1\end{aligned}$$
Series HHV Dynamics {#section:SeriesHHVDynamics}
-------------------
Due to its simple design and superior engine management capabilities, this work focuses on designing an optimal control strategy for the series hybrid shown in Fig. \[fig:seriesHHV\]. The vehicle velocity dynamic is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:VehicleDynamics}
\dot v_{veh}(t) &= \frac{1}{m_{veh}}\Big[ F_p(t) - \tfrac{1}{2}C_d\rho_{air}v_{veh}(t)^2 - m_{veh}g\Big(C_r cos(\phi(t))+sin(\phi(t))\Big) \Big]\end{aligned}$$ where $m_{veh}$ is vehicle mass, $\rho_{air}$ is air density and $g$ is the gravitational constant. The terms $C_d$ and $C_r$ are drag and rolling resistance coefficients associated with the vehicle, where $\phi$ represents the road grade. The propulsive force $F_p$ is dependent on the differential system pressure[^1], $p$, motor displacement volume $V_m$, motor torque losses $M_{s,m}$, and is limited by the maximum displacement volume of the motor, $V_m^{max}$ $$\begin{aligned}
F_p &= \left(\frac{V_m}{2\pi} p - M_{s,m}\right)\frac{k_2}{r_{tire}} \\
& \leq \left(\frac{V_m^{max}}{2\pi} p - M_{s,m}\right)\frac{k_2}{r_{tire}} \\
&= F_p^{max}(p)\end{aligned}$$ The displacement volume of the hydraulic motor, $V_m$, is determined based on the applied force commanded by the driver, $F_p^{cmd}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:MotorDispCalc}
V_m &= \frac{2\pi}{p}\left(\frac{F_p^{cmd}r_{tire}}{k_2}+\hat M_{s,m}\right)\end{aligned}$$ The term $\hat M_{s,m}$ is a polynomial approximation of the hydraulic motor torque loss term $M_{s,m}$. In general, hydraulic system losses tend to increase as the system differential pressure increases. As such, $p$ must be managed carefully as to satisfy driver propulsion demands ensuring $F_p^{cmd} \leq F_p^{max}(p)$ while simultaneously minimizing the losses experienced by the hydraulic system. The dynamics of engine speed $n_{eng}$ and intake manifold pressure $p_{im}$ are given by [@KolmanovskyEngTrq; @Heywood] $$\begin{aligned}
\dot n_{eng}(t) &= \frac{1}{I_{eng}}\left[T_{cyl}(t) - \frac{k_1}{2\pi} V_p(t) p(t) - k_1 M_{s,p}(t) \right] \\
\dot p_{im}(t) &=\frac{R T_{im}}{V_{im}}\left[W_{thr}(t) -\frac{\eta_vV_d}{4\pi R T_{im}}n_{eng}(t)p_{im}(t)\right]\end{aligned}$$ Here, $W_{thr}$ is throttle mass flow rate, $R$ is the ideal gas constant for air, $T_{im}$ is the intake manifold temperature, $\eta_v$ is volumetric efficiency of the engine, $V_d$ and $V_{im}$ are the volumes of the engine displacement and intake manifold. The torque produced by the engine cylinders, $T_{cyl}$, is determined from the engine thermal efficiency, $\eta_t$, the lower heating value of the fuel $Q_{lhv}$, the air-fuel ratio in the cylinders, $AFR$, and the inducted air mass in the cylinders $m_{cyl}$ [@Heywood] $$\begin{aligned}
m_{cyl} &= \frac{\eta_v V_d}{R T_{im}}p_{im} \\
T_{cyl} &= \frac{\eta_tQ_{lhv}}{4\pi AFR}m_{cyl} = \frac{\eta_t\eta_vQ_{lhv}V_d}{4\pi R T_{im} AFR}p_{im} \label{eq:Tcyl}\end{aligned}$$ The maximum capability of the engine in this work is 125 kW, as the engine speed is limited to 5000 RPM. The maximum torque curve as a function of engine speed and fuel consumption rate, $b_f$, as a function of engine speed and torque are described by Fig. \[fig:EngMap\]
![Engine fuel consumption rate, $b_f(n_{eng},T_{cyl})$, and maximum torque curve, $T_{cyl}^{max}(n_{eng})$.[]{data-label="fig:EngMap"}](engineMap){width="100.00000%"}
The dynamic of the hydraulic differential system pressure $p$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\dot p(t) &=\frac{1}{C_h(p)} \Big[\frac{k_1}{2\pi}V_p(t)n_{eng}(t)-\frac{k_2}{2\pi r_{tire}}V_m(t)v_{veh}(t)-Q_{s,p}(t)-Q_{s,m}(t)\Big] \end{aligned}$$ where $Q_{s,p}, Q_{s,m}$ are the flow losses of the pump and motor, $k_1, k_2$ are gear ratios, and $V_p$ is the displacement volume of the hydraulic pump. It is assumed here that low pressure is nearly constant. The capacitance of the hydraulic system [@Rahmfeld] is $$\begin{aligned}
C_h(p) = \frac{V_{ha}p_{ha}^{1/\gamma_{gas}}}{\gamma_{gas}(p+p_{lp})^{1+1/\gamma_{gas}}} + \frac{V_L}{K_L}\end{aligned}$$ where $V_{ha}, p_{ha}$ are the pre-charge volume and pressure of the hydraulic accumulator, $\gamma_{gas}$ is the specific heat ratio of the pressurized gas within the accumulator, $p_{lp}$ is the pressure of the low-pressure system and $V_L, K_L$ are the volume and bulk modulus of the hydraulic lines. Example hydraulic losses and their second order polynomial approximations are shown in Fig. \[fig:QsMs\]
STATISTICAL MODEL OF DRIVER BEHAVIOR
====================================
Driver Behavior as a Markov Process {#section:DriverDynamics}
-----------------------------------
Driver behavior is characterized in terms of an acceleration demand, $w$, which can be inferred from the driver’s propulsive force command $F_p^{cmd}$ through[^2] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:wMeasured}
w &= \frac{1}{m_{veh}}\Big[F_{p}^{cmd} - \tfrac{1}{2}C_d\rho_{air}v_{veh}^2 - m_{veh}g\left(C_r cos(\phi)+sin(\phi)\right)\Big] \end{aligned}$$ where $\phi$ is the road grade, assumed available from measurement or estimation. If the driver acceleration demand $w$ can be forecast along a horizon to some statistical accuracy, then a control strategy which incorporates an underlying statistical model can be designed. It is well known that driver behavior can be modeled effectively as a Markov process [@PentlandLiu; @SDP1; @StochDriverLearning], a type of stochastic process which adheres to the *Markov property*. The Markov property roughly states that future behavior of the process is influenced only by the present state, unaffected by the sequence of events that lead to the present state. More specifically, the stochastic process $\{w_0,w_1,w_2,\dots\}$ is Markovian if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:MarkovCondition}
\mathrm{Pr}[w_{n+1} = w^j| \mathcal F_n] = \mathrm{Pr}[w_{n+1}=w^j | w_n=w^i]\end{aligned}$$ where each $w_n\in W$ is a random variable and $w^i$ and $w^j$ are realizations of the random variables $w_n$ and $w_{n+1}$, respectively. Equation (\[eq:MarkovCondition\]) states that the probability of the next transition given all prior information up to time $n$ is the same as the probability of the next transition given the information only of the previous state[^3]. If, in addition to satisfying the Markov property, the process is also time invariant then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:MarkovConditionTimeInv}
\mathrm{Pr}[w_{n+1}=w^j | w_n=w^i] = \mathrm{Pr}[w_{m+1}=w^j | w_m=w^i]\end{aligned}$$ for any $n,m \geq 0$. The benefit of working with assumptions Equation (\[eq:MarkovCondition\]) and Equation (\[eq:MarkovConditionTimeInv\]) is that all subsequent computations in the energy management strategies developed in the next chapter are greatly simplified.
In this work the driver acceleration demand $w$ is modeled as a discrete state discrete time Markov process. Each transition is described by the probability distribution matrix $(P_{ij})$ whose elements are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:MarkovPij}
P_{ij} &\triangleq \mathrm{Pr}[w_{n+1} = w^j | w_n = w^i]\end{aligned}$$ The multi-step probability $P_{ij}^{(n)}$ describes the probability of a demand at time $n$ given the value of the demand at time $0$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:MarkovMultiStepPij}
P_{ij}^{(n)} \triangleq \mathrm{Pr}[w_{n} = w^j | w_0 = w^i]\end{aligned}$$ and, as the notation suggests, is computed by raising matrix $(P_{ij})$ to the exponent $n$ and selecting the $ij^{th}$ element [@Lawler2006StochProcesses]. The multi-step distribution will be used extensively in the development of a stochastic strategy described in Section \[section:ASDDP\].
Driver acceleration demand $w$ is quantized evenly into 19 levels, $w^i$, $i=1,2,\dots,19$, between $-3$ to $3~ m/s^2$. Any acceleration demand lower than $-3~ m/s^2$ is associated with $w^1$ while any acceleration demand greater than $3~ m/s^2$ is associated with $w^{19}$.
Learning Driver Behavior {#section:LearningDriverBeahvior}
------------------------
In this work three primary drive cycles are considered, shown in Fig. \[fig:DriveCycles\].
The first drive cycle is the EPA’s Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS), a representative urban drive cycle with frequent stops having an average speed of 31.5 km/h and a total run time of approximately 23 minutes. The second drive cycle is the EPA’s aggressive urban drive cycle (US06). Having an average speed of 78 km/h with a short runtime of 10 minutes, the US06 cycle was developed by the EPA in response to criticism of the UDDS cycle’s inability to represent aggressive, high speed and/or high acceleration driving with rapid speed fluctuations. The third drive cycle, referred to as the GPS cycle, is moderate traffic city driving data from West Lafayette, IN and includes altitude data collected by an on-board GPS device. The GPS cycle has a total runtime of approximately 15 minutes.
A sequence of driver acceleration demands $\{w_0,w_1,w_2,\dots\}$ is created from Equation (\[eq:wMeasured\]) according to $w_n = w(n\Delta t)$, with sampling rate $\Delta t=1$ second. Estimates of the Markov single-step transition probabilities at time step $n$, $n=1,2,3,\dots$, denoted $\hat P_{ij}^{[n]}$, are determined through a first order filtering process according to [@StochDriverLearning] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:PijEstimator}
\hat{P}_{ij}^{[n]} &= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\alpha \mathds{1}_{ij}^{[n]} + (1-\alpha)\hat{P}_{ij}^{[n-1]} & \text{if~} w_{n}=w^i\\
\hat{P}_{ij}^{[n-1]} & \text{if~} w_n \neq w^i
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{P}_{ij}^{[0]}$ is an arbitrary initialization and the indicator function $\mathds{1}_{ij}^{[n]}$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:PijEstimatorIndicator}
\mathds{1}_{ij}^{[n]}&=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1& \text{if~} w_{n+1}=j,w_n=w^i\\
0&\text{if~} w_{n+1}\neq j , w_n=w^i
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ The updates described by Equation (\[eq:PijEstimator\]) and Equation (\[eq:PijEstimatorIndicator\]) are performed for all $w^i,w^j\in {W}$ at each time step $n$. The parameter $\alpha \in [0,1]$ is the learning rate that determines the exponential rate at which the dependence on past information is decreased. This estimation process produces an unbiased estimate as now shown. Let $(n_k,~k=1,2,3,\dots)$ be an indexed sequence of time steps in which the chain is in state $w^i \in W$, and assume that each state $w^i$ is visited an infinite number of times (i.e., $k\rightarrow \infty$) $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb E[\hat P_{ij}^{[n_k]}] &= \alpha \mathbb{E}[\mathds{1}_{ij}^{[n_k]}] + (1-\alpha) \mathbb E[\hat P_{ij}^{[n_{k-1}]}] \\
&= \alpha \mathbb E[\mathds{1}_{ij}^{[n_k]}] + (1-\alpha) \Big[\alpha \mathbb E[\mathds{1}_{ij}^{[n_{k-1}]}] \\
&~~~~~~~+ (1-\alpha) \mathbb E[\hat P_{ij}^{[n_{k-2}]}]\Big] \\
&= \alpha \mathbb E[\mathds{1}_{ij}] \underbrace{\sum_{m=0}^{k-2} (1-\alpha)^m}_{\rightarrow \frac{1}{\alpha}} + \underbrace{(1-\alpha)^{k-1}}_{\rightarrow 0} \mathbb E[\hat P_{ij}^{[n_1]}]\\
& \rightarrow \mathbb E[\mathds{1}_{ij}] = \mathrm{Pr}[w_{n+1}=w^j|w_n=w^i] = P_{ij}\text{ as $k \rightarrow \infty$}\end{aligned}$$ In the third equality above, it is noted that $\mathbb E[\mathds{1}_{ij}^{[n_k]}]=E[\mathds{1}_{ij}]$ for every $n_k$ since each $\mathds{1}_{ij}^{[n_k]}$ is a iid copy of the random variable $\mathds{1}_{ij}$ for each fixed $w^i \in W$. Since $\mathbb E[\hat P_{ij}] \rightarrow P_{ij}$, the estimator is *unbiased*. By a slight abuse of notation, $P_{ij}$ and estimate $\hat P_{ij}$ are used interchangeably throughout the remainder of this work.
The transition probability matrix $(P_{ij})$ is learned according to Equation (\[eq:PijEstimator\]) and Equation (\[eq:PijEstimatorIndicator\]) for each drive cycle described in Fig. \[fig:DriveCycles\]. The learning rate is chosen as $\alpha = 0.025$ so that only 20% of the initial estimate $\hat P_{ij}^{[0]}$ is retained in memory after 60 transitions from $i$ to $j$ (the influence of $\hat P_{ij}^{[0]}$ on $\hat P_{ij}^{[n]}$ is $\hat P_{ij}^{[0]}(1-\alpha)^n$). The matrices $(P_{ij})$ shown in Fig. \[fig:DriveCyclePdT\] are color coded so that dark red indicates a transition probability that is greater than 0.5, while dark blue indicates a value near 0. All three matrices show a somewhat similar pattern along the diagonal, in that the driver tends to demand an acceleration level at the next time step that is near his or her current demand. However, the degree to which the driver chooses a slightly higher or lower demand at the next time step varies greatly with the drive cycle. In the UDDS cycle the driver has a strong preference to operate along the diagonal, while in the US06 cycle the driver is much more likely to choose an off-diagonal transition. During the GPS cycle, driver behavior appears to be somewhat of a mixture of behavior from UDDS and US06 cycles.
![$(P_{ij})$ for UDDS drive cycle (upper left), US06 drive cycle (upper right), and GPS drive cycle (lower).[]{data-label="fig:DriveCyclePdT"}](PdTUDDSHi){width=".99\textwidth"}
![$(P_{ij})$ for UDDS drive cycle (upper left), US06 drive cycle (upper right), and GPS drive cycle (lower).[]{data-label="fig:DriveCyclePdT"}](PdTUS06Hi){width=".99\textwidth"}
![$(P_{ij})$ for UDDS drive cycle (upper left), US06 drive cycle (upper right), and GPS drive cycle (lower).[]{data-label="fig:DriveCyclePdT"}](PdTGPSHi){width="99.00000%"}
The transition probabilities shown in Fig. \[fig:DriveCyclePdT\] give insight into the singe-step behavior of the driver. However, for the purposes of planning along a horizon it is desirable to understand driver behavior several seconds into the horizon. The multi-step distribution Equation (\[eq:MarkovMultiStepPij\]), $P_{ij}^{(n)} = \mathrm{Pr}[w_n=w^j|w_0=w^i]$, provides this information. The propagation of the multi-step distribution for each cycle is shown in Fig \[fig:PnPropagate\]. Two initial demands are shown, the left column corresponding to the driver initially demanding a moderately negative acceleration and the right column corresponding to the driver initially demanding a moderately positive acceleration. The effect of small differences in the $(P_{ij})$ matrices shown in Fig. \[fig:DriveCyclePdT\] are immediately apparent. For one, the single-step distribution (corresponding to $n=1$) is very different for each cycle. Secondly, the paths along which the various transition probabilities grow and decay differs from one drive cycle to another.
![Propagation of $\mathrm{Pr}[w_n=w^j|w_0=w^i]$ for $i = 5$ (left column) and $i = 15$ (right column). Driver statistics from UDDS cycle (top row), US06 cycle (middle row) and GPS cycle (bottom row).[]{data-label="fig:PnPropagate"}](pnPropagateLoUDDS){width="100.00000%"}
![Propagation of $\mathrm{Pr}[w_n=w^j|w_0=w^i]$ for $i = 5$ (left column) and $i = 15$ (right column). Driver statistics from UDDS cycle (top row), US06 cycle (middle row) and GPS cycle (bottom row).[]{data-label="fig:PnPropagate"}](pnPropagateHiUDDS){width="100.00000%"}
![Propagation of $\mathrm{Pr}[w_n=w^j|w_0=w^i]$ for $i = 5$ (left column) and $i = 15$ (right column). Driver statistics from UDDS cycle (top row), US06 cycle (middle row) and GPS cycle (bottom row).[]{data-label="fig:PnPropagate"}](pnPropagateLoUS06){width="100.00000%"}
![Propagation of $\mathrm{Pr}[w_n=w^j|w_0=w^i]$ for $i = 5$ (left column) and $i = 15$ (right column). Driver statistics from UDDS cycle (top row), US06 cycle (middle row) and GPS cycle (bottom row).[]{data-label="fig:PnPropagate"}](pnPropagateHiUS06){width="100.00000%"}
![Propagation of $\mathrm{Pr}[w_n=w^j|w_0=w^i]$ for $i = 5$ (left column) and $i = 15$ (right column). Driver statistics from UDDS cycle (top row), US06 cycle (middle row) and GPS cycle (bottom row).[]{data-label="fig:PnPropagate"}](pnPropagateLoGPS){width="100.00000%"}
![Propagation of $\mathrm{Pr}[w_n=w^j|w_0=w^i]$ for $i = 5$ (left column) and $i = 15$ (right column). Driver statistics from UDDS cycle (top row), US06 cycle (middle row) and GPS cycle (bottom row).[]{data-label="fig:PnPropagate"}](pnPropagateHiGPS){width="100.00000%"}
From the multi-step distribution, the expected value and variance of the driver acceleration demand sequence, for $n=0,1,\dots,N$, can be computed according to $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}[w_n|w_0=w^i] &= \sum_{j \in W} P_{ij}^{(n)} w^j \label{eq:Ewn} \\
\text{Var}[w_n|w_0=w^i] &= \sum_{j \in W} P_{ij}^{(n)} (w^j)^2 - \left(\sum_{j \in W} P_{ij}^{(n)} w^j\right)^2 \label{eq:Varwn}\end{aligned}$$ The expected path of driver acceleration demand given by Equation (\[eq:Ewn\]) is compared to the sample average for each drive cycle in Fig. \[fig:EwnPropagate\] for three initial demands. Also shown are the standard deviation of driver acceleration demand for each cycle, calculated as $\sigma = \sqrt{\text{Var}[w_n|w_0=w^i]}$ from Equation (\[eq:Varwn\]).
![Propagation of $\mathbb{E}[w_n|w_0=w^i]$. Sample paths shown in light grey. Top row: UDDS cycle, middle row: US06 cycle, bottom row: GPS cycle. Left column: $w_0=-1~m/s^2$, middle column: $w_0=0.6~m/s^2$, right column: $w_0=1.3~m/s^2$.[]{data-label="fig:EwnPropagate"}](EwnPropagate){width="100.00000%"}
These quantities provide indication as to the degree to which driver behavior can be anticipated along the horizon, and will be used further in Section \[section:StochControlFormulations\].
Long Term Driver Statistics {#section:LongTermBehavior}
---------------------------
It was shown in Section \[section:LearningDriverBeahvior\] that the multi-step distribution $P_{ij}^{(n)}$ may be used to generate a reasonable estimation of expected driver behavior along a horizon, given an initial condition corresponding to the driver’s immediate demand. The multi-step distribution can also provide valuable information about the driver’s longer term statistical behavior. Let the distribution $$\begin{aligned}
\nu^{ij} = \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\mathds{1}_{\{w_k=w^j|w_0=w^i\}}\end{aligned}$$ denote the long run fraction of time the chain visits state $w^j$ when starting in state $w^i$. It can be shown, see for instance, [@Lawler2006StochProcesses], that this limit exists for all finite state Markov Chains. Assuming the chain is irreducible[^4], then $\nu^{ij} = \nu^j$ for each $i$ so that convergence is independent of the initial state. In this case, $\nu^j$ may be interpreted as the fraction of time the driver demands acceleration $w^j$. Assuming furthermore that the chain is also aperiodic[^5], $\nu^j$ can be computed directly from the multi-step distribution through $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:nuj}
\nu^j = \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} P_{ij}^{(n)}\end{aligned}$$ During numerical experiments it was found that the driver tends to exhibit behavior during low speed driving which differs from behavior during higher speed driving. As a result, two separate models for $(P_{ij})$ are learned: an aggregate model which is independent of speed and another model specifically for low speed driving below 10 m/s (approximately 23 mph). The distributions of $\nu^j$ are shown for each of the three drive cycles in Figs. \[fig:fig\_wInftyDistLo\] and \[fig:fig\_wInftyDist\]. Interestingly, the long term driver behavior distribution shows significant cycle to cycle differences during low speed driving. The aggressive behavior of the driver during the US06 cycle is immediately apparent as more than 54% of low speed driving occurs at high acceleration ($i\geq 16$). In contrast, 43% of low speed driving occurs near coasting ($9 \leq i \leq 11$) during the UDDS cycle.
![Long term driver behavior $\nu^i$. Statistics at low vehicle speeds $< 10 m/s$.[]{data-label="fig:fig_wInftyDistLo"}](fig_wInftyDistLo){width="100.00000%"}
![Long term driver behavior $\nu^i$. Aggregate statistics, independent of speed.[]{data-label="fig:fig_wInftyDist"}](fig_wInftyDistHi){width="100.00000%"}
PREDICTIVE ENERGY MANAGEMENT {#section:PredEnergyManage}
============================
Having established models for vehicle and driver dynamics, a model-based predictive energy management strategy can be designed. The goal is to minimize fuel consumption while meeting driver propulsion demands by solving the following finite horizon stochastic optimization problem
\[eq:FHSOCP\] $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{{\mathbf{u}}_0,{\mathbf{u}}_1,\dots,{\mathbf{u}}_{N-1}} &\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} g_n({\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{x}}_{n+1},{\mathbf{u}}_n,w_n)\Big|{\mathbf{x}}_0,w_0\right]\\
\text{subject to}~~& {\mathbf{x}}_{n+1} = F_n({\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{u}}_n,w_n) \\
&{\mathbf{x}}_n \in \mathbf X \\
& {\mathbf{u}}_n \in \mathbf U
\end{aligned}$$
Complimentary methods for approximately solving Equation (\[eq:FHSOCP\]) are developed. The method developed in Section \[section:SGDM\] performs stochastic optimization based on Monte Carlo sampling, while the methods developed in Sections \[section:ASDDP\] and \[section:APDDP\] rely on a dynamic programming approach using the multi step distributions discussed in Section \[section:LearningDriverBeahvior\].
Embedded System Model {#section:SystemModel}
---------------------
A simplified model of the system dynamics described in Section \[section:SeriesHHVDynamics\] is now developed. This simplified model will serve as the model accessible by various control algorithms developed in subsequent sections. The continuous time embedded system model is defined as
\[eq:PlantAlgorithmModel\] $$\begin{aligned}
\dot \ell &= v_{veh} \\
\dot v_{veh} &= w \\
\dot n_{eng} &= \frac{1}{I_{eng}}\left[T_{cyl} - \frac{k_1}{2\pi} V_p p - k_1 \hat M_{s,p} \right] \\
\dot p &=\frac{1}{C_h(p)} \Big[\frac{k_1}{2\pi}V_pn_{eng}-\frac{k_2}{2\pi r_{tire}}V_mv_{veh}-\hat Q_{s,p}-\hat Q_{s,m}\Big]
\end{aligned}$$
Compared to the model described in Section \[section:SeriesHHVDynamics\], the engine intake manifold dynamics have been neglected and all hydraulic losses are replaced by second order polynomial approximations $\hat Q_{s,p}, \hat Q_{s,m}, \hat M_{s,p}, \hat M_{s,m}$. Additionally, the vehicle acceleration dynamic is represented directly by the driver acceleration demand $w$. The motor displacement volume is once again calculated according to Equation (\[eq:MotorDispCalc\]) $$\begin{aligned}
V_m &= \frac{2\pi}{p}\left(\frac{F_p^{cmd}r_{tire}}{k_2}+\hat M_{s,m}\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $F_p^{cmd}$ is determined from the driver’s acceleration demand $w$ by rearranging Equation (\[eq:wMeasured\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:FpCmd}
F_p^{cmd} &= m_{veh}w + \tfrac{1}{2}C_d\rho_{air}v_{veh}^2 + m_{veh}g\left[C_r cos(\phi)+sin(\phi)\right]\end{aligned}$$ The system state and control vectors are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{x}}&=
\begin{bmatrix}
\ell\\ v_{veh}\\ n_{eng}\\ p
\end{bmatrix} ,~~~~
{\mathbf{u}}=
\begin{bmatrix}
m_1^{-1}T_{cyl} \\ m_2^{-1} V_p
\end{bmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ respectively. The control inputs are non-dimensionalized versions of cylinder torque and pump displacement volume, with
\[eq:InputScaling\] $$\begin{aligned}
T_{cyl}&=m_1u_1 \\
V_p&=m_2u_2
\end{aligned}$$
The dynamics of Equation (\[eq:PlantAlgorithmModel\]), represented compactly as $\dot {\mathbf{x}}=f({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{u}},w,t)$, are numerically integrated using time step $\Delta t$ by carrying out a Taylor Series Expansion to second order according to $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{x}}(t+\Delta t) &= {\mathbf{x}}(t) + \Delta t \dot {\mathbf{x}}(t) + \frac{\Delta t^2}{2}\ddot {\mathbf{x}}(t)+o(\Delta t^2) \label{eq:TaylorExpand}\end{aligned}$$ The coefficients $\dot {\mathbf{x}}(t)$ and $\ddot {\mathbf{x}}(t)$ are determined as follows[^6] with $w$ and ${\mathbf{u}}$ assumed as piecewise constant in the interval $[t,t+\Delta t]$ $$\begin{aligned}
\dot {\mathbf{x}}(t) &= \frac{d{\mathbf{x}}(t)}{dt} = f({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{u}},w,t)\\
\ddot {\mathbf{x}}(t) &= \frac{d\dot {\mathbf{x}}(t)}{dt} = \left.\frac{\partial f}{\partial {\mathbf{x}}}\right|_t f({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{u}},w,t)
$$ The expansion Equation (\[eq:TaylorExpand\]) is defined in discrete time with timestep $\Delta t$ as[^7] $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{x}}_{n+1} &= F_n\left({\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{u}}_n,w_n\right) \triangleq {\mathbf{x}}_n + \Delta t f(t)+ \frac{\Delta t^2}{2}\left.\frac{\partial f}{\partial {\mathbf{x}}}\right|_t f(t) \label{eq:2ndOrderPropagation}
$$ In this work the embedded system model timestep is chosen as $\Delta t = 1$ second. The horizon length is chosen as $N=12$ so that the prediction horizon is 12 seconds. It was found through numerical experiments that increasing the horizon beyond 12 timesteps had little to no effect other than increasing computation time.
Road Grade Forecasting {#section:RoadGradeForecasting}
----------------------
Successful predictive energy management is ultimately limited by the ability to forecast the driver’s propulsion force command described in Section \[section:SystemModel\], $$\begin{aligned}
\tag{\ref{eq:FpCmd}}
F_p^{cmd} &= m_{veh}w + \tfrac{1}{2}C_d\rho_{air}v_{veh}^2 + m_{veh}g\left[C_r cos(\phi)+sin(\phi)\right]\end{aligned}$$ The largest source of uncertainty is the driver’s acceleration demand $w$, which is modeled as a Markov process and identified in Section \[section:LearningDriverBeahvior\]. The vehicle speed $v_{veh}$ can then be anticipated as a result of the forecasted acceleration demand through numerical simulation of the model described by Equation (\[eq:PlantAlgorithmModel\]). What remains to be addressed in Equation (\[eq:FpCmd\]) is the road grade $\phi$.
One approach is to model road grade as an independent Markov process as in [@SDPRoadGrade]. The authors of [@SDPRoadGrade] employ stochastic dynamic programming in a finite horizon setting to solve the resulting stochastic optimization problem with reported execution times of 10 to 100 seconds. However, the uncertainty in forecasting $F_p^{cmd}$ along a horizon can be reduced significantly if forecasted road grade incorporated some geometric information as provided by telematics instrumentation, such as a GPS. An assessment on the effect of terrain preview as applied to hybrid electric vehicle control is presented in [@GPSsurvey]. Katsargyri [@GeorgiaGPS] uses path forecasting in the form of previewed vehicle speed and road grade in a hybrid electric vehicle. In a similar approach, road grade is previewed along a horizon assuming constant vehicle speed in a conventional vehicle in [@Hellstrom]. Since the state and action spaces are low in [@GeorgiaGPS] and [@Hellstrom], deterministic dynamic programming is used in a finite horizon setting to generate the optimal control trajectory in a model predictive control setup.
The approach taken here incorporates spatially distributed GPS information to develop road grade as a function of vehicle position along the prediction horizon. Unlike previous approaches, future vehicle speed is not assumed known. The segment of road directly ahead of the vehicle is discretized into a grid of $n_\ell$ equally spaced positions, $r_i, i=1,2,\dots, n_\ell$, so that a sequence of coordinates $(r_i,y_i)_{i=1}^{n_\ell}$ is obtained, where $y$ is the road altitude. A fit $\hat y$ is applied to these coordinates in the form of a multiquadric radial basis function (RBF) with knots $c_i, i=1,2,\dots, n_k$, where $n_k<n_\ell$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:yhat_roadmodel}
\hat y(\ell) &= a_0 + \sum\limits_{i=1}^{n_k}a_i \sqrt{1+\zeta (\ell-c_i)^2} $$ The radial basis function is ideal for this application as its nonlinear basis allows for a high accuracy approximation of road altitude, while the optimal coefficients of its linear weighting structure can be determined efficiently using a least squares projection. The multiquadric form of RBF is specifically chosen as it is differentiable everywhere [@Orr96introductionto; @Fornberg06thegibbs], which will prove valuable when computing road grade.
Here, $c_i$ are chosen equally spaced along the grid $r_i$ so that $c_1$ and $c_{n_k}$ correspond with $r_1$ and $r_{n_\ell}$, respectively, and $\zeta$ is a fixed parameter which determines the influence each knot has on the RBF output. The fitting coefficients $a_i$ are calculated in real time using a least squares projection so that the sum of square error $\sum_{i=1}^{n_\ell}{\left(}y_i-\hat y(r_i){\right)}^2$ is minimized. Taking the analytical derivative of $\hat y$ from Equation (\[eq:yhat\_roadmodel\]) with respect to position $\ell$ gives rate of change in altitude with respect to position $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\hat y}{d\ell} &= \sum\limits_{i=1}^{n_k}a_i \frac{\zeta (\ell-c_i)}{\sqrt{1+\zeta (\ell-c_i)^2}}\end{aligned}$$ from which the road grade model can be computed by taking the inverse sine, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat \phi(\ell) &= \sin^{-1}\left( \frac{d\hat y}{d\ell}\right)\end{aligned}$$ Forecasting road grade along the prediction horizon as a function of time is discussed in Sections \[section:SGDM\] and \[section:ASDDP\]. An example of the road grade estimation applied to real GPS data along a segment of road is shown in Fig. \[fig:GPSFit\].
Stochastic Control Formulations {#section:StochControlFormulations}
-------------------------------
The running cost function used in Equation (\[eq:FHSOCP\]) is constructed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gn}
g_n({\mathbf{x}}_n,&{\mathbf{x}}_{n+1},{\mathbf{u}},w_n) = \nonumber \\
&~~~~K_1\left(x_{3,n+1}-x_{3,n}\right)^2 + K_2~ \hat b_f(x_{3},u_{1})
+K_3\left(x_4-p^*\right)^2\times \mathds{1}_{x_4<p^*}\end{aligned}$$ Indicator functions are defined as $\mathds{1}_{a>b} = 1$ if $a>b$, $\mathds{1}_{a>b} = 0$ otherwise. The first component of $\tilde L$ prevents the engine speed from changing excessively between time steps to prevent undesirable engine operation. The second component is the fuel consumption rate model, $\hat b_f$, a polynomial approximation to the actual fuel consumption rate shown in Fig. \[fig:EngMap\]. The final term ensures driver demands are satisfied by penalizing system pressures which are lower than a minimum allowable pressure, $p^*$, which is calculated according to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pdem}
p^* &= \max\{p_{req},p_{set}\}\end{aligned}$$ The value $p_{req}$ is the pressure required to satisfy driver propulsion force command along the horizon $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:preq}
p_{req} &= \frac{2\pi}{V_m^{max}}\left(\frac{r_{tire}F_p^{cmd}}{k_2}+\hat M_{s,m}\right) \end{aligned}$$ Equation (\[eq:preq\]) is obtained by rearranging the calculation for motor displacement volume Equation (\[eq:MotorDispCalc\]) and substituting max volume for $V_m$. Driver propulsion force command $F_p^{cmd}$ is calculated considering the stochastic driver acceleration demand $w$ and resistive forces according to Equation (\[eq:FpCmd\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\tag{\ref{eq:FpCmd}}
F_p^{cmd} &= m_{veh}w + \tfrac{1}{2}C_d\rho_{air}v_{veh}^2 + m_{veh}g\left[C_r cos(\phi)+sin(\phi)\right]\end{aligned}$$ Since $F_p^{cmd}$ is linear in $w$, it is evident that the statistical model which describes $w$ will directly influence the forecast of driver propulsion force demand and ultimately $p_{req}$ along the horizon.
Satisfying a stochastic driver demand as forecast along a finite horizon can lead to short-sighted planning due to variance in the driver’s acceleration demand sequence $\{w_n\}_{n=0}^{N-1}$ and sensitivity of this sequence to the initial demand $w_0$. By leveraging the long term driver statistics explored in Section \[section:LongTermBehavior\], the value $p_{set}$ in Equation (\[eq:pdem\]) provides a pressure target which is independent of initial demand $w_0$ and does not vary along the horizon thereby allowing for planning beyond the horizon. Recall that $\nu^j$ represents the fraction of time the driver demands acceleration $w^j$, and is calculated from Equation (\[eq:nuj\]). The average and standard deviation of non-negative accelerations demands can be determined through $$\begin{aligned}
w_{ave}^+ &= \frac{\sum_j\nu^jw^j}{\sum_j\nu^j} ~,~~j\in j^+\\
w_{std}^+ &= \sqrt{\frac{\sum_j\nu^j(w^j)^2}{\sum_j\nu^j} - {w_{ave}^+}^2} ~,~~j\in j^+\end{aligned}$$ where $j^+ = \{ j | w^j \geq 0 \}$ is the index set of all non-negative acceleration demands. An acceleration setpoint is now established taking the weighted sum $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:wset}
w_{set} = \alpha w_{ave}^++\beta w_{std}^+\end{aligned}$$ In this work, the weights are set as $\alpha=1$ and $\beta=1.25$. The value of $w_{set}$ along each drive cycle is shown in Fig. \[fig:wSet\].
![$w_{set}$ for UDDS (top), US06 (middle) and GPS (bottom) cycles.[]{data-label="fig:wSet"}](UDDSwSet){width="100.00000%"}
\
![$w_{set}$ for UDDS (top), US06 (middle) and GPS (bottom) cycles.[]{data-label="fig:wSet"}](US06wSet){width="100.00000%"}
\
![$w_{set}$ for UDDS (top), US06 (middle) and GPS (bottom) cycles.[]{data-label="fig:wSet"}](GPSwSet){width="100.00000%"}
The value of $w_{set}$ is observed to jump whenever vehicle speed increases (decreases) above (below) 10 m/s, since two separate Markov chains are retained in memory (one is active at speeds below 10 m/s and a second is active for speeds above 10 m/s) as discussed in Section \[section:LongTermBehavior\].
The intent of this setpoint is to represent a statistically significant driver acceleration demand, so that as a minimum requirement, a differential system pressure should be maintained so that $w_{set}$ can be satisfied instantly, without needing to increase differential system pressure. To this end, the minimum pressure setpoint used in Equation (\[eq:pdem\]) is designed as
$$\begin{aligned}
F_{p}^{set} &= m_{veh}w_{set} \\
p_{set} &= \frac{2\pi}{V_m^{max}}\left(\frac{r_{tire}F_p^{set}}{k_2}+\hat M_{s,m}\right) \label{eq:pset}
\end{aligned}$$
A simple metric for quantifying how well driver demand is met along a drive cycle is discussed in Section \[section:PerformanceMetrics\].
### Stochastic Gradient Descent with Momentum (SGDM) {#section:SGDM}
This section develops a method to approximately solve Equation (\[eq:FHSOCP\]) based on Monte Carlo sampling. The problem is re-formulated as
\[eq:FHSOCP\_SGDM\] $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{{\mathbf{u}}_0,{\mathbf{u}}_1,\dots,{\mathbf{u}}_{N-1}} &\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} g_n({\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{x}}_{n+1},{\mathbf{u}}_n,w_n)\Big|{\mathbf{x}}_0,w_0\right]\\
\text{subject to}~~& {\mathbf{x}}_{n+1} = F_n({\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{u}}_n,w_n)
\end{aligned}$$
State-control constraints are handled with SGDM through penalty functions. The running cost Equation (\[eq:gn\]) is augmented with penalty function $B({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{u}})$ $$\begin{aligned}
g_n({\mathbf{x}}_n,&{\mathbf{x}}_{n+1},{\mathbf{u}},w_n) = \nonumber \\
&~~~~K_1\left(x_{3,n+1}-x_{3,n}\right)^2 + K_2~ \hat b_f(x_{3},u_{1}) +K_3\left(x_4-p^*\right)^2\times \mathds{1}_{x_4<p^*} +B({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{u}}) \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:SGDMPenaltyTerm}
B({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{u}}) &= b_0\left(x_{3}-x_3^{max}\right)^2\times \mathds{1}_{x_{3}>x_3^{max}} +b_0\left(x_{3}-x_3^{min}\right)^2\times \mathds{1}_{x_{3}<x_3^{min}} \nonumber \\
&~~~~~~~+b_1\left({\mathbf{u}}-{\mathbf{u}}^{max}\right)^2\times \mathds{1}_{{\mathbf{u}}>{\mathbf{u}}^{max}} +b_1\left({\mathbf{u}}-{\mathbf{u}}^{min}\right)^2\times \mathds{1}_{{\mathbf{u}}<{\mathbf{u}}^{min}} \nonumber \\
&~~~~~~~+b_2\left(u_1-T_{cyl}^{max}(x_3)\right)^2\times \mathds{1}_{u_1>T_{cyl}^{max}(x_3)} \end{aligned}$$ The first component in Equation (\[eq:SGDMPenaltyTerm\]) penalizes engine speeds which are outside allowable limits, and likewise, the second component penalizes control inputs which outside physical limits. The final component provides the algorithm with information regarding the maximum torque capabilities of the engine as shown in Fig. \[fig:EngMap\]. The intent is to discourage the algorithm from choosing engine torque commands which are beyond the engine’s ability, dependent on engine speed.
For convenience we define the horizon cost $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:RandomJ}
J(\vec{\mathbf{u}},\vec w) &= \sum_{n=0}^{N-1} g_n({\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{x}}_{n+1},{\mathbf{u}}_n,w_n)\end{aligned}$$ which is a function of the control input sequence $\vec{{\mathbf{u}}} = \{{\mathbf{u}}_0,{\mathbf{u}}_1,\dots,{\mathbf{u}}_{N-1}\}$ and the random disturbance input sequence $\vec w = \{w_0,w_1,\dots w_{N-1}\}$. In all that follows, it is assumed that ${\mathbf{x}}_0$ and $w_0$ are given so that all expectation computations are conditioned on given values of ${\mathbf{x}}_0,w_0$. The goal now is to minimize $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:MinExpectationRandomJ}
\min_{{\mathbf{u}}_0,{\mathbf{u}}_1,\dots,{\mathbf{u}}_{N-1}} &\mathbb{E}\left[J(\vec{\mathbf{u}},\vec w)\right]\end{aligned}$$ For a given control sequence, the expected value in Equation (\[eq:MinExpectationRandomJ\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ExpectedValueJ}
\mathbb{E}\left[J(\vec{\mathbf{u}},\vec w)\right] &= \sum\limits_{\vec {\mathsf{w}}} J(\vec {\mathbf{u}}, \vec{\mathsf{w}}) \mathrm{Pr}\left[\vec w = \vec {\mathsf{w}} \right]\end{aligned}$$ Conceptually, if $\nabla_{\vec{\mathbf{u}}} \mathbb{E}[J(\vec{\mathbf{u}},\vec w)]$ could be computed directly, a descent with stepsize $\gamma^{[k]}$ of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ExactDescent}
\vec{\mathbf{u}}^{[k+1]} &=\vec{\mathbf{u}}^{[k]} - \gamma^{[k]} S^{[k]} \nabla_{\vec{\mathbf{u}}} \mathbb{E}[J(\vec{\mathbf{u}}^{[k]},\vec w)]\end{aligned}$$ could be employed, where the order of descent is dependent on the matrix $S^{[k]}$ [@Luen08]. Unfortunately, explicitly computing $\nabla_{\vec{\mathbf{u}}} \mathbb{E}[J(\vec{\mathbf{u}},\vec w)]$ is generally intractable due to a large number[^8] of potential outcomes of the sequence $\vec w$, so implementing Equation (\[eq:ExactDescent\]) directly is generally not possible.
One approach is to minimizing Equation (\[eq:MinExpectationRandomJ\]) is by approximating Equation (\[eq:ExpectedValueJ\]) with the sample average approximation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:SampleAveJ}
\hat J(\vec{\mathbf{u}}) = \frac{1}{K}\sum\limits_{k=1}^{K}J(\vec{\mathbf{u}},\vec w^{[k]})\end{aligned}$$ where each $J(\vec{\mathbf{u}},\vec w^{[k]})$ is a Monte Carlo sample of the random variable $J(\vec{\mathbf{u}},\vec w)$. In general, the approximation $\hat J(\vec{\mathbf{u}})$ improves as the number of Monte Carlo samples $K$ increases in accordance with a law of large numbers argument. In [@StochDriverLearning], Quadratic Programming is employed to minimize Equation (\[eq:SampleAveJ\]) as applied to the hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) energy management problem. The computational challenge with this approach is $K$ trajectories of any relevant system information must be stored in memory, and the subsequent optimization must be performed considering the entire sample set in the spirit of batch optimization [@OnlineLearning; @MPCbook]. To reduce the computational burden, [@StochDriverLearning] removes Monte Carlo samples with comparatively low probability of occurrence from the batch optimization.
The stochastic gradient descent (SGD) update $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:StochOptProblemSGD}
\vec{ {\mathbf{u}}}^{[k+1]} &=\vec {\mathbf{u}}^{[k]} - \gamma^{[k]} \nabla_{\mathbf{u}}J(\vec{\mathbf{u}}^{[k]},\vec w^{[k]})\end{aligned}$$ is a stochastic form of the idealized descent of Equation (\[eq:ExactDescent\]), and is exactly the gradient form of stochastic approximation from Section \[section:SA\]. Stochastic gradient descent finds a locally optimal solution $\vec{\mathbf{u}}^*$ which asymptotically (locally) minimizes the original problem Equation (\[eq:MinExpectationRandomJ\]) [@OnlineLearning]. With SGD, only one Monte Carlo sample of the gradient $\nabla_{\mathbf{u}}J(\vec{\mathbf{u}}^{[k]},\vec w^{[k]})$ is required at each iteration offering significantly reduced computational overhead, allowing SGD to process more samples than batch processing in a fixed amount of time. In this way, SGD is competitive with and can even outperform second-order batch optimization methods [@OnlineLearning2],[@OnlineLearning3]. The benefit of the sequential optimization approach can understood considering stochastic optimization based on Monte Carlo sampling is as much an estimation problem as it is an optimization problem [@OnlineLearning4]. The total solution error is a combination of optimization error, which measures an algorithm’s ability to determine the optimal solution for the given sampling set, and estimation error, which measures the effect of minimizing an empirical average Equation (\[eq:SampleAveJ\]) rather than expected cost Equation (\[eq:ExpectedValueJ\]). If $\vec {\mathbf{u}}^*$ is the locally optimal solution determined by a given algorithm, then the total solution error is
$$\begin{aligned}
&\underbrace{\hat J(\vec{\mathbf{u}}^*) - \min_{\vec {\mathbf{u}}}\mathbb{E}[J(\vec{\mathbf{u}},\vec w)]}_{\varepsilon_{tot}} = \underbrace{\hat J(\vec{\mathbf{u}}^*) - \min_{\vec {\mathbf{u}}}\hat J(\vec{\mathbf{u}})}_{\varepsilon_{opt}} + \underbrace{\min_{\vec {\mathbf{u}}}\hat J(\vec{\mathbf{u}}) - \min_{\vec {\mathbf{u}}}\mathbb{E}[J(\vec{\mathbf{u}},\vec w)]}_{\varepsilon_{est}}\end{aligned}$$
The estimation error generally decreases inversely with $K$, therefore the total solution error depends on the number of samples that can be processed in the alloted time. The step size sequence $\{\gamma^{[k]}\}_{k\geq 1}$, $\gamma^{[k]}\in \mathbb{R}$ must satisfy the rules given in Section \[section:SA\] for stochastic approximation: $$\begin{aligned}
\tag{\ref{eq:2SALearningRates}}
\sum_{k=1}^\infty\gamma^{[k]} = \infty, ~~~~ \sum_{k=1}^\infty\left(\gamma^{[k]}\right)^2 < \infty $$ The step size schedule chosen here is $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma^{[k]} = \frac{\gamma_0}{1+(k-1)\epsilon},~k=1,2,...\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon>0$ is called the decay rate. In this work, we use a slightly modified version of SGD known as stochastic gradient descent with momentum (SGDM) based on Nesterov’s Accelerated Gradient (NAG) [@Momentum2]
\[eq:SGDM\] $$\begin{aligned}
\vec{\mathbf v}^{[k+1]} &= \mu \vec{\mathbf v}^{[k]} - \gamma^{[k]}\nabla_{\vec{{\mathbf{u}}}}J(\vec{\mathbf{u}}^{[k]}+\mu \vec{\mathbf v}^{[k]},\vec w^{[k]}) \label{eq:SGDMa}\\
\vec{\mathbf u}^{[k+1]} &=\vec{\mathbf u}^{[k]} + \vec{\mathbf v}^{[k+1]}
\end{aligned}$$
The quantity $\mathbf v \in \mathbb{R}^{dimU}$ is referred to as the velocity term and decays at a rate according to $\mu\in[0,1)$, known as the momentum parameter. The effect of momentum is to continue pushing the parameter update in directions of previous updates, averaging out oscillations in areas of a rapidly changing gradient. Simultaneously, if several past updates are approximately aligned, the velocity term will act to propel the parameter update faster than if momentum was absent. The net result is that SGDM tends to move more rapidly towards a local minimum than classical SGD [@OnlineLearning3; @Ber96; @Momentum; @Momentum2]. An attractive feature of NAG is the gradient computation performed in Equation (\[eq:SGDMa\]) considers a projected estimate of the control sequence, $\vec{{\mathbf{u}}}^{[k]}+\mu \vec{\mathbf v}^{[k]}$, based on the most recent velocity sequence $ \vec{\mathbf v}^{[k]} = (\mathbf{v}_n^{[k]})_{n=0}^{N-1}$. This projected estimate is in some respect not unlike predictor-corrector methods used to improve stability in numerical solution of ordinary differential equations. The result is improved stability compared to classical momentum, in which the gradient is computed considering only the current value of the control parameter array, particularly when $\mu \approx 1$ [@Momentum2].
#### Computing the Gradient
This sections proposes a method to iteratively compute the gradient $\nabla_{\vec{{\mathbf{u}}}} J$ used in the control sequence update Equation (\[eq:SGDM\]) based on a piecewise linear approximation to the system dynamics along the horizon. The gradient $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:GradUJ}
\nabla_{\vec{{\mathbf{u}}}} J &= \left[\nabla_{{\mathbf{u}}_0}J ~~ \nabla_{{\mathbf{u}}_1}J ~~ \dots ~~ \nabla_{{\mathbf{u}}_{N-1}}J\right] \in \mathbb{R}^{dimU\times N}\end{aligned}$$ has individual components given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:GradUnJ}
\nabla_{{\mathbf{u}}_n}J &=\sum\limits_{k=0}^{N-1} \left[\frac{\partial g_k}{\partial {\mathbf{x}}_k} \frac{d {\mathbf{x}}_k}{d {\mathbf{u}}_n} + \frac{\partial g_k}{\partial {\mathbf{x}}_{k+1}} \frac{d {\mathbf{x}}_{k+1}}{d {\mathbf{u}}_n} \right]{^\mathsf{T}}+ \frac{\partial g_n}{\partial {\mathbf{u}}_n}{^\mathsf{T}}\end{aligned}$$ where $\frac{\partial g_k}{\partial {\mathbf{x}}_k} \in \mathbb{R}^{1\times dimX}$, $ \frac{\partial {\mathbf{x}}_k}{\partial {\mathbf{u}}_n}\in \mathbb{R}^{dimX\times dimU}$, $\frac{\partial g_n}{\partial {\mathbf{u}}_n}\in\mathbb{R}^{1\times dimU}$. In evaluating Equation (\[eq:GradUnJ\]), it will be helpful to define the following matrix $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{C}_n\triangleq\begin{bmatrix}
\dfrac{d {\mathbf{x}}_n}{d {\mathbf{u}}_0} & \dfrac{d {\mathbf{x}}_n}{d {\mathbf{u}}_1} &\dots & \dfrac{d {\mathbf{x}}_n}{d {\mathbf{u}}_{N-1}}
\end{bmatrix}
\in \mathbb{R}^{dimX \times N dimU}\end{aligned}$$ An efficient recursion for $\mathcal{C}_n$ which can be updated iteratively along the horizon is now developed. Carrying out the first few $\mathcal{C}_n$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{llllll}
\mathcal{C}_1:~~\dfrac{d {\mathbf{x}}_1}{d {\mathbf{u}}_0} = \dfrac{\partial F_0}{\partial {\mathbf{u}}_0} ~~& \mathbf{0}~~& \mathbf{0}~~&\mathbf{0} &\cdots&\mathbf{0}\vspace{0.5em}\\
\mathcal{C}_2:~~\dfrac{d {\mathbf{x}}_2}{d {\mathbf{u}}_0} = \dfrac{\partial F_1}{\partial {\mathbf{x}}_1}\dfrac{d {\mathbf{x}}_1}{d {\mathbf{u}}_0} ~~& \dfrac{d {\mathbf{x}}_2}{d {\mathbf{u}}_1} = \dfrac{\partial F_1}{\partial {\mathbf{u}}_1} ~~& \mathbf{0}~~&\mathbf{0} &\cdots&\mathbf{0} \vspace{0.5em}\\
\mathcal{C}_3:~~\dfrac{d {\mathbf{x}}_3}{d {\mathbf{u}}_0} = \dfrac{\partial F_2}{\partial {\mathbf{x}}_2}\dfrac{d {\mathbf{x}}_2}{d {\mathbf{u}}_0} ~~& \dfrac{d {\mathbf{x}}_3}{d {\mathbf{u}}_1} = \dfrac{\partial F_2}{\partial {\mathbf{x}}_2} \dfrac{d{\mathbf{x}}_2}{d {\mathbf{u}}_1}~~& \dfrac{d {\mathbf{x}}_3}{d {\mathbf{u}}_2} = \dfrac{\partial F_2}{\partial {\mathbf{u}}_2}~~&\mathbf{0} &\cdots&\mathbf{0} \vspace{0.5em}
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ By inspection, a recursion for $\mathcal{C}_n$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{C}_{n+1} &=\dfrac{\partial F_n}{\partial {\mathbf{x}}_n} \mathcal{C}_n +
\begin{bmatrix}
\underbrace{\mathbf{0} ~~ \cdots ~~ \mathbf{0}}_{\text{$n$ blocks}} & \dfrac{\partial F_n}{\partial {\mathbf{u}}_n} & \underbrace{\mathbf{0} ~~ \cdots ~~ \mathbf{0}}_{\text{$N-1-n$ blocks}}
\end{bmatrix}~,~~~ n=0,\dots,N-1\\
\mathcal{C}_0 &=
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{0} & \mathbf{0} & \mathbf{0} &\cdots & \mathbf{0}
\end{bmatrix}\nonumber \\
\mathbf{0} &\in \mathbb{R}^{dimX \times dimU} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ In this way, $\mathcal{C}_n$ is updated incrementally at each time step $n$ along the horizon. The individual partial derivatives are calculated considering the system dynamics Equation (\[eq:2ndOrderPropagation\])
\[eq:CnPartials\] $$\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{\partial F}{\partial {\mathbf{x}}} &= I + h \frac{\partial f}{\partial {\mathbf{x}}} + \frac{h^2}{2} \left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial {\mathbf{x}}}\right)^2 \\
\dfrac{\partial F}{\partial {\mathbf{u}}} &= I + h \frac{\partial f}{\partial {\mathbf{u}}} + \frac{h^2}{2} \frac{\partial f}{\partial {\mathbf{x}}} \frac{\partial f}{\partial {\mathbf{u}}}
\end{aligned}$$
In deriving Equation (\[eq:CnPartials\]) all second order partial derivatives of the form $\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial {\mathbf{x}}^2}$ and $\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial {\mathbf{x}}\partial {\mathbf{u}}}$ have been ignored. The gradient Equation (\[eq:GradUJ\]) can now be evaluated with $\mathcal{C}_n$ through $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_{\vec{{\mathbf{u}}}}J &= \mathrm{reshape}\left\{\sum\limits_{n=0}^{N-1} \left[\frac{\partial g_n}{\partial {\mathbf{x}}_n} \mathcal{C}_n + \frac{\partial g_n}{\partial {\mathbf{x}}_{n+1}} \mathcal{C}_{n+1}\right]\right\} + \frac{\partial J}{\partial \vec{{\mathbf{u}}}}\end{aligned}$$ where the function *reshape* is used to convert the $1\times NdimU$ row vector into a $dimU \times N$ matrix and $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial J}{\partial \vec{{\mathbf{u}}}} &=
\begin{bmatrix}
\dfrac{\partial g_0}{\partial {\mathbf{u}}_0}{^\mathsf{T}}& \dfrac{\partial g_1}{\partial {\mathbf{u}}_1}{^\mathsf{T}}& \cdots & \dfrac{\partial g_{N-1}}{\partial {\mathbf{u}}_{N-1}}{^\mathsf{T}}\end{bmatrix} \in \mathbb{R}^{dimU \times N}\end{aligned}$$ Finally, $\nabla_{\vec{{\mathbf{u}}}}J$ is updated iteratively at each time step along the horizon through $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:GradUJIterativeCalc}
\nabla_{\vec{{\mathbf{u}}}}J &\leftarrow \nabla_{\vec{{\mathbf{u}}}}J + \mathrm{reshape}\left\{\frac{\partial g_n}{\partial {\mathbf{x}}_n} \mathcal{C}_n + \frac{\partial g_n}{\partial {\mathbf{x}}_{n+1}} \mathcal{C}_{n+1}\right\} + \dfrac{\partial g_n}{\partial {\mathbf{u}}_n}{^\mathsf{T}}\times \mathds{1}_n\\
n&=0,\dots,N-1 \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathds{1}_n$ is a $N$-element row vector such that the $k^{th}$ element is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathds{1}_n(k) &=
\begin{cases}
1~\text{if $k = n+1$} \\
0~\text{if $k \neq n+1$}
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ The update Equation (\[eq:GradUJIterativeCalc\]) is initialized with $ \nabla_{\vec{{\mathbf{u}}}}J = \begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{0} & \cdots & \mathbf{0}
\end{bmatrix} \in \mathbb{R}^{dimU\times N}$.
#### Monte Carlo Sampling and Variance Reduction
Each Monte Carlo sample $J(\vec{\mathbf{u}},\vec w^{[k]})$ is created by randomly generating the sequence $\{ w_n\}_{n=0}^{N-1}$ drawn from the single-step distribution $P_{ij}$ according to $$\begin{aligned}
w_{n+1} \sim P_{ij}~,~\text{where $w^i \triangleq w_n$}\end{aligned}$$ The process of drawing $w_{n+1}$ from $P_{ij}$ is as follows. A sequence of random numbers $\{\omega_0,\omega_1,\dots,\omega_{N-2}\}$ is generated, where each $\omega_n \in [0,1]$ is an independent uniform random number. The initial value of $w_0$ is given and, at each stage $n=0,\dots,N-2$, $w^i$ is reset according to $w^i \triangleq w_n$. The value assigned to $w_{n+1}$ is then determined from $\omega_n$ according to
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{rl}
0 < \omega_n \leq P_{i1} : & w_{n+1}=w^1 \\
P_{i1} < \omega_n \leq P_{i1}+P_{i2} : & w_{n+1}=w^2 \\
P_{i1}+P_{i2} < \omega_n \leq P_{i1}+P_{i2}+P_{i3} : & w_{n+1}=w^3 \\
\vdots &
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$
The general rule for assigning the specific value $w^j$ to $w_{n+1}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:MonteCarloAssignmentRule}
\begin{array}{rl}
P_{i1} + \cdots + P_{ij-1} < \omega_n \leq P_{i1}+\cdots + P_{ij} : & w_{n+1}=w^{j}
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ The assignment rule Equation (\[eq:MonteCarloAssignmentRule\]) is performed for $n=0,\dots,N-2$. Variance reduction is accomplished with a technique known as PEGASUS [@ng2000pegasus], in which the Monte Carlo sampling of Equation (\[eq:MonteCarloAssignmentRule\]) is performed using the same sets of random numbers. A set of $K$ random number sequences is generated before the algorithm is started $$\begin{aligned}
\vec{\omega}^{[1]} &=\{\omega_0,\dots,\omega_{N-2}\}^{[1]}\\
&~\vdots \\
\vec{\omega}^{[k]} &=\{\omega_0,\dots,\omega_{N-2}\}^{[k]}\end{aligned}$$ At iteration $k$ of SGDM, the $k^{th}$ sequence of random numbers $\vec{\omega}^{[k]}$ is used in the Monte Carlo sampling Equation (\[eq:MonteCarloAssignmentRule\]). After $K$ iterations, a new point $({\mathbf{x}}_0,w_0)$ is measured and brought in as the new initial condition and the process is restarted using the same $K$ sets of random number sequences. The benefit is that for a fixed ${\left(}{\mathbf{x}}_0,w_0{\right)}$ initial condition the optimization process reduces to a completely deterministic optimization, resulting in significantly reduced variance in the control sequence between executions of SGDM.
#### Scaling and Final Algorithm
Performance of SGDM is improved significantly by properly scaling the control inputs. The scaling factors $m_1, m_2$ from Equation (\[eq:InputScaling\]) are determined empirically so that $\nabla_{\vec{{\mathbf{u}}}}J$ has components of approximately equal magnitude along each dimension, which is a common approach in numerical solution of optimal control problems [@Betts]. The final algorithm is shown in Algorithm \[Alg:SGDM\]. Maximum algorithm iterations is set to $K=200$. For the first 50 iterations the stepsize is held constant at $\gamma=0.2$, afterwards a decay of $\epsilon=0.1$ is used. The momentum parameter is set as $\mu=0.95$. These parameters were finely tuned to deliver optimum performance from SGDM.
### Approximate Stochastic Differential Dynamic Programming (ASDDP) {#section:ASDDP}
This sections develops *approximate stochastic differential dynamic programming* (ASDDP), a stochastic variant of the classic differential dynamic programming algorithm described in Section \[section:DDP/iLQR\], to approximately solve Equation (\[eq:FHSOCP\]). The problem is re-formulated as
\[eq:FHSOCP\_ASDDP\] $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{{\mathbf{u}}_0,{\mathbf{u}}_1,\dots,{\mathbf{u}}_{N-1}} &\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} g_n({\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{x}}_{n+1},{\mathbf{u}}_n,w_n)\Big|{\mathbf{x}}_0,w_0\right]\\
\text{subject to}~~& {\mathbf{x}}_{n+1} = F_n({\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{u}}_n,w_n) \\
&\bar {\mathbf{x}}_{n+1} = \sum_{j}P_{ij}^{(n)}F_n(\bar {\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{u}}_n,w^j) \label{eq:ASDDP_AvePath}\\
&D_x \bar {\mathbf{x}}_{n+1} \leq \mathbf c_x \label{eq:ASDDP_XConstraint}\\
&D_u {\mathbf{u}}_n \leq \mathbf c_u \label{eq:ASDDP_UConstraint}
\end{aligned}$$
Equation (\[eq:ASDDP\_AvePath\]) is the expected state trajectory along the horizon. Equations (\[eq:ASDDP\_XConstraint\]) and (\[eq:ASDDP\_UConstraint\]) are linear constraints on the expected state and control input trajectories. The state value function is defined as (the derivation can be found in Appendix \[section:VFASDDP\]) $$\begin{aligned}
V_n({\mathbf{x}}_n) &\triangleq \min_{{\mathbf{u}}_n,...,{\mathbf{u}}_{N-1}} \mathbb{E}\Big[ h({\mathbf{x}}_N)+\sum_{k=n}^{N-1} g_k({\mathbf{x}}_k,{\mathbf{u}}_k,w_k) \Big| {\mathbf{x}}_n, w_0=w^i\Big] \nonumber \\
&= \min_{{\mathbf{u}}_n}\mathbb{E}\Big[ g_n({\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{u}}_n ,w_n) + V_{n+1}\big( F_n({\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{u}}_n,w_n)\big)\big|{\mathbf{x}}_n,w_0=w^i\Big]\\
&= \min_{{\mathbf{u}}_n} \sum_j P_{ij}^{(n)} \Big[g_n({\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{u}}_n,w^j) + V_{n+1}\big(F_n({\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{u}}_n,w^j)\big)\Big] \label{eq:Vn}\end{aligned}$$ With this state value function, the expectation is conditioned on fixed disturbance information available at the start of the horizon, $w_0=w^i$. As a result, the transition probabilities change along the horizon according to the multi-step transition probability $P_{ij}^{(n)}$. The value function $V_n$ can also be given in terms of the state-control value function $Q_n$ according to $V_n({\mathbf{x}}) = Q_n({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{u}}^*) $ where ${\mathbf{u}}^*=\arg\min_{\mathbf{u}}Q_n({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{u}})$ and $Q_n$ is defined in a manner consistent with Equation (\[eq:Vn\]) $$\begin{aligned}
Q_n({\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{u}}_n) &= \mathbb{E}\Big[ g_n({\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{u}}_n ,w_n) + V_{n+1}\big( F_n({\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{u}}_n,w_n)\big)\big|{\mathbf{x}}_n,w_0=w^i\Big] \nonumber \\
&=\sum_{j}P_{ij}^{(n)} \Big[ g_n({\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{u}}_n , w^j) + V_{n+1}\big( F_n({\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{u}}_n,w^j)\big) \Big] \label{eq:Qn_ASDDP}\end{aligned}$$ Given a nominal trajectory ${\left(}\hat {\mathbf{x}}_n,\hat {\mathbf{u}}_n{\right)}_{n=0}^{N-1}$ a local model of $Q_n$ to second order is constructed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:LocalQnModel}
&Q_n(\hat {\mathbf{x}}_n+\delta {\mathbf{x}}_n,\hat {\mathbf{u}}_n+\delta {\mathbf{u}}_n) \approx \nonumber \\
&~~~~~~~~~~~Q_n^{(0)} + Q_n^{(x)}\delta {\mathbf{x}}_n + Q_n^{(u)}\delta {\mathbf{u}}_n +\frac{1}{2}\left[\delta {\mathbf{x}}_n{^\mathsf{T}}~ \delta {\mathbf{u}}_n{^\mathsf{T}}\right]
\begin{bmatrix}
Q_n^{(xx)} & Q_n^{(xu)}\\
Q_n^{(ux)} & Q_n^{(uu)}
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\delta {\mathbf{x}}_n \\
\delta {\mathbf{u}}_n
\end{bmatrix} \end{aligned}$$ Here, $\delta {\mathbf{x}}_n$ and $\delta {\mathbf{u}}_n$ are small perturbations in the state and control vectors at time $n$ and $Q_n^{(0)} \triangleq Q_n(\hat {\mathbf{x}}_n,\hat {\mathbf{u}}_n)$. The partial derivatives $Q_n^{(x)},Q_n^{(u)},Q_n^{(xx)},Q_n^{(uu)},Q_n^{(ux)}$ centered about $(\hat {\mathbf{x}}_n,\hat {\mathbf{u}}_n)$ are determined considering Equation (\[eq:Qn\_ASDDP\])
\[eq:QnPartials\] $$\begin{aligned}
Q_n^{(a)} &= \sum_{j}P_{ij}^{(n)} \left[g_n^{(a)}(\hat q_n) + V_{n+1}^{(x)}({\mathbf{x}}') F_n^{(a)}(\hat q_n)\right] \\
Q_n^{(ab)} &= \sum_{j}P_{ij}^{(n)} \Big[g_n^{(ab)}(\hat q_n) + F_n^{(a)\mathsf{T}}(\hat q_n) V_{n+1}^{(xx)}({\mathbf{x}}') F_n^{(b)}(\hat q_n) \Big]
\end{aligned}$$
where $\hat q_n \triangleq (\hat {\mathbf{x}}_n, \hat {\mathbf{u}}_n, w^j)$ and ${\mathbf{x}}' \triangleq F_n(\hat {\mathbf{x}}_n,\hat {\mathbf{u}}_n,w^j)$. To reduce computational burden, the second order derivatives $F_n^{(xx)},F_n^{(ux)},F_n^{(uu)}$ have been neglected in the last equation of (\[eq:QnPartials\]). For given $\hat {\mathbf{x}}_n, \hat {\mathbf{u}}_n,\delta {\mathbf{x}}_n$, the unconstrained value of $\delta {\mathbf{u}}_n$ which minimizes the local model Equation (\[eq:LocalQnModel\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:unLocalMinUnconstrained}
\delta {\mathbf{u}}_n^* = \arg\min_{\delta {\mathbf{u}}_n} Q_n = -\left(Q_n^{(uu)}\right)^{-1}\left(Q_n^{(u)}+Q_n^{(ux)}\delta {\mathbf{x}}_n\right)\end{aligned}$$ Substituting $\delta {\mathbf{u}}_n^*$ into the local model Equation (\[eq:LocalQnModel\]) and simplifying gives a local second order model for $V_n({\mathbf{x}})$ about the nominal trajectory $(\hat {\mathbf{x}}_n)_{n=0}^{N-1}$ for arbitrary ${\mathbf{x}}$ where $\delta {\mathbf{x}}_n = {\mathbf{x}}- \hat{\mathbf{x}}_n$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:LocalVnModel}
V_n&({\mathbf{x}}) \approx
Q_n^{(0)}-\frac{1}{2} Q_n^{(u)\mathsf{T}}(Q_n^{(uu)})^{-1}Q_n^{(u)}+ \left[Q_n^{(x)}-Q_n^{(u)}(Q_n^{(uu)})^{-1}Q_n^{(ux)}\right]({\mathbf{x}}-\hat {\mathbf{x}}_n) \nonumber\\
&~~~~~~~~~~+ \frac{1}{2}({\mathbf{x}}_n-\hat {\mathbf{x}}_n){^\mathsf{T}}\left[Q_n^{(xx)}-Q_n^{(xu)}(Q_n^{(uu)})^{-1}Q_n^{(ux)}\right]({\mathbf{x}}-\hat {\mathbf{x}}_n) $$ For fixed $\hat {\mathbf{x}}_n$, the partial derivatives of Equation (\[eq:LocalVnModel\]) are evaluated at arbitrary ${\mathbf{x}}$ according to
\[eq:VnPartials\] $$\begin{aligned}
V_N^{(x)}({\mathbf{x}}) &= h^{(x)}({\mathbf{x}}) \\
V_N^{(xx)}({\mathbf{x}}) &= h^{(xx)}({\mathbf{x}}) \\
V_n^{(x)}({\mathbf{x}}) &=[Q_n^{(x)}-Q_n^{(u)}(Q_n^{(uu)})^{-1}Q_n^{(ux)}] + [Q_n^{(xx)}-Q_n^{(xu)}(Q_n^{(uu)})^{-1}Q_n^{(ux)}] ({\mathbf{x}}-\hat {\mathbf{x}}_n) \\
V_n^{(xx)}({\mathbf{x}}) &=Q_n^{(xx)}-Q_n^{(xu)}(Q_n^{(uu)})^{-1}Q_n^{(ux)}
\end{aligned}$$
Starting from initial condition $V_N(\hat {\mathbf{x}}_N) = h(\hat {\mathbf{x}}_N)$, Equation (\[eq:QnPartials\]) and Equation (\[eq:VnPartials\]) are evaluated backwards in time along the horizon about the nominal trajectory $(\hat {\mathbf{x}}_n,\hat {\mathbf{u}}_n)_{n=0}^{N-1} $ which constitutes the *backward pass*.
The next step is to update the nominal trajectory $(\hat {\mathbf{x}}_n,\hat {\mathbf{u}}_n)_{n=0}^{N-1}$ by simulating the system forward in time along the horizon, which constitutes the *forward pass*. Unlike the classic deterministic case of DDP, the forward pass is uncertain in the stochastic setting as state trajectory $({\mathbf{x}}_n)_{n=0}^{N-1}$ depends on the realization of the stochastic disturbance trajectory $(w_n)_{n=0}^{N-1}$ . The expected nominal state trajectory is generated for a given control sequence considering disturbance information available at the beginning of the horizon according to $$\begin{aligned}
\bar {\mathbf{x}}_{n+1} &= \mathbb{E}[F_n(\bar {\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{u}}_n,w_n)|\bar {\mathbf{x}}_n,w_0 = w^i]\nonumber \\
&= \sum_{j}P_{ij}^{(n)}F_n(\bar {\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{u}}_n,w^j)\end{aligned}$$ Starting from initial condition ${\mathbf{x}}_0 = {\mathbf{x}}_0^\text{meas}$, a new system trajectory is simulated forward in time along the horizon $n=0,\dots,N-1$ according to Equation (\[eq:FowardPass\]) which represents the *forward pass*
\[eq:FowardPass\] $$\begin{aligned}
\bar {\mathbf{x}}_0 &= {\mathbf{x}}_0^{\text{meas}}~,~w_0=w_0^{\text{meas}}\\
{\mathbf{u}}_{n}^* &= \hat {\mathbf{u}}_n \underbrace{-\left(Q_n^{(uu)}\right)^{-1}\left[Q_n^{(u)}-Q_n^{(ux)}\left(\bar {\mathbf{x}}_n - \hat {\mathbf{x}}_n\right)\right]}_{\delta {\mathbf{u}}_n^*} \label{eq:unUpdate}\\
\bar {\mathbf{x}}_{n+1} &= \sum_{j}P_{ij}^{(n)}F_n(\bar {\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{u}}_n^*,w^j)
\end{aligned}$$
The new nominal trajectory is updated according to $\left\{\hat {\mathbf{x}}_n,\hat {\mathbf{u}}_n\right\}_{n=0}^{N-1} := \left\{\bar {\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{u}}_n^*\right\}_{n=0}^{N-1}$ and the process is restarted.
#### State - Control Constraints
Minimizing the local model of $Q_n$ given by Equation (\[eq:LocalQnModel\]) is an unconstrained quadratic optimization problem, whose solution is given by Equation (\[eq:unLocalMinUnconstrained\]). However, with some modification the problem of minimizing Equation (\[eq:LocalQnModel\]) subject to state and control input constraints in a stochastic environment can be addressed. A first order expansion about $(\bar {\mathbf{x}}_n,\hat {\mathbf{u}}_n)$ is taken to produce an approximation to the system dynamics that is linear in the control input
$$\begin{aligned}
\bar {\mathbf{x}}_{n+1} &= \sum_{j}P_{ij}^{(n)}F_n(\bar {\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{u}}_n,w^j) \nonumber \\
&\approx \sum_{j}P_{ij}^{(n)} \left[ F_n(\bar {\mathbf{x}}_n,\hat {\mathbf{u}}_n,w^j) + F_n^{(u)}(\bar {\mathbf{x}}_n,\hat {\mathbf{u}}_n,w^j) \delta {\mathbf{u}}_n \right]\end{aligned}$$
The state and control vectors are constrained according to
$$\begin{aligned}
D_x \bar {\mathbf{x}}_{n+1} &\leq \mathbf c_x \\
D_u \left[\hat {\mathbf{u}}_n + \delta {\mathbf{u}}_n\right] &\leq \mathbf c_u
\end{aligned}$$
Combining these equations leads to the following constrained quadratic programming problem, which is solved with an active set strategy [@Nocedal2006]
\[eq:QuadProgASDDP\] $$\begin{aligned}
&\min_{\delta {\mathbf{u}}_n} ~~~~~~~~~~~\frac{1}{2} \delta {\mathbf{u}}_n {^\mathsf{T}}Q_n^{(uu)}\delta {\mathbf{u}}_n + \left(Q_n^{(u)} + \delta {\mathbf{x}}_n {^\mathsf{T}}Q_n^{(xu)}\right) \delta {\mathbf{u}}_n \\
&\text{subject to} ~~~~D\delta {\mathbf{u}}_n \leq \mathbf c \\
&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~D = \begin{bmatrix}
D_x \sum_{j}P_{ij}^{(n)} F_n^{(u)}(\bar {\mathbf{x}}_n,\hat {\mathbf{u}}_n,w^j) \\
D_u
\end{bmatrix} \\
&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\mathbf c = \begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf c_x - \sum_{j}P_{ij}^{(n)} F_n(\bar {\mathbf{x}}_n,\hat {\mathbf{u}}_n,w^j) \\
\mathbf c_u - D_u \hat {\mathbf{u}}_n
\end{bmatrix}
\end{aligned}$$
Solving the quadratic programming problem described by Equation (\[eq:QuadProgASDDP\]) constrains the expected state trajectory along the horizon considering control input constraints.
#### Modification for Global Convergence
A standard modification is made to ensure the Hessian matrix $Q_n^{(uu)}$ is positive definite at all stages along the horizon. In this way, convergence occurs even far from the solution when $Q_n^{(uu)}$ may not be positive definite. A simple method is used based on Hessian modification in standard Newton iteration [@Shoemaker1991; @Nocedal2006],
\[eq:HessianMod\] $$\begin{aligned}
Q_n^{(uu)} &:= Q_n^{(uu)} + \tau I
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\tau = \left\{
\begin{array}{rr}
\delta - \lambda_{min}\left(Q_n^{(uu)}\right) ,& ~~~ \delta > \lambda_{min}\left(Q_n^{(uu)}\right) \\
0, &~~~ \delta \leq \lambda_{min}\left(Q_n^{(uu)}\right)
\end{array} \right.
\end{aligned}$$
The modification performed by Equation (\[eq:HessianMod\]) ensures the smallest eigenvalue of $Q_n^{(uu)}$ is no less than $\delta > 0$, which in this work is set to $\delta = 0.003$. It is worthing noting that the same control input scalings $m_1$ and $m_2$ used in Section \[section:SGDM\] are used for the ASDDP algorithm. The benefit of using input scalings here is that the eigenvalues of $Q_n^{(uu)}$ have approximately the same magnitude. The ASDDP algorithm is summarized in Algorithm \[Alg:ASDDP\].
$\hat{\mathbf{x}}_0:={\mathbf{x}}_0, w^i:=w_0$\
—–*Backward Pass*—–\
$\{Q^{(x)}_n,Q^{(u)}_n,Q^{(xx)}_n,Q^{(uu)}_n,Q^{(ux)}_n\} = 0$\
—–*Forward Pass*—–\
$\bar {\mathbf{x}}_0 := {\mathbf{x}}_0$\
#### Remarks on Computational Complexity of ASDDP
In retrospect the value function shown in (\[eq:Vn\]) is similar to a stochastic variant of DDP presented in [@Jacobson1970DDP] in which $V_n$ is explicitly dependent on the stochastic state. However, here Equation (\[eq:Vn\]) is not explicitly dependent on the stochastic state due to the fact that ASDDP incorporates the multi-step Markov transition probability $P_{ij}^{(n)}$. As such, (\[eq:Vn\]) must only be evaluated for every $w^j \in {W}$, not for every $(w^i,w^j) \in {W}\times{W}$. This significantly reduces the computational complexity of the *backward pass* from $O(|{W}|^2)$ to $O(|{W}|)$ making ASDDP more suitable for real time implementation.
### Average Path Differential Dynamic Programming (APDDP) {#section:APDDP}
We now develop *average path differential dynamic programming* (APDDP) to approximately solve Equation (\[eq:FHSOCP\]). The problem is re-formulated as
\[eq:FHSOCP\_APDDP\] $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{{\mathbf{u}}_0,{\mathbf{u}}_1,\dots,{\mathbf{u}}_{N-1}} &\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} g_n({\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{x}}_{n+1},{\mathbf{u}}_n,\bar w_n)\Big|{\mathbf{x}}_0,w_0\\
\text{subject to}~~ &\bar w_n = \sum_j P_{ij}^{(n)}w^j\\
& {\mathbf{x}}_{n+1} = F_n({\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{u}}_n,\bar w_n) \\
&\bar {\mathbf{x}}_{n+1} = \sum_{j}P_{ij}^{(n)}F_n(\bar {\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{u}}_n,w^j) \\
&D_x \bar {\mathbf{x}}_{n+1} \leq \mathbf c_x \\
&D_u {\mathbf{u}}_n \leq \mathbf c_u
\end{aligned}$$
Average path differential dynamic programming is identical to the ASDDP method described in Section \[section:ASDDP\] except the state-control value function is constructed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Qn_APDDP}
Q_n({\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{u}}_n) &= g_n({\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{u}}_n ,\bar w_n) + V_{n+1}\big( F_n({\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{u}}_n,\bar w_n)\big) \end{aligned}$$ where the average disturbance path is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\bar w_n = \sum_j P_{ij}^{(n)}w^j\end{aligned}$$ Compared to ASDDP, the primary benefit with APDDP is a significant reduction in computational burden since the summations $\sum_j P_{ij}^{(n)}$ associated with stochastic computations are nearly eliminated during the backward pass. Through numerical experimentation it was found that APDDP had trouble meeting driver demand when using the same calibrations from ASDDP (i.e. $K_3$ from Equation (\[eq:gn\]) and $\alpha, \beta$ from Equation (\[eq:wset\])). This is likely due to the fact that whereas ASDDP is evaluating all possible values of the disturbance $w_n=w^j, j\in W$ during creation of the state-control value function Equation (\[eq:Qn\_ASDDP\]), APDDP only evaluates the average value $\bar w_n$ during creation of the state-control value function Equation (\[eq:Qn\_APDDP\]). As a result, APDDP will ignore the impact of disturbance values which deviate from the averaged disturbance value along the horizon. To remedy this, gains $K_3, \alpha$, and $\beta$ were increased until APDDP was able to satisfy driver demands. Meeting driver demand is discussed further in a quantitative manner in Section \[section:PerformanceMetrics\]. The APDDP algorithm is summarized in Algorithm \[Alg:APDDP\].
### Block Diagram of Stochastic Control Algorithms
The implementation of SGDM, ASDDP, and APDDP is shown in Fig. \[fig:StochAlgorithms\].
Each of these algorithms relies on the learned statistical model of driver behavior ${\left(}P_{ij}{\right)}$ to form decisions along the horizon $n=0,1,\dots, N-1$. The sequence ${\left(}{\mathbf{x}}_n^*,{\mathbf{u}}_n^*{\right)}_{n=0}^{N-1}$ is recomputed every $T_s$ seconds. The motor displacement volume, $V_m$, is updated according to Equation (\[eq:MotorDispCalc\]). Using the scaling factors of Equation (\[eq:InputScaling\]), the inputs $T_{cyl}$ and $V_p$ are formed using the first element from the control sequence $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ControlOutputTs}
\begin{bmatrix}
T_{cyl} \\
V_p
\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
m_1&0 \\
0 & m_2
\end{bmatrix}
{\mathbf{u}}_0^*\end{aligned}$$ The driver model learning process is described by Equations (\[eq:PijEstimator\]) and (\[eq:wMeasured\]), motor displacement volume calculation is given by Equation (\[eq:MotorDispCalc\]).
$\hat{\mathbf{x}}_0:={\mathbf{x}}_0, w^i:=w_0$\
—–*Backward Pass*—–\
$\{Q^{(x)}_n,Q^{(u)}_n,Q^{(xx)}_n,Q^{(uu)}_n,Q^{(ux)}_n\} = 0$\
—–*Forward Pass*—–\
Benchmark Strategies
--------------------
Two benchmark strategies are provided as a means to evaluate SGDM, ASDDP, and APDDP. First, a baseline strategy based on instantaneous optimization is representative of that which can be achieved without consideration of upcoming driver demands or road elevation. Second, a theoretical best strategy is created to demonstrate the best which can be achieved when all cycle information available is provided to the decision making process. Like SGDM, ASDDP, and APDDP, the baseline strategy is implementable as a real time control algorithm, whereas the theoretical best strategy is not.
### Baseline: Instantaneous Optimization
A baseline strategy based on instantaneous optimization (InstOpt) is created, similar to that developed in [@SDP4]. The control inputs are generated to minimize the instantaneous fuel consumption rate considering current operating conditions and neglecting the effect of future driver demands and road elevation. The strategy is described in Fig. \[fig:BaselineStrategy\]. Pump displacement volume is controlled according to a proportional-integral (PI) controller processes to maintain some minimum pressure in the accumulator denoted as $p_{ref}$. This minimum pressure reference is held fixed at some nominal value and gradually raised if the driver propulsion force demand is not satisfied. The engine is managed to deliver the minimum speed that can satisfy the power demanded by the pump. If the accumulator pressure falls to some level $\epsilon$ below $p_{ref}$, engine speed may be commanded to increase according to a limited PI controller process. A minimum engine speed is set so that the pump can always provide enough flow to satisfy the motor flow demand, unless pump displacement volume is zero in which case this flow-based engine speed command is zero. The motor displacement is controlled according to Equation (\[eq:MotorDispCalc\]). Parameters of the baseline strategy were iteratively calibrated so the strategy performed well on all three drive cycles, with emphasis placed on performance under the UDDS drive cycle. Once established, these parameters were unchanged from one cycle to the next. The reference pressure was set to 150 bar, with precharge pressure set to 135 bar (90% of the reference pressure). Justification for the 150 bar reference pressure is established with Fig. \[fig:FpCmdDistribution\] in Section \[section:Simulation\].
### Theoretical Best: Deterministic Differential Dynamic Programming with Driver Forecast
The classic (deterministic) differential dynamic programming algorithm discussed in Section \[section:DDP/iLQR\] is used to generate a theoretically best controller to serve as a basis for comparison. The implementation of *DDP with driver forecast* (DDP for short) is shown in Fig. \[fig:DDPAlg\].
Unlike the stochastic algorithms discussed in Section \[section:StochControlFormulations\], DDP has full access to the propulsion force command sequence along the horizon, $\vec F_p^{cmd}$. Consequently, the DDP algorithm is not actually implementable in practice. The values for $T_{cyl}$ and $V_p$ are generated every $T_s$ seconds according to Equation (\[eq:ControlOutputTs\]). The value for $V_m$ is updated every 0.01 seconds according to Equation (\[eq:MotorDispCalc\]).
SIMULATION {#section:Simulation}
==========
Simulation is performed in Matlab Simulink for the series-hybrid configuration shown in Fig. \[fig:seriesHHV\]. A mid-size sport utility vehicle is simulated with parameters shown in Table \[table:SUVParameters\]. The system is designed so that maximum propulsion force, $F_p^{max}$, can be achieved when differential system pressure is 290 bar when the vehicle is in low gear.
**Description** **Symbol** **Value** **Units**
----------------------------------- --------------------- ----------- ----------------
Vehicle mass $m_{veh}$ 2091 kg
Max eng. power $P_{eng}^{max}$ 125 kW
Max propulsion force $F_p^{max}$ 6500 N
Max vehicle speed $v_{veh}^{max}$ 125 km/h
Dynamic tire radius $r_{tire}$ 0.35 -
Aero drag coefficient $C_d$ 1.62 -
Rolling resistance coefficient $C_r$ 0.010 -
Engine inertia $I_{eng}$ 0.5 kg$\cdot$m$^2$
Gear ratio 1 $k_1$ 1 -
Gear ratio 2: lo, hi $k_{2,lo},k_{2,hi}$ 10, 6.67 -
Gear ratio 2 lo/hi thresh $v_{veh,hi}$ 20 m/s
Displacement vol. of hyd. pump $V_p^{max}$ 63 cc/rev
Displacement vol. of hyd. motor $V_m^{max}$ 50 cc/rev
Hyd. accumulator precharge vol. $V_{ha}$ 50 L
Hyd. accumulator precharge press. $p_{ha}$ 70 bar
Max differential system press. $p_{max}$ 350 bar
Low-pressure accum press. $p_{lp}$ 10 bar
: Series-Hybrid SUV Parameters.[]{data-label="table:SUVParameters"}
The distribution of driver propulsion force command for each of the cycles investigated is shown in Fig. \[fig:FpCmdDistribution\].
![Driver propulsion force command distribution for each drive cycle. []{data-label="fig:FpCmdDistribution"}](FpCmdDistribution){width="100.00000%"}
This distribution indicates the fraction of time the driver spends commanding various levels of propulsion force. For example, in the UDDS cycle the driver commands a propulsion force between -500 and 500N for approximately 55% of the cycle. At the far extreme a propulsion force between 5500 and 6500N is requested during the US06 cycle for approximately 1.4% of the cycle (8.4 seconds). Recall that the reference differential system pressure for the baseline strategy InstOpt is $p_{ref}=150$ bar, so that a 3500N propulsion force can be generated in low gear at the reference pressure. Referring to Fig. \[fig:FpCmdDistribution\], a propulsion force of 3500N covers the majority of driving demands for the cycles investigated. When a propulsion force greater than 3500N is commanded, the baseline strategy will need to increase the differential system pressure as described in Fig. \[fig:BaselineStrategy\].
Simulation Setup
----------------
The simulation configuration is shown in Fig. \[fig:SimSetup\]. The vehicle dynamics block contains the engine, vehicle and hydraulics dynamics described in Section \[section:SeriesHHVDynamics\]. The algorithm block contains the embedded system model described in Section \[section:SystemModel\] and one of the algorithms described in Chapter \[section:PredEnergyManage\] (either SGDM, ASDDP, APDDP, DDP, or InstOpt). The road elevation forecast block described in Section \[section:RoadGradeForecasting\] provides elevation information along the horizon. The SGDM, ASDDP, APDDP and DDP algorithms generate control inputs $T_{cyl}$ and $V_p$ every $T_s = 0.1$ seconds and input $V_m$ every 0.01 seconds. InstOpt generates all three contorl inputs every 0.01 seconds.
A virtual driver is created which generates propulsion force command $F_p^{cmd}$ along the three drive cycles of Fig. \[fig:DriveCycles\]. The virtual driver is a PI controller which tracks the drive cycle’s reference vehicle speed $v_{veh}^{ref}$ according to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:VirtualDriver}
F_p^{cmd}(t) &= k_p \left(v_{veh}^{ref}(t)-v_{veh}(t)\right) + \int\limits_{0}^{t}k_i\left(v_{veh}^{ref}(\tau)-v_{veh}(\tau)\right)d\tau\end{aligned}$$ The gains $k_p$ and $k_i$ were tuned so that even a small speed tracking error $v_{veh}^{ref}-v_{veh}$ results in a large propulsion force command. To ensure excellent speed tracking for all three cycles the penalty $K_3$ from cost rate function Equation (\[eq:gn\]) is made large so that the tracking of $F_p^{cmd}$ is also excellent, as will be shown.
In the low level engine control block the cylinder torque control input, $T_{cyl}$, is converted into an engine throttle mass flow command, $W_{thr}$, though a simple PI controller $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ThrottleController}
W_{thr}(t) &= k_p {\left(}T_{cyl}(t)-T_{cyl,act}(t){\right)}+ \int\limits_{0}^{t}k_i{\left(}T_{cyl}(\tau)-T_{cyl,act}(\tau){\right)}d\tau\end{aligned}$$
Cycle Analysis
--------------
In this section some results of the SGDM, ASDDP, DDP and InstOpt algorithms are compared qualitatively. Reference speed tracking and state / control trajectories are examined.
### UDDS Cycle
A segment of the UDDS drive cycle is shown in Fig. \[fig:UDDSResultsVveh\].
This segment corresponds to the driver just finishing a sequence of stop and go driving and beginning a phase of cruising at moderate speed. The speed and propulsion force tracking are excellent under all four algorithms.
State and control input trajectories are shown in Fig. \[fig:UDDSResultsU\]. The stochastic strategies (SGDM and ASDDP) keep differential system pressure higher during the stop and go driving segment when acceleration demands become large, then lower differential system pressure once the cruising segment begins. The DDP with driver forecast strategy (DDP), which can foresee upcoming acceleration demands, only raises system pressure briefly to meet the strong acceleration demand near time $t=765$ s. The baseline strategy based on instantaneous optimization (InstOpt) raises engine speed and differential system pressure in a pattern which is somewhat similar to SGDM and ASDDP. However, it can be seen that the stochastic strategies have an advantage in that differential system pressure is allowed to drop down as low as 100 bar during the cruising phase where higher pressures are not required (thereby resulting in higher hydraulic displacement volumes and overall improved efficiency). Comparing the two stochastic strategies, ASDDP tends to adjust $T_{cyl}$ and $V_p$ more rapidly than SGDM, perhaps indicating that ASDDP converges more quickly than SGDM.
### US06 Cycle
A segment of the aggressive US06 drive cycle is shown in Fig. \[fig:US06ResultsVveh\]. This segment corresponds to aggressive accelerations near the start of the cycle.
The speed tracking performance of each algorithm is very good, with the exception of InstOpt. Large differences between the commanded and actual propulsion force are seen under InstOpt, indicating difficulty meeting the driver demand. The situation becomes more apparent when the trajectories of engine speed and differential system pressure are examined, shown in Fig. \[fig:US06ResultsU\]. It is interesting to note that SGDM, ASDDP, and DDP increase the differential system pressure just before the start of the aggressive acceleration event near time $t= 10$ seconds. In this way, SGDM, ASDDP and DDP are well positioned to accommodate the driver’s aggressive acceleration demand. The InstOpt strategy, which is provided no information regarding upcoming behavior, maintains differential system pressure at the minimum 150 bar until just before $t = 10$ seconds. Near $t=10$ seconds, InstOpt rapidly increases $T_{cyl}$ and $V_p$ in an attempt to meet the driver demand.
### GPS Cycle
A segment of the GPS drive cycle is shown in Fig. \[fig:GPSResultsVveh\].
This segment corresponds to the driver just finishing a sequence of stop and go driving and beginning a phase of cruising at moderate speed. Trajectories of engine speed and differential system pressure are shown in Fig. \[fig:GPSResultsX\]. SGDM and ASDDP tend to keep differential system pressure higher during stop and go driving, then lowering differential system pressure during the cruising phase. Interestingly, ASDDP generates engine speed and differential system pressure trajectories which nearly match DDP during the cruising phase.
Performance Metrics {#section:PerformanceMetrics}
-------------------
To evaluate the performance of each controller quantitatively two metrics are defined. The first metric is simply the fuel consumed along the entire cycle $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Fuel Consumption} &= \int_{0}^{T} b_f(n_{eng}(t),T_{cyl}(t)) ~dt\end{aligned}$$ where $b_f$ is the fuel consumption rate of the engine described in Fig. \[fig:EngMap\]. The second metric indicates how well the driver demand is met along the cycle through a modified speed tracking integral $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Tracking Metric} &= \frac{1}{\text{cycle dist [km]}}\int_{0}^{T} \left|v_{veh}^{ref}(t)-v_{veh}(t)\right|\times \mathds{1}_{V_{m}(t)=V_{m}^{max}}~dt\end{aligned}$$ where the indicator function is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathds{1}_{V_{m}(t)=V_{m}^{max}} &=
\begin{cases}
1 ~ \text{if}~V_{m}(t)=V_{m}^{max}\\
0~\text{otherwise}
\end{cases} \end{aligned}$$ Recall in Section \[section:SeriesHHVDynamics\] it was shown that the propulsion force is limited by the differential system pressure. The tracking metric ultimately measures how well a particular controller can anticipate and/or react to the propulsion force commanded by the driver by properly managing the differential system pressure along the drive cycle. The units of the tracking metric are meters per kilometer, measuring the average distance in meters the vehicle has regressed from the reference cycle per kilometer as a result of insufficient differential system pressure. The inclusion of the indicator function in the tracking metric definition reduces sensitivity to the virtual driver controller gains described in Equation (\[eq:VirtualDriver\]). A lower tracking metric score indicates better performance. A score of 0 - 2 m/km indicates that driver demand is (nearly) perfectly met along the entire drive cycle. A score much greater than 4 m/km (a score of 4 m/km is equivalent to one car length per kilometer) may indicate noticeable discrepancies between commanded and produced propulsion force.
### Learning Progression
This section investigates how well SGDM, ASDDP, and APDDP progressively optimize fuel usage and drivability as each cycle is repeated. Each row of driver model $(P_{ij})$ is initialized to a Gaussian-like distribution, centered around $w^i$. On each subsequent run $(P_{ij})$ is adapted to the driver behavior as described in Section \[section:LearningDriverBeahvior\]. At the end of each run the elements of ${\left(}P_{ij}{\right)}$ are stored in memory and then used as the initial conditions for the following run.
Learning progression under the UDDS cycle is shown in Fig. \[fig:progressionUDDS\].
![UDDS cycle metrics.[]{data-label="fig:progressionUDDS"}](progressionUDDS){width="100.00000%"}
The results from the DDP and InstOpt benchmark strategies are also plotted, but since these strategies do not adapt to driver behavior their performance metrics are constant across the cycle runs. As ${\left(}P_{ij}{\right)}$ is adapted to the UDDS drive cycle, fuel usage improves quickly while the tracking metric is increased only slightly (note the scale of the tracking metric). Interestingly, convergence for both algorithms has nearly been achieved by the end of the fourth run. Learning progression under the GPS and US06 cycles are shown in Figs. \[fig:progressionGPS\] and \[fig:progressionUS06\]. As with the UDDS cycle, convergence has nearly occurred after the second or third run.
![GPS cycle metrics.[]{data-label="fig:progressionGPS"}](progressionGPS){width="100.00000%"}
![US06 cycle metrics.[]{data-label="fig:progressionUS06"}](progressionUS06){width="100.00000%"}
The final fuel usage and tracking metric results after 10 repeated runs of each cycle are tabulated in Tables \[table:SimFuelPercentResults\] and \[table:SimTrackingResults\].
Cycle / Alg UDDS US06 GPS Cycle GPS Cycle (without rd. gd. forecast)
------------- -------- -------- ----------- --------------------------------------
DDP 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% -
SGDM 102.4% 106.3% 102.2% 103.4%
ASDDP 100.0% 105.8% 102.3% 104.8%
APDDP 101.2% 107.3% 103.8% 104.2%
InstOpt 106.9% 122.4% 111.1% -
: Fuel usage results, percent relative to DDP.[]{data-label="table:SimFuelPercentResults"}
Cycle / Alg UDDS US06 GPS Cycle
------------- ------ ------ -----------
DDP 0.29 0.81 0.07
SGDM 0.18 2.02 0.29
ASDDP 0.31 1.36 0.36
APDDP 0.23 1.31 0.34
InstOpt 0.28 8.28 1.70
: Tracking metric results \[m/km\].[]{data-label="table:SimTrackingResults"}
### Cross Training {#section:CrossTraining}
To better understand the benefit of learning cycle-specific driver behavior, a cross training simulation is performed where each cycle is repeatedly run as in the previous section, but the statistical driver model $(P_{ij})$ is initialized on statistics obtained from other cycles. The same metrics from the previous section are examined. In order to simplify the presentation, only the results from the ASDDP and APDDP algorithms are shown. The results from DDP and InstOpt are also included as reference points. The progression of the fuel usage and tracking metrics and shown over six runs. On run zero the driver behavior learning mechanism is frozen so that the effect of running any given cycle on statistics learned from repeatedly running another cycle is determined. After run zero is complete the driver behavior learning mechanism is allowed to run as normal.
The cross trained simulation results for the UDDS cycle are shown in Fig. \[fig:progressionUDDSCrossTrain\]. The blue curves show ASDDP results obtained by initializing ${\left(}P_{ij}{\right)}$ with driver statistics obtained from the GPS and US06 cycles. Likewise, the red curves show APDDP results obtained in a similar manner. Interestingly, when ${\left(}P_{ij}{\right)}$ is initialized with US06 statistics (dashed curves) the InstOpt outperforms the ASDDP strategy in terms of fuel usage until during the second run of the UDDS cycle (22-45 minutes) in which driver learning is active. Similarly, InstOpt outperforms APDDP fuel usage until during the third run of UDDS (45-67 minutes) in which driver learning is active. This result highlights the importance of adapting to relevant statistics if a stochastic strategy is to be employed.
The cross trained simulation results for the US06 cycle are shown in Fig. \[fig:progressionUS06CrossTrain\]. Fuel usage results remain relatively constant across the six runs. However, the tracking metric improves significantly after the first run of the US06 cycle in which driver learning is active (10 minutes). Cross trained results from the GPS cycle are shown in Fig. \[fig:progressionGPSCrossTrain\]. Regardless of ${\left(}P_{ij}{\right)}$ initialization ASDDP and APDDP outperform InstOpt during the first run in which driver learning is active.
![UDDS cycle cross training metrics. Blue: ASDDP using stats from GPS (solid), US06 (dashed). Red: APDDP using stats from GPS (solid), US06 (dashed). Purple: DDP and Green: InstOpt.[]{data-label="fig:progressionUDDSCrossTrain"}](progressionCrossTrainUDDS){width="100.00000%"}
![US06 cycle cross training metrics. Blue: ASDDP using stats from UDDS (solid), GPS (dashed). Red: APDDP using stats from UDDS (solid), GPS (dashed). Purple: DDP and Green: InstOpt.[]{data-label="fig:progressionUS06CrossTrain"}](progressionCrossTrainUS06){width="100.00000%"}
![GPS cycle cross training metrics. Blue: ASDDP using stats from UDDS (solid), US06 (dashed). Red: APDDP using stats from UDDS (solid), US06 (dashed). Purple: DDP and Green: InstOpt.[]{data-label="fig:progressionGPSCrossTrain"}](progressionCrossTrainGPS){width="100.00000%"}
Computation Times
-----------------
The average computation times of the three stochastic algorithms are shown in Table \[table:CompTimes\]. The values indicate how much faster than real time each algorithm executes. These values were obtained by running each algorithm in the full simulation setup shown in Fig. \[fig:SimSetup\] and comparing the simulation run time to elapsed wall-clock time. The simulations were carried out on a laptop equipped with a 2.6 GHz i7 processor. ASDDP runs nearly twice as fast as SGDM, and the APDDP runs nealy five times faster than ASDDP. The massive increase in speed associated with APDDP over the other algorithms can be attributed to the fact that APDDP is not considering the true stochasticity of the problem, resulting in a significantly reduced computational burden.
**Algorithm** **Average sim:real time**
--------------- ---------------------------
SGDM 3.4:1
ASDDP 7:1
APDDP 34:1
: Computation times.[]{data-label="table:CompTimes"}
EXPERIMENT {#section:Experiment}
==========
An experimental setup is used to demonstrate the real time potential of the ASDDP algorithm on a processor with limited computational resources. A secondary objective is to demonstrate a model predictive control approach can successfully control a series hydraulic hybrid using a simplified control-oriented model of the real physics.
Experimental Hardware
---------------------
The series hybrid test rig at the Maha Fluid Power Research Center is shown in Fig. \[fig:MahaSeriesHybridTestRig\]. An electric motor, referred to as the engine simulator, is directly connected to a hydraulic pump, unit 1. The engine simulator is a 126 kW Schenck three phase induction motor, capable of providing a 300 Nm torque at 4000 RPM. Hydraulic unit 1 is a Sauer S90 42 cc/rev variable displacement swash plate type pump. An electric motor/generator, referred to as the load simulator, is used to simulate vehicle inertia and road load. The load simulator is a 186 kW Reliance motor, capable of producing a 500 Nm torque at 3600 rpm. A second hydraulic pump/motor is connected directly to the load simulator, referred to as unit 2. Hydraulic unit 2 is a Sauer S90 75 cc/rev variable displacement swash plate type pump. The engine and load simulators are coupled to ABB manufactured ACS800 variable frequency drives. These drives control the output frequency which facilitates a control over the speed and torque of the two simulators. The ABB drives have transient and steady state speed control accuracy better than 0.1 %. A hydraulic power supply pressurizes a low pressure line to replace leakage losses, and an accumulator is connected to the high pressure line for energy recovery. Data acquisition and control was conducted using the cRIO 9074 controller, a product by National Instruments. The cRIO 9704 has a single core 400 MHz processor and 128 MB of RAM.
Experiment Setup
----------------
The experiment was carried out on the test rig shown in Fig. \[fig:MahaSeriesHybridTestRig\]. The load simulator was setup to simulate a lightweight passenger vehicle with parameters listed in Table \[table:ExperimentParameters\].
**Description** **Symbol** **Value** **Units**
--------------------------------- ----------------- ----------- -----------
Vehicle mass $m_{veh}$ 1520 kg
Max propulsion force $F_p^{max}$ 4000 N
Max vehicle speed $v_{veh}^{max}$ 60 km/h
Engine simulator inertia $I_{eng}$ 0.38 kg-m$^2$
Load simulator inertia $I_{load}$ 0.50 kg-m$^2$
Virtual axle ratio $k_{axle}$ 4:1 -
Dynamic tire radius $r_{tire}$ 0.31 -
Aero drag coefficient $C_d$ 1.62 -
Rolling resistance coefficient $C_r$ 0.010 -
Displacement vol. of hyd. pump $V_p^{max}$ 42 cc/rev
Displacement vol. of hyd. motor $V_m^{max}$ 75 cc/rev
HP accumulator precharge vol. $V_{ha}$ 20 L
HP accumulator precharge press. $p_{ha}$ 80 bar
LP accumulator precharge vol. $V_{la}$ 20 L
LP accumulator precharge press. $p_{la}$ 12 bar
Max hi pressure $p_{A,max}$ 240 bar
Low-pressure reservoir press. $p_{lp}$ 25 bar
: Series-Hybrid Experiment Parameters.[]{data-label="table:ExperimentParameters"}
The engine simulator is provided a reference speed command generated by the ASDDP algorithm in the following manner. As described in Section \[section:ASDDP\], an optimal state-control sequence ${\left(}{\mathbf{x}}_n^*,{\mathbf{u}}_n^*{\right)}_{n=0}^{N-1}$ is generated every $T_s = 0.5$ seconds. The value ${\mathbf{x}}_0^*$ is simply the measured state feedback information. Value ${\mathbf{x}}_1^*$ is the predicted optimal value of the state at the next horizon time step, where the horizon time is $\Delta t = 1$ second according to Equation (\[eq:2ndOrderPropagation\]). The reference engine speed provided to the engine simulator can be computed as the following linearly interpolated value[^9] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:nengcmd_experiments}
n_{eng}^{cmd} &= n_{eng,0}^* + {\left(}n_{eng,1}^* - n_{eng,0}^*{\right)}\frac{T_s}{\Delta t}\end{aligned}$$ The pump displacement command $V_p$ is generated using Equation (\[eq:ControlOutputTs\]) and the motor displacement command $V_m$ is generated every 0.01 seconds using Equation (\[eq:MotorDispCalc\]).
Data-Simulation Comparison
--------------------------
A simulation is constructed to emulate the test rig setup. The purpose of this simulation is to validate the modeling equations shown in Chapter 3 and the simulation approach taken in Chapter 6. The simulation setup is shown in Fig. \[fig:SimSetupExp\].
The propulsion force command, $F_p^{cmd}$, is generated completely open loop according to $$\begin{aligned}
F_p^{cmd} &= m_{veh}a_{veh}^{ref} + \tfrac{1}{2}C_d\rho_{air}({v_{veh}^{ref} })^2+ m_{veh}g\left[C_r cos(\phi)+sin(\phi)\right]\end{aligned}$$ The term $a_{veh}^{ref}$ is a numerical derivative of the vehicle reference speed. The engine, vehicle, and hydraulic dynamics are the same as given in Section \[section:SeriesHHVDynamics\]. The only exceptions are the resistive forces in Equation (\[eq:VehicleDynamics\]) are replaced with $F_{load}$ created by the load simulator block, and $T_{cyl}$ from Equation (\[eq:Tcyl\]) is replaced with the value created by the engine simulator block. The gains of the PI controllers used for the engine and load simulators were tuned to match the performance characteristics of the real electric units.
The first four minutes of the GPS cycle are carried out in the experiment. A plot of vehicle speed is shown in Fig. \[fig:SpeedPlotExperiments\].
The vehicle speed profile matches very well between the experiment and simulation. Engine speed and pressure of the high pressure accumulator are shown in Fig. \[fig:StatePlotExperiments\].
Agreement between the simulation and experimental data is again very good, will some slight deviations seen during periods of vehicle acceleration. The control inputs are shown in Fig. \[fig:ControlPlotExperiments\]. Overall, agreement between simulation and experimental data is very good.
Near time 180 seconds a high frequency oscillation is observed in the volumetric displacement of hydraulic unit 2. It is worthwhile to note this effect is captured nearly perfectly in simulation. For safety reasons, a small amount of logic was built into the controller which reduces the displacement volume of unit 2 if the high pressure accumulator drops below $p_{set}$ (described by Equation (\[eq:pset\])). As shown in Fig. \[fig:ModPlotExperiments\] the high pressure accumulator drops below $p_{set}$ near time 180 seconds, explaining the rapid adjustments in unit 2 displacement volume. To investigate this further, the gain $K_1$ from Equation (\[eq:gn\]), which penalizes changes in engine speed between each horizon timestep, is reduced from a value of 0.1 to 0.01 in simulation. The comparison between the nominal simulation (with $K_1=0.1$) and the modified simulation (with $K_1=0.01$) is shown in Fig. \[fig:ModPlotExperiments\].
Remarkably, the rapid oscillation is eliminated in the modified simulation. This can be explained considering the differences in engine speed observed in Fig. \[fig:ModPlotExperiments\]. In both simulations, ASDDP anticipates the need for a higher engine speed near time 170 seconds in response to the upcoming increase in road grade. The modified simulation is allowed to increase engine speed at a slightly faster rate, and is therefore able to maintain a pressure in the high pressure accumulator which is above the $p_{set}$ limit. This phenomenon gives some credence to the predictive abilities of the ASDDP algorithm.
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
=================================
Real time optimal control (aka model predictive control aka receding horizon control) is a powerful framework for hybrid vehicle energy management. It allows us to derive controllers which consider upcoming conditions and past statistics. By incorporating an adaptive element the controller can be continuously adjusted to maximize performance for the specific operating environment.
In this work a Markov chain model of driver behavior was employed. It was shown that the transition probabilities can be adapted in minutes to the drive cycle, even when initialized on values obtained from a cycle with completely incorrect characteristics. The multi-step transition probabilities were shown to be an effective tool for anticipating driver behavior along a prediction horizon. Adapting the Markov chain model in real time seems to be critical when employing a stochastic strategy. As seen in Section \[section:CrossTraining\], a poorly tuned statistical model can lead to performance which is worse than a strategy incorporating no statistical information at all. Three computational methods for real time energy management in a HHV when driver behavior and vehicle route are not known in advance were presented. When the Markov chain model is correctly adapted to the drive cycle, these methods produce fuel consumption results which are reasonably close to a theoretically best controller which has full access to driver behavior. Furthermore, each method significantly outperforms a baseline controller which is not provided any statistical driver behavior information. Road elevation forecasting provides some further gains in fuel reduction, even on a moderately level terrain found in Lafayette, IN.
Of the three computational methods developed in \[section:StochControlFormulations\], the ASDDP algorithm seems to provide the most benefit in terms of execution time and fuel consumption results. Experimental results indicate ASDDP has real time run potential on a resource limited processor. When executed on a 400 MHz processor with 128 MB of RAM, the ASDDP algorithm successfully controlled a series hybrid test rig. During the experiment, the controller update timestep was set at $T_s=0.5$ seconds, which is not unreasonable for high level control of a powertrain.
Future Directions
-----------------
### Adjusting $P_{ij}$ to Driving Indicators
In this work the Markov chain transition probabilities, $P_{ij}$, are adapted in real time. However, these values are not altered in response to various indicators such as traffic signals, upcoming traffic congestion, entering / exit a high speed segment of road, etc. For example, if a red light is being approached the likelihood of a deceleration command in the very near future becomes quite high, regardless of past behavior. Adjusting matrix ${\left(}P_{ij}{\right)}$ in response to these indicators could provide substantial prediction benefit. On-board telematics could provide a means to inform the algorithm of upcoming indicators.
### MPDDP
Average path differential dynamic programming (APDDP) developed in Section \[section:APDDP\] was competitive with ASDDP in terms of fuel consumption but executed in a fraction of the time. The improved speed of APDDP can be attributed to the fact that each timestep along the horizon APDDP considers only a single disturbance transition, whereas ASDDP considers $|W|$ transitions. A hybrid algorithm could foresee-ably consider several likely transitions plus several transitions at outer variances of the disturbance path (as seen for example in Fig. \[fig:EwnPropagate\]) for a total of $1<y<|W|$ transition evaluations. Such a strategy (possibly *multi-path differential dynamic programming*?) could potentially offer nearly 100% of the performance benefits of ASDDP at a considerably reduced computational cost. A mechanism for selecting which transitions to consider at each horizon timestep would be required.
### Multi-Stage Markov Chain Modeling
More can be done in the way of Markov chain modeling. The Markov chain used in this work was a single-stage model of the form $$\begin{aligned}
P_{ij} &\triangleq \mathrm{Pr}[w_{n+1} = w^j | w_n = w^i]\end{aligned}$$ In words, the probability of the next transition is based only on the present disturbance value. A more sophisticated model could use information about past disturbances to make better predictions about the next transition, such as $$\begin{aligned}
P_{(i_1,i_2)j} &\triangleq \mathrm{Pr}[w_{n+1} = w^j | w_n = w^{i_1},w_{n-1}=w^{i_2}]\end{aligned}$$ The hope is that by including more information to the prediction, the prediction becomes more accurate. The downside is that learning time may increase which could offset prediction benefits (recall the single stage model shown above can be effectively learned in roughly 20-30 minutes). Additionally, incorporating such a multi-stage model may add computational complexity to the algorithm which needs to be considered.
DRIVER BEHAVIOR STATISTICS {#section:AppDriverBehavior}
==========================
![Propagation of $\mathbb{E}[w_n|w_0=w^i]$. Sample paths shown in light grey. UDDS cycle.[]{data-label="fig:UDDS_EwnPropagate"}](UDDS_EwnPropagate){width="100.00000%"}
![Propagation of $\mathbb{E}[w_n|w_0=w^i]$. Sample paths shown in light grey. US06 cycle.[]{data-label="fig:US06_EwnPropagate"}](US06_EwnPropagate){width="100.00000%"}
![Propagation of $\mathbb{E}[w_n|w_0=w^i]$. Sample paths shown in light grey. GPS cycle.[]{data-label="fig:GPS_EwnPropagate"}](GPS_EwnPropagate){width="100.00000%"}
VALUE FUNCTION DERIVATION FOR ASDDP {#section:VFASDDP}
===================================
Define $$\bar {\mathbf X}_n({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{u}}) = \{{\mathbf{x}}^j | {\mathbf{x}}^j = F_n({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{u}},w^j),~w^j\in W\} \subset \mathbf X$$ as the set of all states reachable from ${\mathbf{x}}$ under control input ${\mathbf{u}}$ at time $n$. The finite horizon value function is given by [^10]
$$\begin{aligned}
V_n({\mathbf{x}}_n) &= \min_{{\mathbf{u}}_n,...,{\mathbf{u}}_{N-1}} \mathbb{E}\Big[ h({\mathbf{x}}_N)+\sum_{k=n}^{N-1} g_k({\mathbf{x}}_k,{\mathbf{u}}_k,w_k) \Big| {\mathbf{x}}_n, w_0=w^i\Big] \nonumber \\
&= \min_{{\mathbf{u}}_n,...,{\mathbf{u}}_{N-1}} \mathbb{E}\left[g_n({\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{u}}_n,w_n)+ h({\mathbf{x}}_N)+\sum_{k=n+1}^{N-1} g_k({\mathbf{x}}_k,{\mathbf{u}}_k,w_k) \Big| {\mathbf{x}}_n, w_0=w^i\right] \nonumber \\
&= \min_{{\mathbf{u}}_n} \Bigg\{\mathbb{E}\Big[g_n({\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{u}}_n,w_n) \big| {\mathbf{x}}_n,w_0=w^i \Big]+ \nonumber\\ &~~~~~~~~~~~~\min_{{\mathbf{u}}_{n+1},...,{\mathbf{u}}_{N-1}}\mathbb{E} \left[ h({\mathbf{x}}_N)+\sum_{k=n+1}^{N-1} g_k({\mathbf{x}}_k,{\mathbf{u}}_k,w_k) \Big| {\mathbf{x}}_n, w_0=w^i \right]\Bigg\} \nonumber \\
&= \min_{{\mathbf{u}}_n} \Bigg\{\mathbb{E}\Big[g_n({\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{u}}_n,w_n) \big| {\mathbf{x}}_n,w_0=w^i \Big]+\nonumber \\
&~~~~~~~~~~~~\sum_{{\mathbf{x}}^j\in \bar {\mathbf X}_n({\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{u}}_n)} \mathrm{Pr}\Big[{\mathbf{x}}_{n+1}={\mathbf{x}}^j \big| {\mathbf{x}}_n, {\mathbf{u}}_n, w_0=w^i\Big] \times \nonumber\\
&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\underbrace{\min_{{\mathbf{u}}_{n+1},...,{\mathbf{u}}_{N-1}} \mathbb{E} \left[ h({\mathbf{x}}_N)+\sum_{k=n+1}^{N-1} g_k({\mathbf{x}}_k,{\mathbf{u}}_k,w_k) \Big| {\mathbf{x}}_{n+1},w_0=w^i \right]}_{V_{n+1}({\mathbf{x}}_{n+1})}\Bigg\} \nonumber \\
&= \min_{{\mathbf{u}}_n} \sum_j P_{ij}^{(n)} \Big[g_n({\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{u}}_n,w^j) + V_{n+1}\big(F_n({\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{u}}_n,w^j)\big)\Big]\end{aligned}$$
with boundary condition $V_N({\mathbf{x}}) = h({\mathbf{x}})$. The last equality used the following $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{Pr}\big[{\mathbf{x}}_{n+1}={\mathbf{x}}^j \big| {\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{u}}_n,w_0=w^i\big] &= \mathrm{Pr}\big[w_n=w^j \big| w_0=w^i\big] \\
&= P_{ij}^{(n)}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathbf{x}}^j \triangleq F_n({\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{u}}_n,w^j) \in \bar {\mathbf X}_n({\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{u}}_n)$. Equation (\[eq:Vn\]) is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
V_n({\mathbf{x}}_n) &= \min_{{\mathbf{u}}_n}\mathbb{E}\Big[ g_n({\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{u}}_n ,w_n) + V_{n+1}\big( F_n({\mathbf{x}}_n,{\mathbf{u}}_n,w_n)\big)\big|{\mathbf{x}}_n,w_0=w^i\Big]\end{aligned}$$
=3em K. Williams and M. Ivantysynova. “Approximate Stochastic Differential Dynamic Programming for Hybrid Vehicle Energy Management", [*IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology*]{} (submitted)\
=3em K. Williams, R. Kumar and M. Ivantysynova. “Robust control for a dual stage power split transmission with energy recovery," in [*Proceedings of the 6th International Fluid Power Conference*]{}, Dresden, Germany, Vol. 1, pp.127-144, April 2008\
=3em K. Williams and M. Ivantysynova “Towards an optimal energy management strategy for hybrid hydraulic powertrains based on dual stage power split principle," in [*Proceedings of the 5th FPNI PhD Symposium*]{}, Krakow, Poland, pp 27 - 40, July 2008\
=3em R. Kumar, K. Williams and M. Ivantysynova. “Study of energetic characteristics in power split drives for on-highway trucks and wheel loaders," in [*Proceedings of the SAE International Commercial Vehicle Engineering Congress*]{}, Chicago, Illinois, 2007\
=3em K. Williams, “Energy recovery for hydraulic hybrid power split drives,” Master’s thesis, Purdue University, 2007\
=3em B. Carl, M. Ivantysynova and K. Williams, “Comparison of Operational Characteristics in Power Split Continuously Variable Transmissions", SAE Technical Paper 2006-01-3468, 2006
[^1]: More generally, for safety, traditional friction brakes can be added so that the propulsion force becomes $F_p = \left(\frac{V_m}{2\pi} p - M_{s,m}\right)\frac{k_2}{r_{tire}} - {F_{brake}}$. In this work, the friction brake force term $F_{brake}$ is neglected as its role in the drive cycles investigated was negligible.
[^2]: It is assumed $F_p^{cmd}$ can be inferred, for example, from driver foot pedal position. During simulation and experiments in this work $F_p^{cmd}$ is the output of a PI feedback process used to track a vehicle speed reference.
[^3]: A discrete time deterministic dynamic system described by dynamics $F(x_n,u_n)$ and some initial condition can be viewed as obeying condition Equation (\[eq:MarkovCondition\]), where $\mathrm{Pr}[x_{n+1}=F(x,u)|x_n=x]=1$, $\mathrm{Pr}[x_{n+1}\neq F(x,u)|x_n=x]=0$
[^4]: Roughly speaking, a Markov Chain is said to be *irreducible* if any state of the chain can be reached, eventually, from any initial state. The chain describing driver behavior is clearly irreducible.
[^5]: Roughly speaking, state $i$ is said to be periodic if $i$ can only be revisited cyclically with period $d>1, d\in \mathbb{N}$, so that $P_{ii}^{(n)}>0$ whenever $n$ is a multiple of $d>1$ and $P_{ii}^{(n)}=0$ otherwise. Clearly, if a periodic state exists in the chain, convergence of $P^{(n)}$ is not possible since $\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty} P^{(kd)} \neq \lim_{k\rightarrow \infty} P^{(kd+1)}$. The chain describing driver behavior is not periodic since any state can be revisited immediately at the next timestep, so that each state has period $d=1$.
[^6]: For simplicity, it is assumed $\frac{\partial f}{\partial t}=0$
[^7]: The quantity $f({\mathbf{x}}(t),{\mathbf{u}}(t),w(t),t)$ is represented by shorthand as $ f(t)$
[^8]: The number of potential outcomes is $|W|^{N-1}$, where $|W|$ is the number of discrete states in the Markov Chain.
[^9]: At the time of experimentation $n_{eng}^{cmd}$ was implemented with a discrete time first order low pass filter which emulates Equation (\[eq:nengcmd\_experiments\])
[^10]: Conditional expectation $\mathbb{E}[X]=\sum_y\mathrm{Pr}[Y=y]\mathbb{E}[X|Y=y]$ is used in the second to last equality
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The neutron star equation of state (EOS) is now being constrained from a diverse set of multi-messenger data, including gravitational waves from binary neutron star mergers, X-ray observations of the neutron star radius, and many types of laboratory nuclear experiments. These measurements are typically mapped to a common domain – either to a corresponding radius or to a parametrized EOS using a Bayesian inference scheme – for comparison with one another. We explore here the statistical biases that can arise when such multi-messenger data are mapped to a common domain for comparison. We find that placing Bayesian priors individually in each domain of measurement can transform to biased constraints in the domain of comparison. Using the first two binary neutron star mergers as an example, we show that a uniform prior in the tidal deformability can produce artificial evidence for large radii, which the data do not support. We present a new prescription for defining Bayesian priors in any domain of measurement, that will allow for minimally-biased constraints in the domain of comparison. Finally, using this new prescription, we provide a status update on multi-messenger EOS constraints on the neutron star radius.'
author:
- 'Carolyn A. Raithel, Feryal Özel, & Dimitrios Psaltis'
bibliography:
- 'gwthermal.bib'
title: |
Optimized statistical approach for combining multi-messenger data\
for neutron star equation of state inference
---
Introduction
============
We are now in an era of true multi-messenger constraints on the neutron star equation of state (EOS), with a wealth of new results coming in from electromagnetic observations of astrophysical sources, gravitational wave detections of binary systems, and laboratory-based nuclear experiments.
On the astrophysical side, X-ray observations of surface emission from neutron stars in low-mass X-ray binaries (LMXBs) have constrained the radii of at least a dozen sources (@Ozel2009a [@Guver2010; @Guillot2013; @Guillot2014; @Heinke2014; @Nattila2016; @Ozel2016a; @Bogdanov2016]; for a recent review, see @Ozel2016). Under the assumption that all neutron stars have a common radius, these measurements combine to yield a narrowly-constrained radius of $R=10.3\pm0.5$ km [@Ozel2016a]. Additionally, the NICER collaboration recently reported the first radius constraint for an isolated X-ray pulsar [@Bogdanov2019], which is quite broad but seems to favor relatively large radii, $R=12.71\substack{+1.14\\-1.19}$ km, for a multi-component, phenomenological set of pulse-profile models [@Riley2019]. The LIGO-Virgo collaboration has also now detected two likely binary neutron star mergers. The first event, GW170817, provided strong constraints on the effective tidal deformability of the binary neutron star system, ${\widetilde\Lambda}= 300\substack{+430\\-220}$ [@Abbott2017a; @Abbott2019]. While there was no strong detection of tidal effects in the second event, GW190425, the masses from this event render it likely to be a second binary neutron star system, which some studies have already used in placing new, multi-messenger constraints on the neutron star EOS [@LIGO2020; @Dietrich2020; @Landry2020].[^1]
In addition to these astrophysical measurements, a wide variety of nuclear experiments have placed complementary constraints on the low-density portion of the EOS. For example, the two-body potential can be constrained from nucleon-nucleon scattering data at energies below 350 MeV and from the properties of light nuclei, which directly informs the EOS at densities near the nuclear saturation density, ${n_{\rm sat}}$ [@Akmal1998; @Morales2002]. Experimental constraints are also often expressed in terms of the nuclear symmetry energy, which characterizes the difference in energy between pure neutron matter and symmetric nuclear matter. The value of the nuclear symmetry energy at ${n_{\rm sat}}$ and its slope, $L_0$, have been constrained by fits to nuclear masses, by measurements of the neutron skin thickness, the giant dipole resonance, and electric dipole polarizability of $^{208}$Pb, and by observations of isospin diffusion or multifragmentation in heavy ion collisions [e.g., @Danielewicz2003; @Centelles2009; @Roca-Maza2013; @Tamii2011; @Tsang2012; @Oertel2017 for a recent review].
With this diversity of data, the question then arises of how one might robustly compare the results. Whether the astrophysical results are mapped to the EOS-domain for comparison using a Bayesian inference scheme, or the nuclear results are mapped to astrophysical quantities using approximate universal relations, the resulting comparisons will be slightly different. As we will demonstrate in this paper, each transformation of a measured quantity into a different domain has the potential to bias the resulting comparison. In particular, what may be a non-informative assumption for the Bayesian prior in one domain may transform to be highly informative in another domain. The issue becomes more pressing when the data are weak, as was the case with the second binary neutron star merger, in which case the resulting constraints are dominated by the Bayesian prior.
The approach we are describing here – in which constraints on a particular quantity are made and then, in a second and independent step, those constraints are transformed to a different domain for comparison – is closely related to the so-called “exterior-prior paradigm" of @Riley2018. Using example measurements of the neutron star radius to infer the underlying EOS parameters, @Raaijmakers2018 showed that the two-step process of the exterior-prior paradigm can distort the resulting posterior, depending on whether the Bayesian prior is defined in the interior (e.g., EOS) or exterior (e.g., radius) domain. The authors of both works conclude that the interior-prior paradigm, in which the EOS parameters are inferred directly from the experimental data, is perhaps more statistically robust, as it side-steps the intermediate process of inferring, e.g., the radius. However, given the current landscape in which different research groups publish constraints only on these intermediate, observable features, the exterior-prior paradigm remains widely used.
In this paper, we will focus on issues that occur within this exterior-prior paradigm. However, we will take a different approach than that of @Riley2018. We will demonstrate that, regardless of the end domain – i.e., whether the second step of the analysis is to infer EOS parameters or to transform to an independent observable feature, such as $R$ or ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ – the priors can be distorted in ways that significantly affect the resulting comparisons. This is true whether the second mapping is a full Bayesian inference scheme to constrain the pressures of a parametrized EOS or whether the second step makes use of approximate universal relations to analytically map to other domains. In this paper, we will show that even mappings to other exterior domains can lead to a distortion of the priors and, thus, of the resulting posterior distribution.
Our goal is to derive a minimally-biased method for comparing constraints on the neutron star EOS from different types of experimental data that does not depend on the domain of comparison. We will specifically focus on recent constraints from X-ray observations of the neutron star radius, gravitational waves constraints on ${\widetilde\Lambda}$, and nuclear experiments constraining $L_0$. We will introduce a general framework for defining Bayesian priors that are minimally-informative in the domain of comparison. These priors, once defined, can then be transformed to the domain of each measurement. As we will show, this procedure of choosing the domain of comparison *a priori* is critical for ensuring unbiased constraints.
We start with a brief review of Bayesian statistics, in order to define the issues that arise when the domain of measurement differs from the domain of comparison. In $\S$\[sec:Bayes\], we also introduce Bayesian priors for the different domains of comparison that are relevant for EOS inference. In $\S$\[sec:transform\], we derive a set of analytic transformation equations that facilitate the mapping between any two domains. In particular, we make use of previously-published mappings between the nuclear symmetry energy and the radius, as well as between the radius and the binary tidal deformability. We additionally introduce a new, simplified transformation function between the neutron star radius and the pressure at roughly twice the nuclear saturation density, which is approximate but helpful for illustrative purposes. In $\S$\[sec:GWtransform\], we apply the newly-derived priors to the concrete example of the measured tidal deformability from GW170817 and GW190425. We find that the choice of priors strongly dominates for the weakly-informative GW190425, but that for both events, the choice of a uniform prior in the tidal deformability artificially inflates the evidence for larger radii. By defining a less informative prior that is uniform in the radius, the evidence points to slightly smaller radii. Finally, in $\S$\[sec:constraints\], we combine the composite set of data from X-ray observations, both gravitational wave events, and a recent study using heavy-ion collisions and we present summary constraints on the neutron star radius.
Bayesian priors {#sec:Bayes}
===============
We start with a general review of Bayesian statistics, in order to illustrate the problems that arise when the domain of measurement differs from the domain of comparison. Bayes’ theorem states that, when modeling some collection of data with a set of parameters $\vec{\theta}$, the posterior distribution on $\vec{\theta}$ is given by $$\label{eq:Bayes}
P(\vec{\theta} | \mathrm{data}) = P_{\rm{pr}}(\vec{\theta} ) \mathcal{L}(\mathrm{data} |\vec{\theta} ),$$ where $P_{\rm{pr}}(\vec{\theta})$ represents the Bayesian prior on $\vec{\theta}$ and $\mathcal{L}(\mathrm{data} | \vec{\theta})$ represents the likelihood of observing the measured data given a particular set of values for $\vec{\theta}$.
We can transform this measurement of $\vec{\theta}$ to a new set of parameters, $\vec{\phi}$, with a simple transformation of variables, $$\label{eq:transform}
P(\vec{\phi} | \mathrm{data}) = P(\vec{\theta} | \mathrm{data}) \mathcal{J}\left( \frac{\vec{\theta}}{\vec{\phi}} \right),$$ where $\mathcal{J}$ represents the Jacobian of transformations. In the case that $\vec\theta$ and $\vec\phi$ are both single parameters, the Jacobian is simply $\rvert\partial \theta/\partial \phi \rvert$. Equation (\[eq:transform\]) shows that, depending on the nature of this Jacobian, even a broad posterior on $\vec{\theta}$ can potentially lead to stringent constraints on $\vec{\phi}$, simply by the transformation of variables.
As an example, let us imagine a scenario in which we measure weak constraints on $\theta$, given a noisy data set. Suppose we have limited prior knowledge of what $\theta$ should be and thus define a minimally-informative Bayesian prior that is a simple boxcar function over $\theta$. For this noisy measurement, the Bayesian evidence will be small, we will essentially recover our flat prior distribution, and we will safely conclude that no new knowledge of $\theta$ was measured. However, if $\theta$ depends strongly on $\phi$, then eq. (\[eq:transform\]) will imply that the data strongly constrain $\phi$, even though the actual measurement was uninformative. In $\S$\[sec:GWtransform\], we will show that this is exactly what has happened with EOS constraints from GW190425.
In order to avoid this problem, it is important to decide, a priori, what parameter we are most interested in and then define a prior that is minimally informative in that domain. For the purposes of this paper, we consider three different types of experimental measurements: nuclear experiments, of which we will focus on those that constrain $L_0$; X-ray observations, which constrain $R$; and gravitational waves, which constrain ${\widetilde\Lambda}$.
There is no unique choice for the domain in which to compare these experimental results. Arguably, constraining the parameters of the dense-matter EOS is the ultimate goal of this line of research. If we consider some fiducial EOS pressure, $P_0$, to be the fundamental variable that we are interested in comparing, then one can define a set of minimally-informative priors in that domain, such that
\[eq:priors\_P\] $$P_{\rm pr;~P_0}(L_0) = P_{\rm pr}(P_0) \biggr \rvert \frac{\partial R}{\partial P_0} \biggr \rvert ^{-1} \biggr \rvert \frac{\partial R}{\partial L_0} \biggr \rvert$$ $$P_{\rm pr;~P_0}(R) = P_{\rm pr}(P_0) \biggr \rvert \frac{\partial R}{\partial P_0} \biggr \rvert^{-1}$$ $$\label{eq:prLambda_P}
P_{\rm pr;~P_0}({\widetilde\Lambda}) = P_{\rm pr}(P_0) \biggr \rvert \frac{\partial R}{\partial P_0} \biggr \rvert^{-1} \biggr\rvert \frac{\partial {\widetilde\Lambda}}{\partial R} \biggr \rvert ^{-1},$$
where we have simply applied different transformations of variables. In these equations, we have introduced a short-hand notation for the prior, $P_{\rm pr;~X}(Y)$, which indicates a Bayesian prior on the measurement of a variable $Y$ that is defined with respect to the desired domain of comparison $X$. In defining the transformation of variables, we have chosen to expand the derivatives so that we ultimately have only three derivatives to calculate: $\partial R/\partial P_0$, $\partial R/\partial L_0$, and $\partial {\widetilde\Lambda}/\partial R$. This choice is particularly convenient because functions for $R(L_0)$ and ${\widetilde\Lambda}(R)$ have been previously reported in other works, as we will review in $\S$\[sec:transform\]. In $\S$\[sec:transform\], we will further introduce a new approximation for $R(P_0)$, which allows for the priors in eq. (\[eq:priors\_P\]) to be calculated fully analytically, which is convenient for illustrative purposes.
Even though it is true that the EOS parameters are closely related to the experimentally-measured nuclear symmetry energy, they cannot be directly probed astrophysically. Moreover, the parametric inference schemes that are often used to invert astrophysical data to constraints on the EOS can be sensitive to the choice of parametrization or priors [e.g., @Steiner2016; @Raithel2017; @Carney2018; @Raaijmakers2018; @Riley2018; @Greif2019]. Thus, perhaps a more natural domain of comparison is in the radius domain. X-ray observations quite directly measure the neutron star radius. Furthermore, there exist strong correlations between the neutron star radius and the tidal deformability inferred from a gravitational wave event, as well as between $R$ and the slope of the nuclear symmetry energy. This allows for a simple one-step transformation from either the nuclear or gravitational wave data to radius constraints, which is convenient, though not necessary.
If we choose the radius, $R$, as the fundamental variable, then the gravitational wave and nuclear experimental constraints will be mapped to the radius domain for comparison with the X-ray results, as has been done in nearly all cross-domain comparisons to date. Our goal is to again define priors on ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ and $L_0$ that are consistent with a prior that is minimally-informative in $R$. We can define this self-consistent set of priors as
\[eq:priors\_R\] $$P_{\rm pr;~R}(L_0) = P_{\rm pr}(R) \biggr \rvert \frac{\partial R}{\partial L_0} \biggr \rvert$$ $$P_{\rm pr;~R}(R) = P_{\rm pr}(R)$$ $$\label{eq:prLambda_R}
P_{\rm pr;~R}({\widetilde\Lambda}) = P_{\rm pr}(R) \biggr\rvert \frac{\partial {\widetilde\Lambda}}{\partial R} \biggr \rvert^{-1},$$
where a natural choice for a minimally-informative prior might be a bounded uniform distribution on $R$.
Finally, for the sake of completeness, we also define the set of self-consistent priors for comparison in the ${\widetilde\Lambda}$-domain,
\[eq:priors\_Lambda\] $$P_{\rm pr;~{\widetilde\Lambda}}(L_0) = P_{\rm pr}({\widetilde\Lambda}) \biggr\rvert \frac{\partial {\widetilde\Lambda}}{\partial R} \biggr \rvert \biggr \rvert \frac{\partial R}{\partial L_0} \biggr \rvert$$ $$P_{\rm pr;~{\widetilde\Lambda}}(R) = P_{\rm pr}({\widetilde\Lambda}) \biggr\rvert \frac{\partial {\widetilde\Lambda}}{\partial R} \biggr \rvert$$ $$P_{\rm pr;~{\widetilde\Lambda}}({\widetilde\Lambda}) = P_{\rm pr}({\widetilde\Lambda}).$$
For the flat priors in ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ that the LIGO-Virgo collaboration assumed for GW170817 and GW190425 [@Abbott2017a; @LIGO2020], eq. (\[eq:priors\_Lambda\]) represents the corresponding priors for $R$ and $L_0$.
Thus, for several fundamental variables that one might want to constrain, we now have a self-consistent set of priors for each of the other measured quantities, which is defined with respect to the domain of comparison.
Transformation functions {#sec:transform}
========================
We now turn to deriving the transformation functions needed to calculate the priors in eqs. (\[eq:priors\_P\])-(\[eq:priors\_Lambda\]). We will start at the microscopic level, with a new approximation for $R(P_0)$. We will then connect $R$ with $L_0$ and, finally, $R$ with ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ using the results of previous works.
From $P_0$ to the neutron star radius
-------------------------------------
{width="95.00000%"}
To start, our goal is to derive a simple mapping between the neutron star radius and a fiducial pressure of the EOS. This relationship, while approximate, will allow us to cleanly illustrate how the priors transform between different domains.
In general, in order to compute the radius for a star with a given central density, the TOV equations must be solved using the full EOS. The inverse problem – that is, determining the EOS given a radius – is only solvable with data that span the full mass-radius relation [@Lindblom1992]. In the absence of perfect data and due to the fact that neutron stars are not expected to form with birth masses below $\sim1~{M_{\odot}}$, the inversion is inexact. As a result, many Bayesian statistical inference schemes have been developed to facilitate the mapping from neutron star observables to the EOS [@Steiner2010; @Steiner2016; @Ozel2016a; @Raithel2017].
However, for radii in particular, some simplifications to this problem have been identified. @Lattimer2001 first showed that the neutron star radius is primarily determined by the pressure at $1-2$ times the nuclear saturation density. @Ozel2009 later found that the pressure near $1.85~{n_{\rm sat}}$ is highly correlated with the resulting radius. Furthermore, a large family of nucleonic EOS predict that all neutron stars across a wide range of masses will have the same radius, corresponding to “vertical" mass-radius relations (see, e.g., the middle panel of Fig. \[fig:MR\]). In other words, for nucleonic EOS, we expect that nearly all neutron stars will have identical radii, the value of which is set by the pressure at $\sim1.85~{n_{\rm sat}}$. Thus, in the following analysis, our goal is to create a simple mapping between the stellar radius and $P_0 \equiv P(1.85 {n_{\rm sat}})$.[^2]
We start by constructing a large number of vertical mass-radius relations, using a sequence of piecewise polytropic EOS. We fix the low-density portion of each EOS to the nuclear model of WFF1 [@Wiringa1988]. In order to vary the radius of each EOS, we vary the value of $P_0$, which is then smoothly connected to the low-density EOS with a polytropic index of $\Gamma=3$, as is approximately consistent with most realistic EOS reported in @Read2009. For densities $n > 1.85~{n_{\rm sat}}$, we stiffen the EOS to have a polytropic index of 3.7, in order to ensure that there is enough pressure at high densities to reach a maximum mass of at least 2 ${M_{\odot}}$. If this construction results in an EOS with a superluminal sound speed at high densities, we limit the polytropic index to the causal value. That is, for $n > 1.85~{n_{\rm sat}}$, we adopt $\Gamma = \mathrm{min}[3.7, \Gamma_{\rm{causal}}]$. We integrate each EOS with the standard TOV equations to construct a mass-radius sequence. The EOS and their resulting mass-radius relations are shown in Fig. \[fig:MR\], for a wide range of values of $P_0$.
The right panel of Fig. \[fig:MR\] also shows the relation between $P_0$ and the radius of a 1.4 ${M_{\odot}}$ star, $R_{1.4}$. The colorful symbols correspond to each EOS constructed in the left two panels, while the gray dashed line shows a best fit model, which we find to be $$\begin{gathered}
R_{1.4} = 3.519 \left(\frac{P_0}{\mathrm{MeV/fm}^3}\right)^{-0.355} + \\
5.047 \left(\frac{P_0}{\mathrm{MeV/fm}^3}\right)^{0.277}~\mathrm{km},\end{gathered}$$ with a Bayesian information criteria strongly favoring this model over either a linear ($\Delta$ BIC = 190) or single power-law model ($\Delta$ BIC = 100). The derivative of this analytic function is then simply $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:dRdP}
\frac{\partial R}{\partial P_0} = -1.248 \left(\frac{P_0}{\mathrm{MeV/fm}^3}\right)^{-1.355} + \\
1.397 \left(\frac{P_0}{\mathrm{MeV/fm}^3}\right)^{-0.723} ~ \frac{\mathrm{km}}{\mathrm{MeV/fm^3}} ,\end{gathered}$$ where we have assumed $R \approx R_{1.4}$.
{width="95.00000%"}
From the nuclear symmetry energy to the neutron star radius
-----------------------------------------------------------
In order to map directly from nuclear constrains to $P_0$ in eqs. (\[eq:priors\_P\])-(\[eq:priors\_Lambda\]), we also need a transformation equation between the neutron star radius, $R$, and the slope of the nuclear symmetry energy, $L_0$. Many previous studies have found evidence of strong correlations between these parameters [e.g., @Lattimer2001; @Steiner2013; @Alam2016]. Here, we use the approximate relation $$R_{1.4} \simeq (4.51 \pm 0.26) \left(\frac{L_0}{\rm MeV}\right)^{1/4} \mathrm{km},$$ which was calculated as a function of pressure for a sample of realistic EOS in @Lattimer2013 and later translated to be a function of $L_0$ in @Tews2017. The derivative is then simply $$\frac{\partial R}{\partial L_0} \simeq (1.128 \pm 0.065) \left(\frac{ L_0}{\rm MeV} \right)^{-3/4} ~\frac{\mathrm{km}}{\mathrm{MeV}},$$ where we have again assumed $R \approx R_{1.4}$, as is reasonable for EOS with vertical mass-radius relations.
From tidal deformability to the neutron star radius
---------------------------------------------------
Finally, we turn to the relationship between the radius and the effective tidal deformability measured from a gravitational wave event. Several studies have shown that ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ is effectively a mono-parameteric function of the neutron star radius [@De2018; @Raithel2018; @Raithel2019a], which scales quite strongly as ${\widetilde\Lambda}\sim R^{5-6}$, where the exponent varies according to the slightly different assumptions made in these analyses. We use the formalism of @Raithel2018 to exactly calculate $\partial {\widetilde\Lambda}/\partial R$.
In that study, we defined a quasi-Newtonian framework for calculating ${\widetilde\Lambda}$, in which $${\widetilde\Lambda}\approx {\widetilde\Lambda}_{0} \left[ 1 + \delta_{0} (1-q)^2\right] + \mathcal{O}\left((1-q)^3\right),$$ where $$\label{eq:coef}
{\widetilde\Lambda}_{0} = \frac{15-\pi^2}{3 \pi^2} \xi^{-5} (1-2 \xi)^{5/2},$$ $$\label{eq:correction}
\delta_{0} = \frac{3}{104}(1-2 \xi )^{-2}\left(-10 + 94 \xi - 83 \xi^2 \right),$$ and $\xi$ was introduced as an effective compactness, defined as $$\label{eq:xi}
\xi \equiv \frac{2^{1/5} G {\mathcal{M}_c}}{ R c^2}.$$ In these equations, ${\mathcal{M}_c}$ is the chirp mass, $q$ is the mass ratio of the binary (defined such that $q\le1$), $G$ is the gravitational constant, and $c$ is the speed of light. Combining these results, one finds that the radius-dependence of the binary tidal deformability scales approximately as ${\widetilde\Lambda}\sim R^6$.
In this framework, the derivative of ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ is then given by $$\label{eq:fulldLamdR}
\frac{\partial {\widetilde\Lambda}}{\partial R} \approx \frac{\partial {\widetilde\Lambda}_0}{\partial R}
\left[ 1 + \left( \delta_0 + {\widetilde\Lambda}_0 \left(\frac{\partial \delta_0}{\partial R} \right) \left(\frac{\partial {\widetilde\Lambda}_0}{\partial R}\right)^{-1} \right) (1-q)^2 \right],$$ where we have neglected the higher-order terms and where the auxillary derivatives are given by $$\frac{\partial \delta_0}{\partial R} = -\frac{\delta_0 \xi}{R} \left[ \frac{ 54 + 22 \xi}{-10 + 114 \xi - 271 \xi^2 + 166 \xi^3} \right]$$ and $$\label{eq:dLeff0dR}
\frac{\partial {\widetilde\Lambda}_0}{\partial R} = \frac{5 {\widetilde\Lambda}_0 \xi}{R} \left( \frac{1}{\xi} + \frac{1}{1-2\xi} \right).$$ The importance of the 2nd-order correction term in eq. (\[eq:fulldLamdR\]) increases with ${\mathcal{M}_c}$ and the mass asymmetry of the binary. That is, larger values of ${\mathcal{M}_c}$ and smaller values of $q$ will both act to increase the coefficient of the 2nd-order term. However, even for a very large ${\mathcal{M}_c}=1.44~{M_{\odot}}$, as was measured for GW190425 and for $q=0.7$, as was the lower limit for both GW170817 and GW190425, the correction term is at most 4%. Thus, we neglect the 2nd-order correction term and simply approximate $$\label{eq:dLeffdR}
\frac{\partial {\widetilde\Lambda}}{\partial R} \approx \frac{\partial {\widetilde\Lambda}_0}{\partial R},$$ which scales roughly as $R^5$.
{width="95.00000%"}
{width="95.00000%"}
Summary of transformations
--------------------------
We now apply all of these transformation functions to compute the priors in eqs. (\[eq:priors\_P\])-(\[eq:priors\_Lambda\]). For each fundamental variable, we assume a bounded uniform distribution. We bound the uniform prior on ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ to be positive and less than 1200, which is well above the limits that were derived for either GW170817 (with an adjusted chirp mass of ${\mathcal{M}_c}=1.44~{M_{\odot}}$)[^3] or GW190425. We bound the uniform prior on $R$ to be between 9 and 16 km, in order to broadly encompass all current measurements of X-ray radii. Finally, we bound the uniform prior on the pressure such that $P_0 \in [5, 50]$ MeV/fm$^{-3}$. We choose a lower bound of 5 MeV/fm$^{-3}$, to be roughly consistent with state-of-the-art chiral effective field theory calculations for matter in $\beta$-equilibrium [@Lonardoni2019]. We choose a very large upper limit on $P_0$, in order to be as unrestrictive as possible, but we note that this upper limit is much larger than what is allowed within the chiral effective field theory calculation of @Lonardoni2019.
We show the resulting transformations of these priors in Fig. \[fig:priors\]. In blue, we show the original case of a uniform prior on ${\widetilde\Lambda}$, as was used by the LIGO-Virgo collaboration for both GW170817 and GW190425. The middle panel shows how the flat prior in ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ maps to a highly informative prior in $R$, which is biased towards large radii. The right panel shows that a flat prior in ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ is moderately biased towards larger values of $P_0$. Figure \[fig:priors\] also shows how a uniform prior in $R$ or $P_0$ transforms to the other domains, in orange and purple lines, respectively. Clearly, a “non-informative" prior in one domain can be highly informative in a different domain.
Example application to gravitational wave data {#sec:GWtransform}
==============================================
With these transformation functions now in hand, we turn to a concrete example. In this section, we will calculate posteriors for ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ using priors that are minimally informative in either ${\widetilde\Lambda}$, $R$, or $P_0$. We will then map each set of posteriors to constraints on $R$ and $P_0$, in order to illustrate the sensitivity of the resulting constraints to the particular choice of priors.
We start with the measurement of ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ from GW170817. The original posteriors utilized a flat prior in ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ [@Abbott2017a]. These posteriors are shown in blue in the left panel of Fig. (\[fig:GW170817\]), for an adjusted chirp mass of ${\mathcal{M}_c}=1.44~{M_{\odot}}$. We then modify the published posterior to calculate the posterior that would have been inferred had the prior been uniform in radius (shown in orange) or uniform in $P_0$ (shown in purple). We calculate these new posteriors as $$\label{eq:modifyPr}
P({\widetilde\Lambda}| \mathrm{data}) =P_{\rm old}({\widetilde\Lambda}| \mathrm{data}) \left[ \frac{P_{\rm pr,~new}({\widetilde\Lambda})}{P_{\rm pr,~old}({\widetilde\Lambda})}\right],$$ where $P_{\rm pr,~new}({\widetilde\Lambda})$ indicates the new prior, which is given by eq. (\[eq:prLambda\_P\]) for the case of a uniform prior in $P_0$ or by eq. (\[eq:prLambda\_R\]) for the case of a uniform prior in $R$ . Here, $P_{\rm pr,~old}({\widetilde\Lambda})$ represents the original, uniform prior on ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ and $P_{\rm old}({\widetilde\Lambda}| \mathrm{data})$ represents the original, published posterior. By dividing the reported posterior by the old prior, we essentially recover the original likelihood.
For each of the three, new posteriors on ${\widetilde\Lambda}$, we then transform to find the corresponding constraints on $R$, according to $$P(R | \mathrm{data}) = P({\widetilde\Lambda}| \mathrm{data}) \biggr \rvert \frac{\partial {\widetilde\Lambda}}{\partial R} \biggr \rvert.$$ We similarly transform the posteriors on ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ to constraints on $P_0$, according to $$P(P_0 | \mathrm{data}) = P({\widetilde\Lambda}| \mathrm{data}) \biggr \rvert \frac{\partial {\widetilde\Lambda}}{\partial R} \biggr \rvert \biggr \rvert \frac{\partial R}{\partial P_0} \biggr \rvert.$$
The inferred constraints on $R$ and $P_0$ are shown in the middle and right panels of Fig. \[fig:GW170817\], respectively. At 68% confidence (highest-posterior density), the radius is constrained to $R=10.9 \substack{+1.8\\-0.5}$ km for uniform priors in $P_0$, $R=10.9\substack{+0.8\\-0.7}$ km for uniform priors in $R$, and $R=11.1\substack{+1.8\\-0.6}$ km for uniform priors in ${\widetilde\Lambda}$. There is a small difference between the inferred constraints, depending on which choice of prior is used. In particular, assuming a flat prior in ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ or $P_0$ leads to evidence for slightly larger radii compared to the radii that are inferred when a flat prior distribution in $R$ is assumed. However, the data for this event are constraining enough that the overall effect of the prior remains small.
In contrast, Fig. \[fig:GW190425\] shows that the constraints inferred from ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ for GW190425 are much more sensitive to the choice of the prior. As for GW170817, the LIGO-Virgo collaboration reported posteriors on ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ assuming a uniform prior distribution on ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ [@LIGO2020]. However, unlike GW170817, the resulting posteriors for GW190425 essentially represent a non-detection: the authors state that they lack the requisite sensitivity to detect matter effects for this system [@LIGO2020]. Nevertheless, they report constraints on ${\widetilde\Lambda}$, the neutron star EOS, and $R$, assuming that GW190425 is indeed a binary neutron star system based on its component masses. Following suit, we re-weight the reported posteriors on ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ to determine the posteriors that would have been inferred had a uniform prior in $R$ or $P_0$ instead been used, according to eq. (\[eq:modifyPr\]). The resulting posteriors, and their transformations to $R$ and $P_0$, are shown in Fig. \[fig:GW190425\].
We find that the choice of prior strongly influences the resulting constraints on $R$ and $P_0$ for GW190425. In particular, the assumption of a flat prior in ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ leads to the inference of quite large radii, $R=13.3 \substack{+1.5\\-1.7}$ km (68% credibility interval), even though no significant matter effects were detected in the actual measurement. The inference of large radii is purely an artifact of the transformation of variables. If we instead use a uniform prior in the radius, then the corresponding constraints on $R$ are also relatively uniform, such that it does not make sense to report a 68% credibility interval. We find that the constraints on $R$ are essentially flat across the range of 9-13 km, with values of $R \gtrsim 13$ km disfavored. Figure \[fig:GW190425\] thus demonstrates that the prior outweighs the actual data for this event. Moreover, Fig. \[fig:GW190425\] demonstrates that comparing in the radius domain, when the measurement and original prior were in the ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ domain, produces artificial evidence for large radii, even in the absence of a measured signal.
The conclusion that the prior outweighs the data for GW190425 may be obvious when the posteriors are examined in the domain in which they are made. In this case, the relatively flat posterior measured for ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ is clearly mostly consistent with the flat prior that was assumed, and we can conclude that the event was not very informative. The picture becomes less clear, however, when transforming to a different domain and then making comparisons in that domain. In fact, several studies are already using GW190425, in conjunction with other observations, to place constraints on the EOS [e.g., @Dietrich2020; @Landry2020]. However, our results suggest that any such inferences will be biased towards larger radii by the uniform prior in ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ that was assumed in the published LIGO-Virgo posteriors (as was used by @Landry2020) or with the choice of a uniform prior in the component tidal deformabilities (as was assumed in the re-analysis performed in @Dietrich2020, and which approaches the uniform prior for ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ for $q\rightarrow1$).
The two gravitational wave events that have been detected so far are relatively straightforward to identify as “strongly" and “weakly" constraining events. However, in the coming years, it is likely that the LIGO-Virgo collaboration will measure many events whose constraints on ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ fall in the more intermediate category of constraining power. Thus, in general, we argue that the optimal way to avoid the pitfalls of overly-informative priors is to use a flat prior in the domain in which the constraint is actually being made. That is, if the goal is to compare ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ with X-ray constraints on the neutron star radius, one should use priors that are minimally-informative in $R$. Alternatively, if the goal is to compare ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ with nuclear constraints on $P_0$, one should use priors that are minimally-informative in $P_0$. A flat prior on ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ is the natural choice only when comparing to other measurements of the tidal deformability.
Composite constraints on the neutron star radius {#sec:constraints}
================================================
With the new prescription for defining priors introduced in this paper, we now present summary constraints on the neutron star radius, using the latest results from X-ray data, gravitational waves, and nuclear constraints on $L_0$.
![\[fig:pdfR\] *Top*: Constraints on the neutron star radius from X-ray observations, gravitational wave inference, and nuclear experimental data, assuming a uniform prior in each of the measured quantities (i.e., ${\widetilde\Lambda}, R$, and $L_0$). *Bottom*: Constraints on the neutron star radius from the same data, but now assuming a uniform prior in the radius. We find that using prior distributions that are chosen to be minimally-informative in the radius results in more evidence for smaller radii.](PDF_of_R_combined_2ax.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
These results are summarized in Figure \[fig:pdfR\] for two choices of priors. In this figure, we include constraints from GW170817 [in blue; @Abbott2017a] and GW190425 [in green; @LIGO2020], X-ray constraints on the radii of 12 neutron stars in LMXBs [in red; @Ozel2016a], the X-ray timing results from NICER for PSR J0030+0451 [in orange; @Riley2019], and a recent constraint on $L_0$ from an analysis of single and double ratios of neutron and proton spectra from heavy-ion collisions [in purple; @Morfouace2019]. While we only include a single constraint on $L_0$, we note that this posterior ($L_0=49.6\pm13.7$ MeV, with values below 32 MeV or above 120 MeV forbidden[^4]) is consistent with the results of a recent meta-analysis of several dozen studies that determined $L_0 = 58.7\pm28.1$ MeV [@Oertel2017]. Thus, we include the [@Morfouace2019] results in Fig. \[fig:pdfR\] as a representative and recent example of Bayesian constraints on $L_0$.
The top panel of Fig. \[fig:pdfR\] shows the constraints on $R$ assuming uniform priors in the domain of each measurement; i.e., uniform priors on ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ for the gravitational wave events, uniform priors on $R$ for the X-ray data, and uniform priors on $L_0$ for the heavy-ion collision inference. In contrast, the bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:pdfR\] shows the constraints on $R$ that are derived when a uniform prior on $R$ is assumed for each measurement. We find that using a uniform prior in each variable leads to more evidence, overall, for larger radii, purely as an artifact of the transformation of the prior to the radius domain. When we define the prior in the radius-domain directly, in an effort to be minimally-informative, the resulting constraints are shifted to slightly smaller radii.
![\[fig:jointPDF\] Joint posterior distribution on the radius, determined by various combinations of experimental data. Orange lines correspond to any combination of experimental results that include the 12 LMXB sources. Blue lines indicate combinations that include the NICER source, PSR J0030+0451, as the only X-ray data. The purple line shows the constraints inferred from only gravitational wave and nuclear contraints; i.e., with no X-ray data. ](joint_PDF_uniR_pairwise_v2.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
Finally, Fig. \[fig:jointPDF\] shows the joint posterior distribution for various combinations of these experimental and observational constraints, with uniform priors defined in the radius domain. The orange lines show the joint posterior distributions for any combination of experimental constraints that include the data for the 12 LMXB sources, with the darkest orange line representing the joint posterior including all of the data shown in Fig. \[fig:pdfR\]. The blue lines represent the joint posteriors for any combination of data that include the NICER pulsar as the only X-ray source. Finally, the purple line represents the joint posterior for just the nuclear and the gravitational wave constraints (i.e., excluding all X-ray sources).
We find that the data from the 12 LMXB sources are the most constraining measurement included in this paper. Any joint posteriors that contain these data point to $R\sim10-11.5$ km. Moreover, small radii are supported by *any* combination of results that exclude the NICER data, including the combination of gravitational wave and $L_0$ constraints alone. In contrast, if the NICER source is included as the only X-ray data, then the resulting radii are much larger, $R\sim12-13$ km. Currently, the NICER collaboration has published radius constraints for just a single source, PSR J0030+0451, using a multi-component, phenomenological pulse-profile model to fit the data. As more physical pulse-profile models are developed and more sources are included in the analysis, it will be interesting to see whether this systematic offset persists.
As the community works towards ever-more stringent constraints on the neutron star radius, these joint posteriors can be helpful for understanding the relative constraining power of each additional measurement. They can also help to identify systematic offsets between different types of measurements. Finally, we note that regardless of which data are included in any meta-analysis, defining the prior to be minimally-informative in the domain of comparison is an important step towards getting unbiased constraints.
Conclusions
===========
With the recent flood of multi-messenger constraints on the neutron star EOS, it is important to start identifying the statistical biases that enter into comparisons of these diverse data sets. In this paper, we have highlighted the importance of defining minimally-informative priors directly in the domain of comparison. We introduced a general prescription for calculating such priors and derived the relevant transformation functions so that these priors can be properly mapped back to and used in the measurement domain.
Using the example of GW170817 and GW190425, we showed that assuming a Bayesian prior that is “non-informative" in ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ leads to a highly-informative constraint on $R$, even in the absence of a measured signal. In particular, a flat prior in ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ biases the resulting constraint on $R$ to large values that are unsupported by the data. If we instead define a prior on ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ that is minimally-informative in the radius, it becomes clear that the gravitational wave data provide evidence for slightly smaller radii.
As the community continues to collect more and higher quality data, the relative importance of the priors should diminish. We have already shown this for the case of radius constraints inferred from ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ for GW170817, for which the choice of prior does not strongly affect the resulting posterior. However, for gravitational waves in particular, we may see far more low-significance events than we do GW170817-like events. Thus, if we hope to use the future constraints on ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ to compare with other radius measurements, it is important to account for the role of the assumed priors.
As new events – gravitational and otherwise – continue to be observed, the general prescription introduced in this paper will facilitate increasingly stringent, and statistically robust, constraints on the neutron star EOS.
This work was supported in part by Chandra Grant GO7-18037X. C. R. gratefully acknowledges support from NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program Grant DGE-1746060.
[^1]: @LIGO2020 does point out that, due to the weak measurement of tidal effects, it remains possible that GW190425 contains at least one black hole. Throughout this paper, we will assume that GW190425 was, in fact, a binary neutron star merger, as is assumed in the majority of the discovery paper [@LIGO2020], as well as in the subsequent EOS inferences of @Dietrich2020 and @Landry2020.
[^2]: We note that by assuming a common radius for all neutron stars, we are implicitly assuming that the EOS is nucleonic for densities $n \lesssim 2~{n_{\rm sat}}$. Any significant softening or stiffening of the EOS, corresponding to the emergence of new particles or interactions in the matter, would cause a deviation from a vertical mass-radius relation. The following analysis should be modified, if a strong phase transition is suspected at densities below $\sim2~{n_{\rm sat}}$.
[^3]: The binary tidal deformability is a mass dependent quantity. In order to compare the results from GW170817 and GW190425 directly, we need to re-weight ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ from the two events to have the same chirp mass. Thus, we adjust the chirp mass of GW170817 to match the central value of the chirp mass for GW190415, ${\mathcal{M}_c}=1.44~{M_{\odot}}$, in order to facilitate this comparison. For the chirp-mass adjusted posteriors on ${\widetilde\Lambda}$ from GW170817, see @LIGO2020.
[^4]: The constraints from @Morfouace2019 assume a uniform prior for $32 < L_0 < 120$ MeV. Because the prior goes to zero outside of this range, we cannot rigorously recover the likelihood for very large or small values of $L_0$. Instead, when we re-weight the posterior to use a prior that is uniform in $R$, we simply assume that the likelihood continues as the inferred Gaussian outside of this range.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'A theoretical analysis of the anomalous diffusion transport mechanism suggests a possible connection between wall current drain and magnetic flux through the orbital trajectories of charged particles in a plasma submitted to a strong magnetic field. Then Bohm diffusion coefficient is straightforwardly obtained.'
address: 'Department of Physics and Center for Plasma Physics,& Instituto Superior Tecnico, Av. Rovisco Pais, & 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal'
author:
- 'Mario J. Pinheiro'
bibliography:
- 'Doc2.bib'
title: The role of magnetic flux and wall current drain on anomalous diffusion
---
[^1]
The problem of the plasma-wall interactions is of fundamental importance in plasma physics. Studying the anomalously high diffusion of ions across magnetic field lines in Calutron ion sources (electromagnetic separator used by E. Lawrence for uranium isotopes) gave the firsts indications of the onset of a new mechanism [@Bohm]. Simon advanced first with a suggestion that the observed losses could be explained by the highly anisotropic medium induced by the magnetic field lines, favoring electron current to the conducting walls - the electron “short-circuit” problem [@Simon]. Experiments done by Geissler [@Geissler1] in the 1960’s have shown that diffusion in a plasma across a magnetic field was nearly classical (standard) diffusion when insulating walls impose plasma ambipolarity, but in the presence of conducting walls charged particles diffuse at a much higher rate.
This problem of plasma-wall interaction becomes more complex when a complete description is aimed of a magnetized nonisothermal plasma transport in a conducting vessel [@Beilinson]. In the area of fusion reactors, there is strong indication that for plasmas large but finite Bohm-like diffusion coefficient appears above a certain range of $B$ [@Montgomery2].
Progress in the understanding of the generation of confinement states in a plasma is fundamental [@Itoh] to pursue the dream of a fusion reactor [@Bickerton; @Shafranov]. Anomalous diffusion is a cornerstone in this quest, as recent research with tokamaks suggest that the containment time $\tau \approx 10^8
R^2/2D_B$, with $R$ denoting the minor radius of a tokamak plasma and $D_B$ is the Bohm diffusion coefficient [@Rostoker]. Controlled nuclear fusion experiments have shown that transport of energy and particles across magnetic field lines is anomalously large (i.e, not predicted by classical collision theory).
The conjecture made by Bohm is that the diffusion coefficient is $D_B=\alpha kT/eB$, where $T$ is the plasma temperature and $\alpha$ is a numerical coefficient, empirically taken to be $1/16$ [@Bohm]. Usually the origin of the anomalous diffusion has been assumed to be due to the turbulence of small-scale instabilities (see, for example, Refs. [@Montgomery2; @Taylor; @Montgomery1]).
In a seminal paper [@Robertson] a conjecture was proposed based on the principle of minimum entropy-production rate, stating that a plasma will be more stable whenever the internal product of the current density by an elementary conducting area $d
\mathcal{A}$ at every point of the boundary - excluding the surface collecting the driving current - is null, $(\mathbf{j}
\cdot \mathcal{A})=0$.
The work reported in this Letter proposes a mechanism of wall current drain set up together with the frozen-in effect of the magnetic field as a possible alternative explanation of the anomalous diffusion mechanism. From collisional low temperature plasmas to a burning fusion plasma subject the plasma confinement vessel to strong wall load, both in stellarator or tokamak operating modes, this explanation could be of considerable interest.
The general idea proposed by Robertson [@Robertson] assume that the plasma boundary is composed of small elements of area $\mathcal{A}_i$, each one isolated from the others but each one connected to the exterior circuit through its own resistor $R_i$ and voltage $V_i$. The entropy production rate in the external circuits is $$\label{Eq1}
\frac{d S}{d t} = \sum_i \frac{1}{T} (\mathbf{j}_i \cdot
\mathcal{A}_i)^2 R_i,$$ where $T$ is the temperature of the resistors, supposed to be in thermal equilibrium with all the others.
In fact, a straightforward application of Eq. \[Eq1\] to a cold plasma made of electrons and just one ion component gives $$\label{Eq2}
\frac{d S}{dt} = \frac{e^2}{T} (-n_e \mu_e \mathbf{E} + D_e \nabla
n_e + n_i \mu_i \mathbf{E} - D_i \nabla n_i)^2 \mathcal{A}^2 R.$$ Under the usual assumptions of quasi-neutrality and quasi-stationary plasma (see, for example, Ref. [@Roth]) $$\label{Eq3}
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{n_i}{n_e}=\epsilon=const. ; & n_e \mathbf{v_e}=n_i
\mathbf{v}_i.
\\
\end{array}$$ Hence, Eq. \[Eq1\] becomes $$\label{Eq4}
\frac{dS}{dt}=\frac{e^2}{T} [\mathbf{E}(\epsilon \mu_i - \mu_e)n_e
+ \nabla n_e (D_e - D_i \epsilon)]^2 \mathcal{A}^2 R.$$ If there is no entropy production $\dot{S}=0$, and then the ambipolar electric field is recovered [@Roth] $$\label{amb1}
\mathbf{E}=\frac{D_e - \epsilon D_i}{\mu_e - \mu_i
\epsilon}\frac{\nabla n_e}{n_e}.$$ This conceptual formulation provides new insight regarding ambipolar diffusion. In a thermal equilibrium state, a plasma confined by insulating walls will have an effective coefficient given by the above Eq. \[amb1\], a situation frequently encountered in industrial applications. This example by itself relates ambipolar diffusion with no entropy production in the plasma. Allowing plasma currents to the walls, entropy production is greatly enhanced, generating altogether instabilities and plasma losses [@Robertson].
But confined plasmas are in a far-nonequilibrium state (with external surroundings) and it is necessary to establish a generalized principle that rule matter, which we develop in the next lines.
Experiments give evidence of transport of particles and energy to the walls [@Luce]. At the end of the 1960s, experimental results obtained in weakly ionized plasma [@Geissler1] and in a hot electron plasma [@Ferrari] (this one proposing a possible mechanism of flute instability) indicated the strong influence conducting walls have on plasma losses across magnetic field lines. Geissler [@Geissler1] suggested that the most probable explanation was due to the existence of diffusion-driven current flow through the plasma to the walls. Beilinson [*et al.*]{} [@Beilinson] shown the possibility to control the profiles of plasma parameters by applying potential difference to various parts of the conducting walls. Concerning fusion reactions, Taylor [@Taylor] provided a new interpretation of tokamak fluctuations as due to an inward particle flux resulting from the onset of filamentary currents.
We consider a simple axisymmetric magnetic configuration with magnetic field lines parallel to z-axis with a plasma confined between two electrodes (see Fig.1). In general terms, a particle motion in a plasma results in a massive flux. As long as the flux is installed, the flux will depends naturally on a force $\mathbf{F}$ - in this case the pressure gradient-driven process of diffusion to the wall - responsible of the wall driven current $\mathbf{j}$. According to the fundamental thermodynamics relation, the plasma internal energy variation $dU$ is related to the amount of entropy supplied or rejected and the work done by the driven force, through the equation $$\label{Eq5}
\frac{dU}{dt} = (\mathbf{j} \cdot \mathcal{A})^2 R + \left(
\mathbf{F} \cdot \frac{d \mathbf{r}}{dt} \right).$$ The last term we identify with the macroscopic diffusion velocity $\mathbf{v}_d$ depicting the process of plasma expansion to the wall. To simplify somehow the calculations we assume a single plasma fluid under the action of a pressure gradient ($\mathbf{F}=\mathcal{A} L dp/dy$).
In the presence of steady and uniform magnetic field lines (this simplifies the equations, but do not limit the applicability of the model), the particles stream freely along them. From magnetohydrodynamic we have a kind of generalized Ohm’s law (see, for example, Ref. [@Kadomtsev1]) $$\label{Eq6}
\nabla p = - e n \mathbf{E} - e n [\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{B}] +
[\mathbf{j} \times \mathbf{B}] - \frac{e n \mathbf{j}}{\sigma},$$ where $\sigma = e^2 n \tau_e/m_e$ is the electric conductivity, with $\tau_e$ denoting the average collision time between electrons and ions. Under the equilibrium condition $$\label{Eq7}
\nabla p = [\mathbf{j} \times \mathbf{B}],$$ holds. Therefore, after inserting Eq. \[Eq7\] into Eq. \[Eq6\] it is obtained the y component of velocity $$\label{Eq8}
v_y = - \frac{E_x}{B} - \frac{1}{\sigma B^2} \frac{d p}{d y}.$$ From Eq. \[Eq8\] we have the classical diffusion coefficient scaling with $1/B^2$ and thus implying a random walk of step length $r_L$ (Larmor radius). To get the anomalous diffusion coefficient we must consider the process of diffusion to the wall - in the presence of an entropy source - with the combined action of the wall current drain, as already introduced in Eq. \[Eq5\].
Therefore, using the guiding center plasma model the particle motion is made with velocity given by $$\label{Eq9}
\mathbf{j}=en\mathbf{v}_d=-\frac{[\nabla p \times
\mathbf{B}]}{B^2}.$$ This equation form the base of a simplified theory of magnetic confinement. In fact, the validity of Eq. \[Eq9\] is restrained to the high magnetic field limit, when the Larmor radius is shorter than the Debye radius.
Considering motion along only one direction perpendicular to the wall (y-axis), it is clear that $$\label{Eq10}
(\mathbf{j} \cdot \mathcal{A})^2 = \frac{\mathcal{A}^2}{B^2}
\left( \frac{dp}{dy} \right)^2.$$ If we consider a quasi-steady state plasma operation, the plasma total energy should be sustained. Hence, $dU/dt=0$, and the power associated with the driven pressure-gradient is just maintaining the dissipative process of plasma losses on the wall. Eq. \[Eq5\] govern the evolution of diffusion velocity. Hence, we have $$\label{Eq12}
n v_d = - \frac{n R \mathcal{A}}{L} \frac{kT}{B^2} \frac{dn}{dy} =
-D_{T} \frac{dn}{dy},$$ with $D_T$ denoting the transverse (across the magnetic field) diffusion coefficient given by $$\label{Eq13}
D_T = \frac{n R \mathcal{A}}{L} \frac{kT}{B^2}.$$ This new result coincides with the classical diffusion coefficient [@Roth] whenever $nR\mathcal{A}/L \equiv m
\nu_{ei}/e^2$, containing a dependence on collision frequency and particle number density. Others theoretical approaches to this problem were advanced by Bohm [@Bohm], who proposed an empirically-driven diffusion coefficient associating plasma oscillations as the source of the enhanced diffusion, while Tonks [@Tonks] have shown that the current density that is present in a magnetically immobilized plasma is only generated by the particle density gradient, not being associated with any drift of matter. Simon electron “short-circuit” [@Simon] proposes an explanation for the different rates of diffusion electrons and ions do experiment across the magnetic field as due to an unbalance of currents flowing to the wall.
In the absence of collisions, the guiding centers of charged particles behave as permanently attached to the same lines of force. On the contrary, as a result of collisions with others charged particles the guiding centers shift from one line of force to another resulting in a diffusion of plasma across the field lines. In our model, each orbit constitutes an elementary current $I$ eventually crossing the wall.
However, the particle diffusion coefficient as shown in Eq. \[Eq13\] gives evidence of an interplay between the resistance the elementary circuit is submitted when in contact with the walls in the presence of the frozen-in effect. In fact, for sufficiently strong magnetic fields apparently a hydrodynamic behavior of the plasma is installed [@Montgomery2; @Corkum], with the appearance of “convective cells” and the $1/B$ behavior dominates, giving birth to the anomalous diffusion mechanism. The onset of freezing magnetic lines is valid whenever the Lundquist number $\mathrm{S} \gg 1$ (convection of the magnetic field dominated medium). In this case the magnetic field lines are frozen-in in the medium (consequence of a vortex type of character of the magnetic field $\mathbf{B}$) and the flux of them across a given surface is constant: $$\label{Eq14}
\Phi =B \mathcal{A}' = B L^2 \alpha.$$ Remark that $\mathcal{A}'$ is now the surface delimited by the elementary circuit $\gamma$ (see Fig. \[fig1\]) and $\alpha
\lesssim 1$ is just a geometrical factor (e.g. $\alpha=\pi/4$ at the limit of a circular orbit). This situation is fundamental to the onset of anomalous diffusion. Free electrons orbits are helical, but as Fig. \[fig1\] shows, their projections at right angles to the field are circular. Each particle orbit constitute an elementary circuit with $B$-field cutting its surface being associated with it an elementary flux $\Phi$. At the same time we can envisage each orbit as constituting by itself an elementary circuit, some of them intersecting the wall and thus the circuit is closed inside the wall. Therefore a resistance $R$ drags the charged flow at the conducting wall. It is therefore plausible to associate to this elementary circuit a potential drop $V$ and the all process being equivalent to a current $I$ flowing through the elementary circuit.
![Schematic of the geometry for the plasma-wall current drain model. The uniform magnetic field points downward along Oz. Particles describe orbits in the plane xOy intersecting the wall (plan xOz). Orbits are represented by a semi-circular line for convenience. $L$ is the maximum distance the trajectory attains from the wall.[]{data-label="fig1"}](Geom_ad2.eps "fig:"){width="3.5" height="4.5"}\
Assuming the plasma is a typical weakly coupled, hot diffuse plasma with a plasma parameter (number of particles in Debye sphere) $\Lambda = n\lambda_{De}^3 \approx 1$, it is more likely to expect nearly equal average kinetic and potential energy. However, the typical plasma parameter encountered in glow discharges or in nuclear fusion is $\Lambda \gg 1$. This means that the average kinetic energy is larger than the average potential energy. To contemplate all range of $\Lambda$ we can relate them through the relationship $$\label{Eq15}
\rho V = (\mathbf{J} \cdot \mathbf{A}) \delta.$$ Here, $\rho$ is the charge density, $\mathbf{A}$ is the vector potential, $\mathbf{J}$ is the current density and $\delta \leq 1$ is just a parameter representing the ratio of potential to kinetic energy. Of course, when $\Lambda \geq 1$, then $\delta \leq 1$. This basic assumption is consistent with the hydrodynamic approximation taken in the development of equations. The limitations of the model are related with the unknowns $\Lambda$ and $\delta$ that can be uncovered only through a self-consistent model of the plasma. However, our analysis of anomalous diffusion remains general and added new insight to the phenomena.
Now suppose that the diffusion current is along y-axis $\mathbf{J}=-J_y \mathbf{u}_y$ (see Fig.1). Consequently, $\mathbf{A}=-A_y \mathbf{u}_y$, and then the potential drop will depend on x-coordinate: $$\label{Eq16}
\rho [V(x_1) - V(x_0)] = J_y [A_y(x_1) - A_y(x_0)] \delta.$$ Multiplying both members by the area $\mathcal{A}'=x_1 z_1$ and length $L=y_1$, we have $$\label{Eq17}
Q \Delta V = I y_1 [A_y(x_1) - A_y(x_0)] \delta =I \Phi \delta.$$ $\Phi=\oint_{\gamma} (\mathbf{A} \cdot d\mathbf{x})$ is the flux of the magnetic field through the closed surface bounded by the line element $d \mathbf{x}$ (elementary circuit $\gamma$, see also Fig.\[fig1\]). By other side, naturally, the total charge present on the volume $\mathcal{V}=x_1 y_1 z_1$ is such as $Q=ie$, with $i$ an integer. This integer must be related to ions charge number. From Eq. \[Eq17\] we obtain $$\label{Eq19}
R = \frac{\Delta V}{I} = \delta \frac{\Phi }{Q} = \alpha \delta
\frac{B L^2 }{i e}.$$ But, the particle density is given by $n=N/L\mathcal{A}$, with $N$ being now the total number of charged particles present in volume $\mathcal{V}=\mathcal{A}L$. Since $i=N$, we retrieve finally the so-called Bohm-diffusion coefficient $$\label{Eq18}
D_B = \alpha \delta \frac{kT}{eB}.$$ However, this expression suffers of the indetermination of the geometrical factor $\alpha$. This factor is related to the ions charge number, it depends on the magnetic field magnitude and as well the external operating conditions (due to increased collisional processes, for ex.). The exact value of the product $\alpha \delta$ can only be determined through a self-consistent plasma model, but we should expect from the above discussion that $\alpha \delta < 1$. Furthermore, Eq. \[Eq19\] can be used as a boundary condition (simulating an electrically floating surface) imposed when solving Poisson equation.
Also it worth to emphasize that when inserting Eq. \[Eq19\] into Eq. \[Eq13\], and considering the usual definition of momentum transfer cross section, then it can be obtained a new expression for the classical diffusion coefficient as a function of the ratio of collisional $\nu$ and cyclotron frequency $\Omega$, although (and in contrast with the standard expression), now also dependent on the geometrical factor $\alpha$ and energy ratio $\delta$: $$\label{}
D_T = (\alpha \delta) \frac{\nu}{\Omega} \frac{kT}{m}.$$ This explains the strong dependence of the classical diffusion coefficient on $\nu/\Omega$ showing signs of anomalous diffusion as discussed in Ref. [@Zoran] (obtained with a time resolved Monte Carlo simulation in an infinite gas under uniform fields) and, in addition, the strong oscillations shown up in the calculations of the time dependence of the transverse component of the diffusion tensor for electrons in low-temperature rf argon plasma. Those basic features result on one side from its dependence on $R$, which is proportional to the flux. Therefore, a flux variation can give an equivalent effect to the previously proposed mechanism: whenever a decrease (or increase) in the flux is onset through time dependence of electric and magnetic fields, it occurs a strong increase (or decrease) of the diffusion coefficient. By other side, when the resistance increases it occurs a related decrease of charged particles tangential velocity and its mean energy. So far, this model gives a new insight into the results referred in [@Zoran] and also it explains why the same effect is not obtained from the solution of the non-conservative Boltzmann equation as applied to an oxygen magnetron discharges with constant electric and magnetic fields [@White].
To summarize, we introduced in this Letter a simple mechanism providing an interpretation of the anomalous diffusion in a magnetized confined plasma. In fact, above a certain range of $B$ the magnetic field frozen-in effect is settled in the plasma, implying a constant magnetic field flux through the elementary orbits of the charge carriers. Whenever conducting walls are bounding the plasma current drain to the walls occurs naturally and a Bohm-like behavior of the transverse diffusion coefficient results. The suggested mechanism could lead to a better understanding of the mechanism of plasma-wall interaction and help to develop a full-scale numerical modelling of present fusion devices or collisional low-temperature plasmas.
The author would like to thank Elena Tatarova and Marques Dias for their elucidating discussions.
[1]{}
Bohm, Burhop and Massey, [*Characteristics of Electrical Discharges in Magnetic Fields*]{}, edited by A. Guthrie and R. K. Wakcrling (MacGraw-Hill, New York,1949)
Albert Simon, Phys. Rev. [**98**]{} (2) 317 (1955)
Klaus H. Geissler, Phys. Rev. [**171**]{}(1) 179 (1968)
L. L. Beilinson, V. A. Rozhansky, and L. D. Tsendin, Phys. Rev. E [**50**]{} (4) 3033 (1994)
David Montgomery, C.-S. Liu, and George Vahala, Phys. Fluids [**15**]{} (5), 815 (1972)
Kimitaka Itoh, Sanae-I. Itoh, Atsushi Fukuyama and Masotoshi Yagi, J. Plasma Fusion Res. [**79**]{} (6) 608 (2003)
R. J. Bickerton, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A [**375**]{} 397 (1999)
V. D. Shafranov, Physics-Uspekhi [**44**]{} (8) 835 (2001)
Norman Rostoker, Michl W. Binderbauer, Hendrik J. Monkhorst, Science [**278**]{} 1419 (1997)
J. B. Taylor and B. McNamara, Phys. Fluids [**14**]{} (7) 1492 (1971)
David Montgomery and Frederick Tappert, Phys. Fluids [**15**]{} (4) 683 (1972)
Harry S. Robertson, Phys. Rev. [**118**]{} (1) 288 (1969)
J. Reece Roth, Industrial Plasma Engineering, Vol 1 - Principles (Institute of Physics Publishing, Bristol, 1995)
T. C. Luce, C. C. Petty, and J. C. M. de Haas, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{} (1) 52 (1992)
L. A. Ferrari and A. F. Kuckes, Phys. Fluids [**12**]{} 836 (1969)
B. B. Kadomtsev, [*Phénomènes collectifs dans les plasmas*]{} (Mir Editions, Moscow, 1979)
Lewi Tonks, Phys. Rev. [**97**]{} (6) 1443 (1955)
P. B. Corkum, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**31**]{} (13) 809 (1973)
Z. M. Raspopović, S. Dujko, T. Makabe, and Z. Lj. Petrović, Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. [**14**]{} 293 (2005)
R. D. White, R. E. Robson, K. F. Ness and T. Makabe, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. [**38**]{} 997 (2005)
[^1]: We acknowledge partial financial support from Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian and the Rectorate of the Technical University of Lisbon.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Enabling closed control loops via wireless communication has attracted a lot of interest recently and is investigated under the name cyber-physical systems. Under cyber-physical systems one challenging scenario is multiple loops sharing a wireless medium, and the age of the control information has to be minimized without sacrificing reliability to guarantee the control stability. The number of transmitting devices depends on the control parameters thus, it is stochastic. Wireless uplink resource allocation given low latency constraints for unknown number of devices is a hard problem. For this problem, random access is the most prominent way to minimize latency, but reliability is sacrificed. However, as reliability is also critical for such applications, improved random access algorithms with hard latency guarantees are needed. Currently available random access algorithms with hard latency guarantees have low throughput and some of them are limited to low number of active devices. In this work, we provide a high-throughput random access algorithm with hard latency-constraints (SICQTA) that scales to any number of active devices. This algorithm, making use of feedback, has a varying throughput between $0.69$ and $1$ depending on the number of devices, which is unprecedented in the state of the art up to our best knowledge.'
author:
-
bibliography:
- 'query\_tree.bib'
title: |
Hard Latency-Constraints for\
High-Throughput Random Access: SICQTA
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Despite the importance of the magnetorotational instability (MRI) as a fundamental mechanism for angular momentum transport in magnetized accretion disks, it has yet to be demonstrated in the laboratory. A liquid sodium $\alpha\omega$ dynamo experiment at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology provides an ideal environment to study the MRI in a rotating metal annulus (Couette flow). A local stability analysis is performed as a function of shear, magnetic field strength, magnetic Reynolds number, and turbulent Prandtl number. The later takes into account the minimum turbulence induced by the formation of an Ekman layer against the rigidly rotating end walls of a cylindrical vessel. Stability conditions are presented and unstable conditions for the sodium experiment are compared with another proposed MRI experiment with liquid gallium. Due to the relatively large magnetic Reynolds number achievable in the sodium experiment, it should be possible to observe the excitation of the MRI for a wide range of wavenumbers and further to observe the transition to the turbulent state.'
author:
- 'K. Noguchi'
- 'V. I. Pariev and S. A. Colgate'
- 'J. Nordhaus'
- 'H.F. Beckley'
title: |
Magnetorotational Instability\
in Liquid Metal Couette Flow
---
Introduction {#sec1}
============
A significant problem in accretion disk theory is the nature of anomalous viscosity. In order for accretion to occur, angular momentum must be transported outward. The central problem in astrophysical accretion disks is that observed accretion rates cannot be due to ordinary molecular viscosity. A robust anomalous angular momentum transport mechanism must operate in accretion disks.
In 1991, the magnetorotational instability (MRI), discovered by @vel59 and @cha60, was reintroduced as a mechanism for excitation and sustaining MHD turbulence in a magnetized but Rayleigh-stable fluid by @bal91a. Since then, many numerical and analytic studies of the MRI have been performed under varying conditions [@bal91b; @mat95; @haw96; @sto96; @gam96; @san99; @nog00; @san01]. Nevertheless, amidst all the theoretical attention granted to the MRI, it has never been demonstrated in the laboratory. In light of this fact an $\alpha \omega$ dynamo experiment at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology provides a unique opportunity to study the MRI in a rotating metal annulus using liquid sodium. In this paper, a local stability analysis is performed and the results are compared with theoretical analysis from a similar proposed experiment at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory [@ji01; @go01]. Varying aspects of the experiments are discussed with stable and unstable regions identified in terms of magnetic field strength and shear flow. In addition the number of unstable modes and the Prandtl number further define the parameter space. If the number of unstable modes is large compared to unity, then there exists the possibility of observing turbulence generated by the MRI. Finally we investigate the instability boundary when fluid turbulence is injected as for example through the Ekman layer flow.
New Mexico $\alpha\omega$ Dynamo Experiment {#sec2}
===========================================
The New Mexico $\alpha\omega$ dynamo (NMD) experiment is a collaboration between the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology and Los Alamos National Laboratory [@col01b]. The experiment is designed to create an astrophysical dynamo, the $\alpha
\omega$-dynamo, in a rapidly rotating laboratory system.
The apparatus consists of two coaxial cylinders (Fig. \[fig1\]), rotating at different angular velocities and therefore creating Couette flow in the annular volume. Liquid sodium fills the volume between the cylinders and the end walls. Solid plates attached to and co-rotating with the outer cylinder with an angular velocity, $\Omega_2$ define the end walls. (In addition, for the dynamo experiment, an external source of helicity is supplied, driven plumes, but this is not part of the MRI experiment.) The schematic of the flow field, (Fig. \[fig1\]), places particular emphasis on the primary diagnostic of multiple, 3-axis, magnetic field Hall effect detectors (sensitivity: $0.1$ to $10\,\mbox{kG}$) located in aerodynamically shaped probes within the rotating conducting fluid. We expect that the radial perturbations from the MRI and their azimuthally sheared result will produce a fluctuating $B_r$ and $B_{\theta}$ field from an original imposed static $B_z$ field through MRI growth. These fluctuating fields are the result of the linear and non-linear growth of the various MRI modes transformed by the difference of the sheared Couette flow at a given radius and the probe angular velocity, $\Omega_2$, of the outer cylinder. A significant difficulty will be the observation of the linear growth of any particular MRI mode because the time constant for establishing the initial axial field within the conducting liquid sodium will be long, $\sim 30/\Omega_2$, compared to the expected growth rate, $\sim
\Omega_2$, of the instabilities as derived in this paper. We therefore expect to observe primarily the near steady state of the non-linear limit of various modes, but the sequential linear phases may be observed during the comparatively slow rise of the field. If the applied field or flux is amplified by the MRI such as a dynamo, then we expect to see fluctuating fields significantly greater than the applied field. In addition since the inner and outer cylinders are driven separately, the relative torque as a function of the applied magnetic field becomes an integral diagnostic of the non-linear limits of the instability growth.
By driving the inner cylinder and applying a variable brake with a corresponding torque measurement to the outer cylinder one can explore the full range of Couette velocity profiles including the marginal Couette flow hydrodynamic stability condition discussed next. This condition of maximum or marginal stable Couette profile can be established in the experiment precisely by gear ratios and so the degree of turbulence measured by the torque can be explored at the stability boundary. In addition the pressure will be measured at five radii and compared to the pressure distributions expected of the various Couette profiles. A finite torque measurement can be interpreted in terms of turbulence existing between the two cylinders. No turbulence or perfectly laminar flow will exert a torque of the order $1/R_e$, $R_e$ the fluid Reynolds number where $Re \simeq 10^7$, compared to a turbulent torque, $\sim 1/Re^{1/2}$, if the Ekman layer circulation leads to the weak turbulence that we discuss later. This same possible weak turbulence can also be measured by introducing a very weak field, $B_{min} \simeq 1\,\mbox{G}$, small enough so as not to cause the growth of MRI in resistive liquid but large enough so that an unstable flow or weakly turbulent flow can be measured as fluctuations in $B_r$ and $B_{\theta}$ with the Hall effect probes. Therefore the fluid flow conditions can be fully explored before the application of magnetic fields designed to create the MRI. When the MRI does take place, then the instability can be recognized as a departure from the previously measured initial fluid state.
It is critical to have large shear rates in order to observe the maximum growth rates of the MRI. However, excessive shear will hydrodynamically destabilize the flow by the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability. Let us consider a Couette flow profile in cylindrical coordinates. Take $r, \theta, z$ as the radial, azimuthal and axial directions respectively. The radial distribution of angular velocity of the flow, $\Omega ( r )$, is given by [@lan59] $$\Omega(r)=\frac{\Omega_2{R}_2^2-\Omega_1{R}_1^2}{{R}_2^2-{R}_1^2}+
\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{(\Omega_1-\Omega_2){R_1^2}{R_2^2}}{{R}_2^2-{R}_1^2}
\mbox{,}$$ where $R_1(R_2)$ and $\Omega_1(
\Omega_2)$ are the inner(outer) radii and angular velocities.
In the limit of infinitely large hydrodynamic Reynolds number, $R_{e}$, the stability condition for Couette flow is given by $\Omega_1R_1^2$ $<$ $\Omega_2R_2^2$ [@lan59]. Therefore, in order to maximize the shear flow within the apparatus, the NMD experiment has been designed such that ${R_2}/{R_1} = 2$ and $\Omega_1/\Omega_2$ = 4, guaranteeing that $\Omega_1R_1^2$ = $\Omega_2R_2^2$. In addition to stability constraints, stress limitations in the experiment require that an upper limit of ${\Omega_2} = 33\,\mbox{Hz}$ be placed on the frequency of rotation of the outer cylinder. Of course lower rotation rate can be used in both NMD experiment and Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) experiment, but it is assumed for this analysis that the highest rates are of greatest scientific interest.
The assumption of stable Couette flow implies a laminar flow with no turbulence. On the other hand the initial acceleration of the fluid to the final state of Couette flow from an alternate initial state implies a transient enhanced torque, because, just as in the accretion disk, the laminar friction is too small. However, in the experimental apparatus, the transient, Couette flow profile is Helmholtz unstable so that turbulence is a natural and expected result of the “spin-up” of the flow.
On the other hand the Ekman flow creates a relative torque between $\Omega_1$ and $\Omega_2$ that we expect to be balanced by a weak turbulence as observed by [@tay36] and analogous to the spin-up turbulence. This turbulence may also influence the stability conditions but primarily the ability to distinguish turbulence caused by the MRI from the hydrodynamic turbulence caused by the Ekman layer. We therefore analyze the MRI stability conditions as a function of hydrodynamic turbulence preexisting in the liquid and therefore of the Prandtl number. At large enough levels of turbulence, the effective electrical resistivity can also be increased and therefore decrease the magnetic Reynolds number, $R_m$, and therefore influence the conditions of excitation of the MRI.
In comparison to the New Mexico Dynamo Experiment, a similar experiment at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory has been proposed to look for the MRI in a rotating liquid metal annulus [@ji01]. The PPPL experiment utilizes liquid gallium, an easy to handle metal with properties similar to liquid sodium (see Table 1).
[lcccc]{} &&\
Property& Sodium & Gallium & Sodium & Gallium\
Kinematic Viscosity, $\nu$(${cm^2} {s^{-1}}$) & 7.1$\cdot10^{-3}$ & 3.2$\cdot{10^{-3}}$& 3.6$\cdot{10^{-8}}$ & 2.2$\cdot{10^{-7}}$\
Reynolds Number, $R_e$ &-&-&$1.3\cdot10^7$&$3.0\cdot10^6$\
Magnetic Diffusivity, $\eta$(${cm^2} {s^{-1}}$) & 810 & 2000 & 4.2$\cdot{10^{-3}}$ & 1.4$\cdot{10^{-1}}$\
Magnetic Reynolds Number, $R_m$&-&-&120&4.7\
Density, $\rho$(g cm$^{-3}$) & 0.92 & 6.0& - & -\
Alfvén Speed, ${V_A}$(cm s$^{-1}$) ($10^3$) & $2.9\cdot10^2$& $1.1\cdot10^2$& 4.6$\cdot{10^{-2}}$ & 1.2$\cdot{10^{-1}}$\
Inner Radius, ${R_1}$(cm) & 15.25 & 5 & $.5$ & $.33$\
Outer Radius, ${R_2}$(cm) & 30.5 & 15 & 1 & 1\
Length, $L$(cm) & 30.5&10.&1&0.66\
Inner Angular Velocity, $\Omega_1$(s$^{-1})$ & 829& 533& 4 & 8.2\
Outer Angular Velocity, $\Omega_2$(s$^{-1})$ & 207& 65& 1 & 1\
Prandtl Number, $P_M=R_m/R_e$ &-&-&$9.2\cdot10^{-6}$&$1.6\cdot10^{-6}$\
Ekman Turbulent Prandtl \#, $P_{Mt}$&-&-&$0.012$&$6.3\times10^{-3}$\
Note, however, the higher density and higher resistivity of liquid gallium, which limit the maximum rotation speed and the maximum achievable $R_m$. The dimensions of the PPPL experiment are slightly different, enabling them to acquire larger shear flow rates, @ji01. For ${R_1} = 5$ cm and ${R_2} = 15$ cm then ${{R_2}/{R_1}}$ = 3 with a typical $\Omega_1/\Omega_2$ = 9. The conditions for instability for both experiments are discussed in Sec. 4.
Local Stability Analysis {#sec3}
========================
The angular velocity of Couette flow confined between coaxial cylinders with radii $R_1 < r<R_2$ and cylindrical angular velocities $\Omega_1,\Omega_2$ is given by $$\Omega(r)=a+\frac{b}{r^2}\label{Couette},$$ where we define $a$ and $b$ as $$\begin{aligned}
a&=&\frac{\Omega_2{R}_2^2-\Omega_1{R}_1^2}{{R}_2^2-{R}_1^2},\nonumber\\
b&=&\frac{(\Omega_1-\Omega_2){R_1^2}{R_2^2}}{{R}_2^2-{R}_1^2}.\label{ab}\end{aligned}$$
The incompressible and dissipative MHD equations describing the dynamics of liquid metals are given as follows,
$$\begin{aligned}
\nabla\cdot{\mbox{\boldmath$B$}}&=&0,\label{b1}\\
\nabla\cdot{\mbox{\boldmath$V$}}&=&0,\\
\frac{\partial {\mbox{\boldmath$B$}}}{\partial
t}&=&\nabla\times({\mbox{\boldmath$V$}}\times{\mbox{\boldmath$B$}})+\eta\nabla^2{\mbox{\boldmath$B$}},\\
\frac{\partial{\mbox{\boldmath$V$}}}{\partial
t}+({\mbox{\boldmath$V$}}\cdot\nabla){\mbox{\boldmath$V$}}&=&\frac{({\mbox{\boldmath$B$}}\cdot\nabla){\mbox{\boldmath$B$}}}{4\pi\rho}-\frac{1}{\rho}\nabla\left(p+\frac{B^2}{8\pi}\right)\nonumber\\
&&\quad+\nu\nabla^2{\mbox{\boldmath$V$}}\label{b4},\end{aligned}$$
where ${\mbox{\boldmath$B$}}$ is the magnetic field, ${\mbox{\boldmath$V$}}$ is the velocity, $\eta$ is the magnetic diffusivity, $p$ is pressure and $\nu$ is the kinematic viscosity. In cylindrical symmetry the system of equations (\[b1\])–(\[b4\]) have stationary solution ${\mbox{\boldmath$V$}}_0=(0,r\Omega(r),0)$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath$B$}}_0=(0,B_{\theta 0}(r),B_{z 0})$, where $B_{z0}$ is a constant, $B_{\theta 0}\propto 1/r$, and the angular velocity profile, $\Omega(r)$, is given by expression (\[Couette\]). One needs to investigate the time evolution of perturbations to this equilibrium state governed by the linearization of system of equations (\[b1\])–(\[b4\]). A similar analysis of perturbations was performed by @go01, who showed that local WKB approximation gives results for growth rates of instability, which are close to the growth rates obtained by the solving full boundary value problem in radial direction. As it is especially stressed by @ji01 and @go01, WKB local analysis leads to a good approximation to the growth rates even in the case of the scale of perturbations being equal to or comparable to the sizes of the vessel. Thus, in this work, we limit ourselves to the local approach, which is much easier to carry out than the full eigenmode analysis, because it allows one to obtain an algebraic dispersion relation. The perturbations ${\mbox{\boldmath$b$}}=(b_r,b_\theta,b_z)$, ${\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}=(v_r,v_\theta,v_z)$ are assumed to be axisymmetric and proportional to $\exp(\gamma{t}-i{k_z}z-i{k_r}r)$ where $\gamma$ is the associated growth rate. It is also assumed that the minimum possible wave numbers in $r$ and $z$ directions are $k_{rmin}={\pi}/{(R_2-R_1)}$ and $k_{zmin}={\pi}/{L}$. The linearized equations of motion are then given by
$$\begin{aligned}
0&=&\left(\frac1{r}-ik_r\right)v_r-ik_zv_z,\\
0&=&\left(\frac1{r}-ik_r\right)b_r-ik_zb_z,\\
\gamma b_r&=&-ik_zB_{z0}v_r-\eta k^2b_r,\\
\gamma b_\theta&=&-ik_zB_{z0}v_\theta+\frac{d\Omega}{d\ln
r}b_r\nonumber\\
&&\quad-rv_r\frac{d}{dr}\left(\frac{B_{\theta0}}{r}\right)-\eta
k^2b_\theta,\\
\gamma v_r-2\Omega v_\theta&=&-\frac{1}{4\pi\rho}\left(ik_zB_{z0}b_r
+\frac{2B_{\theta0}}{r}b_\theta\right)\nonumber\\
&&\quad+ik_r\frac{p_1}{\rho}-\nu
k^2v_r,\\
\gamma v_\theta+\frac{\kappa^2}{2\Omega}v_r&=&-\frac{1}{4\pi\rho}
\left(ik_zB_{z0}b_\theta-b_r \left[\frac{d}{d
r}+\frac1{r}\right]B_{\theta0}\right)\nonumber\\
&&\quad-\nu k^2v_\theta,\\
\gamma v_z&=&-\frac{ik_zB_{z0}}{4\pi\rho}b_z+ik_z\frac{p_1}{\rho}-\nu
k^2v_z,\end{aligned}$$
where the epicyclic frequency $\kappa$ is defined as $$\kappa^2=\frac{1}{r^3}\frac{d({r^4}\Omega^2)}{dr}=4\Omega^2+\frac{d\Omega^2}{d\ln
r},$$ $p_1$ is the perturbation of the pressure, and $k=\sqrt{k_z^2+k_r^2}$ is total wave number, respectively. Note that $\kappa$ can be expressed through $a$ and $b$ in Eq. (\[ab\]) as $$\kappa^2=4a\left(a+\frac{b}{r^2}\right),\label{c}$$ which vanishes when velocity shear is maximum ($a=0$, $b=r^2\Omega$).
These equations lead to the following local dispersion relation $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\left[(\gamma+\nu{k^2})(\gamma+\eta{k^2})+{{k_z}^2{V_A}}^2\right]^2\frac{k^2}{k_z^2}}\nonumber\\
&&+\kappa^2(\gamma+\eta{k^2})^2+\frac{d\Omega^2}{d{\ln
r}}{{k_z}^2{V_A}}^2\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{2i{k_z}{V_{A\theta{z}}^2}}{r}
\left[(\gamma+\nu{k^2})\frac{d\Omega}{d{\ln
r}}-\frac{\kappa^2}{2\Omega}{(\gamma+\eta{k^2})}\right]=0,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{V_{A\theta{z}}}^2&=&\frac{B_{\theta{0}}B_{z0}}{4\pi\rho},
\quad V_A^2=\frac{B_{z0}^2}{4\pi\rho}\end{aligned}$$
Neglecting all $1/r$ terms compared to $k$ yields the following dispersion relation, which is identical to the dispersion relation derived by @ji01 $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{[(\gamma+\nu{k^2})(\gamma+\eta{k^2})+({k_z}{V_A})^2]^2\frac{k^2}{k_z^2}}\nonumber\\
&&+\kappa^2(\gamma+\eta{k^2})^2+\frac{d\Omega^2}{d{\ln
r}}({k_z}{V_A})^2=0.\label{dis}\end{aligned}$$
In the case of maximum shear flow, $a=0$, and hence, $\kappa=0$, the dispersion relation simplifies to $$[(\gamma+\nu{k^2})(\gamma+\eta{k^2})+({k_z}{V_A})^2]^2
-4\Omega^2\frac{k_z^4V_A^2}{k^2}=0,
\label{dis2}$$ which immediately yields the following solutions for $\gamma$ $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\gamma={\frac{1}{2}}\bigg[{-(\nu+\eta){k^2}}}\nonumber\\
&&\pm\sqrt{(\nu+\eta)^2
k^4-4\left(\nu\eta{k^4}+{k_z^2}{V_A^2}\pm\frac{2\Omega{k_z^2}{V_A}}{k}
\right)}\bigg],\label{sol}\end{aligned}$$ Only when we take the plus sign for the square root term and the minus sign for the last term in eq. (\[sol\]), does it give the unstable solution, and all the other three solutions are stable.
The MRI occurs only when the second term inside the square root of (\[sol\]) is negative, i.e., $${\omega_\nu}{\omega_\eta}+{\omega_A^2}<{2\frac{{k_z}{\Omega}{\omega_A}}{k}},$$ where ${\omega_\nu}=\nu{k^2}$, ${\omega_\eta}=\eta{k^2}$ and ${\omega_A}={V_A}{k_z}$. Thus, viscosity, magnetic diffusion and magnetic tension stabilize the MRI, whereas the shear flow destabilizes it. The condition for neglecting $\nu$ and $\eta$ can be derived from (\[sol\]) by evaluating the expression under the square root, i.e., $$(\nu-\eta)^2{k^4}{\ll}\frac{4\omega_A(2{k_z}{\Omega}-{k}{\omega_A})}{k}.
\label{sol2}$$ For ${k_r}=0$, eq. (\[sol2\]) further reduces to $$\frac{(\eta-\nu)^2{k_z^2}}{V_A^2}\ll\frac{4(2\Omega-\omega_A)}{\omega_A}.$$ Thus, it is apparent that magnetic diffusivity and kinematic viscosity only affect high ${k_z}$ modes.
If the magnetic diffusivity is large and the applied magnetic field is weak, eq. (\[sol\]) reduces to two roots ${\gamma=-\nu{k^2}}$ and ${\gamma=-\eta{k^2}}$. The former root corresponds to a hydrodynamical branch in which the fluid is disconnected from the electromagnetic force and behaves as a pure fluid. The latter root is an electromagnetic branch, in which the magnetic field diffuses as in vacuum. With an increasing magnetic field, bifurcations occur in which the hydrodynamic and electromagnetic branches are split into four branches. When $\omega_\nu\sim\omega_A\ll\omega_\eta$ the unstable solution of (\[dis2\]) is given by $$\gamma=-\omega_\nu+\frac{\omega_A{(2\Omega-\omega_A})}{\omega_\eta-\omega_\nu},$$ showing that the unstable solution emerges from the hydrodynamical branch. Though magnetic diffusion diminishes the MRI, the branch remains unstable if the condition $\omega_A>\omega_\eta\omega_\nu k/(2k_z\Omega)$ is satisfied. Notice however, that even if the magnetic diffusivity is high, a weak magnetic field is capable of generating the MRI.
Next, let us consider the hydrodynamical limit($V_A=0$) with arbitrary Couette flow profiles, ($a\neq0$). In this case, $\kappa\neq0$ in general and we have to go back to eq. (\[dis\]) for deriving solutions. Two trivial solutions are $\gamma=-\eta k^2$, corresponding to the electromagnetic branch and the second is given by $$\gamma=-\nu k^2\pm i\kappa\frac{k_z}{k},\label{sol4}$$ which is the hydrodynamical branch.
--------------------------------------------------------------- --
{width="8cm"} {width="8cm"}
{width="8cm"} {width="8cm"}
--------------------------------------------------------------- --
The effect of finite $\kappa$ and high $\nu$ is shown in Fig. \[fig2\], where the rotation speed of the cylinders, viscosity, and magnetic diffusivity of Fig. \[fig2\]a corresponds to the point C of @ji01, and the wavenumber is fixed at $(k_z, r_r)=(1,1)$ for Fig. \[fig2\]a, \[fig2\]c and $(4,1)$ for Fig. \[fig2\]b, \[fig2\]d, respectively. The growth rates of the four roots of eq. (\[dis\]) are shown as a function of the axial magnetic field strength $B_z$. The epicyclic frequency $\kappa$ is finite in Figs. \[fig2\]a and \[fig2\]c, whereas $\kappa=0$ in Figs. \[fig2\]b and \[fig2\]d. The kinematic viscosity $\nu$ is taken as the actual value of Gallium \[Fig. \[fig2\]a\] and Sodium \[Fig \[fig2\]b\], whereas we make it artificially high ($\nu>\eta$) in Figs. \[fig2\]c and \[fig2\]d to see the effect of anomalous increase of $\nu$ due to possible turbulence.
In the hydrodynamical limit($B_z=0$) in Fig. \[fig2\]a, the solutions of the hydrodynamical branch, ($\gamma\sim0$) are complex \[eq. (\[sol4\])\]. Near $B_z=2000$ gauss, these solutions are separated and both become real. Only one solution becomes unstable. Thus, if the flow is not a maximum shear flow profile ($\kappa\neq0$), the MRI is stabilized for weak magnetic fields.
Figures (\[fig2\]c) and (\[fig2\]d) show that the turbulence suppresses the unstable MRI mode. Since the Ekman layer may make the fluid weakly turbulent, it is important to estimate the scale of this turbulence, which will be discussed in Sec. \[sec5\].
In the next section, stability diagrams are presented and compared for both experiments.
Stability Diagrams and Growth Rates in Sodium and Gallium Experiments {#sec4}
=====================================================================
The comparison between the NMD and Princeton experiments is done by comparing their typical parameters in Table 1. In order to evaluate the physical differences between the experiments, we compare the dimensionless parameters, presented in the second column of Table 1. We use $R_2$ and $\Omega_2^{-1}$ as units of length and time to obtain the dimensionless quantities.
We choose $\Omega_1=84.8$ Hz and $\Omega_2= 10.34$ Hz as the typical values for the gallium experiment, which corresponds to point C of @ji01. The global magnetic Reynolds number becomes $$R_m=\frac{R_2\Omega_2(R_2-R_1)}{\eta}.$$ The $R_m$ is higher in the sodium experiment, which is designed to observe the $\alpha\omega$ dynamo [@col01b; @par01]. All the growth rates are evaluated at the radius $r=\bar{r}$, which satisfies $\Omega(\bar{r})=\sqrt{\Omega_1\Omega_2}$. We also define the global fluid Reynolds number as $$R_e=\frac{R_2\Omega_2(R_2-R_1)}{\nu}.$$
--------------------------------------------------------------- --
{width="8cm"} {width="8cm"}
--------------------------------------------------------------- --
Using these parameters, the growth rate is obtained by solving eq. (\[dis\]) numerically, and the unstable regions are plotted in Fig.\[fig3\] as a function of axial magnetic field strength and wave number $k_z$. The unit of $k_z$ is $\pi/(R_2-R_1)$, $k_r$ is $\pi/L$ in Figs. \[fig3\], \[fig4\], \[fig5\], \[fig51\], \[fig10\], \[fig7\] and \[fig6\]. The minimum possible values for the dimensionless $k_r$ and $k_z$ are unity. We fixed $k_r$ as unity in Fig. \[fig3\]. Notice that in both experiments, a strong field suppresses high $k$ modes because of the magnetic diffusivity and magnetic tension. In the sodium case (Fig. \[fig3\]a), higher $k_z$ modes are destabilized, and the growth rate is higher compared to the gallium case (Fig. \[fig3\]b). In the gallium case, the suppression of the unstable modes with low magnetic field occurs due to finite $\kappa$ (see Sec. 3 for details).
--------------------------------------------------------------- --
{width="8cm"} {width="8cm"}
--------------------------------------------------------------- --
--------------------------------------------------------------- --
{width="8cm"} {width="8cm"}
--------------------------------------------------------------- --
Figures \[fig4\] and \[fig5\] demonstrate the dependence of the growth rate on the wave numbers in the sodium and gallium experiments. In Fig. \[fig4\], an axial magnetic field $B_z$ is fixed at $3\times10^3$ gauss, and in Fig. \[fig5\], at $400$ gauss. When $B_z=3\times10^3$ gauss, a number of $k_z$ modes($k_z<8$) are destabilized in the sodium experiment(Fig.\[fig4\]a), while in the gallium experiment(Fig. \[fig4\]b) only the $k_z=1$ mode is destabilized.
A more significant difference between the sodium and gallium experiments is shown in Fig. \[fig5\]. For weak magnetic fields no mode is unstable in the gallium experiment(Fig. \[fig5\]b), whereas higher $k_z$ modes ($k_z>50$) are excited in the sodium experiment(Fig.\[fig5\]a). As we noted before, the finite $\kappa$ suppresses the unstable MRI modes with weak magnetic field.
----------------------------------------------------------------- --
{width="8.3cm"} {width="8cm"}
----------------------------------------------------------------- --
{width="8cm"}
In order to show the importance of the maximum shear, we plot the growth rate for the gallium experiment with $\kappa=0$ in Fig. \[fig51\]. We reproduce Figs. \[fig3\]b, \[fig4\]b and \[fig5\]b in Figs. \[fig51\]a, \[fig51\]b and \[fig51\]c respectively, except we take $\Omega_2=\Omega_1/9$ for the maximum shear \[see Eqs. (\[ab\]) and (\[c\])\]. In Fig. \[fig51\]a, high $k_z$ modes are unstable with low magnetic field, which are stable with finite $\kappa$(Fig.\
ref[fig3]{}b). Maximum velocity shear also destabilizes high $k_r$ modes (Figs. \[fig51\]b and \[fig51\]c), so many modes will be excited in the gallium experiment at maximum shear. In all cases, the $(k_z, k_r)=(1,1)$ mode is dominant, but mode coupling may occur in the nonlinear regime to excite turbulence in the gallium experiment.
--------------------------------------------------------------- --
{width="8cm"} {width="8cm"}
--------------------------------------------------------------- --
While the maximum shear flow profile leads to easy excitation of MRI, it falls on the border line for pure hydrodynamical instability. We show the contour plot of the unstable region for the modes $(k_r, k_z)=(1, 2)$ and $(3,5)$ of the sodium experiment in Fig.\[fig9\]. In the regime $\Omega_2/\Omega_1<0.25$, sodium is hydrodynamically unstable. The maximum shear flow is indicated as a solid line. High wavenumber modes are unstable only near the maximum shear flow and weak magnetic field in the hydrodynamically stable region (Fig. \[fig9\]b).
----------------------------------------------------------------- --
{width="8.1cm"} {width="8cm"}
----------------------------------------------------------------- --
{width="8cm"}
Growth rates for the finite $\kappa$ shear case are shown in Fig \[fig10\]. High wave number modes are stabilized compared to the $\kappa=0$ case, Fig. \[fig51\], but several modes are still unstable. Comparison of Fig. \[fig3\]b to Fig. \[fig10\]a and Fig. \[fig4\]b to Fig. \[fig10\]b shows that even for highly sub-critical flow with $\Omega_1/\Omega_2=2$ the sodium experiment will allow one to observe more MRI unstable modes than the gallium experiment for slightly sub-critical flow with $\Omega_1/\Omega_2=8.2$ (point C of Ji et al., 2001). Thus, the sodium experiment has a higher potential for the observation of turbulence due to the nonlinear development of the MRI at the rotation profiles with smaller shear, i.e. when the flow is highly stable in the absence of the magnetic fields.
Turbulence Derived from The Ekman Layer Flow {#sec5}
=============================================
We believe we need to understand the minimum expected turbulence level in the fluid before attempting to observationally separate the MRI growth from an unknown background. Of course that background will be measured first, but this section deals with an estimate of its magnitude. First we must point out that if there were no initial turbulence in the flow, then the expectation of laminar flow is that the torque or power required to drive the experiment would be negligibly small. Instead, since we know that there must be a torque associated with the Ekman layer flow and therefore a minimum power required to drive the Couette flow, we calculate this and compare it to the observed instability based upon the gradient of angular momentum [@ric99].
@ric99 have extensively reviewed the earlier experimental work on Couette flow of @wen33 & @tay36. In the maximally stable case where the outer cylinder rotates at $\Omega_2$ and the inner one is stationary, $\Omega_1 = 0$, and thus where the angular momentum increases outward, the flow is observed to be weakly unstable to a finite amplitude instability despite the prediction of stability for a positive angular momentum gradient. This observed instability has been invoked by @ric99 as a possible mechanism for the $\alpha$-viscosity of Keplerian accretion disks. The implication is that the free energy of the flow is accessed through a finite amplitude instability producing turbulence. However, this turbulence in the positive angular momentum gradient, theoretically stable regime, is observed to be much weaker then the inverse case, exerting a much smaller torque than the turbulence generated by the unstable Couette flow, which in turn is self-excited by the flow of free energy through the turbulence itself. This lack of equivalence causes us to ascribe the occurrence of turbulence in the stable flow case to the back-reaction to the torque of the Ekman layer flow. We calculate this back reaction turbulence here as the likely lower limit of turbulence for these experiments. The initial experimental measurement of the torque as well as the in situ magnetic fluctuations for very low fields can and will be compared to these predictions. Finally we note that the predicted ratio between the torques for the stable and unstable flows, based on the Ekman layer flow $G_{\rm stable}/G_{\rm unstable} \simeq R_e^{1/2}/R_e$, roughly agrees with the measurements of @tay36. We delay until a later paper a full analysis of this problem, but give here an estimate of this expected turbulent viscosity as compared to the purely laminar one.
An Ekman layer forms adjacent to the surfaces of the end walls. This flow is both radial and azimuthal, thin, laminar, and high speed. The resulting flux of angular momentum creates a torque on the fluid and an unstable velocity profile between the inner and outer cylinders. The unstable shear flow at both the inner and outer cylindrical boundaries results in a “law of the walls” or “logarithmic profile” turbulent boundary layer [@sch60] with each of the cylinder walls. This turbulence extends from the inner to the outer differentially rotating cylinders and creates the turbulent stress necessary to transfer the torque between them.
The assumption of the stability of Couette flow in the experiment is limited by the formation of an Ekman layer adjacent to the surfaces of the end plates. Since these end plates corotate with the outer frequency $\Omega_2$, then at any radius $r \leq R_2$ the fluid will be rotating faster than the end wall. An Ekman layer forms [@prandtl52], when the centrifugal force is not balanced by a pressure gradient. The pressure in the Ekman layer is the same as the pressure in the bulk of the cylinder but the centrifugal force is smaller in the Ekman layer because of friction with the end wall. As a result, a (negative) radial flow develops in a thin layer of thickness $\delta$ with a mean radial velocity $<v_{r}> \simeq r \Omega/2$ while undergoing a mean azimuthal motion $<v_{\theta}> \simeq r \Omega/2$ . The analysis of [@prandtl52] results in the thickness $\delta
\simeq r/ \sqrt {R_{e}} = \sqrt{\nu/\Omega_2}\simeq 5.6
\times 10^{-3}$ cm in sodium and $7.0 \times 10^{-3}$ cm in gallium, using the parameters of Table 1. Hence a radial (negative) current, $F_r$, flows of order $$F_r \simeq - \delta (2\pi R_2) R_2\Omega_2 /2 = -
\pi R_2^3 \Omega_2 /\sqrt {R_{e}} \, \, \, cm^3 s^{-1}.$$
This (negative) radial flow at both ends towards the axis must be balanced by a positive, slower radial flow throughout the central region. The Ekman flow merges with the central flow by a boundary layer at the inner cylinder surface resulting in a circulation within the Couette flow volume driven by the Ekman layers at each end. Since this flow represents a flux of angular momentum, $\rho F_r R_2^2
\Omega_2 /2$, from the inner radius, $R_1$, to the outer radius, $R_2$, there must be a torque, $G$, transmitted by the fluid corresponding to the difference in the flux of angular momentum between these two surfaces or $$G_E = \rho F_r ( R_2^2 - R_1^2) \Omega_2 /2 = \rho (3
\pi/8) R_2^5
\Omega_2^2/\sqrt R_e.$$ where we have used the ratio $R_1/R_2 = 1/2$ for the sodium experiment. (A factor of $5.9
\times 10^{-3}$ smaller is implied for the gallium experiment.) Not only does this torque, between $R_1$ and $R_2$ determine the power required to drive the flow, but also imposes a requirement for a weak turbulence within the so-called stable Couette flow in order to transmit this torque between $R_1$ and $R_2$. This level of turbulence becomes the minimum effective viscosity or turbulent viscosity, $\nu_t$, of the MRI experiments. By way of comparison in addition we calculate the torque as if the flow were completely laminar and compare the two torques.
The shear stress for turbulent or laminar flow, $\tau_t$, $\tau_L$, is characterized by either an effective turbulent viscosity, $\nu_t$ or laminar, $\nu_L$. In the turbulent case the angular momentum flux from the Ekman layer must be balanced by the viscous stress from the rate of shearing, $A = r d\Omega/dr = - 2\Omega_2 R_2^2 r^{-2}$ \[see @pri81\] resulting in a viscous drag per unit area, $\tau_t = \rho\nu_t A = - 2 \nu_t \Omega_2 R_2^2 r^{-2}
\rho$ and therefore a torque per unit length, $t_t = -2 \pi r^2
\tau_t = -4 \pi \nu_t \Omega_2 R_2^2\rho$. This has the proper scaling since the torque must be independent of radius. The corresponding laminar torque per unit length, $t_L = -2 \pi r^2
\tau_L = -4 \pi \nu_L \Omega_2 R_2^2\rho$ where the viscosity, $\nu_L$, is fixed by the fluid properties and not variable with the strength of the turbulence. Then the total laminar torque per half length becomes, $G_L = t_L L/2 = 2 \pi \nu_L \Omega_2 L R_2^2\rho = 2 \pi L R_2^4
\Omega_2^2 / R_e$. The ratio of the two torques becomes $G_L /G_E = (16/3) (L/R_2) R_e^{-1/2}$. Since $R_e$ is very large and $L/R_2 = 1$, the laminar torque is negligibly small compared to the Ekman layer torque and therefore torque balance requires turbulence to enhance the effective viscosity. This effective turbulent viscosity is obtained by equating the Ekman angular momentum flux to the viscous shearing torque giving $$\nu_t = (3/16) \frac{R_2}{L} \frac{R_2 \Omega_2}{\sqrt R_e} R_2 =
10.0 \,\,\& \,\, 12.7 \,\, cm^2 s^{-1},
\label{eqn_nu_t}$$ for the sodium and gallium experiments respectively.
The structure of this turbulence is problematic. It has been described by [@tay36], as initially a series of long parallel vortices, “Taylor columns” that extend the full length of the annular space and that at greater $R_e$ these columns break up becoming fully developed turbulence. We expect at some value of magnetic field strength that these vortices will be suppressed by magnetic field of sufficient strength. It seems unlikely, however, that a return to laminar flow would take place, because the flow profile, with no turbulent shear stress, but still the Ekman flow, will become more distorted from the stable profile resulting in stronger turbulent drive. However, for now we defer analysis and expect guidance from future experiment.
Finally a turbulent magnetic Prandtl number, $P_{Mt}$, for measuring the strength of this Ekman driven turbulence, can also be estimated as $$P_{Mt} = \frac{\nu_t}{\eta}= 0.012 \,\, \&
\,\, 6.3 \times 10^{-3}$$ respectively. Despite the very small size of the Ekman layer, the turbulence generated by such a flow influences the ability to distinguish turbulence caused by the MRI at low values of magnetic field from the hydrodynamic turbulence caused by the Ekman layer. At higher values of the magnetic field, above that affected by the Ekman turbulence, the effects caused by the MRI should be clearly recognizable.
--------------------------------------------------------------- --
{width="8cm"} {width="8cm"}
--------------------------------------------------------------- --
{width="8cm"}
Figure \[fig7\] shows the dependence of the MRI growth rate with the turbulent $\nu_t$ as a function of an axial magnetic field strength and the Prandtl number for the most unstable modes in both experiments. In sodium experiment, higher $k_r$ modes are also unstable. Figure \[fig6\] shows the growth rate for $(k_r,k_z)=(3,4)$ mode. Note that this mode is stable in gallium, even with laminar viscosity only. Finite $\kappa$ for the gallium experiment prevents the MRI from developing with weak magnetic field(compare Figs. \[fig3\]b and \[fig51\]a, Figs. \[fig4\]b and \[fig51\]b above), and MRI exists only in the region $3\times10^3\,\mbox{gauss}<B_z<6\times10^3\,\mbox{gauss}$ (Fig. \[fig3\]b). However, the sodium experiment with maximum shear, $\kappa=0$, can be destabilized with already very weak magnetic field, in the range of $50\,\mbox{gauss}<B_z<100\,\mbox{gauss}$.
In conclusion, the presence of Ekman layers is significant for the determining of the power necessary to sustain the differential rotation in the apparatus but has a negligible effect on the condition of the excitation of the MRI as it has been already mentioned briefly in Ji et al. (2001). However, the turbulence excited due to the presence of Ekman layers may interfere with our measurements of perturbations of magnetic field excited by the MRI. Therefore, the presence of weak turbulent perturbations due to Ekman layers seems unavoidable whenever one observes the excitation of the MRI. It also seems unlikely that the imposed magnetic field in both sodium and gallium experiments can significantly exceed a value of a few thousands Gauss. The characteristic amplitude of the perturbations of the magnetic field due to the Ekman layer turbulence is $\sim B_z\lambda v_t/\eta \approx P_{Mt} B_z$. The typical value of such perturbed magnetic fields is of order of 1 % of the applied field (see Table 1 for $P_{Mt}$), thus, limiting the possible MRI measurements of growing fields to more than 1 % of the initial magnetic field.
Discussion and Conclusions {#sec6}
==========================
There are several aspects of each experiment that warrant discussion. The first deals with the analysis performed for both experiments. In this paper we used the full dispersion relation which depended not only on an azimuthal magnetic field but also has all terms proportional to $1/r$ retained. This corresponds to the geometrical effect of the curvature from the cylindrical geometry. Only when one neglects all $1/r$ terms in the dispersion relation does one obtain the results of @ji01. This allows us to consider many different magnetic field configurations, some of which will be suitable for studying the MRI.
Nevertheless, even with these significant problems and differences, it should be noted that both the NMD and PPPL experiments have an excellent chance of observing the MRI in the laboratory. Both experiments obtain very high growth rates under varying conditions yielding a flexible set of opportunities.
Finally we note that the effect of an azimuthal magnetic field and an analysis of nonaxisymmetric modes are still open problems. @nog00 showed that the local dispersion analysis in shear flow may fail even for the qualitative estimation of growth rates. The eigenmode analysis for nonaxisymmetric modes is necessary for further understanding of the MRI instability in the NMD experiment. We are now developing the shooting method code for solving Eqs. (\[b1\])-(\[b4\]) simultaneously. Spatial dependence of the radial wavenumber and azimuthal magnetic field dependence will be analyzed.
K.N. and S.A.C. are particularly indebted to Hui Li of Los Alamos National Laboratory for pointing out the relevance of the MRI to the NMD experiment and encouraging the present work. V.P. thanks Eric Blackman for stimulating conversations and acknowledges partial support from DOE grant DE-FG02-00ER54600.
We all acknowledge important comments by the referee, which significantly improved the article. In addition this work has been supported by the DOE, under contract W-7405-ENG-36.
Balbus, S.A. & Hawley, J.F. 1991a, , 376, 214
Balbus, S.A. & Hawley, J.F. 1991b, , 376, 223
Chandrasekhar, S., 1960, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 46, 253
Colgate, S.A., Pariev, V.I., Beckley, H.F., Ferrel R., Romero V.D., and Weatherall, J.C. 2001, Magnetohydrodynamics, accepted
Gammie, C.F., 1996, , 457, 355
Goodman, J. & Ji, H., 2001, preprint; astro-ph/0104206
Hawley, J.F., Gammie, C.F. & Balbus, S.A., 1996, , 464, 690
Ji, H., Goodman, J. & Kageyama, A., 2001, MNRAS, 325, L1
Landau, L.D. & Lifshitz, E.M., 1959, Fluid Mechanics. Pergamon Press, London
Matsumoto, R. & Tajima, T., 1995, , 445, 767
Noguchi, K., Tajima, T. & Matsumoto, R., 2000, , 541, 802
Pariev, V.I., 2001, PhD Thesis, University of Arizona
Prandtl, L. 1952, Essentials of Fluid Dynamics. Hafner Publishing Company, New York
Pringle, J.E., 1981, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 19 , 137
Richard, D. & Zahn J-P, 1999, Astron. Astrophys., 347, 734
Sano, T & Inutsuka, S, 2001, , 561, L179
Sano, T. & Miyama, S., 1999, , 515, 776
Schlichting, H., 1960, Boundary-layer Theory. Mc Graw Hill, New York
Stone, J.M., Hawley, J.F., Gammie, C.F. & Balbus, S.A., 1996, , 463, 656
Taylor, G.I., 1936, Proc. Roy. Soc. London A, 157, 546
Velikhov, E.P., 1959, Sov. Phys. JETP, 36, 995
Wendt, F., 1933, Ing. Arch., 4, 577
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We investigate combinatorics of the instanton partition function for the generic four dimensional toric orbifolds. It is shown that the orbifold projection can be implemented by taking the inhomogeneous root of unity limit of the $q$-deformed partition function. The asymptotics of the combinatorial partition function yields the multi-matrix model for a generic $\beta$.'
bibliography:
- '/Users/k\_taro/Configure/conf.bib'
---
RIKEN-MP-28\
5em
3em
[Taro Kimura]{}[^1]
2em
[*Department of Basic Science, University of Tokyo, Tokyo 153-8902, Japan\
.2em and\
.2em Mathematical Physics Lab., RIKEN Nishina Center, Saitama 351-0198, Japan* ]{}
3em
2em
Introduction {#sec:Intro}
============
The instanton counting is extensively applied to various non-perturbative aspects of the four dimensional gauge theory. In particular Nekrasov partition function [@Nekrasov:2002qd; @Nekrasov:2003rj] plays an essential role not only in the four dimensional Seiberg-Witten theory [@Seiberg:1994rs; @Seiberg:1994aj], but also the two dimensional conformal field theory. The remarkable connection between the four and two dimensional theories through the instanton partition function is called AGT relation [@Alday:2009aq], and generalized to various situations, for example, the higher rank theory [@Wyllard:2009hg; @Mironov:2009by], the asymptotic free theory [@Gaiotto:2009ma; @Marshakov:2009gn; @Taki:2009zd] and also the ALE space [@Belavin:2011pp; @Nishioka:2011jk; @Bonelli:2011jx; @Belavin:2011tb; @Bonelli:2011kv], etc.
The ALE space is given by resolving the singularity of the orbifold ${\mathbb{C}}^2/\Gamma$ [@Eguchi:1978xp; @Gibbons:1979zt; @Kronheimer:1989zs]. The instanton construction [@springerlink:10.1007/BF01233429; @springerlink:10.1007/BF01444534], the instanton counting [@Fucito:2004ry] and the wall-crossing [@Nishinaka:2011nn; @Nishinaka:2011is] are considered in this case as well as the Euclidean space ${\mathbb{R}}^4 \simeq {\mathbb{C}}^2$. Furthermore the inhomogeneous orbifold theory is discussed in terms of the AGT relation [@Kanno:2011fw]: it is shown that the instanton counting on the inhomogeneous orbifold ${\mathbb{C}}\times {\mathbb{C}}/{\mathbb{Z}}_r$ is utilized to describe the theory in the presence of a generic surface operator. Not only the four dimensional theory, but also the two dimensional theory with vortices on orbifolds has been recently investigated [@Kimura:2011wh].
In this paper we develop the previous result [@Kimura:2011zf], and consider a systematic method to deal with the combinatorial representation of the partition function for the generic four dimensional toric orbifolds ${\mathbb{C}}^2/\Gamma_{r,s}$, whose boundary is the generic lens space $L(r,s)$. It includes the type $A_{r-1}$ ALE space as ${\mathbb{C}}^2/\Gamma_{r,r-1}={\mathbb{C}}^2/{\mathbb{Z}}_r$. So far ${\mathcal{N}}=4$ theories on such a space, and also Chern-Simons theory on the lens space $L(r,s)$ have been investigated [@Fucito:2006kn; @Griguolo:2006kp; @Brini:2008ik; @Gang:2009wy]. Recently further research is done with respect to the index, and its relation to the three and two dimensional theories [@Benini:2011nc].
We can obtain the orbifold partition function by performing the orbifold projection for the standard one. However it is apparently written in a complicated form, we will show a much simpler method to assign the orbifold projection. To implement that we first lift it up to the $q$-deformed theory, and then take the root of unity limit of it, as well as the standard orbifold ${\mathbb{C}}^2/{\mathbb{Z}}_r$ discussed in Ref. [@Kimura:2011zf]. The similar method is also applied to the spin Calogero-Sutherland model [@Uglov:1997ia] (see also Ref. [@KuramotoKato200908]).
We also discuss the $\beta$-ensemble matrix model for the toric orbifold theories. We successfully obtain the multi-matrix model with a generic $\beta$ by extracting the asymptotics of the combinatorial partition function [@Klemm:2008yu; @Sulkowski:2009br; @Sulkowski:2009ne]. The $\Omega$-background parameter is related to this parameter as $\beta=-\epsilon_2/\epsilon_1$, so that it is important to discuss the generic $\beta$-ensemble in order to consider the application to the AGT relation. When we estimate the asymptotic behavior of the combinatorial part corresponding to the matrix measure, we need the root of unity limit of the $q$-deformed Vandermonde determinant, which is the weight function for the Macdonald polynomial [@Mac_book]. This suggests that we can obtain a new kind of polynomials induced from the Macdonald polynomial by taking this limit.
This paper is organized as follows. In section \[sec:count\] we consider the ADHM construction for the toric orbifolds ${\mathbb{C}}^2/\Gamma_{r,s}$, and then obtain the combinatorial expression for the partition function. We will show that the root of unity limit of the $q$-deformed partition function is essential for the orbifold projection, and it is useful to introduce the basis of the fractional exclusive statistics. Section \[sec:matrix\] is devoted to derivation of the matrix models. We obtain the $\beta$-ensemble multi-matrix model by taking the asymptotic limit of the combinatorial partition function. In section \[sec:summary\] we summarize the results with some discussions.
Instanton counting on toric orbifolds {#sec:count}
=====================================
Let us start with the generic four dimensional toric space. It is given by the quotient ${\mathbb{C}}^2/\Gamma_{r,s}$ where $\Gamma_{r,s}$ is a ${\mathbb{Z}}_{r}$ action labeled by the two coprime integers $(r,s)$ with $0<s<r$ as $$\Gamma_{r,s}:~ (z_1, z_2)
\quad \longrightarrow \quad
( \omega_r z_1, \omega_r^s z_2)
\label{orb_action1}$$ where $\omega_r = \exp (2\pi i/r)$ is the primitive $r$-th root of unity. This space goes to the lens space $L(r,s)$ at infinity.
The orbifold action (\[orb\_action1\]) generates a singularity at the origin of ${\mathbb{C}}^2$. We can obtain the smooth manifold by resolving the singularity, which is called the Hirzebruch-Jung space [@BarthPetersVandeven]. After blowing up the singularity there are $\ell$ two-spheres characterized by the generalized Cartan matrix $$C = \left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
- e_1 & 1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
1 & - e_2 & 1 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & 1 & - e_3 & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & - e_\ell \\
\end{array}
\right)
\label{Cartan}$$ where the self-intersection numbers $e_i$, $i=2, \cdots, \ell$ are obtained by expanding the rational number $r/s$ in a continued fraction form $$\frac rs =
e_1-{1\over\displaystyle e_{2}- {\strut
1\over \displaystyle e_{3}- {\strut 1\over\displaystyle\ddots {}~
e_{\ell-1}-{\strut 1\over e_\ell}}}}$$ and $e_1$ is the smallest integer greater than $r/s$. In the case of the ALE space, namely $s=r-1$, we have $e_i=2$ and $\ell=r-1$. Therefore the matrix (\[Cartan\]) coincides with the Cartan matrix for the type-$A_{r-1}$ Lie algebra.
We then consider the standard ADHM construction for ${\mathbb{R}}^4 \simeq
{\mathbb{C}}^2$ to study instanton counting before orbifolding. The ADHM equations for $k$-instanton configuration for ${\mathrm{SU}}(n)$ theory are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{E}_{{\mathbb{C}}} & := &
\left[
B_1, B_2
\right] + IJ = 0, \\
\mathcal{E}_{{\mathbb{R}}} & := &
[ B_1, B_1^\dag ] + [ B_2, B_2^\dag ]
+ I I^\dag - J^\dag J = 0\end{aligned}$$ where the ADHM data $(B_1, B_2, I, J)$ are interpreted as elements of homomorphisms, $$B_1, B_2 \in {\mathrm{Hom}}\left(V,V\right), \qquad
I \in {\mathrm{Hom}}\left(W,V\right), \qquad
J \in {\mathrm{Hom}}\left(V,W\right).$$ The rank of the gauge group and the instanton number are encoded in dimensions of the vector spaces, dim $V=n$ and dim $W=k$, respectively. Actually, when we consider ${\mathrm{SU}}(n)$ theory, we had better deal with ${\mathrm{U}}(n)$ group, and then implement the condition for the Coulomb moduli $\sum_{l=1}^n a_l=0$. Note that this procedure is not enough for some cases: we have to factor out the ${\mathrm{U}}(1)$ contribution when we consider the AGT relation [@Alday:2009aq].
There is ${\mathrm{U}}(k)$ gauge symmetry for these ADHM data $$\left(B_1, B_2, I, J \right) \quad \longrightarrow \quad
\left( g B_1 g^{-1}, g B_2 g^{-1}, g I, J g^{-1} \right), \qquad
g \in {\mathrm{U}}(k),$$ and thus the instanton moduli space is given by $$\mathcal{M}_{n,k} = \left\{(B_1, B_2, I, J)|
\mathcal{E}_{{\mathbb{C}}}=0, \mathcal{E}_{{\mathbb{R}}}=0 \right\} / {\mathrm{U}}(k).
\label{mod_sp1}$$ The resolution of singularity of this ADHM moduli space is given by the following quotient [@Nakajima:2003uh], $$\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}_{n,k} = \left\{(B_1, B_2, I, J)|
\mathcal{E}_{{\mathbb{C}}}=0, \mbox{stability cond.} \right\} // {\mathrm{GL}}(k,{\mathbb{C}}).
\label{mod_sp2}$$ The stability condition is interepreted as the irreducibility for the moduli space.
We then consider the action of isometries on ${\mathbb{C}}^2$ for the ADHM data $$\left(B_1, B_2, I, J \right) \quad \longrightarrow \quad
\left( T_{1} B_1 , T_2 B_2, I T_{a}^{-1}, T_1 T_2 T_a J \right)$$ where $T_a = {\mathrm{diag}}(e^{ia_1}, \cdots, e^{ia_n}) \in {\mathrm{U}}(1)^{n}$, $T_{\alpha} = e^{i \epsilon_\alpha} \in {\mathrm{U}}(1)^2$. They are the torus actions coming from the symmetry of ${\mathrm{U}}(n)$ and ${\mathrm{SO}}(4)$, respectively. We have to consider the fixed point of these isometries up to gauge transformation $g\in{\mathrm{U}}(k)$ to perform the localization formula. Thus the orbifold action, corresponding to (\[orb\_action1\]), on the ADHM data is $$\Gamma_{r,s}:~ (B_1, B_2, I, J) \quad \longrightarrow \quad
(\omega_r B_1, \omega_r^s B_2, I, \omega_r^{1+s} J).
\label{orb_action2}$$ Due to the orbifold action we have to introduce decomposed vector spaces with respect to the irreducible representations of ${\mathbb{Z}}_r$, $$W = \bigoplus_{v=1}^{r} W_v, \qquad
V = \bigoplus_{v=1}^{r} V_v,$$ Here we assign the orbifold action for the gauge group element as $e^{ia_l} \to \omega_r^{p_l}e^{ia_l}$. It is just a holonomy, which characterizes the boundary condition of the gauge field. Thus the ADHM data surviving under the orbifold action can be written as $$B_{1,v} \in {\mathrm{Hom}}(V_v, V_{v+1}), \quad
B_{2,v} \in {\mathrm{Hom}}(V_v, V_{v+s}), \quad
I_v \in {\mathrm{Hom}}(W_v, V_v), \quad
J_v \in {\mathrm{Hom}}(V_v, W_{v+1+s}),$$ and thus we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{E}_{{\mathbb{C}}} & \longrightarrow &
B_{1,v+s} B_{2,v} - B_{2,v+1} B_{1,v} + I_{v+1+s} J_v,
\label{momentum_map1} \\
\mathcal{E}_{{\mathbb{R}}} & \longrightarrow &
B_{1,v-1} B_{1,v-1}^\dag - B_{1,v}^\dag B_{1,v}
+ B_{2,v-s} B_{2,v-s}^\dag - B_{2,v}^\dag B_{2,v}
+ I_v I_v^\dag - J_v J_v^\dag .
\label{momentum_map2}\end{aligned}$$ They are periodic modulo $r$ as $W_{r+1}=W_1$ and so on. Fig. \[fig\_quiv\] shows quiver diagrams for orbifolding ADHM data. These conditions are much complicated, and thus the whole structure of the instanton moduli space is not yet clear. Actually (\[momentum\_map1\]) and (\[momentum\_map2\]) take non-zero value after resolving the singularity. It can concern possibility of the localization method. Its availability is investigated for the case of the ALE space [@Fucito:2004ry] and more generic theories [@Gasparim:2008ri; @Bruzzo:2008], but we have to consider this problem more explicitly. Basically we still have the isometry ${\mathrm{U}}(1)^2$ corresponding to the spatial rotation even for the orbifolds. This might ensure that we can apply the localization formula to these cases.
![Quiver diagrams for orbifolding ADHM data: (a) ${\mathbb{C}}^2/\Gamma_{5,4}$ ( the ALE space ${\mathbb{C}}^2/{\mathbb{Z}}_5$) and (b) ${\mathbb{C}}^2/\Gamma_{5,3}$.[]{data-label="fig_quiv"}](quiv.eps){width="35em"}
We then derive the combinatorial representation of the partition function. Since the characters of the vector spaces are given by $$V = \sum_{l=1}^n \sum_{(i,j)\in\lambda^{(l)}} T_{a_l} T_1^{1-i} T_2^{1-j},
\qquad
W = \sum_{l=1}^n T_{a_l},$$ the character of the tangent space at the fixed point under the isometries, which is labeled by $n$-tuple partition $\vec{\lambda}$, turns out to be $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{\vec{\lambda}} & = & - V^* V (1-T_1) (1-T_2) + W^* V + V^* W T_1 T_2
\nonumber \\
& = & \sum_{l,m}^n \sum_{(i,j)\in\lambda^{(l)}}
\left(
T_{a_{ml}} T_1^{\lambda_i^{(m)}-j+1} T_2^{-\check\lambda_j^{(l)}+i}
+ T_{a_{lm}} T_1^{-\lambda_i^{(m)}+j} T_2^{\check\lambda_j^{(l)}-i+1}
\right).\end{aligned}$$ Here we define $a_{lm} = a_l-a_m$, $T_{a_{lm}}=e^{ia_{lm}}$, etc. We can extract the weight, and thus obtain the partition function in a combinatorial way, $$Z_{\vec{\lambda}}
=
\prod_{l,m}^n \prod_{(i,j)\in\lambda^{(l)}}
\frac{1}{a_{ml} + \epsilon_1 (\lambda_i^{(m)}-j+1) - \epsilon_2
(\check\lambda_j^{(l)}-i)}
\frac{1}{a_{lm} - \epsilon_1 (\lambda_i^{(m)}-j) + \epsilon_2
(\check\lambda_j^{(l)}-i+1)}.$$ This is the instanton partition function [@Nekrasov:2002qd]. The two parameters, $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$, are called $\Omega$-background parameters, which are required for regularizing the singularities in the moduli space.
We then have the partition function for the orbifold theory by taking into account only the invariant sector under the orbifold action (\[orb\_action2\]). Since each contribution to the character behaves under the orbifold action as $$\Gamma_{r,s}:~
T_{a_{ml}} T_1^{\lambda_i^{(m)}-j+1} T_2^{-\check{\lambda}_j^{(l)}+i}
\quad \longrightarrow \quad
\omega_r^{p_{ml}+\lambda_i^{(m)}-j+{\bar{s}}(\check{\lambda}_j^{(l)}-i)+1}
T_{a_{ml}} T_1^{\lambda_i^{(m)}-j+1} T_2^{-\check{\lambda}_j^{(l)}+i}$$ and so on, the $\Gamma_{r,s}$-invariant sector is different for the first and the second parts in the product, $$\frac{1}{a_{ml} + \epsilon_1 (\lambda_i^{(m)}-j+1) - \epsilon_2
(\check\lambda_j^{(l)}-i)}
\quad \mbox{for} \quad
p_l - p_m + \lambda_i^{(m)} - j + {\bar{s}}(\check\lambda_j^{(l)}-i) + 1
\equiv 0~(\mbox{mod}~r),
\label{gamma_inv1}$$ $$\frac{1}{a_{lm} - \epsilon_1 (\lambda_i^{(m)}-j) + \epsilon_2
(\check\lambda_j^{(l)}-i+1)}
\quad \mbox{for} \quad
p_{l} - p_m + \lambda_i^{(m)} - j + {\bar{s}}(\check\lambda_j^{(l)}-i) + {\bar{s}}\equiv 0~(\mbox{mod}~r),
\label{gamma_inv2}$$ with ${\bar{s}}= r - s$. Thus the partition function for ${\mathrm{U}}(1)$ theory on the toric orbifold is given by $$Z_{\lambda;\Gamma_{r,s}} =
\prod_{\mbox{\scriptsize $\check\Gamma$-inv.}\subset\lambda}
\frac{1}{\lambda_i - j + \beta(\check\lambda_j - i) + 1}
\prod_{\mbox{\scriptsize $\hat\Gamma$-inv.}\subset\lambda}
\frac{1}{\lambda_i - j + \beta(\check\lambda_j - i) + \beta}.
\label{partfunc_U1_orb}$$ We introduce another parameter defined as $\beta=-\epsilon_2/\epsilon_1$. Here $\check\Gamma$- and $\hat\Gamma$-invariant sectors stand for the conditions shown in (\[gamma\_inv1\]) and (\[gamma\_inv2\]), respectively. It can be easily extended to ${\mathrm{SU}}(n)$ gauge theory.
These conditions to extract the $\Gamma_{r,s}$-invariant sectors are apparently complicated, but there is a simple way to implement the orbifold projection [@Kimura:2011zf; @Uglov:1997ia]. To implement the orbifold projection, let us start with the standard partition function before orbifolding, and then lift it to the $q$-deformed partition function, which is interpreted as the five dimensional function, $$Z_\lambda^q = \prod_{(i,j)\in\lambda}
\frac{1}{1-q^{\lambda_i-j+1}t^{\check\lambda_j-i}}
\frac{1}{1-q^{-\lambda_i+j}t^{-\check\lambda_j+i-1}}.$$ These $q$ and $t$ are related to the $\Omega$-background parameters as $q=e^{\epsilon_1}$, $t=e^{-\epsilon_2}=q^\beta$. Of course we obtain the original four dimensional function by taking the usual $q \to 1$ limit. On the other hand, by taking the root of unity limit of the $q$-deformed function, the orbifolded partition function (\[partfunc\_U1\_orb\]) is automatically obtained up to constants. In this case we assign the following parametrization, $$q \longrightarrow \omega_r q, \qquad
t \longrightarrow \omega_r^{-s} q^\beta = \omega_r^{\bar{s}} q^\beta
\label{qt_parametrize}$$ and then take the limit $q \to 1$. To regularize the singular behavior at $q \to 1$, we now take into account the adjoint matter contribution whose mass parameter is given by $\mathfrak{m}$. Thus the weight function yields, for example, $$\begin{aligned}
&& \frac{1 - \omega_r^{\lambda_i-j+\bar{s}(\check{\lambda}_j-i)+1}
q^{\lambda_i-j+1+\mathfrak{m}}t^{\check{\lambda}_j-i}}
{1 - \omega_r^{\lambda_i-j+\bar{s}(\check{\lambda}_j-i)+1}
q^{\lambda_i-j+1}t^{\check{\lambda}_j-i}}
\nonumber \\
& \longrightarrow &
\left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
\frac{\lambda_i-j+\beta(\check{\lambda}_j-i)+1+\mathfrak{m}}
{\lambda_i-j+\beta(\check{\lambda}_j-i)+1}
& \mbox{if} & \lambda_i-j+\bar{s}(\check{\lambda}_j-i)+1 \equiv 0~
( \mbox{mod}~ r) \\
1 & \mbox{if} & \lambda_i-j+\bar{s}(\check{\lambda}_j-i)+1 \not\equiv 0~
( \mbox{mod}~ r) \\
\end{array}
\right. . \end{aligned}$$ If we want to extract only the contribution of the vector multiplet, we have to take the decoupling limit $\mathfrak{m} \to \infty$.
The $q$-partition function for ${\mathrm{SU}}(n)$ theory can be written with the cut off parameter $N^{(l)}$ for the number of entries of the partitions as follows, $$Z_{\vec\lambda}^q = \prod_{(l,i)\not=(m,j)}
\frac{(Q_{lm}q^{\lambda_i^{(l)}-\lambda_j^{(m)}}t^{j-i};q)_\infty}
{(Q_{lm}q^{\lambda_i^{(l)}-\lambda_j^{(m)}}t^{j-i+1};q)_\infty}
\prod_{l,m}^n \prod_{i=1}^{N^{(l)}}
\frac{(Q_{lm}q^{\lambda_i^{(l)}}t^{N^{(m)}-i+1};q)_\infty}
{(Q_{ml}q^{-\lambda_i^{(l)}}t^{-N^{(m)}+i};q)_\infty}.$$ Here $(x;q)_n = \prod_{m=0}^{n-1} (1-xq^m)$ is the $q$-Pochhammer symbol, and the Coulomb moduli is denoted as $Q_{lm}=e^{a_{lm}}=q^{b_{lm}}$. Note that this $q$-partition function includes the infinite product, so that we have to take care of its radius of convergence. Therefore we first consider the parametrization (\[qt\_parametrize\]), and then take the limit $q\to 1$. This orbifold projecting procedure is quite useful, for example, to investigate asymptotic behavior of the orbifold partition function because it can be simply given by studying asymptotics of the $q$-partition function in a usual way, and taking its root of unity limit at last.
We now comment on the relation to the explicit expressions for $\mathcal{O}_{{\mathbb{P}}_1}(-r)$, etc, which is shown in Refs. [@Fucito:2006kn; @Bruzzo:2008]. They are written down in terms of the local coordinates of the resolved space. For example, in the case of $\mathcal{O}_{{\mathbb{P}}_1}(-r)$, they are given by $(z_{1}^{(1)},z_2^{(1)})=(z_1^r, z_1^{-1}z_2)$ and $(z_1^{(2)},z_2^{(2)}) = (z_1z_2^{-1},z_2^r)$, which are invariant under $(z_1, z_2) \to (\omega_r z_1, \omega_r z_2)$. Thus we have the instanton partition function, which is manifestly invariant under the orbifold action. This manipulation gives rise to redefinition of the partitions: if we consider ${\mathrm{U}}(1)$ theory for simplicity, we have $\lambda_i \to \lambda_I^{(1)},
\lambda_I^{(2)}$, which satisfy $\lambda_i = r \lambda_I^{(1)} + I$ with $i=I$ or $\lambda_i = \lambda_I^{(2)}$ with $i = \lambda_I^{(2)}+r I$. Here the superscript labels the local patch of the resolved space. The expressions for $\mathcal{O}_{{\mathbb{P}}_1}(-r)$ can be obtained by these redefined variables. Anyway this connection is still complicated, thus it should be investigated in detail for further study.
0 A remarkable reature of this partition function is that it is completely factorized to factors corresponding to each local coordinate. On the other hand, as shown in Ref. [@Kimura:2011zf] for the ALE case, there exists intereaction between each local patches for the generic cases $\epsilon_1+\epsilon_2\not=0$, while the factorized partition function is obtained for the specific case, i.e. $\epsilon_1+\epsilon_2=0$. Thus it is natural to expect such factorization can occur at the special point.
![Decomposition of the partition $\lambda=(5,2,2,1)$ for ${\mathbb{C}}^2/\Gamma_{3,1}$. A rectangular box is required for obtaining the correspondence between the partition and the particle description with the [ *repulsion*]{} parameter $\bar{s}=r-s$.[]{data-label="Young_diag"}](young.eps){width="20em"}
To treat the orbifold partition function more conveniently, we then try to decompose the partitions. In this case we introduce a slightly different way of decomposition [@Dijkgraaf:2007fe; @Kimura:2011zf], $$r (\lambda_i^{(l,v)}+N^{(l,v)}-i+p^{(l,v)}) + v
\equiv \lambda_j^{(l)} + \bar{s} (N^{(l)} - j) + p_l, \qquad
j = c_i^{(l,v)}$$ where $c_i^{(l,v)}$ stands for the mapping from the index of the divided $nr$-partition to that of the original $n$-partition. Fig. \[Young\_diag\] shows an example for the case with the orbifold ${\mathbb{C}}^2/\Gamma_{3,1}$, namely $\bar{s}=2$.
This decomposition is based on the particle description obeying the fractional exclusive statistics [@PhysRevLett.67.937], which is deeply related to Calogero-Sutherland model (see, for example, Ref. [@KuramotoKato200908]). The parameter $\bar{s}$ stands for the strength of the repulsion between particles, and this generalized statistics goes back to the usual fermionic one in the case of the ALE space, $\bar{s}=1$. It is useful to introduce a rectangular box to obtain the correspondence between the partition and the particle description due to the repulsion parameter $\bar{s}$.
Introducing another set of variables defined as $$\ell_i^{(l,v)} \equiv r (\lambda_i^{(l,v)}+N^{(l,v)}-i+p^{(l,v)}) +
b_l - p_l + v,$$ we finally obtain $r$-tuple partition by blending $nr$-tuple one, $$\ell^{(v)}_{i=1, \cdots, \sum_{l=1}^{n}N^{(l,v)}} =
\left(
\ell_1^{(n,v)}, \cdots, \ell_{N^{(n,v)}}^{(n,v)}, \cdots,
\ell_1^{(1,v)}, \cdots, \ell_{N^{(1,v)}}^{(1,v)}
\right).$$ We now assume $N^{(l)}={\bf N}$ and $N^{(l,v)}=N$ for simplicity. Thus the partition function is rewritten in terms of $r$-tuple partition, $$\begin{aligned}
Z_{\vec\lambda}^q & = & \prod_{(v,i)\not=(w,j)}
\frac{(\omega_r^{v-w}q^{\ell_i^{(v)}-\ell_j^{(w)}
+(\beta-\bar{s})(c_j^{(w)}-c_i^{(v)})};\omega_r q)_\infty}
{(\omega_r^{v-w+\bar{s}}q^{\ell_i^{(v)}-\ell_j^{(w)}
+(\beta-\bar{s})(c_j^{(w)}-c_i^{(v)})+\beta};\omega_r q)_\infty}
\nonumber \\
&& \times \prod_{l=1}^n \prod_{v=0}^{r-1} \prod_{i=1}^{nN}
\frac{(\omega^{r-p_l+\bar{s}}q^{\ell_i^{(v)}-b_l
+(\beta-\bar{s})({\bf N}-c_i^{(v)})+\beta};\omega_r q)_\infty}
{(\omega^{-r+p_l}q^{-(\ell_i^{(v)}-b_l
+(\beta-\bar{s})({\bf N}-c_i^{(v)}))};\omega_r q)_\infty}
\label{partfunc_SUn_orb}\end{aligned}$$ Let $c_i^{(v)}$ stand for the mapping of the index from $r$-tuple to $nr$-tuple partition as before.
Matrix model description {#sec:matrix}
========================
We then derive matrix model description by taking asymptotic limit of the combinatorial representation of the partition function (\[partfunc\_SUn\_orb\]). Such an integral representation would be useful to extract the gauge theory consequences by performing the large $N$ limit analysis: the Seiberg-Witten curve is obtained from the spectral curve of the matrix model [@Dijkgraaf:2009pc; @Klemm:2008yu; @Kimura:2011zf].
We now consider the following function to study the asymptotics of the partition function, $$f_{q,t}(x) = \frac{(x;q)_\infty}{(tx;q)_\infty}.
\label{q_func}$$ The asymptotics of this function is almost given by the limit of $|q|\to
1$ because, when $x=e^{y}$, we have $$f_{q,t}(x) = \prod_{n=0}^\infty
\frac{1 - e^{y+n\epsilon_1}}{1 - e^{y+(n+\beta)\epsilon_1}}.$$ Therefore the condition $y \gg \epsilon_1$ corresponds to the limit $q \to 1$. This function is investigated in detail in appendix \[sec:q\_vander\].
Thus we now apply the result for the double root of unity limit (\[dbl\_root\_asymp\]) to the combinatorially represented partition function. Introducing the following variables $$x_i^{(v)} = \frac{\ell_i^{(v)}}{\epsilon_1},$$ and taking the limit $\epsilon_1\to 0$, we then obtain the matrix model representation which captures the asymptotics of the combinatorial partition function. For the orbifold ${\mathbb{C}}^2/\Gamma_{r,s}$, we have the $r$-matrix model, $$Z = \int \mathcal{D} \vec{X}~ e^{-\frac{1}{\epsilon_1}
\sum_{v=0}^{r-1} \sum_{i=1}^N V(x_i^{(v)})},$$ $$\mathcal{D} \vec{X} = \prod_{v=0}^{r-1} \prod_{i=1}^N
\frac{d x_i^{(v)}}{2\pi} \Delta^2(x).$$ Note that we have to replace the summation over the partition with the integral of the continuous variables. This is done by inserting an auxiliary function, which has a simple pole at all integer values of the argument [@Klemm:2008yu; @Sulkowski:2009br; @Sulkowski:2009ne]. This affects on the matrix integral as just a linear shift of the matrix potential in the large $N$ limit, which can be absorbed by the counting parameter.
Let us now discuss the matrix measure and the potential function. According to (\[dbl\_root\_asymp\]), asymptotics of the first part in (\[partfunc\_SUn\_orb\]), which will go to the measure part of the matrix model, yields $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\prod_{(v,i)\not=(w,j)}
f_{q,t}\left(
\omega_r^{v-w} q^{\ell_i^{(v)}-\ell_j^{(w)}
+(\beta-\bar{s})(c_j^{(w)}-c_i^{(v)})}
\right)
\nonumber \\
& \simeq &
\prod_{(v,i)\not=(w,j)}
\left[
\left(
1 - e^{r(x_i^{(v)}-x_j^{(w)})}
\right)^{(\beta-\bar{s})/r}
\prod_{k=0}^{\bar{s}-1}
\left(
1 - \omega_r^{v-w+k} e^{x_i^{(v)}-x_j^{(w)}}
\right)
\right].\end{aligned}$$ This coincides with the following matrix measure, up to the overall factor, $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta^2(x) & = &
\prod_{v=0}^{r-1} \prod_{i<j}^N
\left[
\left(
2 \sinh \frac{r}{2}
\left(x_i^{(v)} - x_j^{(v)}\right)
\right)^{2(\beta-\bar{s})/r}
\prod_{k=0}^{\bar{s}-1}
\left(
2 \sinh \frac{1}{2}
\left(x_i^{(v)} - x_j^{(v)} + \frac{2\pi i}{r}k \right)
\right)^{2\bar{s}}
\right]
\nonumber \\
& \times &
\prod_{v<w}^{r-1} \prod_{i, j}^N
\left[
\left(
2 \sinh \frac{r}{2}
\left(x_i^{(v)} - x_j^{(w)}\right)
\right)^{2(\beta-\bar{s})/r}
\prod_{k=0}^{\bar{s}-1}
\left(
2 \sinh \frac{1}{2}
\left (x_i^{(v)} - x_j^{(w)} + \frac{2\pi i}{r}(v-w+k) \right)
\right)^{2}
\right].
\nonumber \\
\label{mat_meas}\end{aligned}$$ We redefine the matrix size as $nN \to N$ for convenience. We ramark that $\beta$ can take a generic value, thus (\[mat\_meas\]) is interpreted as the measure part of the $\beta$-ensemble matrix model for the generic toric orbifold.
The corresponding four dimensional limit is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta^2(x) & \to &
\prod_{v=0}^{r-1} \prod_{i<j}^N
\left(x_i^{(v)} - x_j^{(v)}\right)^{2(\beta-\bar{s})/r+2\bar{s}}
\prod_{v<w}^{r-1} \prod_{i, j}^N
\left(x_i^{(v)} - x_j^{(w)}\right)^{2(\beta-\bar{s})/r+2N_{\bar{s}}(v-w)},
\label{vander_4d}\end{aligned}$$ where we define $N_{\bar{s}}(x)=\#\{k|x+k\equiv0~(\mbox{mod}~r),k=0, \cdots,
\bar{s}-1\}$. We can easily obtain important examples from this generic result. For the case of $\bar{s}=1$, corresponding to the orbifold ${\mathbb{C}}^2/{\mathbb{Z}}_r$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta^2(x) & = &
\prod_{v=0}^{r-1} \prod_{i<j}^N
\left[
\left(
2 \sinh \frac{r}{2}
\left(x_i^{(v)} - x_j^{(v)}\right)
\right)^{2(\beta-1)/r}
\left(
2 \sinh \frac{1}{2}
\left(x_i^{(v)} - x_j^{(v)} \right)
\right)^{2}
\right]
\nonumber \\
& \times &
\prod_{v<w}^{r-1} \prod_{i, j}^N
\left[
\left(
2 \sinh \frac{r}{2}
\left(x_i^{(v)} - x_j^{(w)}\right)
\right)^{2(\beta-1)/r}
\left(
2 \sinh \frac{1}{2}
\left (x_i^{(v)} - x_j^{(w)} + \frac{2\pi i}{r}(v-w) \right)
\right)^{2}
\right].
\nonumber \\ \end{aligned}$$ This is consistent with the previous result [@Kimura:2011zf]. In this time this formula is available even for generic $\beta$ while only the specific case $\beta = r\gamma+1 \equiv 1$ (mod $r$), $\gamma =
0, 1, 2, \cdots$, is investigated in the previous paper. This generalization is quite important because, in terms of AGT relation, the parameter $\beta$ plays a crucial role in both of the four dimensional and two dimensional theories.
The second is the case $\bar{s}=r$, corresponding to the orbifold ${\mathbb{C}}\times{\mathbb{C}}/{\mathbb{Z}}_r$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta^2(x) & = &
\prod_{(v,i)\not=(w,j)}
\left(
2 \sinh \frac{r}{2}
\left(
x_i^{(v)} - x_j^{(w)}
\right)
\right)^{2\beta/r}
\nonumber \\
& \to &
\prod_{(v,i)\not=(w,j)}
\left(x_i^{(v)}-x_j^{(w)}\right)^{2\beta/r}.\end{aligned}$$ This case is also important to study the instanton counting in presence of the generic surface operators as discussed in Ref. [@Kanno:2011fw].
We then consider the potential part for the matrix model. It is useful to discuss the quantum dilogarithm function [@Eynard:2008mt] for deriving the matrix potential, $$g(z;q) = \prod_{p=1}^\infty \left(1-\frac{1}{z}q^p\right).$$ In particular, when we parametrize $q=e^{\epsilon_1}$, the asymptotic behavior at the root of unity [@Kimura:2011zf] is given by $$\log g(z;\omega_r q) =
\frac{1}{\epsilon_1}
\left[
\frac{1}{r^2} {\rm Li}_2 \left(\frac{1}{z^r}\right) + \mathcal{O}(\epsilon_1)
\right]$$ where ${\rm Li}_2(x) = \sum_{p=1}^\infty z^p/p^2$ is the dilogarithm function. Thus the second part in (\[partfunc\_SUn\_orb\]) leads to the matrix potential, $$\prod_{l=1}^n \prod_{v=0}^{r-1} \prod_{i=1}^{nN}
\frac{(\omega^{r-p_l+\bar{s}}q^{\ell_i^{(v)}-b_l
+(\beta-{\bar{s}})({\bf N}-c_i^{(v)})+\beta};\omega_r q)_\infty}
{(\omega^{-r+p_l}q^{-(\ell_i^{(v)}-b_l
+(\beta-{\bar{s}})({\bf N}-c_i^{(v)}))};\omega_r q)_\infty}
\equiv \exp
\sum_{v=0}^{r-1} \sum_{i=1}^{nN} - \frac{1}{\epsilon_1} V(x_i^{(v)}),$$ $$V(x) = - \frac{1}{r^2} \sum_{l=1}^n
\left[
{\rm Li}_2 (e^{r(x-a_l)}) - {\rm Li}_2 (e^{-r(x-a_l)})
\right]
+ \mathcal{O}(\epsilon_1).$$ This potential function is completely the same as the previous result [@Kimura:2011zf]. It depends on only $r$, but ${\bar{s}}$ nor $\beta$. The corresponding four dimensional limit is given by $$V(x) \longrightarrow \frac{2}{r} \sum_{l=1}^n
\left[
(x-a_l) \log (x-a_l) - (x-a_l)
\right].$$ In this paper we concentrate on the case without the matter fields, but it is expected that we can obtain the same matrix potential to the homogeneous orbifolds ${\mathbb{C}}^2/{\mathbb{Z}}_r$ as well as the vector multiplet.
Summary and discussion {#sec:summary}
======================
In this paper we have extended the previous results [@Kimura:2011zf] to the toric orbifolds ${\mathbb{C}}^/\Gamma_{r,s}$ with a generic deformation parameter $\beta$. The instanton counting on such an inhomogeneous orbifold would play an essential role on the AGT relation in presence of the surface operator [@Kanno:2011fw]. Furthermore, since this parameter $\beta$ is directly related to the $\Omega$-background parameter as $\beta=-\epsilon_2/\epsilon_1$, it is important to assign a generic value for the application to the AGT relation.
We have considered the ADHM construction for the toric orbifolds ${\mathbb{C}}^2/\Gamma_{r,s}$, and derived the instanton partition function for such a space. We have shown that the root of unity limit is useful to implement the orbifold projection. It has been also shown that the partition function is well described by the particles obeying the fractional exclusive statistics for the generic case.
Based on such a combinatorial description, we have obtained the corresponding $\beta$-ensemble multi-matrix models by considering its asymptotic behavior. The matrix measure is directly related to the root of unity limit of the $q$-deformed Vandermonde determinant, and reflecting the structure of the orbifolds ${\mathbb{C}}^2/\Gamma_{r,s}$. On the other hand, the matrix potential depends on only $r$, but $s$.
We concentrate on obtaining the matrix model description in this paper, but we do not deal with the matrix model itself in detail. Actually the matrix model, which we have derived, has an apparently complicated expression. However, this matrix model is obtained by the non-standard reduction of the $q$-deformed theory, which should be integrable because it can be represented in terms of the $q$-free boson fields. Thus it is expected that there is an integrable structure even for our matrix model. In the large $N$ limit we could perform the standard treatment of the matrix model as well as the generic lens space matrix model [@Brini:2008ik], and obtain the corresponding Seiberg-Witten curve as the spectral curve. Furthermore, the relation between the model discussed in this paper and another kind of matrix model, i.e. Dijkgraaf-Vafa’s model [@Dijkgraaf:2009pc], is worth studying in detail, because the latter plays an essential role in the AGT relation. It is one of the possibilities of further study beyond this work.
It is also interesting to discuss the corresponding two dimensional conformal field theory to the generic toric orbifold theory. Since the inhomogeneous orbifold theory is utilized to study the instanton partition function in presence of a surface operator [@Kanno:2011fw], it is expected to obtain a similar structure for the generic toric orbifold theory, corresponding to the para-Liouville/Toda theory [@Nishioka:2011jk]. It would provide a novel perspective to explore an exotic conformal field theory.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The author would like to thank T. Nishioka and Y. Tachikawa for valuable comments. The author is supported by Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Fellows.
Reduction of the $q$-Vandermonde determinant {#sec:q_vander}
============================================
The function (\[q\_func\]) is directly related to the weight function of the Macdonald polynomial [@Mac_book], namely the $q$-deformed Vandermonde determinant, $$\Delta_{q,t}^2(x) = \prod_{i\not=j}
\frac{(x_i/x_j;q)_\infty}{(tx_i/x_j;q)_\infty}
= \prod_{i\not=j} f_{q,t}(x_i/x_j).$$ According to the $q$-binomial theorem we have $$f_{q,t}^{-1}(x)
= \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{(t;q)_n}{(q;q)_n} x^n.
\label{q-exp1}$$ In this appendix we investigate several kinds of reduction of the $q$-deformed Vandermonde determinant.
The first example is given by the following parametrization, $$t = q^\beta, \qquad
q \longrightarrow 1.$$ Because the coefficient becomes $$\frac{(t;q)_n}{(q;q)_n} \longrightarrow (-1)^n
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
-\beta \\ n
\end{array}
\right),$$ we have $$f_{q,t}^{-1}(x) \longrightarrow
\sum_{n=0}^\infty (-x)^n
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
-\beta \\ n
\end{array}
\right)
= (1-x)^{-\beta}.$$ This corresponds to the Jack limit of the Macdonald polynomial since the $q$-Vandermonde is reduced to $$\Delta_{q,t}^2(x) \longrightarrow
\prod_{i\not=j}
\left(1-\frac{x_i}{x_j}\right)^{\beta}
\sim \prod_{i<j} (x_i-x_j)^{2\beta}.$$ The same kind of reduction is found for the $q$-Virasoro algebra [@Shiraishi:1995rp], which leads to the usual Virasoro algebra with the central charge $c=1-6(\beta-1)^2/\beta$.
The next is the single root of unity limit, which is used to study the instanton counting on the orbifold ${\mathbb{C}}^2/{\mathbb{Z}}_r$ [@Kimura:2011zf], and corresponds to the parametrization proposed in [@Uglov:1997ia], $$q \longrightarrow \omega_r q, \qquad
t \longrightarrow \omega_r q^\beta, \qquad
q \longrightarrow 1.$$ The expansion coefficient in (\[q-exp1\]) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{(t;q)_n}{(q;q)_n} & = &
\prod_{m=1}^n
\frac{1-\omega_r^m t q^{m-1}}{1-\omega_r^m q^m}
\nonumber \\
& \longrightarrow &
\prod_{m=1}^{[n/r]}
\frac{\beta+rm-1}{rm}
\nonumber \\
& = & (-1)^{\left[n/k\right]}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
- \left(\frac{\beta-1}{r}+1\right) \\ \left[n/r\right]
\end{array}
\right).\end{aligned}$$ Here $[x]$ denotes the largest integer not greater than $x$. Therefore we have $$\begin{aligned}
f_{q,t}^{-1}(x) & \longrightarrow &
\sum_{n=0}^\infty (-x^r)^n
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
- \left(\frac{\beta-1}{r}+1\right) \\ n
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
1 + x + \cdots + x^{r-1}
\right)
\nonumber \\
& = &
(1-x)^{-1} \left(1-x^r\right)^{-(\beta-1)/r}.\end{aligned}$$ As a result, the $q$-Vandermonde is reduced as $$\Delta_{q,t}^2(x) \longrightarrow
\prod_{i\not=j}
\left(1-\frac{x_i}{x_j}\right)
\left(1-\frac{x_i^r}{x_j^r}\right)^{(\beta-1)/r}
\sim
\prod_{i<j}
(x_i - x_j)^2
\left( x_i^r - x_j^r \right)^{2(\beta-1)/r}.$$ This is consistent with the previous result [@Uglov:1997ia; @Kimura:2011zf]. Note that this reduction is available for generic positive $\beta$ while only the specific case $\beta=r\gamma+1\equiv 1$ (mod $r$) has been investigated so far.
The last is the double root of unity limit. We now consider the following parametrization, $$q \longrightarrow \omega_r q, \qquad
t \longrightarrow \omega_r^{{\bar{s}}} q^\beta, \qquad
q \longrightarrow 1.$$ The coefficient in (\[q-exp1\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{(t;q)_n}{(q;q)_n} & \longrightarrow &
\prod_{m=1}^{{\bar{s}}-1} \frac{1-\omega_r^{n+m}}{1-\omega_r^m}
\prod_{m=1}^{[n/r]} \frac{(\beta-{\bar{s}})/r+m}{m}
\nonumber \\
& = &
(-1)^{[n/r]}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
-\left(\frac{\beta-{\bar{s}}}{r}+1\right) \\ \left[n/r\right]
\end{array}
\right)
\prod_{m=1}^{{\bar{s}}-1} \frac{1-\omega_r^{n+m}}{1-\omega_r^m} .\end{aligned}$$ Note that this coefficient vanishes as $(t;q)_n/(q;q)_n = 0$ when $n
\equiv r-{\bar{s}}+1, \cdots, r-1$ (mod $r$). Thus we have a similar result, $$f_{q,t}^{-1}(x) \longrightarrow
(1-x^r)^{-(\beta-{\bar{s}})/r} \prod_{k=0}^{{\bar{s}}-1} (1-\omega_r^k x)^{-1}.
\label{dbl_root_asymp}$$ This corresponds to the following reduction of the $q$-Vandermonde, $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{q,t}^2(x) & \longrightarrow &
\prod_{i\not=j}
\left(1-\frac{x_i^r}{x_j^r}\right)^{(\beta-{\bar{s}})/r}
\prod_{k=0}^{{\bar{s}}-1} \left(1-\omega_r^k \frac{x_i}{x_j}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Especially, when ${\bar{s}}=r$, corresponding to the orbifold ${\mathbb{C}}\times{\mathbb{C}}/{\mathbb{Z}}_r$, which is well investigated in [@Kanno:2011fw], it becomes $$\Delta_{q,t}^2(x) \longrightarrow
\prod_{i\not=j} \left(1-\frac{x_i^r}{x_j^r}\right)^{\beta/r}
\sim
\prod_{i<j} (x_i^r - x_j^r)^{2\beta/r}.$$
[^1]: E-mail address: <kimura@dice.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
title: 'Josh’s Masters Project'
---
(Type your content here.)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Direct laser acceleration of ions by short frequency-chirped laser pulses is investigated theoretically. We demonstrate that intense beams of ions with a kinetic energy broadening of about 1$\%$ can be generated. The chirping of the laser pulse allows the particles to gain kinetic energies of hundreds of MeVs, which is required for hadron cancer therapy, from pulses of energies of the order of 100 J. It is shown that few-cycle chirped pulses can accelerate ions more efficiently than long ones, i.e. higher ion kinetic energies are reached with the same amount of total electromagnetic pulse energy.'
author:
- 'Jian-Xing Li'
- Benjamin Galow
- 'Christoph H. Keitel'
- Zoltán Harman
bibliography:
- 'lit.bib'
title: Ion Acceleration by Short Chirped Laser Pulses
---
Introduction
============
The interaction of intense laser pulses with solids has recently attracted considerable interest. This is largely due to its potential application for accelerating charged particles [@plasma2; @plasma1; @plasma3; @Esirkepov2006prl; @plasma4; @plasma5; @plasma6; @plasma7; @plasma8; @plasma9; @plasma10; @plasma11; @badziak; @sal-prl2; @crossed; @salaminreview; @DiP12; @Peralta2013; @Haberberger2012; @Hooker2013; @Zigler2013; @zoltan2011pra]. Tumor therapy with accelerated ion beams (see e.g. [@cancer; @debus1; @med1; @med2; @med3; @cancerrev]) would in particular benefit from the replacement of conventional accelerators by all-optical devices, which may become compact and inexpensive in future, allowing this form of cancer therapy to be accessible for more patients.
In this article, we demonstrate the feasibility of generating ion beams by shining an appropriately chirped short laser pulse on a target. At sufficiently high laser intensities the electrons are quickly ionized, and the ions get directly accelerated by the laser field. Modulating the frequency of the pulse leads to efficient particle energy gain from the field, as it was shown before [@chirp-PRL; @chirp0; @chirp1; @chirp2]. Here we consider the case of short chirped pulses, when the time duration of the pulse is comparable to a single cycle. We found that acceleration by such short pulses may be more efficient than by long chirped pulses, i.e. the same final ion kinetic energies can be reached with a lower pulse energy.
The acceleration scheme is shown on Fig. \[fig:scheme\]. We assume a solid-density or underdense target consisting of carbon ions, typically, bare nuclei, which can be generated via ionization by an intense pre-pulse. Collective plasma effects become important when the target thickness $L$ in propagation direction of the laser is longer than the wave length of the induced plasma wave, i.e. $\lambda_p=2\pi c/\omega_p$ with plasma frequency $\omega_p^2=4\pi n_e e^2/m_e$. In the last formula $n_e$ is the electron density, $e$ the electron charge and $m_e$ the mass of an electron. When interacting with the accelerating pulse, first the lighter electrons are accelerated, they are pushed in the forward direction, as shown previously in Ref. [@chirp-PRL]. The electrons are followed by the carbon ions, which are directly accelerated by the chirped pulse.
Laser acceleration simulations
==============================
In order to access the efficiency of laser acceleration by means of few-cycle chirped pulses, we perform simulations based on the classical relativistic equations of motion. In the following subsection, we provide a description of short laser pulses, based on earlier works [@Yousef-fields; @LiRR]. Subsequently, we describe the particle dynamics in the presence of such intense chirped pulses.
Description of few-cycle chirped focused laser pulses
-----------------------------------------------------
We consider a circularly polarized laser field propagating along the $z$-direction. In analogy with Ref. [@Esarey:95], the vector potential for the focused ultra-short laser beam is represented as $\bm{A}=\frac{E_0}{k_0}\left(\hat{x} \psi (\mathbf{r}, \eta) +i\hat{y}\psi (\mathbf{r}, \eta)e^{i\pi/2} \right) e^{i\eta}$. Here, the following notations have been introduced: the electric field amplitude is $E_0 = 4\sqrt{P/c}/w_0$, where $P$ is the peak power of a laser pulse, $c$ stands for the light velocity in vacuum, and $w_0$ is the laser focal radius. The phase of the field is given as $\eta = \omega_0 t - k_0 z$. The wave number is $k_0 = \omega_0/c$, where $\omega_0$ is the original (unchirped) frequency of laser at the focal point. When the chirping effect is taken into account, the laser frequency and radius have to be modified as follows: $\omega = \omega_0 \left( 1+b\eta\right)$, and $w = w_0/\left(1+b\eta\right)$, where $b$ is the dimensionless chirp parameter. In these formulas, we introduced the quantities $\psi = f (1+i\eta/s^2) e^{i\phi_0-f \rho^2-\eta^2/(2s^2)}$, $f = i / ( i+\nu / z_r)$, $\nu = z + \eta /(2 k)$, $\rho = r/w$, $r = \sqrt{x^2+y^2}$, $s = \omega_0 \tau/2\sqrt{2\log{2}}$, and $\tau$ is pulse duration. Furthermore, $z_r = k w^2/2$ is the Rayleigh length, $k = \omega/c$, and $\phi_0$ is a constant phase. When introducing the frequency modulation, the phase parameter $\eta$ and the pulse length parameter $s$ do not need to be modified. $\hat{x}$ and $\hat{y}$ stand for unit vectors in the $x$ and $y$ directions orthogonal to the lasers propagation direction.
Note that the temporal envelope of the laser beam is not factorized in this pulsed solution of the wave equation. The scalar potential $\phi$ is thought to have a similar expression as that of the vector potential $\bm{A}$, and it can be calculated from the Lorentz gauge condition $\partial \phi/\partial t + \nabla \cdot \bm{A}=0$. The electromagnetic fields are derived from $\bm{E} = -\partial \bm{A}/\partial t - \nabla \phi, \bm{B}=\nabla\times\bm{A} $: $\bm{E}=\bm{E}^{(\hat{x})}+\bm{E}^{(\hat{y})}$, $\bm{B}=\bm{B}^{(\hat{x})}+\bm{B}^{(\hat{y})}$, herewith, $$\begin{aligned}
E_x^{(\hat{x})}&=&\frac{-E_1}{C_1^2} \left[C_1^3-f^2 C_1\frac{x^2}{z_r^2}+\frac{f C_1}{k z_r}-\frac{2 i f k x^2}{z_r \left(2 k C_2 +\eta\right)^2}\right] \,, \nonumber\\
E_y^{(\hat{x})}&=&\frac{E_1 f x y}{C_1^2 z_r^2}\left[f C_1+\frac{2 i k z_r}{(2 k j_z+\eta)^2}\right]\,,\nonumber\\
E_z^{(\hat{x})}&=&\frac{-E_1 f x}{C_1^2 z_r^2}\left[\frac{i f C_1}{k}-C_1 z_r \left(i+\frac{if^2 r^2}{4 z_r^2}-\frac{\eta}{s^2}\right)
-\frac{i C_1 z_r}{s^2+i\eta}-z_r C_2\right] \,,\label{eq:3}\\
B_x^{(\hat{x})}&=&0 \,,\nonumber\\
B_y^{(\hat{x})}&=&E_1\left(\frac{i f}{2 k zr}-i-\frac{i f^2 r^2}{4 z_r^2}+\frac{\eta}{s^2}+\frac{1}{is^2-\eta}\right) \,,\nonumber\\
B_z^{(\hat{x})}&=&\frac{E_1 f y}{z_r}\,, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$\
and, furthermore, $$\begin{aligned}
E_y^{(\hat{y})}&=&\frac{-E_1}{C_1^2} \left[C_1^3-f^2 C_1\frac{y^2}{z_r^2}+\frac{f C_1}{k z_r}-\frac{2 i f k y^2}{z_r \left(2 k C_2 +\eta\right)^2}\right] \,, \nonumber\\
E_x^{(\hat{y})}&=&\frac{E_1 f x y}{C_1^2 z_r^2}\left[f C_1+\frac{2 i k z_r}{(2 k j_z+\eta)^2}\right] \,,\nonumber\\
E_z^{(\hat{y})}&=&\frac{-E_1 f y}{C_1^2 z_r^2}\left[\frac{i f C_1}{k}-C_1 z_r \left(i+\frac{if^2 r^2}{4 z_r^2}-\frac{\eta}{s^2}\right)
-\frac{i C_1 z_r}{s^2+i\eta}-z_r C_2\right] \,,\label{eq:3}\\
B_y^{(\hat{y})}&=&0 \,,\nonumber\\
B_x^{(\hat{y})}&=&-E_1\left(\frac{i f}{2 k zr}-i-\frac{i f^2 r^2}{4 z_r^2}+\frac{\eta}{s^2}+\frac{1}{is^2-\eta}\right) \,,\nonumber\\
B_z^{(\hat{y})}&=&\frac{-E_1 f x}{z_r} \,, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $E_1=E_0\psi e^{i\left(\eta+b\eta^2\right)}/S_0$, with the normalization parameter $S_0 = [-s_1^2-1/(k z_r)]/s_1, s_1=i[1+1/(2 k z_r)+1/s^2]$, $j_z=z+iz_r$, and the following short-hand notations have been introduced: $$\begin{aligned}
C_1&=&i+\frac{i k^2 r^2-2 k j_z -\eta}{(2 k j_z +\eta)^2}+\frac{s^2+i\eta s^2-\eta^2}{s^2(\eta-is^2)}\,,\\
C_2&=&\frac{-1}{(2 k j_z+\eta)^2}+\frac{4 k j_z+2\eta-2 i k^2 r^2}{(2 k j_z+\eta)^3}
+\frac{\eta^2-s^2-i \eta s^2}{(i \eta s+s^3)^2}+\frac{2 i \eta +s^2}{i \eta s^2+s^4}\,.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ These field expressions are in concordance with the sub-cycle pulse field of Ref. [@Lin_2006] and the long-pulse field of Ref. [@Salamin_2002]. Such fields were also employed recently to simulate quantum radiation reaction effects for an ensemble of electrons interacting with ultra-short pulses [@LiRR]. For the much slower ions studied here, the influence of radiation reaction can be neglected [@crossed].
Particle dynamics
-----------------
The time-dependent dynamics of an ensemble of interacting ions is considered. An ion indexed by $j$, of mass $m$ and charge $q$ is accelerated to relativistic energy and momentum, respectively, of ${\cal E}_j=\gamma_j mc^2$ and $\bm{p}_j=\gamma_j mc\bm{\beta}_j$, where $\bm{\beta}_j$ is the velocity of the particle divided by $c$, the velocity of light in vacuum, and $\gamma=(1-\beta^2)^{-1/2}$ is the Lorentz factor, when interacting with the time-dependent fields $\bm{E}$ and $\bm{B}$ of an laser pulse. Thus, the dynamics is described by the coupled Newton-Lorentz equations, given in SI (International System of Units): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{motion_coul}
\frac{d\bm{p}_j}{dt} &=& q \left( \bm{E}(\bm{r}_j)+\bm{E}_{j}^{\text{\tiny{int.}}}+c\bm{\beta}_j\times\left(\bm{B}
(\bm{r}_j) \right) \right)\,, \\
\frac{d{\cal{E}}_j}{dt} &=& qc\bm{\beta}_j\cdot \left( \bm{E}(\bm{r}_j)+ \bm{E}_{j}^{\text{\tiny{int.}}} \right) \,. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The electric field of the inter-ionic interaction is approximated by $\bm{E}_{j}^{\text{\tiny{int}}} = - \sum_{k \ne j} \nabla\phi_{jk}$, with the Coulomb interaction scalar potential $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{jk}&=&\frac{q}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{1}{|\bm{r}_j-\bm{r}_k|}\label{Coulomb} \,.\end{aligned}$$ Here, the relative displacement of two particles is $\bm{r}_{jk}=\bm{r}_j-\bm{r}_k$ and $\epsilon_0$ is the vacuum permittivity. The presence of plasma electrons can be neglected when simulating the ions’ acceleration dynamics, as they are blown off first by the pulse, as it was shown by particle-in-cell simulations [@chirp-PRL].
Since the electromagnetic fields have a complex mathematical structure, and the inclusion of the ions’ interaction leads to coupled motion, one has to solve the above differential equations numerically. A numerical integration of Eqs. (\[motion\_coul\]) yields the particles’ velocities $\bm{\beta}_j$ and thus also their energy gain at a final time equal to many laser cycles.
Results and Discussion
======================
We present first results of calculations for a single test ion. Bare carbon nuclei (C${}^{6+}$ ions) are chosen here because of their higher contrast of dose deposition in the tissue as compared to protons. In order to find the optimal parameters of the pulse and the optimal initial velocity of the ion, we performed numerical simulations by calculating the energy gain for a particle as a function of the chirp parameter $b$ and the initial energy $E_0 = \gamma_0 m c^2$ of the ion. The results are presented on Fig. \[fig:gain-vs-gamma0-vs-b\]. The optimal chirping is in the range around $b=\pm 0.1$, with low initial kinetic energies around $\gamma_0 \approx 1.05$. We note that for the circularly polarized pulses employed here, the dependence of the energy on the chirping parameter is a slowly-varying function. This is not the case for linearly polarized fields, where this function shows a strong oscillatory behaviour [@chirp-PRL]. Therefore, the appropriate chirping can be more practically implemented in experiments. The maximal energy gain which can be reached in this setting is around 100 MeV/u, reaching the range of interest in medical applications.
As the previous figure shows, the acceleration by a chirped short pulse is optimal when the initial kinetic energy of particles is low. Motivated by this, we separately consider the experimentally advantageous situation when the particles are initially at rest, i.e. $\gamma_0 = 1$. The energy gain is shown on Fig. \[fig:gain-vs-b\] in dependence of the chirp parameter $b$. The maximal gain that can be achieved by such pulses when the particles are at rest initially is approx. 80 MeV/u. In the case of circularly polarized fields, similar gains can be reached when applying a negative frequency chirp ($b<0$), i.e. when the carrier frequency of the laser decreases in time. Additionally, circularly polarized laser beams have the advantage over linearly polarized beams that they are not sensitive to small variations of the chirp parameter $b$ - cf. Fig. \[fig:gain-vs-b\] with Fig. 2 of Ref. [@chirp-PRL]. Fig. \[fig:gainpulse\] shows, for an optimal chirp parameter $b = 0.089$, the energy gain and the corresponding pulse as a function of the longitudinal displacement $z$, confirming that the final kinetic energy around 100 MeV is reached on a sub-wavelength scale. The figure also illustrates – in accordance with earlier findings [@chirp-PRL] – that it is the asymmetric part of the pulse, induced by the strong frequency modulation, which causes sudden acceleration of the ion. This is in contrast to an unchirped laser pulse, where a charged particle would gain kinetic energy during the first half of a laser cycle and subsequently loses this energy during the second half of the respective cycle due to the symmetry of the pulse. However, we want to emphasize that frequency modulation over a large frequency bandwidth is presently experimentally accessible only at lower field intensities [@Goulielmakis:08; @wirth].
In order to find the optimal pulse duration for acceleration, we performed single-particle simulations calculating the energy gain of a particle initially at rest in dependence of this parameter, at a fixed total pulse energy. The results are displayed on Fig. \[fig:optimal\] (a), showing that maximal efficiency can be reached for pulses with a time duration of 3 to 4 cycles. Increasing the pulse duration can only decrease the final energy gain, since the peak electric field of the pulse decreases if the energy of the pulse is distributed over a longer time. Furthermore, in pulses with durations below 3-4 periods, the ion does not spend sufficient time interacting with the field to reach its maximal velocity. For each pulse duration, the chirp parameter $b$ was optimized independently. The corresponding values of the chirp parameters are displayed on Fig \[fig:optimal\] (b).
The energy distribution of a beam of ions generated by laser acceleration was determined by many-particle calculations based on the coupled Newton-Lorentz equations \[Eq. (\[motion\_coul\])\]. We assume that the ions are randomly distributed in a small nano-scale cylindrical volume before interacting with the short focused laser pulse. The ions were assumed to be initially at rest, and have a solid-state density (2.4$\times 10^{24}$ ions/cm$^3$). Simulations were performed with and without the inclusion of the ion-ion interaction to assess the effect of Coulomb repulsion on the energy gain and its broadening. In both cases, the set of random initial coordinates utilized was kept constant. Results are shown on Fig. \[fig:spread\]. For this case collective plasma effects are negligible since the induced plasma wavelength, $\lambda_p = 0.0088\mu$m, is much larger than the target thickness, $L = 0.0004\mu$m. Including the particle-particle repulsion yields an order-of-magnitude broader distribution than the simulation with artificially switching off the interaction, however, the average kinetic energy is not influenced by this: in the first, realistic simulation, the average gain is 82.557 MeV/u, with a standard deviation of 1.042 MeV/u (1.262%); in the latter case, the average gain is the same, while the standard deviation is 0.006 MeV/u (0.007%). Thus, we may conclude that for dense targets, it is indeed necessary to include inter-particle interactions in realistic simulations, even at the very high laser intensities considered. The beam energy spread is in the medically applicable range, i.e. approximately 1 %, enabled by the small size of the target. Trajectory of the overdense interacting C$^{6+}$ ion beam is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:traj\_overdense\], and the emission angle is approximately 0.05 (radian), i.e. 2.865 (degree). Please note that the angle employs the unit of radian in the rest content. For the same conditions except taking a larger chirp parameter, $b = 0.1$, the emission angle increases from 0.05 to 0.051. And, for a longer laser pulse with the pulse duration $\tau = 4\tau_0$, the emission angle decreases to 0.048.
Besides a nano-scale target, simulations were made for a more extended underdense carbon plasma target, which may be realized as an expanding plasma created by a pre-pulse. The kinetic energy distribution for a target of ions with an initial density of 2.4$\times 10^{20}$ ions/cm$^3$ is presented as a histogram on Fig. \[fig:underdense\]. The induced plasma wavelength, $\lambda_p = 0.88\mu$m, and the target thickness, $L = 0.04\mu$m. Therefore, collective plasma effects are ignored. In this case, particle-particle interactions are weaker, and thus the results are less sensitive to the presence of interaction. We obtain an average ion gain of 82.553 MeV/u, with a standard deviation of 0.138 MeV/u (0.167%) for the more realistic simulation with the ions’ mutual repulsion taken into account, and to the same average gain with a spread of 0.069 MeV/u (0.083%) with the interaction neglected. The energies reached here coincide with the results for a solid-density ion plasma target, however, the energy broadening is somewhat better. Trajectory of the underdense interacting C$^{6+}$ ion beam is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:traj\_underdense\]. Emission angle is approximately 0.005 and 10 time smaller than that of the overdense case.
Conclusions
===========
Relativistic many-particle simulations were performed in order to access the applicability of few-cycle chirped laser pulses to ion acceleration for the purpose of hadron cancer therapy. An accurate description of the temporal and spatial structure of the laser fields was employed. We have found that such pulses with durations of 3-4 cycles, when focused on small underdense or solid-density plasma targets, can produce ion beams with properties in the range of medical requirements. They are also more efficient in accelerating ions than longer chirped pulses investigated in our earlier work [@chirp-PRL]: a further increase of pulse duration beyond the optimal value decreases the particles’ energy gain, as the pulse energy distributed over longer times leads to weaker accelerating fields.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors acknowledge insightful and refreshing conversations with Yousef I. Salamin. J.-X. Li partially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11304077).
Conflicts of Interest {#conflicts-of-interest .unnumbered}
=====================
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We report on Coulomb explosion imaging of the wavefunction of the quantum halo system He$_2$. Each atom of this system is ionized by tunnel ionization in a femto second laser pulse and in a second experiment by single photon ionization employing a free electron laser. We visualize the exponential decay of the probability density of the tunneling particle over distance for over two orders of magnitude up to an internuclear distance of 250 Å. By fitting the slope of the density in the tunneling regime we obtain a binding energy of 151.9 $\pm$ 13.3 neV, which is in agreement with most recent calculations [@Przybytek2010].'
author:
- 'S. Zeller\*'
- 'M. Kunitski'
- 'J. Voigtsberger'
- 'A. Kalinin'
- 'A. Schottelius'
- 'C. Schober'
- 'M. Waitz'
- 'H. Sann'
- 'A. Hartung'
- 'T. Bauer'
- 'M. Pitzer'
- 'F. Trinter'
- 'C. Goihl'
- 'C. Janke'
- 'M. Richter'
- 'G. Kastirke'
- 'M. Weller'
- 'A. Czasch'
- 'M. Kitzler'
- 'M. Braune'
- 'R. E. Grisenti'
- 'W. Schöllkopf'
- 'L. Ph. H. Schmidt'
- 'M. Schöffler'
- 'J. B. Williams'
- 'T. Jahnke'
- 'R. Dörner\*'
title: 'Imaging the He$_{2}$ quantum halo state using a free electron laser'
---
Quantum tunneling is a ubiquitous phenomenon in nature and crucial for many technological applications. It allows quantum particles to reach regions in space which are energetically not accessible according to classical mechanics. In this tunneling region the particle density is known to decay exponentially. This behavior is universal across all energy scales from MeV in nuclear physics, to eV in molecules and solids, and to neV in optical lattices. For bound matter the fraction of the probability density distribution in this classically forbidden region is usually small. For shallow short range potentials this can change dramatically as shown in Fig. \[fig\_theory\]: upon decreasing the potential depth excited states are expelled one after the other as they become unbound (transition from Fig. \[fig\_theory\] A to B). A further decrease of the potential depth effects the ground state as well, as more and more of its wavefunction expands into the tunneling region (Fig. \[fig\_theory\] C/D). Consequently, at the threshold (i.e. in the limit of vanishing binding energy) the size of the quantum system expands to infinity. For short range potentials this expansion is accompanied by the fact that the system becomes less “classical” and more quantum-like. Systems existing near that threshold (and therefore being dominated by the tunneling part of their wavefunction) are called “quantum halo states” [@Riisager1994]. These are, for example, known from nuclear physics where $^{11}$Be and $^{11}$Li form halo states [@Jensen2004; @Hansen2003; @Tanihata1996].\
One of the most extreme examples of such a quantum halo state can be found in the realm of atomic physics: the helium dimer (He$_2$). It is bound by the van der Waals force only and the He-He interaction potential (see Fig. 1D) has a minimum of about 1 meV at an internuclear distance of about 3 Å (0.947 meV / 2.96 Å[@Przybytek2010]). For a long time it was controversial whether already the zero point energy of the helium dimer is larger than the depth of the potential well and thus whether the helium dimer exists as a stable molecule at all. While $^{3}$He$^{4}$He is indeed unbound because of its bigger zero point energy, stable $^{4}$He$_2$ was finally found experimentally in 1993/94 [@Schoellkopf1994; @Luo1993]. It turns out, that He$_2$ has no bound excited rotational states as already the centrifugal force associated with 1$\hbar$ of angular momentum leads to dissociation. Experiments using matter wave diffraction confirmed the halo character of He$_2$ by measuring a mean value of the internuclear distance of 52 Å[@Grisenti2000]. This is in agreement with some theoretical predictions, but in conflict with the most recent calculations[@Przybytek2010]. Resolving this conflict is of importance also for the planned redefinition of the Kelvin, unit of thermodynamic temperature, in terms of the Boltzmann constant[@Lin2013]. Thermometry today uses theoretical values for the thermal conductivity and viscosity of helium. Those properties are based on the same He-He interaction potentials used to calculate the He$_2$ binding energy, which was shown to be incompatible with previous experiments[@Grisenti2000; @Luo1996] (see [@Cencek2012] for a more detailed discussion).\
At the same time its quantum halo character makes He$_2$ a prime candidate for visualizing the predicted universal exponential decrease of a tunneling wavefunction in an experiment by triggering a Coulomb explosion with a free electron laser (FEL). Coulomb explosion imaging is a well-established technique first employed in ion beam experiments[@Kanter1989]. For chiral molecules fragmented by femtosecond laser pulses it has been successfully used to identify enantiomers[@Pitzer2013]. For diatomics it has been shown to reveal subtle details of the wavefunction at the quantum limit of position measurements[@Schmidt2012]. Most recently we have used the technique to study the structure of He$_3$[@Voigtsberger2014] and to discover the Efimov state of He$_3$[@Kunitski2015]. In the two latter studies we have combined Coulomb explosion imaging with cluster mass selection by matter wave diffraction[@Schoellkopf1994]. The COLTRIMS reaction microscope used in [@Voigtsberger2014; @Kunitski2015] was the same as used in the present study. In the present study we employ for the first time single photon ionization by FEL radiation in stead of sequential tunnel ionization by an 800 nm laser pulse. Only this use of single photon ionization allows for the precise determination of the slope of the exponential decay of the wavefunction we achieve in the current measurement.
![A shallow short range potential holding a ground and an excited state (A). As the potential depth decreases (B) the excited state becomes unbound, leaving only the ground state. Further decrease (C) leads to the particle probability density distribution leaking more into the classically forbidden region. In the extreme case of the helium dimer (D) (note the logarithmic R-scale) this effect allows the wavefunction to extend to sizes of fullerenes, the diameter of DNA and even small viruses (He$_2$ potential and wavefunction taken from [@Przybytek2010]): while the classical turning point is located at 13.6 Å the overall wavefunction extends to more than 200 Å.[]{data-label="fig_theory"}](Theorie_08_large-font.png){width="0.6\columnwidth"}
\
In the corresponding experiment presented here, helium clusters were produced by expanding helium gas through a 5 $\mu$m nozzle. It was cooled down to 8 K and a driving pressure of 450 mbar was applied, which maximizes the dimer content in the molecular beam[@Kunitski2015]. To obtain a pure helium dimer target beam we made use of matter wave diffraction [@Schoellkopf1994]. All clusters have the same velocity but can be sorted by mass as their diffraction angle behind a transmission grating (100 nm period) depends on their de Broglie wavelengths ($\lambda =$ h/mv, with Planck’s constant h, mass m and velocity v). That way only dimers reach the interaction region while the dominant fraction of atomic helium as well as the share of helium trimers present at the chosen gas expansion conditions get deflected away from the ionization region. Figure \[fig\_setup\] shows a schematic of the setup.\
![Overlap between laser focus and a pure helium dimer beam, created by a molecular beam diffracted at a nanograting. Distances between the beam elements were as follows: nozzle to skimmer 14 mm, skimmer to slit 332 mm, slit to grating 30 mm, grating to focus 491 mm. The focus diameter was about 20 $\mu$m.[]{data-label="fig_setup"}](Setup_03_large-font.png){width="0.6\columnwidth"}
In two experimental campaigns both atoms of the dimer were singly ionized employing either single photon ionization using photons provided by a free electron laser (FLASH, $<$100 fs, 18.5 nm) or tunnel ionization using a strong ultrashort laser field (Ti:Sa laser, Dragon KMLabs, 780 nm). The two positively charged ions repel each other, resulting in a Coulomb explosion. The ionic momenta acquired in this explosion were measured by cold target recoil ion momentum spectroscopy (COLTRIMS)[@Jagutzki2002; @Ullrich2003; @Jahnke2004]. A homogeneous electric field of 4.41 V/cm (at FEL) / 3.09 V/cm (at Ti:Sa laser) guides the ions to the detector. It measures time-of-flight and position of impact using micro channel plates (MCP) and delay line anodes[@Jagutzki2002]. In the FEL radiation as well as in pulses of 800 nm photons the ionization of the two atoms occurs fast compared to the nuclear motion, thus triggering an instantaneous Coulomb explosion of the repelling ionized particles. The Coulomb explosion converts the potential energy of the two ions located at an internuclear distance R into a released kinetic energy (KER) according to $$R = \frac{1}{KER}.
\label{eq_1}$$ By recording a large number of Coulomb explosion events a distribution of measured distances R (as shown in Fig. \[fig\_experiment\]A) is obtained. It represents a direct measurement of the square of the helium dimer wavefunction $\Psi$$^2$. The classically allowed part of $\Psi$$^2$ provides a cross-check for our measurement as it falls off steeply at the inner turning point of the helium dimer potential and theoretical calculations agree well on the location of the turning point. A comparison of our measured probability density distribution close to the inner turning point and some theoretical predictions are shown in Fig. \[fig\_experiment\]B. Here two exemplary theoretical curves[@Przybytek2010; @LuoInfluence1993] are depicted along with a measurement conducted at our Ti:Sa laser as it provides very high resolution and statistics for small internuclear distances.\
The classically forbidden part of $\Psi$$^2$ is shown in Fig. \[fig\_experiment\]C on a logarithmic scale. For internuclear distances larger than 30 Å the helium dimer potential is two orders of magnitude smaller than the predicted ground state binding energy and thus can safely be approximated to zero. Accordingly, the wavefunction is approximated in this region by the solution of the Schrödinger equation below a steplike barrier, which is given by $$\Psi(R) \propto e^{-\sqrt{\frac{2m}{\hbar^2}E_{bind}R}}.
\label{eq_2}$$ As the mass m and Planck’s constant $\hbar$ are fixed, the only variable defining the slope of the exponential decay is the binding energy E$_{bind}$. Therefore the binding energy can be extracted from the measurement by an exponential fit to the pair-distance distribution in the region between 50 a.u. and 300 a.u., as depicted in Fig. \[fig\_experiment\]C. From the fit we obtain a helium dimer binding energy of 151.9 $\pm$ 13.3 neV, after accounting for the electron recoil as outlined below.\
{width="1.0\columnwidth"}
The theoretical value for the binding energy was under dispute for many years [@Aziz1979; @Feltgen1982; @Tang1995; @Gdanitz2001]. Predictions range from 44.8 neV[@Feltgen1982] to 161.7 neV[@Janzen1997]. Recently calculations became available which include quantum electrodynamical effect, relativistic effects and go beyond the Born Oppenheimer approximation. These supposedly most precise calculations predict a binding energy of 139.2 $\pm$ 2.9 neV[@Przybytek2010], which is in disagreement with the most recent experimental value of 94.8 +25.9/-17.2 neV obtained in pioneering experiments by evaluating matterwave diffraction patterns and relying on a detailed theoretical modelling of the interaction of the dimer with the grating surface[@Grisenti2000]. The present value of 151.9 $\pm$ 13.3 neV is in good agreement with the prediction of Przybytek et al.[@Przybytek2010] (139.2 $\pm$ 2.9 neV) and in clear disagreement with the predictions from some He-He interaction potentials, including the popular TTY[@Tang1995] and LM2M2[@Aziz1991] potentials yielding 114 and 113 neV, respectively. Figure \[fig\_vergleich\] displays the evolution of theoretical predictions over the years.\
![The predicted values for the helium dimer binding energy using various theoretical calculations (HFDHE2[@Aziz1979], HFIMD[@Feltgen1982], TT[@Tang1984], HFD-B(HE)[@Aziz1987], HFD-B2[@Aziz1990], LM2M2[@Aziz1991], LM2M2\*[@LuoInfluence1993], TTY[@Tang1995], HFD-B3-FCl1a[@Aziz1995], HFD-B3-FCl1b, SAPT[@Janzen1997; @Korona1997], Gdanitz[@Gdanitz2001], Jeziorska, Jeziorska ret.[@Jeziorska2007] and Przybytek[@Przybytek2010]) are displayed alongside experimental measurements from Luo et al.[@Luo1996], Grisenti et al.[@Grisenti2000] and the present work.[]{data-label="fig_vergleich"}](Jahr_vs_Bindungsenergie_4.png){width="0.6\columnwidth"}
Before concluding we add a discussion of the effects which contribute to the error of $\pm$13.3 neV which we give for our value of the binding energy. The major contributions to this error are the calibration of the COLTRIMS machine and the deviations from the axial recoil approximation for the Coulomb explosion. In the COLTRIMS spectrometer the crucial parameters are the absolute value of the electric field in the spectrometer and the position calibration of the detector.\
The electric field was obtained by measuring the kinetic energy release spectrum of the N$_2$ breakup which provides very narrow peaks. Transitions from D$^{3}\Pi$g and D$^{1}\Sigma$u$^{+}$ into continuum could be identified and met reference measurements[@Lundqvist1996] with a mean relative deviation of 0.054%. This yielded the calibration of the momentum component along the time-of-flight direction of the spectrometer.\
The position calibration was done by comparing the momentum component in the time-of-flight direction with the ones perpendicular to it. For this purpose we performed two calibration measurements with isotropic dissociation channels (N$_2$O / Ne$_2$). Most relevant, due to energetic proximity to the helium dimer breakup, is the N$_2$O channel at 0.16 eV KER with a mean relative deviation of 6.2%, while additional channels yield a smaller deviation with 0.62% (N$_2$O at 0.36 eV) and 0.15% (Ne$_2$ at 4.4 eV).\
For the experiment at FLASH, despite excellent vacuum conditions (8$\cdot$10$^{-12}$ mbar), an average of about 50 ions were collected for every FEL pulse. The majority of ions were charged hydrogen atoms or molecules with short times-of-flight, which could be gated out by software during data acquisition prior to writing to the hard drive. Nevertheless the MCP endured constant stress which led to a drop in detection efficiency in the center of the detector. The detection efficiency was corrected to its normal level using a residual gas calibration measurement with a Gaussian shaped correction function containing a 5.5% uncertainty. This leads to $\pm$1 neV uncertainty on the binding energy. In addition random coincidences from ionizations of two independent helium ions from the residual gas were subtracted. The error resulting from this background subtraction is small in comparison to errors discussed above ($\pm$0.4 neV). We also have excluded breakups recorded in the detector plane (with a tolerance of $\pm$33.5$^{\circ}$) as indistinguishable background and potentially deadtime effects compromised the data here.\
To image the exact shape of the probability density distribution by Coulomb explosion imaging the ionization probability has to be independent of the internuclear distance. Two consecutive tunnel ionization steps can be influenced by enhanced ionization[@Wu2013], an effect which depends on the internuclear distance. The steep rise of the probability density at the inner turning point is not very sensitive to this effect and could consequently be imaged by our experiment with an 800 nm laser pulse, which has superior statistics compared to the FEL experiment (see Fig. \[fig\_experiment\]). For the exponential region of the probability density we aim for a high precision determination of the slope. We therefore used photons from the free electron laser FLASH to ionize both atoms of the dimer by single photon absorption. Compared to an 800 nm laser pulse this has the additional advantage that the electron energy, and thus the recoil of the electrons onto the nuclei, is much better controlled and has an upper threshold.\
The initial ion energy during the Coulomb breakup has to be either zero or well defined as equation \[eq\_1\] assumes that the KER only results from the potential energy between the two point charges and that there is no additional energy from other sources. The two most important sources of such additional energy are the zero point kinetic energy from the bound state [@Schmidt2012] before ionization and the energy transferred during the ionization process by recoil of the escaping electron.\
The first is negligible for He$_2$, because the depth of the potential well is only 1 meV. We have also confirmed that by calculating the Coulomb explosion quantum mechanically. We found no difference in the KER between the classical calculation using equation \[eq\_1\] and the quantum calculation which automatically includes the initial state zero point motion (see[@Schmidt2012]).\
The energy transferred to the two nuclei during the ionization process at the FEL is given by the recoil of the two electrons. The sum momentum distribution of two electrons with a kinetic energy of E$_{\gamma}$ – I$_P$ = 42.4 eV each was calculated and is reflected in the measured data. For two independent ionization events the distribution of the sum momenta and the momentum difference of the electrons are equal. While the sum momentum cancels out in the KER calculation the relative momentum adds to it and increases the measured KER. This reduces the slope of the exponential decaying function by 12.1 neV. Taking this into account we obtain a binding energy value of 151.9 neV $\pm$1.7(stat) $\pm$10.2(calib) $\pm$1.4(corr) neV from our experiment. The statistical error is the error of the fit caused by the statistics of the data points, the calibration error is the uncertainty of the calibration of our COLTRIMS reaction microscope as discussed above and the error labeled (corr) is the estimated error on the correction procedure compensating the detector efficiency and subtraction of random coincidences.\
In conclusion the helium dimer is a remarkable example of a system existing predominantly in the quantum mechanical tunneling regime. We were able to reveal the full shape of the wavefunction experimentally. The measured data confirms the universal exponential behavior of wavefunctions under a potential barrier on unprecedented scales and yields a revised experimental value for the binding energy of the helium dimer, which has been under dispute for more than 20 years.
The experimental work was supported by a Reinhart Koselleck project of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. We are grateful for excellent support by the staff of FLASH during our beamtime. We thank R. Gentry and M. Przybytek for providing their theoretical results in numerical form.
[34]{}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 [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1088/0026-1394/50/5/417) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1063/1.4712218) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1063/1.2770721) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
address: |
Department of Physics, SMU, Dallas, TX 75275, USA\
E-mail: mccartor@mail.physics.smu.edu
author:
- Gary McCartor
title: REGULATING THE $P^+ = 0$ SINGULARITY
---
=cmr8
1.5pt
\#1\#2\#3\#4[[\#1]{} [**\#2**]{}, \#3 (\#4)]{}
\#1[\#1]{} \#1,\#2[[\#1\#2]{}]{} \#1[\#1]{}
Introduction
============
I want to discuss the problems involved in regulating the $p^+ = 0$ singularity, a task which always must be done when using the light-cone representation (or light-cone gauge) to study quantum field theories. The $p^+ = 0$ point can have singularities which are associated with both the ultraviolet and the infrared structure of the theories. I shall give some examples of each type of singularity. For the case of ultraviolet singularities I shall briefly discuss the case of the one loop correction to the mass in Yukawa theory. For the case of infrared singularities I shall discuss the Schwinger model — the best understood case.
In each case we shall see that there are issues, unfamiliar from the equal-time representation, with how to regulate the theory and with how to find the operator mixing which results from the regulation. At the end I shall remark briefly on the import (in my view) of the examples to the problem of performing practical calculations for realistic theories in the light-cone representation.
Ultraviolet Singularities
=========================
The first example formed the starting point for the work that Stan Brodsky, John Hiller and I have been doing for some time [@hi]. I want to use it to, among other things, warn you against an argument for the equivalence of the light-cone and equal-time representations, at least at the level of perturbation theory. The argument is sometimes given that if a finite (that is, regulated) Feynman integral is given by $$\int d^4k \quad f(k_\mu)$$ And if $$\int dk_+ \quad f(k_\mu) = g(k_-,k_\perp)$$ And if light-cone perturbation theory for the same quantity leads to the integral $$\int dk_- d^2k_\perp \quad g(k_-,k_\perp)$$ Then clearly, at least perturbatively, the two formulations are the same.
Not so [@bhm]. Let us look at an example. For scalar Yukawa theory it is known that one Pauli-Villars field is sufficient to regulate the Fermion self-mass. The one loop correction to the mass is easily written down as $$\tilde u(p) u(p) \delta m = {-i \alpha \over 4\pi^3} \tilde u(p) \int d^4k {\gamma\cdot (p - k) +m \over[(p - k)^2 - m^2 + i\epsilon][k^2 - \mu^2]} u(p) - [\mu\rightarrow\mu_1]$$ The integral can be evaluated in general but we need only the small-m limit, which is $$\delta m = -{3 \over 2} \alpha m \ln{\mu_1 \over \mu}$$ We recall particularly, that the correction to the mass is zero if the bare mass is zero. That result is true to all orders since the zero-bare-mass Fermion is protected from gaining a mass by a discrete chiral symmetry. We can easily calculate that &&(u(p) u(p))\^[-1]{}[-i 4\^3]{} u(p) dk\_+ [(p - k) +m ]{} u(p)) - \[\_1\] =\
&&[[p\^2\_\^2+(2p-q)\^2m\^2]{}]{} ) - \[\_1\] Furthermore, we find that light-cone perturbation theory gives \_[0]{}\^[p]{} [[dq]{}]{} d\^2q\_ - \[\_1\] It is easy to check that the above integral is divergent. If we use two Pauli-Villars fields we find that the light-cone integral is now finite, but is not equal to the Feynman result and not proportional to m. We get m = [8\^2]{}If we go to three Pauli-Villars fields the light-cone integral is both finite and proportional to m. Indeed, with three Pauli-Villars fields the renormalized light-cone series is equal to the renormalized Feynman series‘[@cy].
It is worthwhile understanding the source of the failure of the argument presented at the beginning of this section. The failure of the argument is due to the meaning of the word “convergent” when we say that the Feynman integral is “convergent”. The integral is conditionally convergent and thus any value ascribed to it is a prescription. The standard value presented above comes from the prescription: one Pauli-Villars field plus a Wick rotation. Since the integral is conditionally convergent it is guaranteed that there exists some way of expanding the domain of integration to cover the whole space such that any value will be obtained for the integral. The light-cone integral includes regions of the integration domain in an order not equivalent to a Wick rotation; the result might therefore be different and in this case it is.
If the “covariant regulator” is used, where the range of integration is limited by + [[ + m\^2]{}]{} the result for the Fermion self-mass is && The bad features of this result make it very difficult, perhaps impossible to devise an effective renormalization. These observations form the basis for the work of Brodsky, Hiller and McCartor [@bhm; @bhmp].
Infrared Singularities
======================
The example here is the Schwinger model. The Lagrangian for the Schwinger model in light-cone gauge is = i | \^ \_ - ,[4]{} F\^ F\_ - A\^ [J]{}\_ - A\^+ Notice that we have used a Lagrange multiplier, $\lambda$, to impliment the gauge choice. The degrees of freedom in $\lambda$ are essential to the solution and the reason has to do with regulating the $p^+ = 0$ singularity. The operator solution is [@nm] \_+ = Z\_+ e\^[\_+\^[(-)]{}]{}\_+ e\^[\_+\^[(+)]{}]{} \_+ = -i2((x\^+) + (x\^+,x\^-)) Z\_+\^2 = ,[8]{} \_- = \_- = Z\_-e\^[\_-\^[(-)]{}]{}\_- e\^[\_-\^[(+)]{}]{} Z\_-\^2 = ,[2]{} \_- = -i2(x\^+) =m\_[+]{}(-) A\_+ = ,[m]{} \_+ ( + ) In these relations = MASSIVE(m = ,) PSEUDOSCALAR = CHIRAL SCALAR ; = CHIRAL GHOST The chiral fields $\phi$ and $\eta$ are functions of $x^+$; they have been omitted from many previous formulations. Together they make up $\lambda$. All the massless fields are regulated by the Kleiber method \^[(+)]{}(x\^[+]{})=i(4)\^[-]{}\_[0]{}\^dk\_[+]{}k\_[+]{}\^[-1]{}d(k\_[+]{})([e]{}\^[-ik\_+ x\^+]{}- (-k\_[+]{})) The $x^+$-dependent fields are necessary to regulate the theory. Let us understand that point. The singularity in the Fermi products must be \_+\^\*(x+)\_+(x)\~,[2\^-]{} But for the part independent of the chiral fields we have :e\^[i2(x + )]{}::e\^[-i2(x)]{}:\~e\^[-2]{},[m\^2]{} ,[\^+\^-]{} For the part depending on the chiral fields we have e\^[i2\^[(-)]{}(x+)]{}\_+\^\*e\^[i2\^[(+)]{}(x+)]{}e\^[-i2\^[(-)]{}(x)]{}\_+e\^[-i2\^[(+)]{}(x)]{}\~e\^\^+ Thus the chiral fields are essential for regulating the infrared singularity. The chiral fields, necessary for regulation the theory, have other important effects. When the completion necessary to form the full representation space is done, additional states, not in the representation space of free theory, are included. These are translationally invariant and can mix with the vacuum; indeed gauge invariance requires that they mix with the vacuum to form a vacuum of the $\theta$-state form. In such a state, $\bar \Psi \Psi$ has a nonzero expectation value.
The chiral fields have no effect on the spectrum as long as the bare mass is zero. But if the bare mass, $\mu$, is not zero, the interaction between the chiral fields and the physical fields leads to a new term in $P^-$ which does act in the physical subspace. We find that in the physical subspace the operator is P\^- \_-\^\*\_+ Z\_-Z\_+ dx\^- + C.C. \[eq:pm\] Where the wavefunction renormalization constants have the small-$\mu$ expansions Z\_- = Z\_+() = +() Z\_+ = Z\_+() = +() and, more generally, are determined by the relations {\_+(x\^+),\_+(x\^+ + \_+)} = (\_+) {\_-(x),\_-(x + \_[spacelike]{})} = (\_[spacelike]{}) This operator provides a shift in the mass-squared of the physical Schwinger particle of $2 m \mu e^\gamma cos\theta$, where $\theta$ is the vacuum angle. In this sense the Schwinger model provides a model for the $\eta^\prime$. It gets a mass from the anomaly which is independent of the bare mass, then has a term in the mass squared which is linear in the bare mass and linear in the chiral condensate.
Once we have identified the new term, we can drop the chiral fields and use DLCQ. If we stay in the continuum we can calculate the renormalization constants as above (at least in principle); in DLCQ we would have to fit them to data.
Remarks
=======
Regulating the $p^+ = 0$ singularity induces additional operators into the theory. The form of the operators depends on the regulator used. It is not clear to me that all regulators will allow an effective renormalization; certainly some will make renormalization much more difficult than others. All of this is familiar from the equal-time representation.
What is new to the light-cone representation is the unfamiliar form the new operators take and, it seems, the greater difficulty in finding them. I am still hopeful that for the ultraviolet singularities, procedures such as using Pauli-Villars fields may provide a more or less automatic way of including the necessary operators. I do not think that that will prove to be true in the case of infrared singularities, particularly for gauge theories. I believe that operators similar to that of equation (\[eq:pm\]) will occur in four dimensions and will provide the mechanism for chiral symmetry breaking. I do not believe that the light-quark hadrons can be correctly treated without these operators. I do not yet know of an automatic procedure for finding them, but our knowlege of them is growing.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{} J. Hiller, [*This Volume*]{}
S. Brodsky, J. Hiller and G. McCartor, .
S.-J. Chang and T.-M. Yan, .
S. Brodsky, J. Hiller and G. McCartor, .
Y. Nakawaki and G. McCartor, [*Prog. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**103**]{}, 161 (2000).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
nocite: '[@*]'
---
[**Proof of a conjecture involving Sun polynomials**]{}
Victor J. W. Guo$^1$, Guo-Shuai Mao$^2$, Hao Pan$^3$
$^1$School of Mathematical Sciences, Huaiyin Normal University, Huai’an, Jiangsu 223300, People’s Republic of China\
[jwguo@hytc.edu.cn]{}
$^{2,3}$Department of Mathematics, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, People’s Republic of China\
[mg1421007@smail.nju.edu.cn, haopan79@zoho.com]{}
0.7cm [**Abstract.**]{} The Sun polynomials $g_n(x)$ are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
g_n(x)=\sum_{k=0}^n{n\choose k}^2{2k\choose k}x^k.\end{aligned}$$ We prove that, for any positive integer $n$, there hold $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}(4k+3)g_k(x) \in\mathbb{Z}[x],\quad\text{and}\\
&\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}(8k^2+12k+5)g_k(-1)\equiv 0\pmod{n}.\end{aligned}$$ The first one confirms a recent conjecture of Z.-W. Sun, while the second one partially answers another conjecture of Z.-W. Sun. We give three different proofs of the former. One of them depends on the following congruence: $${m+n-2\choose m-1}{n\choose m}{2n\choose n}\equiv 0\pmod{m+n}\quad\text{for $m,n\geqslant 1$.}$$
[*Keywords*]{}: congruence; Sun polynomials; Chu-Vandermonde’s identity; $q$-binomial coefficients; reciprocal and unimodal polynomials; Zeilberger’s algorithm.
[*MR Subject Classifications*]{}: 11A07, 11B65, 05A10
Introduction
============
Recently, Z.-W. Sun [@Sun] introduced the polynomials $$\begin{aligned}
g_n(x)=\sum_{k=0}^n{n\choose k}^2{2k\choose k}x^k,\end{aligned}$$ which we call [*Sun polynomials*]{} here, and proved many interesting identities and congruences involving $g_n(x)$, such as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{3n^2}\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}(4k+3)g_k
&=\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\frac{1}{k+1}{2k\choose k}{n-1\choose k}^2,\\[5pt]
\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}kg_k
&\equiv -\frac{3}{4} \pmod{p^2},\end{aligned}$$ where $p$ is an odd prime and $g_k=g_k(1)$. Z.-W. Sun [@Sunnew] also conjectured that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{16k+5}{324^k}{2k\choose k}g_k(-20)=\frac{189}{25\pi}.\end{aligned}$$ Some other congruences involving $g_n$ can be found in [@MS; @Sun13; @Sunnew].
The Sun polynomials also satisfy the following identities[@Sun (2.7),(2.11)]: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=0}^n {n\choose k}f_k(x) &=g_n(x),\\[5pt]
\sum_{k=0}^n {n\choose k}{n+k\choose k}(-1)^{n-k}g_k(x) &=A_n(x),\end{aligned}$$ where $f_n(x)$ and $A_n(x)$ are respectively the Franel polynomials and Apéry polynomials [@Sun00] defined as $$\begin{aligned}
f_n(x)&=\sum_{k=0}^{n}{n\choose k}^2{2k\choose n}x^k,\\[5pt]
A_n(x)&=\sum_{k=0}^{n}{n\choose k}^2 {n+k\choose k}^2 x^k.\end{aligned}$$
The objective of this paper is to prove the following result, which was originally conjectured by Z.-W. Sun (see [@Sun Conjecture 4.1(ii)]).
\[thm:1\] Let $n$ be a positive integer. Then $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}(4k+3)g_k(x) \in\mathbb{Z}[x], \label{eq:first}\\
&\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}(8k^2+12k+5)g_k(-1)\equiv 0\pmod{n}, \label{eq:second}.\end{aligned}$$
[*Remark.*]{} For the congruence , Z.-W. Sun [@Sun] made the following stronger conjecture: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}(8k^2+12k+5)g_k(-1) &\equiv n^2\pmod{2n^2}, \label{eq:second-2}\\
\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}(8k^2+12k+5)g_k(-1) &\equiv 3p^2\pmod{p^3}, \label{eq:third-2}\end{aligned}$$ where $p$ is a prime.
In order to prove Theorem \[thm:1\], we need to establish some preliminary results in Section \[sec:lemmas\]. However, since the following result is interesting in its own right, we label it as a theorem here.
\[thm:2\] Let $m$ and $n$ be positive integers. Then $$\begin{aligned}
{m+n-2\choose m-1}{n\choose m}{2n\choose n}\equiv 0\pmod{m+n}. \label{eq:important}\end{aligned}$$
It is worth mentioning that Gessel [@Gessel Section 7] proved a similar result as follows: $$\frac{m}{2}{2m\choose m}{2n\choose n}\equiv 0\pmod{m+n},$$ of which a generalization was given by the author [@Guo Theorem 1.4].
The paper is organized as follows. Applying the same techniques in [@Guo; @GK], we shall prove a $q$-analogue of Theorem \[thm:2\] in the next section. In Section 3, we give three lemmas, one of which is closely related to Theorem \[thm:2\]. Two proofs of and a proof of will be given in Section 4. The second proof of is motivated by Sun [@Sun Lemma 3.4] and its proof. We shall also give a $q$-analogue (the third proof) of in Section 5. We end the paper in Section 6 with a related conjecture.
A $q$-analogue of Theorem \[thm:2\]
===================================
Recall that the [*$q$-binomial coefficients*]{} are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
{n\brack k}_q
=\begin{cases}
\displaystyle \prod_{i=1}^{k}\frac{1-q^{n-k+i}}{1-q^i},
&\text{if $0\leqslant k\leqslant n,$} \\[10pt]
0, &\text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ We now state the announced strengthening of Theorem \[thm:2\].
\[thm:q-analog\] Let $m$ and $n$ be positive integers. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1-q}{1-q^{m+n}}{m+n-2\brack m-1}_q{n\brack m}_q{2n\brack n}_q \label{eq:q-analog}\end{aligned}$$ is a polynomial in $q$ with non-negative integer coefficients.
It is clear that Theorem \[thm:2\] can be deduced from Theorem \[thm:q-analog\] by letting $q\to 1$.
A polynomial $A(q)=
\sum _{i=0} ^{d}a_iq^i$ in $q$ of degree $d$ is called [*reciprocal*]{} if $a_i=a_{d-i}$ for all $i$, and that it is called [*unimodal*]{} if there is an index $r$ such that $0\leqslant a_0\leqslant\dots
\leqslant a_r\geqslant\dots\geqslant a_d\geqslant 0$. The following is an elementary but crucial property of reciprocal and unimodal polynomials (see, for example, [@Andrews75] or [@Stanley89 Proposition 1]).
\[lem:AqBq\] If $A(q)$ and $B(q)$ are reciprocal and unimodal polynomials, then so is their product $A(q)B(q)$.
Similarly to the proof of [@GK Theorem 3.1], we also need the following result. We refer the reader to [@ReSWAA Proposition 10.1.(iii)] and [@AndrCB Proof of Theorem 2] for similar mathematical ideas.
[[@GK Lemma 5.1]]{} \[lem:RSW\] Let $P(q)$ be a reciprocal and unimodal polynomial and $m$ and $n$ positive integers with $m\leqslant n$. Furthermore, assume that $\frac {1-q^m} {1-q^n}P(q)$ is a polynomial in $q$. Then $\frac {1-q^m} {1-q^n}P(q)$ has non-negative coefficients.
[*Proof of Theorem [\[thm:q-analog\].]{}*]{} It is well known that the $q$-binomial coefficients are reciprocal and unimodal polynomials in $q$ (see, for example, [@Stanley Ex. 7.75.d]). By Lemma \[lem:AqBq\], so is the product of three $q$-binomial coefficients. In view of Lemma \[lem:RSW\], to prove Theorem \[thm:q-analog\], it suffices to show that the expression is a polynomial in $q$. We shall accomplish this by considering a count of cyclotomic polynomials.
Recall that $$q^n-1=\prod _{d\mid n} ^{}\Phi_d(q),$$ where $\Phi_d(q)$ denotes the $d$-th cyclotomic polynomial in $q$. Therefore, $$\frac{1-q}{1-q^{m+n}}{m+n-2\brack m-1}_q{n\brack m}_q{2n\brack n}_q
=\prod _{d=2} ^{2n}\Phi_d(q)^{e_d},$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
e_d&
={}-\chi(d\mid m+n)
+{\left\lfloor\frac{\frac {m+n-2} {d}}{+}\right\rfloor}{\left\lfloor\frac{\frac {2n} {d}}{\notag}\right\rfloor}\\
&\quad{}-{\left\lfloor\frac{\frac {m-1} {d}}{-}\right\rfloor}{\left\lfloor\frac{\frac {n-1} {d}}{-}\right\rfloor}{\left\lfloor\frac{\frac {m} {d}}{-}\right\rfloor}
{\left\lfloor\frac{\frac {n} {d}}{-}\right\rfloor}{\left\lfloor\frac{\frac {n-m} {d}}{,}\right\rfloor} $$ where $\chi(\mathcal S)=1$ if $\mathcal S$ is true and $\chi(\mathcal S)=0$ otherwise. The number $e_d$ is obviously non-negative, unless $d\mid m+n$.
So, let us assume that $d\mid m+n$ and $d\geqslant 2$. We consider two cases: If $d\mid m$, then $d\mid n$, and so $$\begin{aligned}
\left\lfloor\frac{m+n-2}{d}\right\rfloor-\left\lfloor\frac{m-1}{d}\right\rfloor-\left\lfloor\frac{n-1}{d}\right\rfloor
=\frac{m+n-d}{d}-\frac{m-d}{d}-\frac{n-d}{d}=1.\end{aligned}$$ Namely, $e_d=0$ is non-negative; If $d\nmid m$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\left\lfloor\frac{2n}{d}\right\rfloor-\left\lfloor\frac{m}{d}\right\rfloor-\left\lfloor\frac{n}{d}\right\rfloor
-\left\lfloor\frac{n-m}{d}\right\rfloor
=\frac{m+n}{d}-\left\lfloor\frac{m}{d}\right\rfloor-\left\lfloor\frac{n}{d}\right\rfloor
=1.\end{aligned}$$ That is, $e_d=0$ is still non-negative. This completes the proof of polynomiality of . [[$\square$]{}]{}
Some preliminary results {#sec:lemmas}
========================
\[lem:one\] Let $n$ be a non-negative integer. Then $$\begin{aligned}
{x\choose n}^2=\sum_{k=0}^{n}{x\choose n+k}{n+k\choose k}{n\choose k}. \label{eq:chu-van}\end{aligned}$$
[[*Proof.*]{} ]{}Applying Chu-Vandermonde’s identity (see, for example, [@Koepf p. 32]) $$\begin{aligned}
{x\choose n}=\sum_{k=0}^{n}{x-n\choose k}{n\choose k},\end{aligned}$$ and noticing that ${x\choose n}{x-n\choose k}={x\choose n+k}{n+k\choose k}$, we obtain . In fact, Eq. is a special case of [@Riordan p. 15, Eq. (9)]. [[$\square$]{}]{}
\[lem:two\] Let $n$ be a positive integer and let $0\leqslant k\leqslant n$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{m=k}^{n-1}(4m+3){m\choose k}&=(4n-1){n\choose k+1}-4{n\choose k+2}, \\[5pt]
\sum_{m=k}^{n-1}(8m^2+12m+5){m\choose k}&=(8n^2-4n+1){n\choose k+1}-(16n-12){n\choose k+2}+16{n\choose k+3}.\end{aligned}$$
[[*Proof.*]{} ]{}Proceed by induction on $n$. [[$\square$]{}]{}
\[lem:three\] Let $m$ and $n$ be non-negative integers. Then $$\begin{aligned}
{m+n\choose m}{n+1\choose m}{2n\choose n}\frac{3m^2+n^2+m+n}{(m+n)(n+1)}\equiv 0\pmod{m+n+1}.\end{aligned}$$
[[*Proof.*]{} ]{}Note that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{3m^2+n^2+m+n}{(m+n)(n+1)}=\frac{3m(m+n+1)}{(m+n)(n+1)}+\frac{n(m+n+1)}{(m+n)(n+1)}-\frac{2m(2n+1)}{(m+n)(n+1)}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\frac{1}{n+1}{2n\choose n}={2n\choose n}-{2n\choose n-1}$ is an integer (the $n$-th Catalan number), we see that $$\begin{aligned}
{m+n\choose m}{2n\choose n}\frac{m}{(m+n)(n+1)}={m+n-1\choose m-1}{2n\choose n}\frac{1}{n+1},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{m+n\choose m}{2n\choose n}\frac{n}{(m+n)(n+1)}={m+n-1\choose m}{2n\choose n}\frac{1}{n+1},\end{aligned}$$ are both integers. It remains to show that $$\begin{aligned}
{m+n\choose m}{n+1\choose m}{2n\choose n}\frac{2m(2n+1)}{(m+n)(n+1)}\equiv 0\pmod{m+n+1},\end{aligned}$$ i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
{m+n-1\choose m-1}{n+1\choose m}{2n+2\choose n+1}\equiv 0\pmod{m+n+1}.\end{aligned}$$ But this is just the $n\to n+1$ case of the congruence . [[$\square$]{}]{}
Let $$\begin{aligned}
S_n=f_{n-3}(-1)=\sum_{k=0}^{n-3}(-1)^k{2k\choose k}{n-3\choose k}{k\choose n-k-3}. $$ Then there hold the following congruences: $$\begin{aligned}
S_{3n}&\equiv S_{3n+1}\equiv -S_{3n+2}\pmod{3}, \label{eq:rec-10}\\
S_{4n+2}&\equiv 0\pmod{4}, \label{eq:rec-11}\\
S_{n+2}+12S_{n+1}+16S_n &\equiv 0\pmod{n}. \label{eq:rec-1}\end{aligned}$$
[[*Proof.*]{} ]{}Zeilberger’s algorithm [@Koepf; @PWZ] gives the following recurrence relation for $S_n$: $$\begin{aligned}
&(5n^3-8n^2)S_{n+3}+(45n^3-117n^2+90n-24)S_{n+2} \notag\\
&\quad{}+(200n^3-720n^2+824n-288)S_{n+1}+(160n^3-736n^2+1024n-384)S_n=0.
\label{eq:rec}\end{aligned}$$ Replacing $n$ by $3n-1$ in , we obtain $$-S_{3n+2}-S_{3n}\equiv 0\pmod 3,$$ while replacing $n$ by $3n+1$ in , we get $$S_{3n+2}+S_{3n+1}\equiv 0\pmod 3.$$ This proves . Similarly, replacing $n$ by $4n-1$ in , we are led to .
In order to prove , we need to consider four cases:
- If $\gcd(n,24)=1$, then means that $-24(S_{n+2}+12S_{n+1}+16S_n)\equiv 0\pmod{n}$, i.e., the congruence holds.
- If $\gcd(n,24)=2,4,8$, then means that $$\pm 2nS_{n+2}-24(S_{n+2}+12S_{n+1}+16S_n)\equiv 0\pmod{8n}.$$ By , we have $2nS_{n+2}\equiv 0\pmod{8n}$ in this case, and so the congruence holds.
- If $\gcd(n,24)=3$, then means that $$2nS_{n+1}+nS_n-24(S_{n+2}+12S_{n+1}+16S_n)\equiv 0\pmod{3n}.$$ By , we have $2nS_{n+1}+nS_n\equiv 0\pmod{3n}$ in this case, and so the congruence holds.
- If $\gcd(n,24)=6,12,24$, then means that $$30nS_{n+2}+8nS_{n+1}+16nS_n-24(S_{n+2}+12S_{n+1}+16S_n)\equiv 0\pmod{24n},\quad\text{or}$$ $$18nS_{n+2}+8nS_{n+1}+16nS_n-24(S_{n+2}+12S_{n+1}+16S_n)\equiv 0\pmod{24n}.$$ By , we have $30nS_{n+2}\equiv 18nS_{n+2}\equiv 0\pmod{24n}$ and $8nS_{n+1}+16nS_n\equiv 0\pmod{24n}$ in this case, and so the congruence still holds.
[[$\square$]{}]{}
Proof of Theorem \[thm:1\]
===========================
[*First Proof of .*]{} By Lemmas \[lem:one\] and \[lem:two\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\hskip -2mm \sum_{m=0}^{n-1}(4m+3)g_m(x) \notag\\[5pt]
&=\sum_{m=0}^{n-1}(4m+3)\sum_{k=0}^{m}{m\choose k}^2{2k\choose k}x^k \notag\\[5pt]
&=\sum_{m=0}^{n-1}(4m+3)\sum_{k=0}^{m}{2k\choose k}x^k\sum_{i=0}^k{m\choose k+i}{k+i\choose i}{k\choose i} \notag\\[5pt]
&=\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}{2k\choose k}x^k\sum_{i=0}^k {k+i\choose i}{k\choose i} \sum_{m=k+i}^{n-1}(4m+3){m\choose k+i} \notag\\[5pt]
&=\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}{2k\choose k}x^k\sum_{i=0}^k \left((4n-1){n\choose k+i+1}-4{n\choose k+i+2}\right){k+i\choose i}{k\choose i}. \label{eq:multi-sum}\end{aligned}$$ For any non-negative integer $k\leqslant n-1$, to prove that the coefficient of $x^k$ in the right-hand side of is a multiple of $n$, it suffices to show that $$\begin{aligned}
{2k\choose k}\sum_{i=0}^k \left({n\choose k+i+1}+4{n\choose k+i+2}\right){k+i\choose i}{k\choose i}\equiv 0\pmod{n}. \label{eq:single-sum}\end{aligned}$$
We shall accomplish the proof of by using a minor trick. Rewrite the left-hand side of as $$\begin{aligned}
&\hskip -2mm {2k\choose k}\sum_{i=0}^{k+1} {n\choose k+i+1}\left({k+i\choose i}{k\choose i}+4{k+i-1\choose i-1}{k\choose i-1}\right) \\
&= \sum_{i=0}^{k+1} {n\choose k+i+1}{k+i\choose i}{k+1\choose i}{2k\choose k}\frac{k^2+3i^2+k+i}{(k+i)(k+1)}.\end{aligned}$$ Then, by Lemma \[lem:three\], for each $i\leqslant k+1$, the expression $${k+i\choose i}{k+1\choose i}{2k\choose k}\frac{k^2+3i^2+k+i}{(k+i)(k+1)}.$$ is a multiple of $k+i+1$. Finally, noticing that $${n\choose k+i+1}(k+i+1)=n{n-1\choose k+i}\equiv 0\pmod{n},$$ we complete the proof. [[$\square$]{}]{}
[*Second Proof of .*]{} This proof is motivated by [@Sun Lemma 3.4 and its proof]. It is clear that is equivalent to the following congruence: $$\begin{aligned}
{2j\choose j}\sum_{k=j}^{n-1}(4k+3){k\choose j}^2\equiv 0\pmod n. \label{eq:mao}\end{aligned}$$ Denote the left-hand side of by $u_j$. Then by Zeilberger’s algorithm [@PWZ], we have $$\begin{aligned}
u_{j+1}-u_j&=-{2j\choose j}{n-1\choose j}^2\frac{(9j+6)(j+1)n^2+(12j^2-8jn-4n+14j+4)n^3}{(j+1)^3(j+2)} \notag\\[5pt]
&=-{2j\choose j}{n-1\choose j}{n+1\choose j+1}\frac{(9j+6)n^2}{(j+1)(n+1)} \notag\\[5pt]
&\quad{}-{2j\choose j}{n\choose j+1}{n+1\choose j+1}\frac{(12j^2-8jn-4n+14j+4)n^2}{(j+1)(n+1)}. \label{eq:uj-rec}\end{aligned}$$ Noticing that $\frac{1}{j+1}{2j\choose j}$ is an integer and $n+1$ is relatively prime to $n$, from we immediately get $$u_{j+1}-u_j\equiv0\pmod n.$$ Since $u_0=2n^2+n\equiv0\pmod n$, we conclude that $u_j\equiv0\pmod n$ for all $j$. This proves .
[*Proof of .*]{} By Lemmas \[lem:one\] and \[lem:two\], similarly to , we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\hskip -2mm \sum_{m=0}^{n-1}(8m^2+12m+5)g_m(-1) \notag\\[5pt]
&=\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}{2k\choose k}(-1)^k\sum_{i=0}^k \Bigg((8n^2-4n+1){n\choose k+i+1}-(16n-12){n\choose k+i+2} \notag\\
&\qquad{}+16{n\choose k+i+3}\Bigg){k+i\choose i}{k\choose i}. \label{eq:multi-sum-2}\end{aligned}$$ In view of , it follows from that $$\begin{aligned}
&\hskip -2mm
\sum_{m=0}^{n-1}(8m^2+12m+5)g_m(-1) \notag\\[5pt]
&\equiv \sum_{k=0}^{n-1}{2k\choose k}(-1)^k\sum_{i=0}^k \left({n\choose k+i+1}+12{n\choose k+i+2}+16{n\choose k+i+3}\right) \notag \\
&\qquad{}\times{k+i\choose i}{k\choose i} \notag \\
&=\sum_{m=0}^{n-1} \left({n\choose m+1}+12{n\choose m+2}+16{n\choose m+3}\right) \notag\\
&\qquad{}\times\sum_{k=0}^{m}(-1)^k{2k\choose k}{m\choose k}{k\choose m-k} \pmod{2n^2}. \label{eq:multi-sum-3}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the right-hand side of may be written as $$\begin{aligned}
&\hskip -2mm\sum_{m=0}^{n-1} \left({n\choose m+1}+12{n\choose m+2}+16{n\choose m+3}\right) S_{m+3} \notag\\
&=\sum_{m=1}^{n}{n\choose m}(S_{m+2}+12S_{m+1}+16S_m), \label{eq:rewrite}\end{aligned}$$ which is clearly congruent to $0$ modulo $n$ by and the fact that $m{n\choose m}=n{n-1\choose m-1}$. [[$\square$]{}]{}
A $q$-analogue of
==================
Define the $q$-analogue of Sun polynomials as follows: $$g_n(x;q)=\sum_{k=0}^n {n\brack k}_{q}^2 {2k\brack k}_{q}x^k.$$ We have the following congruences related to $g_n(x;q)$.
\[thm:5\] Let $n$ be a positive integer. Then $$\begin{aligned}
&(1+q)^2\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}q^{2k}[k+1]_{q^{2}}g_k(x;q^2)
\equiv \sum_{k=0}^{n-1}q^{2k}g_k(x;q^2)\pmod{\prod_{\substack{d\mid n\\ d>1\text{ is odd}}}\Phi_d(q)}, \label{oddcong} \\
&\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}q^{k}g_k(x;q)
\equiv 0\pmod{\prod_{\substack{d\mid n\\ d\text{ is even}}}\Phi_d(q)}, \label{evencong1}\\
&\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}x^j [j+1]_{q^2}{2j\brack j}_q\sum_{k=j}^{n-1}q^k{k\brack j}_q {k+1\brack j+1}_q
\equiv 0\pmod{\prod_{\substack{d\mid n\\ d>2\text{ is even}}}\Phi_d(q)}, \label{evencong2}\end{aligned}$$ where $[n]_q=\frac{1-q^n}{1-q}$ denotes a $q$-integer.
[[*Proof.*]{} ]{}It is clear that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}q^{2k}[k+1]_{q^{2}}g_k(x;q^2)&=
\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}q^{2k}[k+1]_{q^{2}}\sum_{j=0}^k {k\brack j}_{q^2}^2{2j\brack j}_{q^2}x^j \\
&=\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}[j+1]_{q^2}{2j\brack j}_{q^2}x^j\sum_{k=j}^{n-1}q^{2k}
{k+1\brack j+1}_{q^2}{k\brack j}_{q^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Suppose that $d\mid n$ and $d$ is odd. It is easy to see that $\Phi_d(q)$ divides $\Phi_d(q^2)$. Write $j=\gamma d+\delta$, where $0\leqslant \delta\leqslant d-1$. If $d\leqslant 2\delta$, then by the $q$-Lucas theorem (see Olive [@Olive], Désarménien [@Des Proposition 2.2] or Guo and Zeng [@GZ Proposition 2.1]), $${2j\brack j}_{q^2}\equiv {2\gamma+1\choose \gamma}{2\delta-d\brack \delta}_{q^2}=0\pmod{\Phi_d(q)}.$$ Now assume that $\delta\leqslant \frac{d-1}{2}$. Then applying the $q$-Lucas theorem, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{oddqlucas}
\sum_{k=j}^{n-1}q^{2k}
{k+1\brack j+1}_{q^2} {k\brack j}_{q^2}=&\sum_{\alpha=0}^{\frac{n}{d}-1}\sum_{\beta=0}^{d-1}
q^{2(\alpha d+\beta)}
{\alpha d+\beta+1\brack \gamma d+\delta+1}_{q^2} {\alpha d+\beta\brack \gamma d+\delta}_{q^2}\notag\\
\equiv&\sum_{\alpha=0}^{\frac{n}{d}-1}\binom{\alpha}{\gamma}^2
\sum_{\beta=0}^{d-1}q^{2\beta} {\beta+1\brack \delta+1}_{q^2} {\beta\brack \delta}_{q^2}\pmod{\Phi_d(q)}.\end{aligned}$$
It is easy to see that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{oddcv}
\sum_{\beta=0}^{d-1}
q^{2\beta}
{\beta+1 \brack \delta+1}_{q^2} {\beta\brack \delta}_{q^2}
&=\sum_{r=0}^{d-1-\delta}q^{2r+2\delta}
{r+\delta+1\brack \delta+1}_{q^2} {r+\delta\brack \delta}_{q^2}\notag\\
&=\sum_{r=0}^{d-1-\delta}q^{2\delta+6r+4r\delta+2r^2}
{-\delta-2\brack r}_{q^2} {-\delta-1\brack r}_{q^2}\notag\\
&\equiv \sum_{r=0}^{d-1-\delta}q^{2(d-2-\delta-r)(d-1-\delta-r)-4\delta-2\delta^2-4}
{d-\delta-2 \brack r}_{q^2} {d-\delta-1\brack d-\delta-1-r}_{q^2}\notag\\
&= q^{-4\delta-2\delta^2-4}{2d-2\delta-3\brack d-1-\delta}_{q^2}\pmod{\Phi_{d}(q)},\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the $q$-Chu-Vandemonde identity (see [@Andrews98 (3.3.10)]) in the last step. Furthermore, we have $${2d-2\delta-3\brack d-1-\delta}_{q^2}\equiv 0\pmod{\Phi_d(q)}$$ for $\delta\leqslant \frac{d-3}{2}$. This proves that $$\begin{aligned}
&\hskip -2mm
\sum_{k=j}^{n-1}q^{2k}
{k+1\brack j+1}_{q^2} {k\brack j}_{q^2} \\
&\equiv \begin{cases} \displaystyle \sum_{\alpha=0}^{\frac{n}{d}-1}\binom{\alpha}{\gamma}^2 q^{\frac{d-5}{2}}{d-2\brack \frac{d-1}{2}}_{q^2},&\text{if $j\equiv \frac{d-1}{2}\pmod d$,}
\\[10pt]
0,&\text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}\pmod{\Phi_d(q)}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, writing $j=\gamma d+\frac{d-1}{2}$ and applying the $q$-Lucas theorem, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\hskip -2mm
\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}[j+1]_{q^2} {2j\brack j}_{q^2}x^j\sum_{k=j}^{n-1}q^{2k}
{k+1\brack j+1}_{q^2} {k\brack j}_{q^2}\\
&\equiv \sum_{\gamma=0}^{\frac{n}{d}-1}\sum_{\alpha=0}^{\frac{n}{d}-1}{2\gamma\choose\gamma}{\alpha\choose\gamma}^2x^{\gamma d+\frac{d-1}{2}}
q^{\frac{d-5}{2}}\left[\frac{d+1}{2}\right]_{q^2} {d-1\brack \frac{d-1}{2}}_{q^2} {d-2\brack \frac{d-1}{2}}_{q^2}\\
&\equiv \sum_{\gamma=0}^{\frac{n}{d}-1}\sum_{\alpha=0}^{\frac{n}{d}-1}{\alpha\choose\gamma}^2
\frac{x^{\gamma d+\frac{d-1}{2}}}{q(1+q)^2}\pmod{\Phi_d(q)},\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the congruence $${d-1\brack k}_{q^2}\equiv(-1)^k q^{-k(k+1)}\pmod{\Phi_d(q)}\quad\text{for }0\leqslant k\leqslant d-1.$$
On the other hand, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}q^{2k}g_k(x;q^2)
=\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} {2j\brack j}_{q^2}x^j\sum_{k=j}^{n-1}q^{2k} {k\brack j}_{q^2}^2.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly as before, if $j=\gamma d+\delta$ and $\delta\leqslant \frac{d-1}{2}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kj2}
\sum_{k=j}^{n-1}q^{2k}
{k\brack j}_{q^2}^2
&\equiv\sum_{\alpha=0}^{\frac{n}{d}-1}{\alpha\choose\gamma}^2 \sum_{\beta=0}^{d-1}
q^{2\beta}{\beta\brack \delta}_{q^2}^2\notag\\
&=\sum_{\alpha=0}^{\frac{n}{d}-1}{\alpha\choose\gamma}^2 \sum_{r=0}^{d-\delta-1}
q^{2\delta+4r+4r\delta+2r^2} {-\delta-1\brack r}_{q^2}^2\notag\\
&\equiv \sum_{\alpha=0}^{\frac{n}{d}-1}{\alpha\choose\gamma}^2 q^{-2\delta-2\delta^2-2}{2d-2\delta-2\brack d-1-\delta}_{q^2}^2\pmod{\Phi_d(q)}.\end{aligned}$$ It is obvious that the right-hand side of divisible by $\Phi_d(q)$ for $\delta\leqslant \frac{d-3}{2}$, which means that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}q^{2k}g_k(x;q^2)
&\equiv
\sum_{\gamma=0}^{\frac{n}{d}-1}\sum_{\alpha=0}^{\frac{n}{d}-1}{2\gamma\choose\gamma}{\alpha\choose\gamma}^2 x^{\gamma d+\frac{d-1}{2}}
q^{\frac{d-3}{2}} {d-1\brack \frac{d-1}{2}}_{q^2}^2\\
&\equiv \sum_{\gamma=0}^{\frac{n}{d}-1}\sum_{\alpha=0}^{\frac{n}{d}-1}{2\gamma\choose\gamma}{\alpha\choose\gamma}^2
\frac{x^{\gamma d+\frac{d-1}{2}}}{q} \pmod{\Phi_d(q)}.\end{aligned}$$ This proves .
Now assume that $d$ is an even divisor of $n$. Similarly to , we have $$\sum_{k=j}^{n-1}q^{k} {k\brack j}_{q}^2\equiv 0\pmod{\Phi_d(q)}\quad\text{for $j=\gamma d+\delta$ and $0\leqslant \delta\leqslant \frac{d}{2}-1$.}$$ On the other hand, if $j=\gamma d+\delta$ with $\frac{d}{2}\leqslant \delta\leqslant d-1$, then by the $q$-Lucas theorem, we obtain $${2j\brack j}_{q}={2\gamma d+2\delta\brack \gamma d+\delta}_{q}\equiv 0\pmod{\Phi_d(q)}.$$ This proves .
Suppose that $d>2$ is even and $d\mid n$. Similarly to and , we get $$\sum_{k=j}^{n-1}q^k {k\brack j}_q {k+1\brack j+1}_q\equiv \sum_{\alpha=0}^{\frac{n}{d}-1}{\alpha\choose\gamma}^2
q^{-2\delta-\delta^2-2} {2d-2\delta-3\brack d-1-\delta}_{q}\equiv0\pmod{\Phi_d(q)}$$ for $j=\gamma d+\delta$ and $0\leqslant \delta\leqslant \frac{d}{2}-2$. On the other hand, if $j=\gamma d+\delta$ with $\frac{d}{2}\leqslant \delta\leqslant d-1$, then $${2j\brack j}_q\equiv0\pmod{\Phi_d(q)}.$$ while if $j=\gamma d+\frac{d}{2}-1$, then $$[j+1]_{q^2}\equiv\frac{1-q^d}{1-q^2}\equiv0\pmod{\Phi_d(q)}.$$ This proves . [[$\square$]{}]{}
Recall that for $d>1$, we have $$\Phi_d(1)=\begin{cases} p,&\text{if }d=p^\alpha\text{ is a prime power},\\
1&\text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ Write $n=2^{r}n_1$, where $n_1$ is an odd integer. Then $$\prod_{\substack{d\mid n\\ d>1\text{ is odd}}}\Phi_d(1)=n_1,
\quad\text{and}\quad \prod_{\substack{d\mid n\\ d\text{ is even}}}\Phi_d(1)=2^{r}.$$ Letting $q=1$ in –, we immediately get $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}(4k+3)g_k(x)\equiv 0\pmod{n_1}, \label{eq:final-1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
2\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}kg_k(x)\equiv \sum_{k=0}^{n-1}g_k(x)\equiv 0\pmod{2^{r}}. \label{eq:final-2}\end{aligned}$$ It is clear that follows from and . Therefore, Theorem \[thm:5\] may be deemed a $q$-analogue of .
An open problem
===============
Numerical calculation suggests the following conjecture on congruences involving $S_n$.
Let $n$ be a positive integer and $p$ a prime. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=1}^{n}(-1)^k\frac{S_{k+2}+12S_{k+1}+16S_k}{k} &\equiv 0\pmod{n}, \label{eq:last-1}\\
\sum_{k=1}^{p}(-1)^k\frac{S_{k+2}+12S_{k+1}+16S_k}{k} &\equiv 2p(-1)^{\frac{p+1}{2}}\pmod{p^2}. \notag\end{aligned}$$
By –, it is easy to see that if the $n=p$ case of is true, then we have $$\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}(8k^2+12k+5)g_k(-1) \equiv 0\pmod{p^2}.$$ which is a special case of and conjectured by Z.-W. Sun.
[**Acknowledgment.**]{} The authors would like to thank Professor Zhi-Wei Sun for helpful comments.
[99]{}
G.E. Andrews, A theorem on reciprocal polynomials with applications to permutations and compositions, Amer. Math. Monthly 82 (1975), 830–833.
G.E. Andrews, The Theory of Partitions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998.
G.E. Andrews, The [F]{}riedman–[J]{}oichi–[S]{}tanton monotonicity conjecture at primes, Unusual Applications of Number Theory (M. Nathanson, ed.), DIMACS Ser. Discrete Math. Theor. Comp. Sci., vol. 64, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 2004, pp. 9–15.
J. Désarménien, Un analogue des congruences de Kummer pour les $q$-nombres d’Euler, European J. Combin. 3 (1982), 19–28.
I.M. Gessel, Super ballot numbers, J. Symbolic Comput. 14 (1992), 179–194.
V.J.W. Guo, Proof of two divisibility properties of binomial coefficients conjectured by Z.-W. Sun, Electron. J. Combin. 21(2) (2014), \#P2.54.
V.J.W. Guo and C. Krattenthaler, Some divisibility properties of binomial and $q$-binomial coefficients, J. Number Theory 135 (2014), 167–184.
V.J.W. Guo and J. Zeng, Some arithmetic properties of the $q$-Euler numbers and $q$-Salié numbers, European J. Combin. 27 (2006), 884–895.
W. Koepf, Hypergeometric Summation, an Algorithmic Approach to Summation and Special Function Identities, Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig, 1998.
G.-S. Mao and Z.-W. Sun, Two congruences involving harmonic numbers with applications, Int. J. Number Theory, in press.
G. Olive, Generalized powers, Amer. Math. Monthly 72 (1965), 619–627.
M. Petkovšek, H. S. Wilf and D. Zeilberger, $A=B$, A K Peters, Ltd., Wellesley, MA, 1996.
V. Reiner, D. Stanton, and D. White, The cyclic sieving phenomenon, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 108 (2004), 17–50.
J. Riordan, Combinatorial Identities, J. Wiley, New York, 1979.
R.P. Stanley, Log-concave and unimodal sequences in algebra, combinatorics, and geometry, in: Graph Theory and Its Applications: East and West (Jinan, 1986), Ann. New York Acad. Sci., 576, New York Acad. Sci., New York, 1989, pp. 500–535.
R.P. Stanley, Enumerative Combinatorics, vol. 2, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999.
Z.-W. Sun, On sums of Apéry polynomials and related congruences, J. Number Theory 132 (2012), 2673–2699.
Z.-W. Sun, Connections between $p=x^2+3y^2$ and Franel numbers, J. Number Theory 133 (2013), 2914–2928.
Z.-W. Sun, Conjectures and results on $x^2\mod p^2$ with $p^2=x^2+dy^2$, in: Number Theory and Related Area, Y. Ouyang, C. Xing, F. Xu and P. Zhang, Eds., Adv. Lect. Math. 27, Higher Education Press and International Press, Beijing–Boston, 2013, pp. 149–197.
Z.-W. Sun, Congruences involving $g_n(x)=\sum_{k=0}^n{n\choose k}^2{2k\choose k}x^k$, Ramanujan J., doi:10.1007/s11139-015-9727-3.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'Hao Tian$^{1, 2}$, Changbo Wang$^{1}$, Dinesh Manocha$^{2}$ and Xinyu Zhang$^{1}$[^1] [^2]'
bibliography:
- 'template.bib'
title: |
**Transferring Grasp Configurations using Active\
Learning and Local Replanning**
---
[^1]: $^{1}$School of Computer Science and Software Engineering, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China.
[^2]: $^{2}$Department of Computer Science and Electrical $\&$ Computer Engineering, University of Maryland at College Park, MD, USA.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
In this paper we study the parameterized complexity of two well-known permutation group problems which are NP-complete.
- Given a permutation group $G={\mbox{$\langle S \rangle$}}\le S_n$ and a parameter $k$, find a permutation $\pi\in G$ such that $|\{i\in [n]\mid
\pi(i)\ne i\}|\ge k$. This generalizes the ${\mathsf{NP}}$-complete problem of finding a fixed-point free permutation in $G$ [@CW10; @Lubiw] (this is the case when $k=n$). We show that this problem with parameter $k$ is fixed parameter tractable. In the process, we give a simple deterministic polynomial-time algorithm for finding a fixed point free element in a transitive permutation group, answering an open question of Cameron [@Cam4; @CW10].
- Next we consider the problem of computing a base for a permutation group $G={\mbox{$\langle S \rangle$}}\le S_n$. A *base* for $G$ is a subset $B\subseteq [n]$ such that the subgroup of $G$ that fixes $B$ pointwise is trivial. This problem is known to be ${\mathsf{NP}}$-complete [@Bla]. We show that it is fixed parameter tractable for the case of cyclic permutation groups and for permutation groups of constant orbit size. For more general classes of permutation groups we do not know whether the problem is in FPT or is W\[1\]-hard.
author:
- |
V. Arvind\
The Institute of Mathematical Sciences\
C.I.T. Campus\
Chennai 600 113, India\
arvind@imsc.res.in\
title: The Parameterized Complexity of some Permutation Group Problems
---
Introduction {#sec1}
============
Let $S_n$ denote the group of all permutations on a set of size $n$. The group $S_n$ is also called the symmetric group of degree $n$. We refer to a subgroup $G$ of $S_n$, denoted by $G\le S_n$, as a permutation group (of degree $n$). Let $S\subseteq S_n$ be a subset of permutations. The permutation group *generated* by $S$, denoted by ${\mbox{$\langle S \rangle$}}$, is the smallest subgroup of $S_n$ containing $S$. A subset $S\subseteq G$ of a permutation group $G$ is a *generating set* for $G$ if $G={\mbox{$\langle S \rangle$}}$. It is easy to see that every finite group $G$ has a generating set of size $\log_2 |G|$.
Let $G ={\mbox{$\langle S \rangle$}}\le S_n$ be a subgroup of the symmetric group $S_n$, where $G$ is given as input by a generating set $S$ of permutations. There are many algorithmic problems on permutation groups that are given as input by their generating sets (e.g. see [@Sims; @FHL80; @Luk93; @Ser03]). Some of them have efficient algorithms, some others are ${\mathsf{NP}}$-complete, and yet others have a status similar to Graph Isomorphism: they are neither known to be in polynomial time and unlikely to be NP-complete (unless the Polynomial-Time Hierarchy collapses). Efficient permutation group algorithms have played an important role in the design of algorithms for the Graph Isomorphism problem [@Bab79; @BKL83]. In fact the algorithm with the best running time bound for general Graph Isomorphism is group-theoretic.
We recall some definitions and notions from permutation group theory. Let $\pi\in S_n$ be a permutation. A *fixed point* of $\pi$ is a point $i\in [n]$ such that $\pi(i)=i$ and $\pi$ is *fixed point free* if $\pi(i)\ne i$ for all $i\in [n]$.
Let $G\le S_n$ and $\Delta\subseteq [n]$ be a subset of the domain. The *pointwise stabilizer subgroup* of $G$, denoted $G_\Delta$, is $\{g\in G\mid g(i)=i\textrm{ for all }i\in\Delta\}$.
A subset $B\subseteq [n]$ is called a *base* for $G$ if the pointwise stabilizer subgroup $G_B$ is trivial. Thus, if $B$ is a base for $G$ then each element of $G$ is uniquely determined by its action on $B$. The problem of computing a base of minimum cardinality is known to be computationally very useful. Important algorithmic problems on permutation groups, like membership testing, have nearly linear time algorithms in the case of small-base groups (e.g. see [@Ser03]). We will discuss the parameterized complexity of the minimum base problem in Section \[sec3\].
An excellent modern reference on permutation groups is Cameron’s book [@Cam1]. Algorithmic permutation group problems are very well treated in [@Luk93; @Ser03]. Basic definitions and results on parameterized complexity can be found in Downey and Fellows’ classic text on the subject [@DFbook]. Another, more recent, reference is [@FGbook].
Fixed point free elements {#sec2}
=========================
The starting point is the Orbit-Counting lemma. Our discussion will follow Cameron’s book [@Cam1]. For each permutation $g\in S_n$ let ${\mathrm{fix}}(g)$ denote the number of points fixed by $g$. More precisely, $${\mathrm{fix}}(g) = |\{i\in [n]\mid g(i)= i\}|.$$
A permutation group $G\le S_n$ induces, by its action an equivalence relation on the domain $[n]$: $i$ and $j$ are in the same equivalence class if $g(i)=j$ for some $g\in G$. Each equivalence class is an *orbit* of $G$. $G$ is said to be *transitive* if there is exactly one $G$-orbit. Let ${\mathrm{orb}}(G)$ denote the number of $G$-orbits in the domain $[n]$. We recall the statement.
[[@Cam2]]{} Let $G\le S_n$ be a permutation group. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{orbcount}
{\mathrm{orb}}(G) = {\frac{1}{|G|}}\sum_{g\in G}{\mathrm{fix}}(g).\end{aligned}$$ I.e. the number of $G$ orbits is the average number of fixed points over all elements of $G$.
It is useful to recall a proof sketch. Define a $|G|\times n$ matrix with rows indexed by elements of $G$ and columns by points in $[n]$. The $(g,i)^{th}$ entry is defined to be $1$ if $g(i)=i$ and $0$ otherwise. Clearly, the $g^{th}$ row has ${\mathrm{fix}}(g)$ many $1$’s in it. Let $G_i$ denote the subgroup of $G$ that fixes $i$. The $i^{th}$ column clearly has $|G_i|$ many $1$’s. Counting the number of $1$’s in the rows and columns and equating them, keeping in mind that $|G|/|G_i|$ is the size of the orbit containing $i$ yields the lemma.
We now recall a theorem of Jordan on permutation groups [@Jo]. See [@Serre; @Cam4] for very interesting accounts of it. A permutation group $G\le S_n$ is *transitive* if it has exactly one orbit.
If $G\le S_n$ is transitive then $G$ has a fixed point free element.
It follows directly from the Orbit counting lemma. Notice that the left side of Equation \[orbcount\] equals $1$. The right side of the equation is the average over all ${\mathrm{fix}}(g)$. Now, the identity element $1$ fixes all $n$ elements. Thus there is at least one element $g\in
G$ such that ${\mathrm{fix}}(g)=0$. Cameron and Cohen [@Cam2] do a more careful counting and show the following strengthening.
[[@Cam2]]{} If $G\le S_n$ is transitive then there are at least $|G|/n$ elements of $G$ that are fixed point free.
We discuss their proof, because we will build on it to obtain our results. If $G$ is transitive, the orbit counting lemma implies $$|G| = \sum_{g\in G}{\mathrm{fix}}(g).$$ Take any point $\alpha\in [n]$. We can write the above equation as $$|G|=\sum_{g\in G_\alpha}{\mathrm{fix}}(g) + \sum_{g\in G\setminus G_\alpha}{\mathrm{fix}}(g).$$ By the orbit counting lemma applied to the group $G_\alpha$ we have $$\sum_{g\in G_\alpha}{\mathrm{fix}}(g) = {\mathrm{orb}}(G_\alpha)\cdot |G_\alpha|.$$
Let $F\subset G$ be the set of all fixed point free elements of $G$. Clearly, $\sum_{g\in G\setminus G_\alpha}{\mathrm{fix}}(g)\ge |G\setminus
A|$ as $A\subseteq G\setminus G_\alpha$ and each element of $G\setminus A$ fixes at least one element. Combining with the previous equation we get $$|A| \ge {\mathrm{orb}}(G_\alpha)\cdot |G_\alpha|={\mathrm{orb}}(G_\alpha)\cdot \frac{|G|}{n}
\ge \frac{|G|}{n}.$$
The Algorithmic Problem
-----------------------
We now turn to the problem of computing a fixed point free element in a permutation group $G\le S_n$ and a natural parameterized version.
As observed by Cameron and Wu in [@CW10], the result of [@Cam2] gives a simple randomized algorithm to find a fixed point free element in a transitive permutation group $G\le S_n$, where $G$ is given by a generating set $S$: Using Schreier-Sims polynomial-time algorithm [@Sims] we can compute a *strong generating set* $S'$ for $G$ in polynomial time. And using $S'$ we can sample uniformly at random from $G$. Clearly, in $O(n)$ sampling trials we will succeed in finding a fixed point free element with constant probability. We will show in the next section that this algorithm can be *derandomized* to obtain a deterministic polynomial time algorithm (without using CFSG). This answers an open problem of Cameron discussed in [@CW10; @Cam4].
This result is to be contrasted with the fact that computing fixed point free elements in nontransitive groups $G\le S_n$ is ${\mathsf{NP}}$-hard. The decision problem is shown ${\mathsf{NP}}$-complete in [@CW10]. This is quite similar to Lubiw’s result [@Lubiw] that checking if a graph $X$ has a fixed point free automorphism is ${\mathsf{NP}}$-complete.
We will now introduce the parameterized version of the problem of computing fixed point free elements in permutation groups. First we introduce some terminology. We say that a permutation $\pi$ *moves* a point $i\in [n]$ if $\pi(i)\ne i$.\
**$k$-MOVE Problem**\
[INPUT]{}: A permutation group $G={\mbox{$\langle S \rangle$}}\le S_n$ given by generators and a number $k$.\
[PROBLEM]{}: Is there an element $g\in G$ that moves at least $k$ points.\
For $k=n$ notice that k-MOVE is precisely the problem of checking if there is a fixed point free element in $G$. The parameterized version of the problem is to treat $k$ as parameter. We will show that this problem is fixed parameter tractable.
Let ${\mathrm{move}}(g)$ denote the number of points moved by $g$. We define two numbers ${\mathrm{fix}}(G)$ and ${\mathrm{move}}(G)$:
$$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{fix}}(G) & = & |\{i\in[n]\mid g(i)=i\textrm{ for all }g\in G\}|\\
{\mathrm{move}}(G) & = & |\{i\in[n]\mid g(i)\ne i\textrm{ for some }g\in G\}|\\\end{aligned}$$
I.e. ${\mathrm{fix}}(G)$ is the number of points fixed by all of $G$ and ${\mathrm{move}}(G)$ is the number of points moved by some element of $G$. Clearly, for all $g\in G$, ${\mathrm{move}}(g) = n-{\mathrm{fix}}(g)$ and ${\mathrm{move}}(G) =
n-{\mathrm{fix}}(G)$. Furthermore, notice that ${\mathrm{orb}}(G)\le {\mathrm{fix}}(G)+{\mathrm{move}}(G)/2$, and we have $n-{\mathrm{orb}}(G)\ge {\mathrm{move}}(G)/2$. Let $G={\mbox{$\langle S \rangle$}}\le S_n$ be an input instance for the $k$-MOVE problem. Substituting $n-{\mathrm{move}}(g)$ for ${\mathrm{fix}}(g)$ in Equation \[orbcount\] and rearranging terms we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{moveqn}
{\mathrm{move}}(G)/2\le n-{\mathrm{orb}}(G)=\frac{1}{|G|}\sum_{g\in G}{\mathrm{move}}(g)={\mathbb{E}}_{g\in G}[{\mathrm{move}}(g)],\end{aligned}$$ where the expectation is computed for $g$ picked uniformly at random from $G$.
We will show there is a deterministic polynomial time algorithm that on input $G={\mbox{$\langle S \rangle$}}\le S_n$ outputs a permutation $g\in G$ such that ${\mathrm{move}}(g)\ge n-{\mathrm{orb}}(G)\ge {\mathrm{move}}(G)/2$. Using this algorithm we will obtain an FPT algorithm for the $k$-MOVE problem. We require the following useful lemma about computing the average number of points moved by uniformly distributed elements from a *coset* contained in $S_n$.
\[orb-gen\] Let $G\pi \subseteq S_n$ be a coset of a permutation group $G={\mbox{$\langle S \rangle$}}\le S_n$, where $\pi\in S_n$. There is a deterministic algorithm that computes ${\mathbb{E}}_{g\in G}[{\mathrm{move}}(g\pi)]$ in time polynomial in $|S|$ and $n$.
We again use a double counting argument. Define a $0$-$1$ matrix with rows indexed by $g\pi, g\in G$ and columns by $i\in [n]$, whose $(g\pi,i)^{th}$ entry is $1$ if and only if $g(\pi(i))\ne i$. Thus, the number of $1$’s in the $i^{th}$ column of the matrix is $|G| -
|\{g\in G\mid g(\pi(i))=i\}|$. Now, $|\{g\in G\mid g(\pi(i))=i\}|$ is zero if $\pi(i)$ and $i$ are in different $G$-orbits and is $|G_i|$ if they are in the same orbit. In polynomial time we can compute the orbits of $G$ and check this condition. Also, the number $|G| -
|\{g\in G\mid g(\pi(i))=i\}| = |G|-|G_i|$ is computable in polynomial time. Call this number $N_i$. It follows that the total number of $1$’s in the matrix is $\sum_{i=1}^n N_i$, which is computable in polynomial time. Since $\sum_{i=1}^n N_i=\sum_{g\in G}{\mathrm{move}}(g\pi)$, it follows that $\frac{1}{|G|}\sum_{g\in G}{\mathrm{move}}(g\pi)={\mathbb{E}}_{g\in
G}[{\mathrm{move}}(g\pi)]$ can be computed exactly in polynomial time.
\[derand\] There is a deterministic polynomial-time algorithm that takes as input a permutation group $G={\mbox{$\langle S \rangle$}}\le S_n$ given by generators and a permutation $\pi\in S_n$ and computes an element $g\in G$ such that ${\mathrm{move}}(g\pi)\ge {\mathbb{E}}_{g\in G}[{\mathrm{move}}(g\pi)]$.
We have $$\frac{1}{|G|}\sum_{g\in G}{\mathrm{move}}(g\pi)={\mathbb{E}}_{g\in G}[{\mathrm{move}}(g\pi)]=\mu,$$ and by Lemma\[orb-gen\] we can compute $\mu$ in polynomial time. We can write $G$ as a disjoint union of cosets $G=\bigcup_{i=1}^rG_1g_i$, where $G_1$ is the subgroup of $G$ that fixes $1$ and $g_i$ are the coset representatives, where the number of cosets $r\le n$. Using Schreier-Sims algorithm [@Sims] we can compute all coset representatives $g_i$ and a generating set for $G_1$ from the input in polynomial time.
Now, we can write the summation $\frac{1}{|G|}\sum_{g\in G}{\mathrm{move}}(g\pi)$ as a sum over the cosets $G_1g_i\pi$ of $G_1$: $$\frac{1}{|G|}\sum_{g\in G}{\mathrm{move}}(g\pi)=
\frac{1}{|G|}\sum_{i=1}^r\sum_{g\in G_1}{\mathrm{move}}(gg_i\pi).$$ For $1\le i\le r$ let $$\mu_i=\frac{1}{|G_1|}\sum_{g\in G_1}{\mathrm{move}}(gg_i\pi).$$ Since $|G|/|G_1|=r$, it follows that $\mu=\frac{1}{r}\sum_{i=1}^r\mu_i$ is an average of the $mu_i$. Let $\mu_t$ denote $\max_{1\le i\le r} \mu_i$. Clearly, $\mu\le mu_t$ and therefore there is some $g\in G_1g_t\pi$ such that ${\mathrm{move}}(g)\ge
\mu_t\ge \mu$ and we can continue the search in the coset $G_1g_t$ since we can compute all the $\mu_i$ in polynomial time by Lemma \[orb-gen\]. Continuing thus for $n-1$ steps, in polynomial time we will obtain a coset $G_{n-1}\tau$ containing the unique element $\tau$ such that ${\mathrm{move}}(\tau)\ge \mu$. This completes the proof.
Cameron, in [@CW10] and in the lecture notes [@Cam4], raises the question whether the randomized algorithm, based on uniform sampling, for finding a fixed point free element in a transitive permutation group (given by generators) can be derandomized. In [@CW10] a deterministic algorithm (based on the classification of finite simple groups) is outlined. The algorithm does a detailed case analysis based on the CFSG and is not easy to verify. Here we show that the randomized algorithm can be easily derandomized yielding a simple polynomial-time algorithm. The derandomization is essentially a simple application of the “method of conditional probabilities” [@ES; @Rag].
Given a transitive permutation group $G={\mbox{$\langle S \rangle$}}\le S_n$ by a generating set $S$, we can compute a fixed point free element of $G$ in deterministic polynomial time.
Notice that ${\mathbb{E}}_{g\in G}[{\mathrm{move}}(g)]=n-1$ to begin with. However, since $G_1$ has at least two orbits, we have by orbit counting lemma that ${\mathbb{E}}_{g\in G_1}[{\mathrm{move}}(g)]\le n-2$. Hence, for some coset $G_1g_i$ of $G_1$ in $G$ we must have ${\mathbb{E}}_{g\in G_1g_i}[{\mathrm{move}}(gg_i)] > n-1$. The polynomial-time algorithm of Theorem \[derand\] applied to $G$ will therefore continue the search in cosets where the expected value is strictly more than $n-1$ which means that it will finally compute a fixed point free element of $G$.
Given $G={\mbox{$\langle S \rangle$}}\le S_n$ there is a trivial exponential time algorithm for finding a fixed point free element in $G$: compute a strong generating set for $G$ in polynomial time [@Sims]. Then enumerate $G$ in time $|G|.n^{O(1)}$ using the strong generating set, checking for a fixed point free element. This algorithm could have running time $n!$ for large $G$. We next describe a $2^nn^{O(1)}$ time algorithm for finding a fixed point free element based on inclusion-exclusion and coset intersection.
\[fpfsearch\] Given a permutation group $G={\mbox{$\langle S \rangle$}}\le S_n$ and $\pi\in S_n$ there is a $2^{n+O(\sqrt{n}\lg n)}n^{O(1)}$ time algorithm to test if the coset $G\pi$ has a fixed point free element and if so compute it.
For each subset $\Delta\subseteq [n]$ we can compute the pointwise stabilizer subgroup $G_\Delta$. This will take time $2^nn^{O(1)}$ overall. For each $i\in [n]$, let $(G\pi)_i$ denote the subcoset of $G\pi$ that fixes $i$. Indeed, $$(G\pi)_i = \{g\pi\mid g\in G, g\pi(i)=i\}=G_{\pi(i)}\tau_i\pi,$$ if there is a $\tau_i\in G$ such that $\tau_i(\pi(i))=i$ and $(G\pi)_i=\emptyset$ otherwise.
Clearly, $G\pi$ has a fixed point free element if and only if the union $\bigcup_{i=1}^n(G\pi)_i$ is a *proper* subset of $G\pi$. I.e. we need to check if $|\bigcup_{i=1}^n(G\pi)_i| < |G\pi|=|G|$. Now, $|\bigcup_{i=1}^n(G\pi)_i|$ can be computed in $2^{n+O(\sqrt{n}\lg n)}n^{O(1)}$ time using the inclusion exclusion principle: there are $2^n$ terms in the inclusion-exclusion formula. Each term is the cardinality of a coset intersection of the form $\bigcap_{i\in I}(G\pi)_i$, for some subset of indices $I\subseteq [n]$, which can be computed in time $n^{O(\sqrt{n})}$ time [@BKL83]. Hence, we can decide in $2^{n+O(\sqrt{n}\lg n)}n^{O(1)}$ time whether or not $G\pi$ has a fixed point free element. Notice that this fixed point free element must be in one of the $n-1$ subcosets of $G\pi$ that maps $1$ to $j$ for $j\in\{2,3,\ldots,n\}$. The subcoset of $G\pi$ mapping $1$ to $j$ can be computed in polynomial time [@Sims]. Then we can apply the inclusion exclusion principle to each of these subcosets, as explained above, to check if it contains a fixed point free element and continue the search in such a subcoset. Proceeding thus for $n-1$ steps we will obtain a fixed point free element in $G\pi$, if it exists, in $2^{n+O(\sqrt{n}\lg
n)}n^{O(1)}$ time.
We now prove the main result of this section.
\[fpt1\] There is a deterministic $2^{2k+O(\sqrt{k}\lg k)}k^{O(1)}+n^{O(1)}$ time algorithm for the $k$- problem and hence the problem is fixed parameter tractable. Furthermore, if $G={\mbox{$\langle S \rangle$}}\le S_n$ is a “yes” instance the algorithm computes a $g\in G$ such that ${\mathrm{move}}(g)\ge k$.
Let $G={\mbox{$\langle S \rangle$}}\le S_n$ be an input instance of $k$-MOVE with parameter $k$. By Equation \[moveqn\] we know that ${\mathbb{E}}_{g\in
G}[{\mathrm{move}}(g)\ge {\mathrm{move}}(G)/2$. We first compute ${\mathrm{move}}(G)$ in polynomial time by computing the orbits of $G$. If ${\mathrm{move}}(G)\ge 2k$ then the input is a “yes” instance to the problem and we can apply Theorem \[derand\] to compute a $g\in G$ such that ${\mathrm{move}}(g)\ge k$ in polynomial time. Otherwise, ${\mathrm{move}}(G)\le 2k$. In that case, the group $G$ is effectively a permutation group on a set $\Omega
\subseteq [n]$ of size at most $2k$. For each subset $\Delta\subseteq \Omega$ of size at most $k$, we compute the pointwise stabilizer subgroup $G_{\Delta}$ of $G$ in polynomial time [@Sims]. This will take overall $2^{2k}n^{O(1)}$ time. Now, if the input is a “yes” instance to $k$-MOVE, some subgroup $G_\Delta$ must contain a fixed point free element (i.e. fixed point free in $\Omega\setminus \Delta$). We can apply the algorithm of Theorem \[fpfsearch\] to compute this element in time $2^{2k+O(\sqrt{k}\lg k)}k^{O(1)}$.
We note from the first few lines in the proof of Theorem \[fpt1\] that the application of Theorem \[derand\] is actually a polynomial time reduction from the given $k$-MOVE instance to an instance for which ${\mathrm{move}}(G)\le 2k$. Given $G={\mbox{$\langle S \rangle$}}\le S_n$ such that ${\mathrm{move}}(G)\le 2k$, note that $G$ is effectively a subgroup of $S_{2k}$. We can apply the Schreier-Sims algorithm to compute from $S$ a generating set of size $O(k^2)$ for $G$, therefore yielding a polynomial time computable, $k^{O(1)}$ size kernel (see [@FGbook] for definition) for the $k$-MOVE problem.
The parameterized minimum base problem {#sec3}
======================================
In this section we turn to another basic algorithmic problem on permutation groups.
Let $G\le S_n$ be a permutation group. A subset of points $B\subseteq
[n]$ is called a *base* if the pointwise stabilizer subgroup $G_B$ of $G$ (subgroup of $G$ that fixes $B$ pointwise) is the identity.
Since permutation groups with a small base have fast algorithms for various problems [@Ser03], computing a minimum cardinality base for $G$ is very useful. The decision problem is ${\mathsf{NP}}$-complete. On the other hand, it has a $\lg\lg n$ factor approximation algorithm [@Bla].
In this section we study the parameterized version of the problem with base size as parameter. We are unable to resolve if the general case is FPT or not, we give FPT algorithms in the case of cyclic permutation groups and for permutation groups with orbits of size bounded by a constant.\
**$k$-BASE Problem**\
[INPUT]{}: A permutation group $G={\mbox{$\langle S \rangle$}}\le S_n$ given by generators and a number $k$.\
[PROBLEM]{}: Is there a base of size at most $k$ for $G$. The search version is the find such a base.\
A trivial $n^{k+O(1)}$ algorithm would cycle through all candidate subsets $B$ of size at most $k$ checking if $G_B$ is the identity.
If the elements of the group $G\le S_n$ are explicitly listed, then the $k$-BASE problem is essentially a hitting set problem, where the hitting set $B$ has to intersect, for each $g\in G$, the subset of points moved by $g$. However, the group structure makes it different from the general hitting set problem and we do not know how to exploit it algorithmically in the general case.
Cyclic Permutation Groups
-------------------------
We give an FPT algorithm for the special case when the input permutation group $G={\mbox{$\langle S \rangle$}}$ is cyclic. While this is only a special case, we note that the minimum base problem is NP-hard even for cyclic permutation groups [@Bla Theorem 3.1].
\[abelfpt\] The $k{-}\mathrm{BASE}$ problem for cyclic permutation groups is fixed parameter tractable.
Let $G={\mbox{$\langle S \rangle$}}\le S_n$ be a cyclic permutation group as instance for $k$-BASE. Using known polynomial-time algorithms [@Sims; @Luk93] we can compute a decomposition of $G$ into a direct product of cyclic groups of prime power order. $$G=H_1\times H_2\times\ldots\times H_\ell$$ where each $H_i$ is cyclic of prime power order. Let $H_i={\mbox{$\langle g_i \rangle$}}$, where the order of $g_i$, $o(g_i)=p_i^{e_i}, 1\le
i\le \ell$, where the $p_i$’s are all distinct. Notice that $|G|=p_1^{e_1}p_2^{e_2}\ldots p_\ell^{e_\ell}$. We can assume $|G|\le n^k$, Otherwise, $G$ does not have a size $k$ base and the algorithm can reject the instance. Since $$(\ell/e)^\ell\le \ell! \le p_1p_2\cdots p_\ell \le n^k,$$
it follows that $\ell=O(\frac{k\lg n}{\lg \lg n})$.
For each $g_i$, when we express it as a product of disjoint cycles then the length of each such cycle is a power of $p_i$ that divides $p_i^{e_i}$, and there is at least one cycle of length $p_i^{e_i}$. Clearly, any base for $G$ must include at least one point of some $p_i^{e_i}$-cycle (i.e. cycle of length $p_i^{e_i}$) of $g_i$, for each $i$. Otherwise, the cyclic subgroup $H_i$ of $G$ will not become identity when the points in the base are fixed. For each index $i~:~1\le i\le \ell$, define the set of points $$S_i = \{\alpha\in[n]\mid \alpha \textrm{ is in some
}p_i^{e_i}~\textrm{cycle of }g_i\}.$$
**Claim.** Let $B\subseteq [n]$ be a subset of size $k$. Then $B$ is a base for $G$ if and only if $B$ is a hitting set for the collection of sets $\{S_1,S_2,\ldots,S_\ell\}$.\
**Proof of Claim.** Clearly, it is a necessary condition. Conversely, suppose $|B|=k$ and $B\cap S_i\ne \emptyset$ for each $i$. Consider the partition of $[n]$ into the orbits of $G$: $$[n] = \Omega_1\cup \Omega_2\cup \cdots \cup \Omega_r.$$
For each $g_i$, a cycle of length $p_i^{e_i}$ in $g_i$ is wholly contained in some orbit of $G$. Indeed, each orbit of $G$ must be a union of a subset of cycles of $g_i$. Since $B\cap S_i\ne \emptyset$, some $p_i^{e_i}$-cycle $C_i$ of $g_i$ will intersect $B$.
Assume, contrary to the claim, that there is a $g\in G_B$ such that $g\ne 1$. We can write $g=g_1^{a_1}g_2^{a_2}\ldots g_\ell^{a_\ell}$ for nonnegative integers $a_i < p_i^{e_i}$. Suppose $g_j^{a_j}\ne 1$. Then raising both sides of the equation $g=g_1^{a_1}g_2^{a_2}\ldots
g_\ell^{a_\ell}$ to the power $\frac{|G|}{p_j^{e_j}}$, we have $$g'=g^{\frac{|G|}{p_j^{e_j}}}=g_j^{\beta_j},$$ where $\beta_j<p_j^{e_j}$. Moreover, $\beta_j=
\frac{|G|a_j}{p_j^{e_j}}(mod~ p_j^{e_j})$ is nonzero because $a_j\ne 0(mod~
p_j^{e_j})$ and $|G|/p_j^{e_j}$ does not have $p_j$ as factor.
By assumption, some $p_j^{e_j}$-cycle $C_j$ of $g_j$ intersects $B$. Since $\beta_j$ is nonzero and strictly smaller than $p_j^{e_j}$, none of the points of $C_j$ are fixed by $g_j^{\beta_j}$ which contradicts the assumption that $g$ and hence $g'$ is in $G_B$. This proves the claim.\
We now explain the FPT algorithm. If $|G| > n^k$ then there is no base of size $k$. Hence we can assume $|G|\le n^k$. As already observed, $\ell =O(\frac{k\lg n}{\lg\lg n})$. Thus, we need to solve the $k$-hitting set problem for a collection of at most $O(\frac{k\lg
n}{\lg\lg n})$ many sets $\{S_1,S_2,\ldots,S_\ell\}$. We can think of it as a problem of $k$-coloring the indices $\{1,2,\ldots,\ell\}$ such that for each color class $I$ we have $\cap_{i\in I} S_i\ne
\emptyset$ and we can pick any one point for each such intersection. Notice that there are at most $k^\ell=n^{\frac{k\lg
k}{\lg\lg n}}$ many such colorings. Now, if $k\lg k\le \lg \lg
n$ this number is bounded by $n^{O(1)}$ can we can cycle through all these $k$-colorings in polynomial time and find a good $k$-coloring if it exists. On the other hand, if $k\lg k>\lg \lg n$ then $n^k\le
2^{k^{k+1}}$ which means the brute force search gives an FPT time bound.
Bounded Orbit Permutation Groups
--------------------------------
We give an FPT algorithm for another special case of the $k$-BASE problem: Let $G={\mbox{$\langle S \rangle$}}\le S_n$ such that $G$ has orbits of size bounded by a fixed constant $b$. I.e. $[n]=\biguplus_{i=1}^m
\Omega_i$, where $|\Omega_i|\le b$ for each $i$. This is again an interesting special case as the minimum base problem is NP-hard even for orbits of size bounded by $8$ [@Bla Theorem 3.2].
Suppose $G$ has a base $B=\{i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_k\}$ of size $k$. Then $G$ has a pointwise stabilizer tower $G=G_0\ge G_1 \ge\ldots\ge
G_k=\{1\}$ obtained by successively fixing the points of $B$. More precisely, $G_j$ is the subgroup of $G$ that pointwise fixes $\{i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_j\}$. Now, $\frac{|G_{j-1}|}{|G_j|}$ is the orbit size of the point $i_j$ in the group $G_{j-1}$. Furthermore, $b$ is also a bound on this orbit size. Therefore, $|G|\le b^k$. Hence in $b^kn^{O(1)}$ time we can list all elements of $G$. Let $G=\{g_1,g_2,\ldots,g_N\}$, where $N\le b^k$, where $g_1$ is the identity element.
For each $g_i\in G, i\ge 2$, let $S_i=\{j\in[n]\mid g_i(j)\ne j\}$ denote the nonempty subset of points not fixed by $g_i$. Then a subset $B\subset [n]$ of size $k$ is a base for $G$ if and only if $B$ is a hitting set for the collection $S_2,S_3,\ldots,S_N$. The next claim is straightforward.
**Claim.** There is a size $k$ hitting set contained in $[n]$ for the sets $\{S_2,S_3\ldots,S_N\}$ if and only if there is a partition of $\{2,3,\ldots,N\}$ into $k$ parts $I_1,I_2,\ldots,I_k$ such that $\cap_{j\in I_r}S_j\ne \emptyset$ for each $r=1,2,\ldots,k$.
As $N\le b^k$, the total number of $k$-partitions of $\{2,3,\ldots,N\}$ is bounded by $k^N\le k^{b^k}$. We can generate them and check if any one of them yields a hitting set of size $k$ by checking the condition in the above claim. The overall time taken by the algorithm is given by the FPT time bound $k^{b^k}n^{O(1)}$. We have shown the following result.
Let $G={\mbox{$\langle S \rangle$}}\le S_n$ such that $G$ has orbits of size bounded by $b$, be an instance for the $k$-BASE problem with $k$ as parameter. Then the problem has an FPT algorithm of running time $k^{b^k}n^{O(1)}$.
Concluding Remarks
==================
The impact of parameterized complexity on algorithmic graph theory research, especially its interplay with graph minor theory, has been very fruitful in the last two decades. This motivates the study of parameterized complexity questions in other algorithmic problem domains like, for example, group-theoretic computation. To this end, we considered parameterized versions of two well-known classical problems on permutation groups. We believe that a similar study of other permutation group problems can be a worthwhile direction.
@ifundefined \[2\][\#1\#2]{} \[3\][Proceedings of \#1 \#2 (\#3)Proc. \#1 \#3]{}
[ABN[[$^{+}$]{}]{}92]{}
L. Babai. Monte-[C]{}arlo algorithms in graph isomorphism testing. Technical Report 79–10, Université de Montréal, 1979.
L. Babai, W.M. Kantor, and E.M. Luks. Computational complexity and the classification of finite simple groups. In [**]{}, pages 162–171, 1983.
L. Babai and E.M. Luks. Canonical labeling of graphs. In [**]{}, pages 171–183, 1983.
K.D. Blaha. Minimal bases for permutation groups: the greedy approximation algorithm. , 13: 297-306, 1992.
P.J. Cameron. London Mathematical Society, Student Texts 45, Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, 1999.
P.J. Cameron and A.M. Cohen. On the number of fixed point free elements of a permutation group. , 106/107: 135-138, 1992.
P.J. Cameron and T. Wu. The complexity of the weight problem for permutation and matrix groups. 310: 408-416, 2010.
P.J. Cameron. Lectures on derangements. , 2011.
R. G. Downey and M. R. Fellows. . Springer, 1999.
P. Erdös and J.L. Selfridge. On a combinatorial game. 14(3): 298-301, 1973.
J. Flum and M. Grohe. . Texts in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series. Springer, Berlin, 2006.
M. Furst, J.E. Hopcroft, and E.M. Luks. Polynomial-time algorithms for permutation groups. Technical report, Cornell University, 10 1980.
C. Jordan. Recherches sur les substitutions. 17:351-387, 1872.
A. Lubiw. Some NP-Complete Problems Similar to Graph Isomorphism. 10(1):11-21, 1981.
E.M. Luks. Permutation groups and polynomial-time computation. In Larry Finkelstein and William M. Kantor, editors, [*Groups and Computation*]{}, number 11 in , pages 139–175. American Mathematical Society, 1993.
P. Raghavan. Probabilistic construction of deterministic algorithms: approximating packing integer programs. 37(2):130–143, 1988.
A. Seress. . Cambridge University Press, 2003.
J.P. Serre. On a theorem of [J]{}ordan. 40:429-440, 2003.
C. C. Sims. Computational methods in the study of permutation groups. In J. Leech, editor, [*Computational problems in abstract algebra, Proc. Conf. Oxford, 1967*]{}, pages 169–183. Pergamon Press, 1970.
C. C. Sims. Some group theoretic algorithms. In A. Dold and B. Eckmann, editors, [*Topics in Algebra*]{}, volume 697 of [**]{}, pages 108–124. Springer, 1978.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We prove that $t$-spread principal Borel ideals are sequentially Cohen-Macaulay and study their powers. We show that these ideals possess the strong persistence property and compute their limit depth.'
address:
- 'Claudia Andrei, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Bucharest, Str. Academiei 14, 010014 Bucharest, Romania'
- 'Viviana Ene, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Ovidius University, Bd. Mamaia 124, 900527 Constanta, Romania'
- 'Bahareh Lajmiri, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Amirkabir University of Technology, 424 Hafez Ave, Tehran, Iran'
author:
- 'Claudia Andrei, Viviana Ene, Bahareh Lajmiri'
title: 'Powers of $t$-spread principal Borel ideals'
---
[^1]
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
In this paper, we study $t$-spread prinipal Borel ideals. They have been recently introduced in [@EHQ]. Let $K$ be a field and $S=K[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ the polynomial ring in $n$ variables over $K.$ Let $t\geq 0$ be an integer. A monomial $x_{i_1}\cdots x_{i_d}\in S$ with $i_1\leq \cdots \leq i_d$ is called *$t$-spread* if $i_j-i_{j-1}\geq t$ for $2\leq j\leq d.$ For example, every monomial in $S$ is $0$-spread and every squarefree monomial is $1$-spread.
We recall from [@EHQ] that a monomial ideal $I\subset S$ with the minimal system of monomial generators $G(I)$ is called *$t$-spread strongly stable* if it satisfies the following condition: for all $u\in G(I)$ and $j\in \supp(u),$ if $i<j$ and $x_i(u/x_j)$ is $t$-spread, then $x_i(u/x_j)\in I.$ A monomial ideal $I\subset S$ is called *$t$-spread principal Borel* if there exists a monomial $u\in G(I)$ such that $I=B_t(u)$ where $B_t(u)$ denotes the smallest $t$-spread strongly stable ideal which contains $u.$ For example, for an integer $d\geq 2,$ if $u=x_{n-(d-1)t}\cdots x_{n-t}x_n$, then $B_t(u)$ is minimally generated by all the $t$-spread monomials of degree $d$ in $S.$ In this case, we call $B_t(u)$ the *$t$-spread Veronese ideal* generated in degree $d$ and denote it $I_{n,d,t}.$
Throughout this paper we consider $t$-spread monomial ideals with $t\geq 1. $ In particular, they are squarefree monomial ideals. As it was observed in [@EHQ], if $u=x_{i_1}\cdots x_{i_d}$ is a $t$-spread monomial in $S$ then a monomial $x_{j_1}\cdots x_{j_d}\in G(B_t(u))$ if and only if the following two conditions hold:
1. $j_k\leq i_k$ for $1\leq k\leq d,$
2. $j_k-j_{k-1}\geq t$ for $2\leq k\leq t.$
In [@EHQ Theorem 1.4] it was shown that every $t$-spread strongly stable ideal has linear quotients with respect to the pure lexicographic order in $S.$ In addition, in [@EHQ Corollary 2.5] it was shown that a $t$-spread strongly stable ideal generated in a single degree is Cohen-Macaulay if and only if it is a $t$-spread Veronese ideal. In particular, it follows that every $t$-spread principal Borel ideal has linear quotients and such an ideal is Cohen-Macaulay if and only if it is $t$-spread Veronese.
Since $B_t(u)$ is a squarefree monomial ideal, we may interpret it as the Stanley-Reisner ideal of a simplicial complex $\Delta.$ In the proof of Theorem \[ass\], we characterize the facets of $\Delta$. This gives explicitly all the generators of the ideal of the Alexander dual $\Delta^{\vee}.$ We then derive that the Stanley-Reisner ideal of $\Delta^{\vee}$ has linear quotients, which yields the sequential Cohen-Macaulay property of $B_t(u)$ by Alexander duality; see Theorem \[SCM\].
In Section \[two\], we consider the Rees algebra $\MR(B_t(u))$ of a $t$-spread principal Borel ideal $B_t(u).$ In Proposition \[elexchange\], we show that $B_t(u)$ satisfies the $\ell$-exchange property with respect to the sorting order $<_{sort}.$ This allows us to describe in Theorem \[GBRees\] the reduced Gröbner basis of the defining ideal of $\MR(B_t(u))$ with respect to a suitable monomial order. The form of the binomials in this Gröbner basis shows that $B_t(u)$ satisfies an $x$-condition which guarantees that all the powers of $B_t(u)$ have linear quotients. Moreover, the Rees algebra $\MR(B_t(u))$ is a normal Cohen-Macaulay domain which implies in turn, by a result of [@HQ], that $B_t(u)$ possesses the strong persistence property as considered in [@HQ]. Consequently, $B_t(u)$ satisfies the persistence property, which means that $\Ass(B_t(u))\subset \Ass(B_t(u)^2)\subset \cdots \subset \Ass(B_t(u)^k)\subset \cdots.$ Note that the associated primes of $B_t(u)$ can be read from Theorem \[ass\].
In Section \[three\], we study the limit behavior of the depth for the powers of $t$-spread principal Borel ideals. In Theorem \[limdepth\] we show that if the generator $u=x_{i_1}\cdots x_{i_d}$ satisfies the condition $i_1\geq t+1,$ then $\lim_{k\to\infty}\depth(S/B_t(u)^k)=0.$ In particular, we determine the analytic spread of $B_t(u),$ that is, the Krull dimension of the fiber ring $\MR(B_t(u))/\mathfrak{m} \MR(B_t(u))$ where $\mathfrak{m}=(x_1,\ldots,x_n).$
$t$-spread principal Borel ideals are sequentially Cohen-Macaulay
=================================================================
Let $u=x_{i_1}x_{i_2}\cdots x_{i_d}\in S= K[x_1,\ldots, x_n]$ be a $t$-spread monomial. Suppose that $i_d=n$ and $I=B_t(u)$. For a monomial $u\in I$, we denote $\supp(u)=\{j\in [n]: x_j \mid u\}.$ Let $\Delta$ be the simplicial complex such that $I_{\Delta}=I$. We denote $I^{\vee}$ the Stanley-Reisner ideal of the Alexander dual of $\Delta$.
\[ass\] Let $t\geq 1$ be an integer and $I=B_t(u)$ where $u=x_{i_1}x_{i_2}\cdots x_{i_d}$ is a $t$-spread monomial. We assume that $\bigcup_{v\in G(I)}\supp(v)=[n].$ Then $I^{\vee}$ is generated by the monomials of the following forms $$\label{form1}
\prod_{k=1}^{n}x_k/(v_{j_1}\cdots v_{j_{d-1}})$$ with $j_l\leq i_l$ for $1\leq l\leq d-1$ and $j_l-j_{l-1}\geq t$ for $2\leq l\leq d-1$, where $v_{j_k}=x_{j_k}\cdots x_{j_k+(t-1)}\text{ for }1\leq k\leq d-1.$ $$\label{form2}
\prod_{k=1}^{i_1}x_k.$$ $$\label{form3}
\prod_{k=1}^{i_s}x_k/(v_{j_1}\cdots v_{j_{s-1}})$$ with $2\leq s\leq d-1$, $j_l\leq i_l$ for $1\leq l\leq s-1$, $j_l-j_{l-1}\geq t$ for $2\leq l\leq s-1$, where $v_{j_k}=x_{j_k}\cdots x_{j_k+(t-1)}\text{ for }1\leq k\leq s-1.$
Let $\Delta$ be the simplicial complex whose Stanley-Reisner ideal is $I$ and let $\mathcal{F}(\Delta)$ be the set of the facets of $\Delta$. We prove that every facet of $\Delta$ is of one of the following forms:
1. $F_1=\{j_1, j_1+1, \ldots, j_1+(t-1), j_2, j_2+1, \ldots, j_2+(t-1),\ldots, j_{d-1}, j_{d-1}+1, \ldots, j_{d-1}+(t-1)\}$, for some $j_1, j_2, \ldots, j_{d-1}$ such that $j_l\leq i_l$ for $1\leq l\leq d-1$ and $j_l-j_{l-1}\geq t$ for $2\leq l\leq d-1$.
2. $F_2=\{i_1+1, i_1+2,\ldots, n\}$.
3. $F_3=\{j_1, j_1+1, \ldots, j_1+(t-1),\ldots, j_{s-1}, j_{s-1}+1, \ldots, j_{s-1}+(t-1), j_s, j_s+1, \ldots, n\}$, for some $j_1, j_2, \ldots, j_s$ such that $2\leq s\leq d-1$, $j_l\leq i_l$ for $1\leq l\leq s-1$, $j_s=i_s+1$ and $j_l-j_{l-1}\geq t$ for $2\leq l\leq s$.
Since $I=B_t(u)$ has the primary decomposition $$I=\bigcap_{F\in\mathcal{F}(\Delta)}P_{[n]\setminus F},$$ where $P_{[n]\setminus F}$ is the prime ideal generated by all variables $x_j$ with $j\in[n]\setminus F$, by [@HHBook Corollary 1.5.5], the statement holds.
Since $(x_1,\ldots x_{i_1})\in \Min(I)$ by [@EHQ Theorem 2.4], we obtain $F_2\in\mathcal{F}(\Delta)$.
We have $F_1$ and $F_3\in \Delta$, since $x_{F_1}=\prod_{i\in F_1}x_i$ and $x_{F_3}=\prod_{i\in F_3}x_i$ do not belong to $I$. Indeed, if $x_{F_1}\in I$, then there exists $v=x_{k_1}\cdots x_{k_d}\in G(I)$ such that $v\mid x_{F_1}$. Since $v$ is the product of $d$ distinct variables and $F_1$ consists of $d-1$ intervals of the form $[j_r, j_r+(t-1)],$ $1\leq r\leq d-1$, there exist $l\in \{2,\ldots, d\}$ and $1\leq r\leq d-1$ such that $k_{l-1}, k_l\in [j_r,j_r+(t-1)]$. It follows that $k_l-k_{l-1}<t$, which is false.
If $x_{F_3}\in I$, then there exists $v=x_{k_1}\cdots x_{k_d}\in G(I)$ such that $v\mid x_{F_3}$. Since $k_l-k_{l-1}\geq t$ for $2\leq l\leq s$ and $F_3$ consists of $s-1$ intervals of the form $[j_r, j_r+(t-1)],$ $1\leq r\leq s-1,$ and only one interval of the form $[j_s,n]$, we have $k_s\in [j_s,n]$. It follows that $j_s=i_s+1\leq k_s$, which is false because $v\in G(I)$ and $k_s\leq i_s$.
We claim that $F_i\cup \{j\}\notin \Delta$ for every $j\in [n]\setminus F_i$ and $i\in\{1,3\}$. This will prove that every set of the form (i) or (iii) is a facet of $\Delta.$
Let $j\in[n]\setminus F_1$. We consider the following cases:
1. $j<j_1.$ Then $x_j x_{j_1+(t-1)}\cdots x_{j_{d-1}+(t-1)}\in I$ because $j<j_1\leq i_1$ and $j_l+(t-1)\leq i_l+(t-1)<i_{l+1}$ for $1\leq l\leq d-1$.
2. $j\geq j_{d-1}+t.$ Then $x_{j_1} x_{j_2}\cdots x_{j_{d-1}}x_j\in I$.
3. There exists $1\leq l\leq d-2$ such that $j_l+(t-1)<j<j_{l+1}.$ Then $$x_{j_1} x_{j_2}\cdots x_{j_l} x_j x_{j_{l+1}+(t-1)}\cdots x_{j_{d-1}+(t-1)}\in I,$$ since $j_k\leq i_k$ for $1\leq k\leq l$, $j<j_{l+1}\leq i_{l+1}$ and $j_k+(t-1)\leq i_k+(t-1)<i_{k+1}$ for $l+1\leq k\leq d-1$.
Therefore, we have proved that for $j\in[n]\setminus F_1$, $F_1\cup\{j\}\not\in \Delta$ which implies that $F_1$ is a facet in $\Delta.$
Let $j\in[n]\setminus F_3$. We show that $x_j x_{F_3}\in I$, thus $F_3\cup\{j\}\not\in \Delta.$
1. If $j<j_1$, then $x_j x_{j_1+(t-1)}\cdots x_{j_{s-1}+(t-1)}x_{j_s+(t-1)}x_{j_s+(2t-1)}\cdots x_{j_s+(d-s)t-1}\in I$ because $j<j_1\leq i_1$, $j_k+(t-1)\leq i_k+(t-1)<i_{k+1}$ for $2\leq k\leq s-1$ and $j_s+(kt-1)=i_s+1+(kt-1)=i_s+kt\leq i_{s+k}$ for $1\leq k\leq d-s$.
2. If there exists $2\leq l\leq s$ such that $j_{l-1}+(t-1)<j<j_l$, then $$x_{j_1} x_{j_2}\cdots x_{j_{l-1}} x_j x_{j_l+(t-1)}\cdots x_{j_s+(t-1)}\cdots x_{j_s+(d-s)t-1}\in I.$$ Indeed, $j_k\leq i_k$ for $1\leq k\leq l$. If $l=s$, then $j<j_s=i_s+1$ and $j_s+(kt-1)=i_s+1+(kt-1)=i_s+kt\leq i_{s+k}$ for $1\leq k\leq d-s$. In the case that $l<s$, we have $j<j_l\leq i_l$, $j_k+(t-1)\leq i_k+(t-1)<i_{k+1}$ for $l\leq k\leq s-1$ and $j_s+(kt-1)=i_s+1+(kt-1)\leq i_{s+k}$ for $1\leq k\leq d-s$.
It remains to show that the sets of the forms (i)–(iii) are the only facets of $\Delta$. This is equivalent to showing that for every face $G\in \Delta$, there exists $F\in \mathcal{F}(\Delta)$ of one of the forms (i)–(iii) which contains $G$.
Let $G\in \Delta$ and $j_1=\min\{j:j\in G\}$. Inductively, for $l\geq 2$, we set $$j_l=\min\{j:j\in G\text{ and }j\geq j_{l-1}+t\}.$$
In the case that $j_l\leq i_l$ for all $l$, then the sequence $j_1<j_2<\ldots<j_l<\ldots$ has at most $d-1$ elements. Otherwise, $x_{j_1}\cdots x_{j_d}\in I$, which implies that $G\notin\Delta$, a contradiction. Let $j_1<j_2<\ldots<j_r$ with $r\leq d-1$. Then $G\subset F_1=\{j_1,\ldots, j_1+(t-1),\ldots, j_r,\ldots, j_r+(t-1), i_{r+1},\ldots, i_{r+1}+(t-1),\ldots, i_{d-1},\ldots, i_{d-1}+(t-1)\}\in \mathcal{F}(\Delta)$.
If there exists $l\leq d$ such that $j_l>i_l$, then we denote by $s$ the smallest index with this property. In the case that $s=1$, $j_1=\min\{j:j\in G\}$ and $G\subset F_2=\{i_1+1, i_1+2,\ldots, n\}\in \mathcal{F}(\Delta)$. If $s>1$, then $G\subset F_3=\{j_1, j_1+1, \ldots, j_1+(t-1),\ldots, j_{s-1}, j_{s-1}+1, \ldots, j_{s-1}+(t-1), i_s+1, i_s+2, \ldots, n\}\in \mathcal{F}(\Delta)$.
\[SCM\] Let $t\geq 1$ be an integer, $u=x_{i_1}x_{i_2}\cdots x_{i_d}\in S$ a $t$-spread monomial, and suppose that $i_d=n.$ Then the $t$-spread principal Borel ideal $I=B_t(u)$ is sequentially Cohen-Macaulay.
By [@HHBook Theorem 8.2.20], it is enough to show that $I^{\vee}$, that is, the Stanley-Reisner ideal of $\Delta^{\vee}$, is componentwise linear. By [@HHBook Corollary 8.2.21], it suffices to prove that $I^{\vee}$ has linear quotients.
Let $w_1=\prod_{k=1}^{i_1}x_k$. Let $w_2,w_3,\ldots, w_q$ be the minimal monomial generators of $I^{\vee}$ of the form (\[form3\]), ordered decreasingly with respect to the pure lexicographic order. Let $w_{q+1},w_{q+2},\ldots, w_r$ be the remaining minimal monomial generators of $I^{\vee}$, namely those of form (\[form1\]), ordered decreasingly with respect to the pure lexicographic order.
We show that $I^{\vee}$ has linear quotients with respect to the above order of its minimal generators. This is equivalent to proving the following claim: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn}
\text{ for every }1<j\leq r \text{ and }g<j, \text{ there exists }w>_{\lex}w_j \text{ and } \\ \nonumber
1\leq l\leq n \text{ such that }x_l=\frac{w}{\gcd(w, w_j)} \text{ and }x_l\mid \frac{w_g}{\gcd(w_g, w_j)}.\end{aligned}$$
Since $w_2$ is the largest generator of the form (\[form3\]) with respect to the pure lexicographic order, we have $x_1x_2\cdots x_{i_1-1}\mid w_2$. Thus, we obtain $x_{i_1}=w_1/\gcd(w_1, w_2)$ and claim (\[eqn\]) is proved for $g=1<j=2.$
Let $2<j\leq q$, $g=1$ and $w_j=\prod_{k=1}^{i_s}x_k/v_{j_1}v_{j_2}\cdots v_{j_{s-1}}$ with $s\leq d-1$. If $j_1=i_1$, then we have $x_{i_1}={w_1}/{\gcd(w_1, w_j)}.$ Let $j_1<i_1$. Then $x_{j_1}\mid w_1/\gcd(w_1, w_j)$. We have to find $w>_{\lex}w_j$ such that $x_{j_1}=w/\gcd(w, w_j)$.
1. If there exists a least integer $1\leq l\leq s-2$ such that $j_{l+1}>j_l+t$, then we take $w=\prod_{k=1}^{i_s}x_k/v_{j_1+1}\cdots v_{j_l+1}v_{j_{l+1}}\cdots v_{j_{s-1}}$.
2. If $j_{l+1}=j_l+t$ for $1\leq l\leq s-2$, then $$w=\prod_{k=1}^{i_s}x_k/v_{j_1+1}\cdots v_{j_l+1}v_{j_{l+1}+1}\cdots v_{j_{s-1}+1}.$$
Let $1<g<j$. Then $w_g>_{\lex}w_j$. Let $$w_g=\frac{\prod_{k=1}^{i_{s'}}x_k}{v_{g_1}v_{g_2}\cdots v_{g_{s'-1}}}$$ with $s'\leq d-1$. Thus, we obtain $v_{g_1}v_{g_2}\cdots v_{g_{s'-1}}<_{\lex}v_{j_1}v_{j_2}\cdots v_{j_{s-1}}$. It implies that there exists $h\geq 1$ such that $j_1=g_1$, $j_2=g_2$,…, $j_{h-1}=g_{h-1}$ and $j_h<g_h\leq i_h$. Since $x_{j_h}\mid v_{j_1}v_{j_2}\cdots v_{j_{s-1}}$ and $x_{j_h}\nmid v_{g_1}v_{g_2}\cdots v_{g_{s'-1}}$, we get $x_{j_h}\mid {w_g}/{\gcd(w_g,w_j)}.$ Then we must find a generator $w$ of $I^{\vee}$ with $w>_{\lex}w_j$ such that $x_{j_h}=w/\gcd(w,w_j).$
1. If there exists a least integer $h\leq l\leq s-2$ such $j_{l+1}>j_l+t$, then $$w=\frac{\prod_{k=1}^{i_s}x_k}{v_{j_1}\cdots v_{j_{h-1}}v_{j_h+1}v_{j_{h+1}+1}\cdots v_{j_l+1}v_{j_{l+1}}\cdots v_{j_{s-1}}}.$$
2. If $j_{l+1}=j_l+t$ for $h\leq l\leq s-2$, then $w={\prod_{k=1}^{i_s}x_k}/{v_{j_1}\cdots v_{j_{h-1}}v_{j_h+1}\cdots v_{j_{s-1}+1}}.$
With similar arguments, one proves claim (\[eqn\]) for $q+1\leq j\leq r$.
Let $I=B_2(x_2x_4x_9)\subset K[x_1,\ldots,x_9].$ Then $$I^{\vee}=(x_1x_2, x_1x_4, x_3x_4, x_1x_6x_7x_8x_9, x_3x_6x_7x_8x_9, x_5x_6x_7x_8x_9),$$ where we ordered the generators as indicated in the proof of the above theorem.
The Rees algebra of $t$-spread Borel principal ideals {#two}
=====================================================
In this section we consider the Rees algebra of $t$-spread Borel principal ideals.
For two monomials $v,w\in S$ of degree $d$, we write $vw=x_{i_1}x_{i_2}\cdots x_{i_{2d}}$ with $i_1\leq i_2 \leq \cdots \leq i_{2d}.$ Then the *sorting* of the pair $(v,w)$ is the pair of monomials $(v',w')$ where $v'=x_{i_1}x_{i_3}\cdots x_{i_{2d-1}}$ and $w'=x_{i_2}x_{i_4}\cdots x_{i_{2d}}.$ The map $\sort:S_d \times S_d \to S_d \times S_d$ with $\sort(v,w)=(v',w')$ is called the *sorting operator*. A subset $B \subset S_{d}$ is called *sortable* if $\sort(B \times B) \subset B\times B$. An $r$-tuple $(u_1,\ldots,u_r)$ of monomials of degree $d$ is sorted if for all $1\leq i<j\leq r,$ the pair $(u_i,u_j)$ is sorted, that is, $\sort(u_i,u_j)=(u_i,u_j).$ This means that if we write $u_1=x_{i_1}\cdots x_{i_d}, u_2=x_{j_1}\cdots x_{j_d},\ldots, u_r=x_{k_1}\cdots x_{k_d},$ then $(u_1,\ldots,u_r)$ is sorted if and only if $i_1\leq j_1\leq \cdots \leq k_1\leq i_2\leq j_2\leq \cdots \leq k_2\leq \cdots \leq i_d\leq j_d\leq \cdots\leq k_d.$ By [@EHBook Theorem 6.12], for every $r$-tuple $(u_1,\ldots,u_r)$ of monomials of degree $d$, there exists a unique sorted $r$-tuple $(u_1^\prime,\ldots,u_r^\prime)$ such that $u_1\cdots u_r=u_1^\prime\cdots u_r^\prime.$ When $(u_1^\prime,\ldots,u_r^\prime)=(u_1,\ldots,u_r),$ we say that the product $u_1\cdots u_r$ is sorted.
Let $t\geq 1$ be an integer and $I=B_t(u)$ where $u=x_{i_1}\cdots x_{i_d}$ is a $t$-spread monomial. It was shown in [@EHQ Proposition 3.1] that the minimal set of monomial generators of a $t$-spread principal Borel ideal is sortable. Therefore, if $v,w \in G(I)$, and $\sort(v,w)=(v',w')$, then $v',w' \in G(I)$.
Let $\MR(I)= \bigoplus_{j\geq 0} {I^j}{t^j}$ be the Rees algebra of the ideal $I=B_t(u).$ Since the minimal generators of $B_t(u)$ have the same degree, the fiber $\MR(I)/\mathfrak{m}\MR(I)$ of the Rees ring $\MR(I)$ is isomorphic to $K[G(I)].$ Let $\psi:T=K[\{t_v: v\in G(I)\}]\to K[G(I)]$ be the homomorphism given by $t_{v}\mapsto v$ for $v\in G(I).$ As it was proved in [@EHQ Theorem 3.2], the set of binomials $$\MG=\{t_vt_w-t_{v^\prime}t_{w^\prime}: (v,w) \text{ unsorted }, (v^\prime, w^\prime)=\sort(v,w)\}$$ is a Gröbner basis of the toric ideal $J_u=\ker \psi$ with respect to the sorting order on $T$. For more details about sorting order we refer to [@St95 Chapter 14] or [@EHBook Section 6.2]. The initial monomial of the binomial $t_vt_w-t_{v^\prime}t_{w^\prime}\in \MG$ with respect to the sorting order is $t_vt_w.$
We now recall the definition of *$\ell$-exchange property* from [@HHV05]; see also [@EHBook Section 6.4] and [@EO Section 3].
Let $I\subset S$ be a monomial ideal generated in a single degree and $K[\{t_u: u\in G(I)\}]$ the polynomial ring in $|G(I)|$ variables endowed with a monomial order $<.$ Let $P$ be the kernel of the $K$-algebra homomorphism $$K[\{t_u: u\in G(I)\}]\to K[G(I)], t_u\mapsto u, u\in G(I).$$
A monomial $t_{u_1}\cdots t_{u_N}$ is called *standard with respect to $<$* if it does not belong to $\ini_<(P).$
[@HHV05]\[defellexchange\] The monomial ideal $I\subset S$ satisfies the $\ell$-exchange property with respect to $<$ if the following condition holds: let $t_{u_1}\cdots t_{u_N},t_{v_1}\cdots t_{v_N}$ be two standard monomials with respect to $<$ of the same degree $N$ satisfying
- $\deg_{x_i} u_1\cdots u_N=\deg_{x_i}v_1\cdots v_N$ for $1\leq i\leq q-1$ with $q\leq n-1,$
- $\deg_{x_q}u_1\cdots u_N<\deg_{x_q}v_1\cdots v_N.$
Then there exists integers $\delta, j$ with $q<j\leq n$ and $j\in \supp(u_\delta)$ such that $x_q u_\delta/x_j\in I.$
\[elexchange\] Let $u=x_{i_1}\cdots x_{i_d}$ be a $t$-spread monomial in $S.$ Then the $t$-spread principal Borel ideal $B_t(u)$ satisfies the $\ell$-exchange property with respect to the sorting order $<_{sort}.$
Let $T=K[\{t_v : v\in G(B_t(u))\}]$ and $t_{u_1}\cdots t_{u_N},t_{v_1}\cdots t_{v_N}\in T$ be two standard monomials with respect to $<_{\sort}$ of the same degree $N$ such that the two conditions of Definition \[defellexchange\] are fulfilled. As the chosen monomials are standard with respect to $<_{\sort}$, it follows that the products $ u_1\cdots u_N, v_1\cdots v_N$ are sorted. Since $\deg_{x_i} u_1\cdots u_N=\deg_{x_i}v_1\cdots v_N$ for $1\leq i\leq q-1$, we have $\deg_{x_i}(u_\nu)=\deg_{x_i}(v_\nu)$ for all $1\leq \nu\leq N$ and $1\leq i\leq q-1$. The condition $\deg_{x_q}u_1\cdots u_N<\deg_{x_q}v_1\cdots v_N$ implies that there exists $1\leq \delta\leq N$ such that $\deg_{x_q}(u_\delta)<\deg_{x_q}(v_\delta).$
Let $u_{\delta}=x_{j_1}\cdots x_{j_d}$, $v_{\delta}=x_{\ell_1}\cdots x_{\ell_d}$, and assume that $q=\ell_\mu$ for some $1\leq \mu <d.$ It follows that $j_1=\ell_1,\ldots,j_{\mu-1}=\ell_{\mu-1}$ and $j_\mu>\ell_\mu=q.$ If $j_\mu\not\in \supp(v_{\delta}),$ then we take $j=j_\mu.$ Then the monomial $x_qu_{\delta}/x_j$ is $t$-spread, thus it belongs to $B_t(u)$, since $q=\ell_\mu\geq \ell_{\mu-1}+t=j_{\mu-1}+t$ and $j_{\mu+1}\geq j_\mu+t>q+t.$
If $j_\mu\in \supp(v_{\delta}), $ we may choose any $j\in \supp(u_\delta)\setminus \supp(v_{\delta})$ with $j>q.$ We should note that such an integer $j$ exists since $\deg (u_\delta)=\deg (v_\delta)$ and $\deg_{x_q}(u_\delta)<\deg_{x_q}(v_\delta).$ Then $x_qu_{\delta}/x_j$ is $t$-spread since $q,j_\mu\in\supp(v_{\delta}).$
The Rees ring $\MR(I)$ where $I=B_t(u)$ has the presentation $$\varphi: R=S[\{t_v : v\in G(I)\}]\to \MR(I),$$ given by $$x_i\mapsto x_i, 1\leq i\leq n, t_v\mapsto v t, v\in G(I).$$ Let $J=\ker \varphi$ be the toric ideal of $\MR(I).$ We consider the sorting order $<_{\sort}$ on the ring $T=K[\{t_v : v\in G(I)\}]$ and the lexicographic order $<_{\lex}$ on the ring $S.$ Let $<$ be the monomial order on $ R=S[\{t_v : v\in G(I)\}]$ defined as follows: if $m_1, m_2$ are monomials in $S$ and $v_1,v_2$ are monomials in $T,$ then $$m_1v_1>m_2v_2 \text{ if } m_1>_{\lex} m_2 \text{ or } m_1=m_2 \text{ and } v_1>_{\sort}v_2.$$
\[GBRees\] Let $I=B_t(u)$ be a $t$-spread principal Borel ideal. The reduced Gröbner basis of the toric ideal $J$ with respect to $<$ consists of the set of binomials $t_vt_w-t_{v^\prime}t_{w^\prime}$ where $(v,w)$ is unsorted and $(v^\prime, w^\prime)=\sort(v,w),$ together with the binomials of the form $x_i t_v-x_j t_w$ where $i<j,$ $x_iv=x_jw$, and $j$ is the largest integer for which $x_iv/x_j\in G(I).$
By Proposition \[elexchange\], we know that the principal Borel ideal $B_t(u)$ satisfies the $\ell$-exchange property with respect to the sorting order $<_{sort}.$ Thus, the statement follows by applying [@HHV05 Theorem 5.1].
\[linear quotients\] All the powers of $B_t(u)$ have linear quotients. In particular, all the powers of $B_t(u)$ have a linear resolution.
By Theorem \[GBRees\], it follows that every binomial in the reduced Gröbner basis of the toric ideal $J$ has the degree in variables $x_i$ at most $1$ which means that $B_t(u)$ satisfies the $x$-condition. Then, by [@HHBook Theorem 10.1.9], all the powers of $B_t(u)$ have linear quotients.
Theorem \[GBRees\] shows that the Rees algebra $\MR(B_t(u))$ has a quadratic Gröbner basis and the initial ideal of the toric ideal $J$ is squarefree. Therefore, we get the following consequences.
The Rees algebra $\MR(B_t(u))$ is Koszul.
\[CMRees\] The Rees algebra $\MR(B_t(u))$ is a normal Cohen-Macaulay domain. In particular, $B_t(u)$ satisfies the strong persistence property. Therefore, $B_t(u)$ satisfies the persistence property.
Since the initial ideal of the toric ideal $J$ of $\MR(B_t(u))$ is squarefree, by a theorem due to Sturmfels [@St95], it follows that $K[B_t(u)]$ is a normal domain. Next, by a theorem of Hochster [@Ho72], it follows that $K[B_t(u)]$ is Cohen-Macaulay. The second part follows by using [@HQ Corollary 1.6].
Depth of powers of $t$-spread principal Borel ideals {#three}
====================================================
In this section, we consider the asymptotic behavior of the depth for $t$-spread principal Borel ideals.
Let $u=x_{i_1}\cdots x_{i_d}$ be the generator of the $t$-spread principal Borel ideal $I=B_t(u)\subset S=K[x_1,\ldots,x_n].$ We would like to compute the limit of $\depth(S/I^k)$ when $k\to \infty.$ Obviously, we may consider $i_d=n$ since otherwise we may reduce to the study of $\depth S'/I^k$ where $S' =K[x_1,\ldots,x_{i_d}].$
\[limdepth\] Let $t\geq 1$ be an integer and $I=B_t(u)\subset S$ the $t$-spread principal Borel ideal generated by $u=x_{i_1}\cdots x_{i_d}$ where $t+1\leq i_1<i_2<\cdots <i_{d-1}<i_d=n.$ Then $$\depth\frac{S}{I^k}=0, \text{ for }k\geq d.$$ In particular, the analytic spread of $I$ is $\ell(I)=n.$
We first observe that the second claim of the theorem follows since it is known that, for any non-zero graded ideal $I,$ $\lim_{k\to \infty} \depth(S/I^k)=n-\ell(I)$ if the Rees algebra $\MR(I)$ is Cohen-Macaulay; see [@HHBook Proposition 10.3.2]. But the Rees algebra of $B_t(u)$ is indeed Cohen-Macaulay by Corollary \[CMRees\].
In order to prove the first claim, by Auslander-Buchsbaum theorem, we have to show that $$\label{eq1}
\projdim \frac{S}{I^k}=n \text{ for }k\geq d.$$
Since $I$ satisfies the $\ell$-exchange property (Proposition \[elexchange\]), by using [@EO Theorem 3.6], it follows that $I^k$ has linear quotients with respect to $>_{\lex}$ for all $k\geq 1.$ This implies that we may compute the projective dimension of $S/I^k$ by using [@HHBook Corollary 8.2.2]. More precisely, if $G(I^k)=\{w_1,\ldots,w_m\}$ with $w_1>_{\lex}\cdots >_{\lex}w_m$ and for $1\leq j\leq m,$ $r_j$ is the number of variables which generate the ideal quotient $(w_1,\ldots,w_{j-1}):w_j,$ then $$\projdim \frac{S}{I^k}=\max\{r_1,\ldots,r_m\}+1.$$
Thus, in order to prove (\[eq1\]), we only need to find a monomial $w\in G(I^k)$ such that the ideal quotient $(w'\in G(I^k): w'>_{\lex} w):w$ is generated by $n-1$ variables. Let $w_0=v_1 v_2\cdots v_{d-1}v_d$ where $$v_1=x_1 x_{t+1} \ldots x_{(d-3)t+1} x_{(d-2)t+1} x_n$$ $$v_2=x_1 x_{t+1} \ldots x_{(d-3)t+1} x_{i_{d-1}} x_n$$ $$\vdots$$ $$v_{d-1}=x_1 x_{i_2} \ldots x_{i_{d-2}} x_{i_{d-1}} x_n$$ $$v_d=u=x_{i_1} x_{i_2} \ldots x_{i_{d-2}} x_{i_{d-1}} x_n.$$
Obviously, all the monomials $v_1,\ldots,v_d$ belong to $G(I).$ Let $k\geq d$ and $w=w_0u^{k-d}\in G(I^k).$ If we show that $(w'\in G(I^k): w'>_{\lex} w):w\supseteq (x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1})$ then the proof of equality (\[eq1\]) is completed.
Let $J=(w'\in G(I^k): w'>_{\lex} w).$ We show that $x_j w\in J$ for all $1\leq j\leq n-1.$ Let $1\leq s\leq d$ such that $i_{s-1}\leq j <i_s,$ where we set $i_0=1.$ We consider the monomial $$v'_{d-s+1}=\frac{x_j v_{d-s+1}}{x_{i_s}}=x_1x_{t+1}\cdots x_{(s-2)t+1}x_j x_{i_{s+1}}\cdots x_{i_{d-1}}x_n.$$ Clearly, $v'_{d-s+1}\in G(I)$ since $j<i_s$ and $v'_{d-s+1}$ is a $t$-spread monomial. Indeed, we have $i_{s+1}-j>i_{s+1}-i_s\geq t$ and $$j-(s-2)t-1\geq i_{s-1}-(s-2)t-1\geq (i_1+(s-2)t)-(s-2)t-1=i_1-1\geq t.$$ Let $w'_0$ be monomial obtained from $w_0$ by replacing the monomial $v_{d-s+1}$ with $v'_{d-s+1}$ and let $w'=w'_0 u^{k-d}.$ Then $w'>_{\lex}w,$ thus $w'\in J$ and since $x_j w=x_{i_s}w',$ we have $x_jw\in J,$ which implies that $x_j\in J:w.$
The analytic spread $\ell(I)$ of a graded ideal $I\subset S$ is the Krull dimension of the fiber ring $\MR(I)/\mathfrak{m} \MR(I)$ where $\mathfrak{m}=(x_1,\ldots,x_n).$ In our case, $I=B_t(u)$ is generated in the same degree $d.$ Thus the fiber ring is actually $K[G(B_t(u))].$ Therefore, we get the following consequence.
Let $t\geq 1$ be an integer and $B_t(u)\subset S$ the $t$-spread principal Borel ideal generated by $u=x_{i_1}\cdots x_{i_d}$ where $t+1\leq i_1<i_2<\cdots <i_{d-1}<i_d=n.$ Then $\dim K[G(B_t(u))]=n.$
Note that the order with respect to which we derived that all the powers of $B_t(u)$ have linear quotients in Proposition \[linear quotients\] does not coincide with the decreasing lexicographic order that we used in the proof of Theorem \[limdepth\]. In fact, the toric ideal of $K[B_t(u)]$ does not have a quadratic Gröbner basis with respect to the lexicographic order as we can see in the following example.
Let $u=x_6 x_8 x_{10}\in K[x_1,\ldots,x_{10}]$ and $B_2(u)$ the $2$-spread principal Borel ideal defined by $u$. Let $f=t_{u_1}t_{u_2}t_{u_3}-t_{v_1}t_{v_2}t_{v_3}$ with $u_1=x_1x_3x_8$, $u_2=x_1x_7x_9$, $u_3=x_2x_4x_6$ and $v_1=x_1x_3x_9$, $v_2=x_1x_6x_8$, $v_3=x_2x_4x_7$. Then $f$ is a binomial in the toric ideal of $K[B_2(u)]$ whose initial monomial with respect to the lexicographic order is $t_{u_1}t_{u_2}t_{u_3}.$ One can easily see that there is no quadratic monomial in the initial ideal of the toric ideal which divides $t_{u_1}t_{u_2}t_{u_3}.$ This shows that, with respect to the lexicographic order, the reduced Gröbner basis of the toric ideal of $K[B_2(u)]$ is not quadratic.
Condition $i_1\geq t+1$ in the hypothesis of Theorem \[limdepth\] is essential. Indeed, let us consider $I=B_t(u)$ where $u=x_t x_{2t}\cdots x_{dt}$, the $t$-spread Veronese ideal in $n=dt$ variables. We claim that $$\depth \frac{S}{I^k}=d-1, \text{ for }k\geq d,$$ which implies that $$\lim_{k\to\infty} \depth \frac{S}{I^k}=d-1.$$ In particular, this implies that the analytic spread of $I$ is $\ell(I)=n-d+1=\dim K[B_t(u)].$ Indeed, we show that $$\projdim \frac{S}{I^k}=n-d+1, \text{ for }k\geq d.$$ As in the proof of Theorem \[limdepth\], one considers the monomials $$v_1=x_1x_{t+1}\cdots x_{(d-2)t+1}x_{dt},\ldots,
v_{d-1}=x_1 x_{2t}\cdots x_{dt}, v_d=u=x_t x_{2t}\cdots x_{dt},$$ and shows that, for $k\geq d,$ $$(w^\prime\in G(I^k):w^\prime >_{\lex} w):w\supseteq (x_j: j\in [n]\setminus \supp(u)),$$ where $w=v_1\cdots v_d u^{k-d}.$
On the other hand, we show that for every $j\in \supp(u),$ $x_j$ does not appear among the variables which generate the colon ideals of $I^k.$ Let us assume that there exists $k\geq 1$ and some monomial $\mu\in I^k,$ $\mu=\mu_1\cdots \mu_k$ with $\mu_1,\ldots, \mu_k\in I$, such that $x_j\in (\mu^\prime\in I^k: \mu^\prime>_{\lex }\mu)$ for some $j\in \supp(u).$ This implies that there exists $\mu^\prime=\mu_1^\prime\cdots \mu_k^\prime\in I^k$ and some integer $s>j$ such that $x_j \mu= \mu^\prime x_s.$ Let $j=qt$ for some $1\leq q\leq d. $ Then $$\sum_{\ell=(q-1)t+1}^{qt}\deg_{x_{\ell}}(x_j \mu)=\sum_{\ell=(q-1)t+1}^{qt}\deg_{x_{\ell}}(x_j \mu_1\cdots \mu_k)=k+1> k=$$ $$=\sum_{\ell=(q-1)t+1}^{qt}\deg_{x_{\ell}}( \mu_1^\prime\cdots \mu_k^\prime x_s)=\sum_{\ell=(q-1)t+1}^{qt}\deg_{x_{\ell}} (\mu^\prime x_s),$$ contradiction. Therefore, the maximal number of variables which generate the colon ideals of $I^k$ for $k\geq d$ is $n-d,$ which implies that $\projdim \frac{S}{I^k}=n-d+1, \text{ for }k\geq d.$
V. Ene, J. Herzog, *Gröbner bases in commutative algebra*, Grad. Stud. Math. [**130**]{}, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI 2012.
V. Ene, J. Herzog, A. Asloob Qureshi, *$t$-spread strongly stable ideals*, arXiv:1805.02368
V. Ene, O Olteanu, *Powers of lexsegment ideals with linear resolution*, Illinois J. Math. **56** no. 2 (2012), 533-549.
J. Herzog, T. Hibi, *Monomial ideals*, Grad. Texts in Math. [**260**]{}, Springer, London, 2010.
J. Herzog, T. Hibi, M. Vladoiu, *Ideals of fiber type and polymatroids*, Osaka J. Math. **42** (2005), 807–829.
J. Herzog, A. Asloob Qureshi, *Persistence and stability properties of powers of ideals*, J. Pure Appl. Algebra **219** (2015), 530–542.
M. Hochster, *Rings of invariants of tori, Cohen-Macaulay rings generated by monomials, and polytopes*, Ann. of Math. **96** (1972), 228–235.
B. Sturmfels, *Gröbner Bases and Convex Polytopes*, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1995.
[^1]: This paper was written while the third author visited the Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Ovidius University of Constanta. The research of the third author was partially supported by Amirkabir University of Technology.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The modules of principal parts ${\mathcal{P} }^k({\mathcal{E}})$ of a locally free sheaf ${\mathcal{E}}$ on a smooth scheme $X$ is a sheaf of ${\mathcal{O} }_X$-bimodules which is locally free as left and right ${\mathcal{O} }_X$-module. We split explicitly the modules of principal parts ${\mathcal{P} }^k({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ on the projective line in arbitrary characteristic, as left and right ${\mathcal{O} }_{{\mathbf{P} }^1}$-module. We get examples when the splitting-type as left module differs from the splitting-type as right module. We also give examples showing that the splitting-type of the principal parts changes with the characteristic of the base field.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Exact Sciences, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel '
author:
- Helge Maakestad
date: 2001
title: Modules of principal parts on the projective line
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
In this paper we will study the splitting-type of the modules of principal parts of invertible sheaves on the projective line as left and right ${\mathcal{O} }_{{\mathbf{P} }^1}$-module in arbitrary characteristic. The splitting type of the principal parts ${\mathcal{P} }^k({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ as a left ${\mathcal{O} }_{{\mathbf{P} }^1}$-module in characteristic zero has been studied by several authors (see [@PERK2], [@PIE] and [@dirocco]). The novelty of this work is that we consider the principal parts as left and right ${\mathcal{O} }_{{\mathbf{P} }^1}$-module in arbitrary characteristic. We give examples when the splitting-type as left ${\mathcal{O} }_{{\mathbf{P} }^1}$-module differs from the splitting-type as right ${\mathcal{O} }_{{\mathbf{P} }^1}$-module. The main theorem of the paper (Theorem \[leftandright\]), gives the splitting-type of ${\mathcal{P} }^1({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ as left and right ${\mathcal{O} }_{{\mathbf{P} }^1}$-module for all $n\geq 1$ over any field $F$. The result is the following: The principal parts ${\mathcal{P} }^1({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ splits as ${\mathcal{O} }(n)\oplus {\mathcal{O} }(n-2)$ as right ${\mathcal{O} }_{{\mathbf{P} }^1}$-module. If the characteristic of $F$ divides $n$, ${\mathcal{P} }^1({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ splits as ${\mathcal{O} }(n)\oplus {\mathcal{O} }(n-2)$ as left ${\mathcal{O} }_{{\mathbf{P} }^1}$-module. If the characteristic of $F$ does not divide $n$, ${\mathcal{P} }^1({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ splits as ${\mathcal{O} }(n-1)\oplus {\mathcal{O} }(n-1)$ as left ${\mathcal{O} }_{{\mathbf{P} }^1}$-module. Hence the modules of principal parts are the first examples of a sheaf of abelian groups equipped with two non-isomorphic structures as locally free sheaf. In the papers [@PERK2], [@PIE] and [@dirocco] the authors work in characteristic zero, and they only consider the left module structure. The proofs are not explicit. In this work we split the principal parts explicitly and the techniques we develop will be used in future papers to get deeper knowledge of the principal parts in positive characteristic. All computations are explicit, and in sections 3 - 6 we develop techniques to construct explicit non-trivial maps of ${\mathcal{O} }$-modules from ${\mathcal{O} }(l)$ to ${\mathcal{P} }^k({\mathcal{O} }(n))$. The main theorem here is Theorem \[maintheorem\], where we prove existence of certain systems of linear equations with integer coefficients. Solutions to the systems satisfying extra criteria determins the splitting-type of ${\mathcal{P} }^k({\mathcal{O} }(n))$. Theorem \[maintheorem\] is used in Proposition \[characteristiczero\] to determine the splitting-type of ${\mathcal{P} }^k({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ for all $1\leq k \leq n$ in characteristic zero, and we recover results obtained in [@PERK2],[@PIE] and [@dirocco]. We also give examples where the splitting-type can be determined by diagonalizing the structure-matrix defining the principal parts (Section 4).
**Acknowledgments** This paper form part of my PhD-thesis written under supervision of Dan Laksov at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, and I want to thank him for expert advice on algebraic geometry. The paper in its final form was written partly in spring 2001 during a stay at the Institut Joseph Fourier in Grenoble, financed by an EAGER-scholarship, and I want to thank Michel Brion for an invitation to the IJF. Parts of the paper was written in September 2001 during a stay at the Department of Mathematics at the Bar-Ilan University in Israel and I want to thank Mina Teicher for an invitation to the Bar-Ilan University. Thanks also to Rolf Källström for interest in this work.
Modules of principal parts
==========================
In this section we define and prove basic properties of the principal parts: existence of fundamental exact sequences, functoriality and existence of bimodule-structure. In the following let $X$ be a scheme defined over a fixed base-scheme $S$. We assume that $X$ is separated and smooth over $S$. Let $\Delta$ in $X\times _S X$ be the diagonal, and let $\mathcal{I}$ in ${\mathcal{O} }_{X\times_S X}$ be the sheaf of ideals defining $\Delta$. Let $X^k$ be the scheme with topological space $\Delta$ and with structure-sheaf ${\mathcal{O} }_{\Delta^k}={\mathcal{O} }_{X\times _S X}/\mathcal{I}^{k+1}$. By definition, $X^k$ is the *$k$’th order infinitesimal neighborhood of the diagonal*. In the following, we omit reference to the base scheme $S$ in products.
\[principalparts\] Let ${\mathcal{E}}$ be an quasi-coherent ${\mathcal{O} }_X$-module. We define the *$k$’th order modules of principal parts* of ${\mathcal{E}}$, to be $${\mathcal{P} }^k_X({\mathcal{E}})=p_*({\mathcal{O} }_{\Delta^k}\otimes q^*{\mathcal{E}}).$$ We write ${\mathcal{P} }^k_X$ for the module ${\mathcal{P} }^k_X({\mathcal{O} }_X)$.
When it is clear from the context which scheme we are working on, we write ${\mathcal{P} }^k({\mathcal{E}})$ instead of ${\mathcal{P} }^k_X({\mathcal{E}})$.
\[fundamentalexact\] Let ${\mathcal{E}}$ be a quasi-coherent ${\mathcal{O} }_X$-module. There exists an exact sequence $$0 \rightarrow S^k(\Omega^1_X)\otimes {\mathcal{E}}\rightarrow {\mathcal{P} }^k_X({\mathcal{E}}) \rightarrow
{\mathcal{P} }^{k-1}_X({\mathcal{E}}) \rightarrow 0$$ of ${\mathcal{O} }_X$-modules, where $k=1,2,\dots$.
See [@LAKSOV], Section 4.
From Proposition \[fundamentalexact\] it follows by induction, that for a locally free sheaf ${\mathcal{E}}$ of rank $e$, ${\mathcal{P} }^k_X({\mathcal{E}})$ is locally free of rank $e\binom{n+k}{n}$, where $n$ is the relative dimension of $X$ over $S$.
\[functoriality\] Let $f:X\rightarrow Y$ be a map of smooth schemes over $S$, and let ${\mathcal{E}}$ be a locally free ${\mathcal{O} }_Y$-module. Then there exists a commutative diagram of exact sequences $$\diagram 0 \rto & S^k(f^*\Omega^1_Y)\otimes f^*{\mathcal{E}}\dto \rto
& f^*{\mathcal{P} }^k_Y({\mathcal{E}}) \dto \rto & f^*{\mathcal{P} }^{k-1}_Y({\mathcal{E}}) \dto \rto & 0 \\
0 \rto & S^k(\Omega^1_X)\otimes f^*{\mathcal{E}}\rto & {\mathcal{P} }^k_X(f^*{\mathcal{E}}) \rto & {\mathcal{P} }^{k-1}_X(f^*{\mathcal{E}})
\rto & 0 \enddiagram$$ of left ${\mathcal{O} }_X$-modules for all $k=1,2,\dots$.
See [@PERK].
From Proposition \[functoriality\] it follows that if $U$ is an open subset of $X$, we have that ${\mathcal{P} }^k_X({\mathcal{E}})|_U$ equals ${\mathcal{P} }^k_U({\mathcal{E}}|_U)$, which allows one to do local computations.
\[functor\] The principal parts ${\mathcal{P} }^k_X$ define a covariant functor $${\mathcal{P} }^k_X: {\mathcal{O} }_X-\underline{mod}\rightarrow {\mathcal{P} }^k_X-\underline{mod},$$ where for all quasi-coherent ${\mathcal{O} }_X$-modules ${\mathcal{E}}$, the k’th order principal parts ${\mathcal{P} }^k_X({\mathcal{E}})$ is a quasi-coherent ${\mathcal{P} }^k_X$-module. The functor is right exact and commute with direct limits. If ${\mathcal{P} }^k_X$ is flat, the functor is exact.
See [@EGAIV], Proposition 16.7.3.
Note that since we assume $X$ smooth over $S$, it follows that ${\mathcal{P} }^k_X$ is locally free, hence the functor in Proposition \[functor\] is exact.
We next consider the bimodule-structure of the principal parts.
\[pushiso\] Let $f,g:U\rightarrow V$ be morphisms of topological spaces, and let $s$ be a section of $f$ and $g$ with $s(V)$ a closed set. Let furthermore ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a sheaf of abelian groups on $U$ with support in $s(V)$ Then $f_*({\mathcal{A}})$ equals $g_*({\mathcal{A}})$.
We first claim that the natural map from $s_*s^{-1}{\mathcal{A}}$ to ${\mathcal{A}}$ is an isomorphism: Since $s(V)$ is closed, and $s$ is a section of $f$, it follows that $s$ is a closed map. Both $s_*s^{-1}{\mathcal{A}}$ and ${\mathcal{A}}$ have support contained in $s(V)$, hence we prove that the map is an isomorphism at the stalks for all points $p$ in $s(V)$. We see that $(s_*s^{-1}{\mathcal{A}})_{s(p)}$ equals $(s^{-1}{\mathcal{A}})_p$, since $s$ is a closed immersion. Furthermore we have that $(s^{-1}{\mathcal{A}})_p$ equals ${\mathcal{A}}_{s(p)}$ since $s^{-1}$ is an exact functor, and the claim follows. It now follows that $f_*{\mathcal{A}}$ is isomorphic to $f_*s_*s^{-1}{\mathcal{A}}$, and since $s$ is a section of $f$, we get that $f_*{\mathcal{A}}$ is isomorphic to $s^{-1}{\mathcal{A}}$. A similar argument proves that $g_*{\mathcal{A}}$ is isomorphic to $s^{-1}{\mathcal{A}}$, and the proposition follows.
Let now $\Delta$ be the diagonal in $X\times X$, which is closed since $X$ is separated over $S$. Then the sheaf ${\mathcal{O} }_{\Delta^k}\otimes q^*{\mathcal{E}}$ has support in $\Delta $, hence by Proposition \[pushiso\] it follows that ${\mathcal{P} }^k_X({\mathcal{E}})=p_*({\mathcal{O} }_{\Delta^k}\otimes q^*{\mathcal{E}})$ is isomorphic to $q_*({\mathcal{O} }_{\Delta^k}\otimes q^*{\mathcal{E}})$. By the projection formula, we see that $q_*({\mathcal{O} }_{\Delta^k}\otimes q^*{\mathcal{E}})$ equals $q_*({\mathcal{O} }_{\Delta^k})\otimes {\mathcal{E}}$, hence by Proposition \[pushiso\] we see that ${\mathcal{P} }^k_X({\mathcal{E}})$ is isomorphic to $q_*({\mathcal{O} }_{\Delta^k})\otimes {\mathcal{E}}$ as sheaves of abelian groups. Identifying $q_*({\mathcal{O} }_{\Delta^k})\otimes {\mathcal{E}}$ with ${\mathcal{P} }^k_X({\mathcal{E}})$, we see that we have defined two ${\mathcal{O} }_X$-module structures on ${\mathcal{P} }^k_X({\mathcal{E}})$, hence it is a sheaf of ${\mathcal{O} }_X$-bimodules. This means that for any open set $U$ of $X$, the sheaf ${\mathcal{P} }^k_U({\mathcal{E}}|_U)$ is an ${\mathcal{O} }_X(U)$-bimodule, and all restriction maps are maps of bimodules satisfying obvious compatibility criteria. Let $X^k$ be the $k$’th order infinitesimal neighborhood of the diagonal. Then the two projection-maps $p,q:X^k\rightarrow X$ induce two maps $l,r:{\mathcal{O} }_X\rightarrow {\mathcal{P} }^k_X$ of ${\mathcal{O} }_X$-modules. The maps $l$ and $r$ are the maps defining the bimodule structure on ${\mathcal{P} }^k_X$, and we see that ${\mathcal{P} }^k_X$ is a sheaf of ${\mathcal{O} }_X$-bialgebras. The map $d=l-r:{\mathcal{O} }_X\rightarrow {\mathcal{P} }^k_X$ is verified to be a differential operator of order $k$, called *the universal differential operator*.
Transition matrices for principal parts as left module
======================================================
In this section we compute explicitly the transition-matrices defining the principal parts ${\mathcal{P} }^k({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ on the projective line over the integers. We will use the following notation: Define ${\mathbf{P} }^1$ as ${\operatorname{Proj} }\mathbf{Z}[x_0,x_1]$, where $\mathbf{Z}$ are the integers and put ${\operatorname{U}}_i={\operatorname{D} }(x_i)$ and ${\operatorname{U}}_{01}={\operatorname{D} }(x_0x_1)$ for $i=0,1$, where $x_i$ are homogeneous coordinates on ${\mathbf{P} }^1$. Consider the modules of principal parts ${\mathcal{P} }^k$ from Definition \[principalparts\] on ${\mathbf{P} }^1$ for $k\geq 1$. On the open set ${\operatorname{U}}_{01}$, the modules of principal parts ${\mathcal{P} }^k$ equals ${\mathbf{Z} }[t,{\frac{1}{t} },u,{\frac{1}{u} }]/(u-t,{\frac{1}{u} }-{\frac{1}{t} })^{k+1}$ as ${\mathcal{O} }_{{\operatorname{U}}_{01}}$-module, and ${\mathcal{O} }_{{\operatorname{U}}_{01}}$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbf{Z} }[t,{\frac{1}{t} }]$.
On the open set ${\operatorname{U}}_{01}$, as a left ${\mathcal{O} }$-module, ${\mathcal{P} }^k$ is a free ${\mathbf{Z} }[t,{\frac{1}{t} }]$-module of rank $k+1$, and there exists two natural bases. The bases are $B=\{1,dt,dt^2, \dots , dt^k\}$ and $B'=\{ 1,ds,ds^2, \dots , ds^k \}$, where $dt^i=(u-t)^i$ and $ds^i=({\frac{1}{u} }-{\frac{1}{t} })^i$.
Easy calculation.
Consider ${\mathcal{P} }^k$ as left ${\mathcal{O} }$-module on ${\mathbf{P} }^1$ with $k=1,2,\dots$. On the open set ${\operatorname{U}}_{01}$ the transition matrix $[L]^{B'}_{B}$ between the two bases $B'$ and $B$ is given by the following formula $$ds^p= \sum_{i=0}^{k-p}(-1)^{i+p}\frac{1}{t^{i+2p} }
\binom{i+p-1}{p-1}dt^{i+p}$$ for all $0\leq p \leq k$.
By definition $ds^p$ equals $({\frac{1}{u} }-{\frac{1}{t} })^p$ in the module ${\mathbf{Z} }[t,{\frac{1}{t} },u,{\frac{1}{u} }](u-t,{\frac{1}{u} }-{\frac{1}{t} })^{k+1}$. It follows that $$ds^p=({\frac{1}{u} }-{\frac{1}{t} })^p=\frac{(-1)^p(u-t)^p}{u^pt^p}=
(-1)^p\frac{1}{t^p}dt^p\frac{1}{u^p} ,$$ and since $u=t+u-t=t+dt$ we get $$ds^p=(-1)^p\frac{1}{t^p}dt^p\frac{1}{(t+dt)^p}.$$ We see that $$ds^p=(-1)^p\frac{1}{t^{2p} }dt^p\frac{1}{(1+dt/t)^p} ,$$ and using the identity $$\frac{1}{(1+\omega)^p}=\sum_{i\geq0}(-1)^i\binom{i+p-1}{p-1}\omega^i$$ we get $$ds^p= (-1)^p\frac{1}{t^{2p }}dt^p\sum_{i\geq 0}(-1)^i\binom{i+p-1}{p-1}
(\frac{dt}{t})^i.$$ We put $dt^{k+1}=dt^{k+2}=\cdots =0$ and get $$ds^p=\sum_{i=0}^{k-p}(-1)^{i+p}\frac{1}{t^{i+2p}}\binom{i+p-1}{p-1}dt^{i+p}$$ and the proposition is proved.
Consider the invertible ${\mathcal{O} }$-module ${\mathcal{O} }(n)$ on ${\mathbf{P} }^1$, with $n\geq 1$. We want to study the principal parts ${\mathcal{P} }^k({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ with $1\leq k \leq n$ as a left ${\mathcal{O} }$-module.
\[basis\] On the open set ${\operatorname{U}}_{01}$ as left ${\mathcal{O} }$ module, ${\mathcal{P} }^k({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ is a free ${\mathbf{Z} }[t,{\frac{1}{t} }]$-module of rank $k+1$, and there exists two natural bases. The bases are $C=\{1\otimes x_0^n,dt\otimes x_0^n,\dots , dt^k\otimes x_0^n\}$ and $C'=\{ 1\otimes x_1^n,ds\otimes x_1^n, \dots , ds^k\otimes x_1^n \}$, where $dt^i=(u-t)^i$ and $ds^i=({\frac{1}{u} }-{\frac{1}{t} })^i$.
Easy calculation.
\[transitionmatrix\] Consider ${\mathcal{P} }^k({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ as left ${\mathcal{O} }$-module on ${\mathbf{P} }^1$. On the open set ${\operatorname{U}}_{01}$ the transition-matrix $[L]^{C'}_{C}$ between the bases $C$ and $C'$ is given by the following formula $$ds^p\otimes x_1^n= \sum_{i=0}^{k-p}(-1)^p\frac{1}{t^{i+2p-n}}\binom{n-p}{i}
dt^{i+p}\otimes x_0^n .$$ where $0\leq p \leq k$.
By definition $$ds^p\otimes x_1^n= ({\frac{1}{u} }-{\frac{1}{t} })^p\otimes t^nx_0^n= (-1)^p\frac{(u-t)^p}{u^pt^p}
u^n\otimes x_0^n.$$ Since $n-p\geq 0$ and $u=t+dt$ we get $$ds^p\otimes x_1^n=(-1)^p\frac{1}{t^p}dt^p(t+dt)^{n-p}\otimes x_0^n.$$ Using the binomial theorem, we get $$ds^p\otimes x_1^n=(-1)^p\frac{1}{t^p}dt^p\sum_{i=0}^{n-p}\binom{n-p}{i}
t^{n-p-i}dt^i\otimes x_0^n .$$ By assumption $dt^{k+1}=dt^{k+2}=\cdots =0$, which gives $$ds^p\otimes x_1^n= \sum_{i=0}^{k-p}(-1)^p\frac{1}{t^{i+2p-n}}\binom{n-p}{i}
dt^{i+p}\otimes x_0^n,$$ and the theorem follows.
\[locallyfree\]${\mathcal{P} }^k({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ is locally free of rank $k+1$ on ${\mathbf{P} }^1$ for all $1\leq k \leq n$.
We compute the determinant of the structure matrix of ${\mathcal{P} }^k({\mathcal{O} }(n))$, $[L]^{C'}_C$ from Theorem \[transitionmatrix\]: The matrix $[L]^{C'}_C$ is lower triangular, and it follows that the determinant $|[L]^{C'}_C |$ equals $$\prod_{p=0}^k(-1)^p\frac{1}{t^{2p-n}}\binom{n-p}{0}.$$ We simplify to get $$|[L]^{C'}_C|=\prod_{p=0}^k(-1)^p\frac{1}{t^{2p-n} }=
(-1)^{kp}t^{\sum_{p=0}^k2p-n }=(-1)^{kp}t^{(n-k)(k+1)}$$ and we see that $|[L]^{C'}_C|$ is a unit in ${\mathbf{Z} }[t,{\frac{1}{t} }]$. It follows that $[L]^{C'}_C$ is an invertible matrix, and the result follows.
By Proposition \[functoriality\], formation of principal parts commute with base-extension, and it follows that ${\mathcal{P} }^k({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ is locally free of rank $k+1$ on ${\mathbf{P} }^1_A$ for any commutative ring $A\neq 0$ with unit.
\[transexample\]By Theorem \[transitionmatrix\] the transition matrix $[L]^{C'}_C$ for ${\mathcal{P} }^1({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ is as follows: $$[L]^{C'}_C=
\begin{pmatrix} t^n & 0 \\
nt^{n-1} & -t^{n-2}
\end{pmatrix}
.$$ We compute the determinant $|[L]^{C'}_C|$ and find that it equals $-t^{2n-2}$.
Splitting principal parts as left module by matrix-diagonalization
==================================================================
In this section we will split explicitly the modules of principal parts. We will work over ${\mathbf{P} }^1$ defined over $F$, where $F$ is a field. By [@GRO], Theorem 2.1, we know that all locally free sheaves of finite rank on ${\mathbf{P} }^1$ split into a direct sum of invertible sheaves, and we want to compute explicitly the splitting-type for the sheaf ${\mathcal{P} }^1({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ as left ${\mathcal{O} }$-module. From Lemma \[basis\] it follows that on the basic open set ${\operatorname{U}}_0$, ${\mathcal{P} }^1({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ is a free $F[t]$-module on the basis $C=\{1\otimes x_0^n,dt\otimes x_0^n\}$. On the open set ${\operatorname{U}}_1$, ${\mathcal{P} }^1({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ is a free $F[s]$-module on the basis $C'=\{1\otimes x_1^n, ds\otimes x_1^n\}$, where $s={\frac{1}{t} }$. When we pass to the open set ${\operatorname{U}}_{01}={\operatorname{U}}_0\cap {\operatorname{U}}_1$ we see that ${\mathcal{P} }^1({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ has $C$ and $C'$ as bases as $F[t,s]$-module. On ${\operatorname{U}}_0$ consider the new basis $D=\{1\otimes x_0^n,t\otimes x_0^n+ndt\otimes x_0^h\}$. Consider also the new basis $D'=\{{\frac{1}{t} }\otimes x_1^n+nds\otimes x_1^n, 1\otimes x_1^n \}$ on the open set ${\operatorname{U}}_1$. Notice that $D$ and $D'$ are bases if and only if the characteristic of $F$ does not divide $n$, hence let us assume this for the rest of this section. We first compute the base change matrix for ${\mathcal{P} }^1({\mathcal{O} }(n))|_{{\operatorname{U}}_0}$ from $C$ to $D$, and we get the matrix $$\text{[I]$^C_D$ }=
\begin{pmatrix} 1 & -\frac{1}{n}t \\
0 & \frac{1}{n}
\end{pmatrix}.$$ We secondly compute the base change matrix for ${\mathcal{P} }^1({\mathcal{O} }(n))|_{{\operatorname{U}}_1}$ from $D'$ to $C'$, and we get the matrix $$\text{ [I]$^{D'}_{C'}$ =}
\begin{pmatrix} {\frac{1}{t} }& 1 \\
n & 0
\end{pmatrix}.$$ In Example \[transexample\] we saw that the transition matrix defining ${\mathcal{P} }^1({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ is given by $$\text{[L]$^{C'}_C$=}
\begin{pmatrix} t^n & 0 \\
nt^{n-1} & -t^{n-2}
\end{pmatrix}.$$ We see that if we let $D$ be a new basis for ${\mathcal{P} }^1({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ as $F[t]$-module on ${\operatorname{U}}_0$, and let $D'$ be a new basis for ${\mathcal{P} }^1({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ as $F[s]$-module on ${\operatorname{U}}_1$, then the transition matrix $[L]^{D'}_{D}$ becomes $$\text{ [L]$^{D'}_D$=[I]$^C_D$[L]$^{C'}_C$[I]$^{D'}_{C'}$ }$$ which equals $$\begin{pmatrix} 1 & -\frac{1}{n}t \\
0 & \frac{1}{n}
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} t^n & \\
nt^{n-1} & -t^{n-2}
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} {\frac{1}{t} }& 1 \\
n & 0
\end{pmatrix}
.$$ It follows that $$\text{[L]}^{D'}_{D}=
\begin{pmatrix} t^{n-1} & 0 \\
0 & t^{n-1}
\end{pmatrix}
,$$ hence as a left ${\mathcal{O} }$-module, the principal parts ${\mathcal{P} }^1({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ splits as ${\mathcal{O} }(n-1)\oplus {\mathcal{O} }(n-1)$. By Proposition \[functoriality\], it follows that the splitting ${\mathcal{P} }^1({\mathcal{O} }(n))\cong {\mathcal{O} }(n-1)\oplus {\mathcal{O} }(n-1)$ is valid on ${\mathbf{P} }^1_A$, where $A$ is any $F$-algebra.
Maps of modules and systems of linear equations
===============================================
In this section we study criteria for splitting the principal parts on the projective line ${\mathbf{P} }^1$ over any field $F$. Given ${\mathcal{P} }^k({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ with $1\leq k \leq n$, we prove existence of systems of linear equations $\{A_r\mathbf{x_r}=b_r\}_{r=0}^k$, where $A_r$ is a rank $r+1$ matrix with integral coefficients. A solution $\mathbf{x_r}$ to the system $A_r\mathbf{x_r}=b_r$ gives rise to a map $\phi_r$ of left ${\mathcal{O} }$-modules from ${\mathcal{O} }(l)$ to ${\mathcal{P} }^k({\mathcal{O} }(n))$. The main result is Theorem \[maintheorem\] where we prove that if there exists for all $r=0,\dots ,k$ solutions $\mathbf{x_r}$ with coefficients in a field $F$, satisfying certain explicit criteria, then we can completely determine the splitting-type of the principal parts.
By Corollary \[locallyfree\] we know that ${\mathcal{P} }^k({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ is locally free of rank $k+1$ over ${\mathbf{P} }^1$ defined over ${\mathbf{Z} }$, where ${\mathbf{Z} }$ is the integers, hence by base extension, ${\mathcal{P} }^k({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ is locally free over ${\mathbf{P} }^1$ defined over any field $F$. By [@GRO], Theorem 2.1, we know that on ${\mathbf{P} }^1$ every locally free sheaf of finite rank splits uniquely into a direct sum of invertible ${\mathcal{O} }$-modules. Recall from Lemma \[basis\] that ${\mathcal{P} }^k({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ has two natural bases on the open set ${\operatorname{U}}_{01}$: $$C=\{1\otimes x_0^n,\dots , dt^k\otimes x_0^n \}$$ and $$C'=\{1\otimes x_1^n,\dots , ds^k\otimes x_1^n \} .$$ By theorem \[transitionmatrix\], the transition matrix $[L]^{C'}_C$ from basis $C'$ to $C$ is given by the following relation $$\label{basisrelation} ds^p\otimes x_1^n=
\sum_{i=0}^{k-p}(-1)^p\frac{1}{t^{i+2p-n}}\binom{n-p}{i}
dt^{i+p}\otimes x_0^n .$$ We will use relation \[basisrelation\] to construct split injective maps ${\mathcal{O} }(l)\rightarrow {\mathcal{P} }^k({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ of left ${\mathcal{O} }$-modules. Put $l=n-k$. On the open set ${\operatorname{U}}_0$, the sheaf ${\mathcal{O} }(n-k)$ is isomorphic to $F[t]x_0^{n-k}$ as ${\mathcal{O} }$-module. On the open set ${\operatorname{U}}_1$, ${\mathcal{O} }(n-k)$ is isomorphic to $F[{\frac{1}{t} }]x_1^{n-k}$. For $i=0,1$ we want to define maps $$\phi_r^i: {\mathcal{O} }(n-k)|_{{\operatorname{U}}_i}\rightarrow {\mathcal{P} }^k({\mathcal{O} }(n))|_{{\operatorname{U}}_i}$$ where $r=0,\dots, k$, of left ${\mathcal{O} }_{{\operatorname{U}}_i}$-modules, agreeing on the open set ${\operatorname{U}}_{01}$. The maps $\{\phi_r^i\}_{i=0,1}$ will then glue to give $k+1$ well-defined maps $\phi_r:{\mathcal{O} }(n-k)\rightarrow {\mathcal{P} }^k({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ of left ${\mathcal{O} }$-modules. Define the map $\phi_0^1$ as follows: $\phi_0^1(x_1^{n-k})=1\otimes x_1^n$. On the open set ${\operatorname{U}}_{01}$ we have that $x_0^{n-k}=t^{k-n}x_1^{n-k}$. We want to define $\phi^0_0(x_0^{n-k})$. Since $x_0^{n-k}=t^{k-n}x_1^{n-k}$ it follows that $\phi^0_0(x_0^{n-k})=t^{k-n}\phi_0^1(x_1^{n-k})=t^{n-k}(1\otimes x_1^{n-k})$. We now use relation \[basisrelation\] which shows that $$1\otimes x_1^n= \binom{n}{0}t^n\otimes x_0^n+\binom{n}{1}t^{n-1}dt\otimes x_0^n
+\cdots + \binom{n}{k}t^{n-k}dt^{n-k}\otimes x_0^n .$$ We define $\phi^0_0(x_0^{n-k})=t^{k-n}(1\otimes x_0^n)$, and it follows that $$\phi^0_0(x_0^{n-k})=t^{k-n}(\binom{n}{0}t^n\otimes x_0^n+\binom{n}{1}t^{n-1}dt\otimes x_0^n +\cdots + \binom{n}{k}t^{n-k}dt^{n-k}\otimes x_0^n)$$ which equals $$t^{k-n}\sum_{i=0}^k\binom{n}{i}t^{n-i}dt^i\otimes x_0^n.$$ Define $c^0_i=\binom{n}{i}$ and $x_{0,0}=1$. We get $$\phi^0_0(x_0^{n-k})=\sum_{i=0}^kc^0_it^{k-i}dt^i\otimes x_0^n$$ and $$\phi_0^1(x_1^{n-k})=x_{0,0}(1\otimes x_1^n).$$ We see that we have defined a map of left ${\mathcal{O} }$-modules $\phi_0:{\mathcal{O} }(n-k)\rightarrow
{\mathcal{P} }^k({\mathcal{O} }(n))$, which in fact is defined over the integers ${\mathbf{Z} }$. We want to generalize the construction made above, and define maps of left ${\mathcal{O} }$-modules $\phi_r:{\mathcal{O} }(n-k)\rightarrow {\mathcal{P} }^k({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ for $r=1,\dots ,k$. Define $$\label{phi1def} \phi_r^1(x_1^{n-k})=x_{0,r}\frac{1}{t^r}
\otimes x_1^n+x_{1,r}\frac{1}{t^{r-1}}ds\otimes x_1^n+$$ $$\cdots +x_{r-1,r}{\frac{1}{t} }ds^{r-1}\otimes x_1^n+x_{r,r}ds^r\otimes x_1^n .$$ where the symbols $x_{i,r}$ are independent variables over $F$ for all $i$ and $r$. Simplifying, we get $$\phi_r^1(x_1^{n-k})=\sum_{j=0}^rx_{j,r}t^{j-r}ds^j\otimes x_1^n.$$ We want to define a map $\phi_r^0$ on ${\operatorname{U}}_0$, such that $\phi_r^0$ and $\phi_r^1$ glue together to define a map of left ${\mathcal{O} }$-modules $$\phi_r:{\mathcal{O} }(n-k)\rightarrow {\mathcal{P} }^k({\mathcal{O} }(n)) .$$ For $\phi_r$ to be well-defined it is necessary that $\phi_r^0$ and $\phi_r^1$ agree on ${\operatorname{U}}_{01}$. We have that $x_0^{n-k}=t^{k-n}x_1^{n-k}$, and this implies that $\phi_r^0(x_0^{n-k})=\phi_r^0(t^{k-n}x_1^{n-k})=t^{k-n}\phi_r^1(x_1^{n-k})$ and we get from equation \[phi1def\] $$\phi_r^0(x_0^{n-k})=t^{k-n}\sum_{j=0}^rx_{j,r}t^{j-r}ds^j\otimes x_1^n$$ which equals $$\label{formula1} \sum_{j=0}^r x_{j,r}t^{j+k-n-r}ds^j\otimes x_1^n.$$ Using relation \[basisrelation\], we substitute $ds^j\otimes x_1^{n}$ in formula \[formula1\] and get the following expression: $$\phi^0_r(x_0^{n-k})=\sum_{j=0}^r x_{j,r}t^{j+k-n-r}\left( \sum_{i=0}^{k-j}
(-1)^jt^{n-i-2j}\binom{n-j}{i}dt^{i+j}\otimes x_0^n\right).$$ Let $l=i+j$ be a change of index. We get the expression $$\phi^0_r(x_0^{n-k})=\sum_{j=0}^r x_{j,r}t^{j+k-n-r}\left(\sum_{l=j}^{k}
(-1)^j t^{n-l-j}\binom{n-j}{l-j}dt^{l}\otimes x_0^n \right).$$ Since $\binom{a}{-1}=\binom{a}{-2}=\cdots =0$, we get the expression $$\phi^0_r(x_0^{n-k})=\sum_{j=0}^r x_{j,r}t^{j+k-n-r}\left( \sum_{l=0}^{k}
(-1)^j t^{n-l-j}\binom{n-j}{l-j}dt^{l}\otimes x_0^n \right).$$ Simplify to obtain $$\sum_{j=0}^r \sum_{l=0}^k (-1)^j t^{k-r-l}\binom{n-j}{l-j}x_{j,r}
dt^l\otimes x_0^n .$$ Change order of summation and simplify: $$\phi_r^0(x_0^{n-k})=\sum_{l=0}^k t^{k-r-l} \left( \sum_{j=0}^r (-1)^j
\binom{n-j}{l-j} x_{j,r} \right) dt^l\otimes x_0^n.$$ Let $$\label{linearequations} c^r_l=\sum_{j=0}^r (-1)^j
\binom{n-j}{l-j} x_{j,r}$$ for $r=1,\dots, k$ and $l=0,\dots ,k$. We have defined maps $$\label{def1}
\phi^0_r(x_0^{n-k})=\sum_{l=0}^k t^{k-r-l}c^r_l dt^l\otimes x_0^n$$ and $$\label{def2}
\phi^1_r(x_1^{n-k})=\sum_{j=0}^r x_{j,r}t^{j-r} ds^j\otimes x_1^n.$$ Note that the definitions from \[def1\] and \[def2\] are valid for $r=0,\dots ,k$ since $c^0_i=\binom{n}{i}$ and $x_{0,0}=1$.
\[maplemma\] Let $r=1,\dots, k$. The maps $\phi^0_r$ and $\phi^1_r$ glue to a well-defined map of left ${\mathcal{O} }$-modules $$\phi_r:{\mathcal{O} }(n-k)\rightarrow {\mathcal{P} }^1({\mathcal{O} }(n))$$ if and only if $c^r_k=c^r_{k-1}=\cdots =c^r_{k-r+1}=0$ and $c^r_{k-r}=1$
Consider the expression from \[def1\]: $$\phi_r^0(x_0^{n-k})=\sum_{l=0}^{k-r-1}c^r_lt^{k-r-l}dt^l\otimes x_0^n+
c^{k-r}_r dt^{k-r}\otimes x_0^n +$$ $$c^r_{k-r+1}{\frac{1}{t} }dt^{k-r+1}\otimes x_0^n+ c^r_{k-r+2}\frac{1}{t^2}dt^{k-r+2}\otimes
x_0^n + \cdots + c^r_k\frac{1}{t^r}dt^k\otimes x_0^n.$$ We see that the maps $\phi_r^0$ and $\phi_r^1$ glue if and only if we have $$\label{lineqs}
c^r_{k}=c^r_{k-1}=\cdots =c^r_{k-r+1}=0$$ and $$c^{r}_{k-r}=1,$$ and the lemma follows.
We shall prove the following theorem:
\[maintheorem\] There exists $k$ systems $\{A_r\mathbf{x_r}=b_r\}_{r=1}^k$ of linear equations, where $A_r\mathbf{x_r}=b_r$ is a system of $k+1$ linear equations in $k+1$ variables, with coefficients in ${\mathbf{Z} }$. For all $r=1,\dots, k$, the system $A_r\mathbf{x_r}=b_r $ has the property that a solution $\mathbf{x_r}$ with coefficients in a field $F$, gives rise to an explicit map $$\phi_r:{\mathcal{O} }(n-k)\rightarrow {\mathcal{P} }^k({\mathcal{O} }(n))$$ of left ${\mathcal{O} }$-modules. Assume that there exists a field $F$ with the property that for all $r=1,\dots
,r$, $A_r\mathbf{x_r}=b_r$ has a solution $\mathbf{x_r}$ such that $\prod_{i=0}^kx_{i,i}\neq 0$, then the map $\phi= \oplus_{i=0}^k \phi_i$ gives rise to an explicit isomorphism $${\mathcal{P} }^k({\mathcal{O} }(n))\cong \oplus_{i=0}^k {\mathcal{O} }(n-k)$$ of left ${\mathcal{O} }$-modules.
Let $r=1,\dots , k$, and consider the equations from the proof of Lemma \[maplemma\]: We have that $c_k^r=c_{k-1}^r=\cdots = c_{k-r+1}^r=0$ and that $c_{k-r}^r=1$. We get from the equation $c_k^r=0$ the following: $$\binom{n}{k}x_{0,r}-\binom{n-1}{k-1}x_{1,r}+\binom{n-2}{k-2}x_{2,r}+\cdots
+(-1)^r\binom{n-r}{k-r}x_{r,r}=0 .$$ Writing out $c_{k-1}^r=0$ we get the equation $$\binom{n}{k-1}x_{0,r}-\binom{n-1}{k-2}x_{1,r}+\binom{n-2}{k-3}x_{2,r}+\cdots
+(-1)^r\binom{n-r}{k-r-1}x_{r,r}=0 .$$ The equation $c_{k-r}^r=1$ gives the following: $$\binom{n}{k-r}x_{0,r}-\binom{n-1}{k-r-1}x_{1,r}+\binom{n-2}{k-r-2}x_{2,r}+\cdots
+\binom{n-r}{k-2r}x_{r,r}=1.$$ We get a system of linear equations $A_r\mathbf{x_r}=b_r$, where $A_r$ is the rank $r+1$ matrix $$\begin{pmatrix} \binom{n}{k} & -\binom{n-1}{k-1} & \binom{n-2}{k-2} & \cdots & (-1)^r\binom{n-r}{k-r} \\
\binom{n}{k-1} & -\binom{n-1}{k-1} & \binom{n-2}{k-3} & \cdots & (-1)^r\binom{n-r}{k-r-1} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\
\binom{n}{k-r+1} & -\binom{n-1}{k-r} & \binom{n-2}{k-r-1} & \cdots
& (-1)^r\binom{n-r}{k-2r+1} \\
\binom{n}{k-r} & -\binom{n-1}{k-r-1} & \binom{n-2}{k-r-2} & \cdots & (-1)^r\binom{n-r}{k-2r}
\end{pmatrix}
,$$ $\mathbf{x_r}$ is the rank $r+1$ vector $(x_{0,r},x_{1,r},\dots ,x_{r,r})$, and $b_r$ is the rank $r+1$-vector $(0,0,\dots ,0,1)$. Clearly the coefficients of $A_r$ and $b_r$ are in ${\mathbf{Z} }$. Also, assume $\mathbf{x_r}$ is a solution to the system $A_r\mathbf{x_r}=b_r$ with coefficients in a field $F$, then by construction and lemma \[maplemma\], the map $$\phi_r:{\mathcal{O} }(n-k)\rightarrow {\mathcal{P} }^k({\mathcal{O} }(n))$$ defined by $$\phi^0_r(x_0^{n-k})=\sum_{l=0}^{k-r}c^l_rt^{k-r-l}dt^l\otimes x_0^n$$ and $$\phi^1_r(x_1^{n-k})=\sum_{j=0}^r x_{j,r}t^{j-r}ds^j\otimes x_1^n$$ is a well defined and nontrivial map of left ${\mathcal{O} }$-modules. Assume that there exists a field $F$ and $k$ solutions $\mathbf{x_1},\dots ,\mathbf{x_k}$ to the systems $A_r\mathbf{x_r}=b_r$, with coefficients in $F$ satisfying the property that $\prod_{i=0}^k x_{i,i}\neq 0$. On the open set ${\operatorname{U}}_0$ the module $\oplus_{i=0}^k{\mathcal{O} }(n-k)$ is a free $k[t]$-module on the basis $\{x_0^{n-k}e_0,\dots ,x_0^{n-k}e_k\}$. Define the map $$\phi^0:\oplus_{i=0}^k {\mathcal{O} }(n-k)|_{{\operatorname{U}}_0}\rightarrow {\mathcal{P} }^k({\mathcal{O} }(n))|_{{\operatorname{U}}_0}$$ as follows: $$\phi^0(x_0^{n-k}e_r)=\phi^0_r(x_0^{n-k}) .$$ On the open set ${\operatorname{U}}_1$ the module $\oplus_{i=0}^k{\mathcal{O} }(n-k)$ is a free $k[{\frac{1}{t} }]$-module on the basis $\{x_1^{n-k}f_0,\dots ,x_1^{n-k}f_k\}$. Define the map $$\phi^1:\oplus_{i=0}^k {\mathcal{O} }(n-k)|_{{\operatorname{U}}_1}\rightarrow {\mathcal{P} }^k({\mathcal{O} }(n))|_{{\operatorname{U}}_1}$$ as follows: $$\phi^1(x_1^{n-k}f_r)=\phi^1_r(x_1^{n-k}) .$$ Then by construction, the maps $\phi^0$ and $\phi^1$ glue to a well-defined map $\phi$ from $\oplus_{i=0}^k {\mathcal{O} }(n-k)$ to ${\mathcal{P} }^k({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ of left ${\mathcal{O} }$-modules. We show explicitly that the map $\phi$ is an isomorphism: Consider the matrix corresponding to the map $\phi|_{{\operatorname{U}}_0}=[\phi^0]$. $$[\phi^0]=
\begin{pmatrix} t^kc^0_0 & t^{k-1}c^1_0 & \cdots & tc^{k-1}_0 & c^k_0 \\
t^{k-1}c^0_1 & t^{k-2}c^1_1 & \cdots & c^{k-1}_1 & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \cdots & \vdots & \vdots \\
tc^0_{k-1} & c^1_{k-1} & \cdots & 0 & 0 \\
c^0_k & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} .$$ We see that the determinant $|[\phi^0]|$ equals $\prod_{i=0}^kc^i_{k-i}$ which equals $1$ by construction, hence the map $\phi^0$ is an isomorphism. Consider the matrix $\phi^1|_{{\operatorname{U}}_1}=[\phi^1]$. $$[\phi^1]=
\begin{pmatrix} x_{0,0} & x_{0,1} \frac{1}{t} & \cdots & x_{0,k-1}
\frac{1}{t^{k-1}} & x_{0,k} \frac{1}{t^k} \\
0 & x_{1,1} & \cdots & x_{1,k-1}\frac{1}{t^{k-2}} & x_{1,k}\frac{1}{t^{k-1}} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \cdots & \vdots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & x_{k,k} \end{pmatrix} .$$ The determinant $|[\phi^1]|$ equals $\prod_{i=0}^kx_{i,i}$ which is non-zero by hypothesis, and the theorem follows.
Application: The left module-structure in characteristic zero
=============================================================
In this section we use the results obtained in the previous section to determine the splitting-type of ${\mathcal{P} }^k({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ for all $1\leq k \leq n$ on the projective line defined over any field of characteristic zero.
\[binomialreduction\] Let $n,k,a,b\geq 0$, and put $\binom{0}{1}=0$. Then we have that $$\binom{n-a+1}{k-a-b+2}-\frac{n-k+b}{k-b+1}\binom{n-a+1}{k-a-b+1}=
\frac{ \binom{a-1}{1}\binom{n-a+1}{k-a-b+2} }{\binom{k-b+1}{1} }.$$
Easy calculation.
\[determinants\] Let $n,k\geq 1$, and consider the matrix $A_r$ from Theorem \[maintheorem\] , with $r=1,2,\dots$. Then the determinant $$|A_r|=
\begin{vmatrix} \binom{n}{k} & -\binom{n-1}{k-1} & \binom{n-2}{k-2} & \cdots & (-1)^r\binom{n-r}{k-r} \\
\binom{n}{k-1} & -\binom{n-1}{k-1} & \binom{n-2}{k-3} & \cdots & (-1)^r\binom{n-r}{k-r-1} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\
\binom{n}{k-r+1} & -\binom{n-1}{k-r} & \binom{n-2}{k-r-1} & \cdots
& (-1)^r\binom{n-r}{k-2r+1} \\
\binom{n}{k-r} & -\binom{n-1}{k-r-1} & \binom{n-2}{k-r-2} & \cdots & (-1)^r\binom{n-r}{k-2r}
\end{vmatrix}$$ equals $$\prod_{l=0}^r\frac{\binom{n-l}{k-r} }
{\binom{k-l}{r-l}}$$ up to sign.
We prove the formula by induction on the rank of the matrix. Assume $r=1$. Add $-\frac{n-k+1}{k}$ times the second row to the first row of $A_1$, and apply Lemma \[binomialreduction\] with $a=1$ and $b=1$, and we see that the formula is true for $r=1$. Assume the formula is true for rank $r$, matrices $A_{r-1}$. Consider the matrix $$M_r=
\begin{pmatrix} \binom{n}{k} & \binom{n-1}{k-1} & \binom{n-2}{k-2} & \cdots &
\binom{n-r}{k-r} \\
\binom{n}{k-1} & \binom{n-1}{k-1} & \binom{n-2}{k-3} & \cdots &
\binom{n-r}{k-r-1} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\
\binom{n}{k-r+1} & \binom{n-1}{k-r} & \binom{n-2}{k-r-1} & \cdots
& \binom{n-r}{k-2r+1} \\
\binom{n}{k-r} & \binom{n-1}{k-r-1} & \binom{n-2}{k-r-2} & \cdots &
\binom{n-r}{k-2r}
\end{pmatrix}$$ which is the matrix $A_r$ with signs removed. Add $-\frac{n-k+1}{k}$ times the second row to the first row. Continue and add $-\frac{n-k+1+i}{k-i}$ times the $i+1$’th row to the $i$’th row, for $i=2,\dots, r-1$. Apply lemma \[binomialreduction\] to get the matrix $$N_r=\begin{pmatrix}
0 & \frac{\binom{1}{1}\binom{n-1}{k-1} }{\binom{k}{1} } &
\frac{ \binom{2}{1}\binom{n-2}{k-2}}{\binom{k}{1} } & \cdots &
\frac{ \binom{r}{1}\binom{n-r}{k-r} }{\binom{k}{1} } \\
0 & \frac{\binom{1}{1}\binom{n-1}{k-2} }{\binom{k-1}{1} } &
\frac{ \binom{2}{1}\binom{n-2}{k-3}}{\binom{k-1}{1} } & \cdots &
\frac{ \binom{r}{1}\binom{n-r}{k-r-1} }{\binom{k-1}{1} } \\
0 & \frac{\binom{1}{1}\binom{n-1}{k-3} }{\binom{k-2}{1} } &
\frac{ \binom{2}{1}\binom{n-2}{k-4}}{\binom{k-2}{1} } & \cdots &
\frac{ \binom{r}{1}\binom{n-r}{k-r-2} }{\binom{k-2}{1} } \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\
0 & \frac{\binom{1}{1}\binom{n-1}{k-r} }{\binom{k-r+1}{1} } &
\frac{ \binom{2}{1}\binom{n-2}{k-r-1}}{\binom{k-r+1}{1} } & \cdots &
\frac{ \binom{r}{1}\binom{n-r}{k-2r+1} }{\binom{k-r+1}{1} } \\
\binom{n}{k-r} & * & * & \cdots & *
\end{pmatrix}.$$ The determinant of $N_r$ equals $$(-1)^r\frac{\binom{n}{k-r}\binom{1}{1}\binom{2}{1}\cdots \binom{r}{1} }
{\binom{k-r+1}{1}\binom{k-r+2}{1}\cdots \binom{k-1}{1}\binom{k}{1} }|M'_{r-1}|,$$ where $M'_{r-1}$ is the matrix $$\begin{pmatrix} \binom{n'}{k'} & \binom{n'-1}{k'-1} & \cdots &
\binom{n'-r+1}{k'-r+1} \\
\binom{n'}{k'-1} & \binom{n'-1}{k'-2} & \cdots &
\binom{n'-r+1}{k'-r} \\
\binom{n'}{k'-2} & \binom{n'-1}{k'-3} & \cdots &
\binom{n'-r+1}{k'-r11} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \cdots & \vdots \\
\binom{n'}{k'-r+1} & \binom{n'-1}{k'-r} & \cdots &
\binom{n'-r+1}{k'-2r+2}
\end{pmatrix},$$ and $n'=n-1$ and $k'=k-1$. By the induction hypothesis, we get modulo signs $$\frac{\binom{n}{k-r}}{\binom{k}{r}} \prod_{i=0}^{r-1}
\frac{\binom{n'-i}{k'-r+1}}{\binom{k'-i}{r-1-i}}.$$ Change index by letting $l=i+1$ we get $$\frac{\binom{n}{k-r}}{\binom{k}{r}} \prod_{i=1}^{r}
\frac{\binom{n-l}{k-r}}{\binom{k-l}{r-l}}=
\prod_{l=0}^{r}
\frac{\binom{n-l}{k-r}}{\binom{k-l}{r-l}}$$ and the proposition follows.
\[characteristiczero\] Let $F$ be a field of characteristic zero. Then the maps $\phi_r$ from Theorem \[maintheorem\] exist for $r=1,\dots, k$, and the induced map $\phi=\oplus _{i=0}^r \phi_r$ defines an isomorphism $${\mathcal{P} }^k({\mathcal{O} }(n))\cong \oplus_{i=0}^k{\mathcal{O} }(n-k)$$ of left ${\mathcal{O} }$-modules.
Consider the systems $A_r\mathbf{x_r}=b_r$ for $r=1,\dots,k$, from the proof of theorem \[maintheorem\]. By Proposition \[determinants\] we have that $$|A_r|= \prod_{l=0}^r\frac{ \binom{n-l}{k-r} }{
\binom{k-l}{r-l} }$$ modulo signs. Since the characteristic of $F$ is zero, it follows that $|A_r|\neq 0$ for all $r=1,\dots ,k$, hence the system $A_r\mathbf{x_r}=b_r$ has a unique solution $\mathbf{x_r}=A_r^{-1}b_r$ for all $r$. It follows from theorem \[maintheorem\] that maps $$\phi_r:{\mathcal{O} }(n-k)\rightarrow {\mathcal{P} }^k({\mathcal{O} }(n))$$ of left ${\mathcal{O} }$-modules exist, for $r=1,\dots ,k$, and we can consider the map $$\phi=\oplus_{i=0}^r\phi_i:\oplus_{i=0}^r{\mathcal{O} }(n-k)\rightarrow {\mathcal{P} }^k({\mathcal{O} }(n)) .$$ We want to prove that $\phi$ is an isomorphism. Again by Theorem \[maintheorem\] $\phi$ is an isomorphism if and only if $x_{i,i}\neq 0$ for $i=0,\dots ,k$. Assume that $x_{r,r}=0$, and consider the system $A_r\mathbf{x_r}=b_r$. If $x_{r,r}=0$ we get a new system $A_{r-1}\mathbf{y_{r-1}}=0$, where $\mathbf{y_{r-1}}$ is the vector $(x_{0,r},\dots ,x_{r-1,r})$. Since the matrix $A_{r-1}$ is invertible, it follows that the system $A_{r-1}\mathbf{y_{r-1}}=0$ only has the trivial solution $\mathbf{y_{r-1}}=0$, hence $x_{0,r}=\cdots =x_{r-1,r}=0$, and we have arrived at a contradiction to the assumption that $\mathbf{x_r}$ is a solution to the system $A_r\mathbf{x_r}=b_r$, where $b_r$ is the vector $(0,\dots,0,1)$. It follows that $x_{r,r}\neq 0$ for all $r=0,\dots ,k$, and the proposition follows from Theorem \[maintheorem\].
Splitting the right module-structure
====================================
In this section we consider the splitting type of the principal parts as left and right ${\mathcal{O} }$-module on ${\mathbf{P} }^1$ defined over $F$, where $F$ is any field. We prove that in most cases the splitting-type as left module differs from the splitting-type as right module. We also show how the splitting-type of the principal parts as left ${\mathcal{O} }_{{\mathbf{P} }^1}$-module changes with the characteristic of the field $F$.
\[leftandright\] Consider ${\mathcal{P} }^1({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ on ${\mathbf{P} }^1_F$ where $F$ is any field and $n\geq 1$. Then ${\mathcal{P} }^1({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ is locally free as left and right ${\mathcal{O} }$-module. If the characteristic of $F$ does not divide $n$, ${\mathcal{P} }^1({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ splits as ${\mathcal{O} }(n-1)\oplus {\mathcal{O} }(n-1)$ as left ${\mathcal{O} }$-module and as ${\mathcal{O} }(n)\oplus {\mathcal{O} }(n-2)$ as right ${\mathcal{O} }$-module. If the characteristic of $F$ divides $n$, ${\mathcal{P} }^1({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ splits as ${\mathcal{O} }(n)\oplus {\mathcal{O} }(n-2)$ as left and right ${\mathcal{O} }$-module.
Recall from Section $4$, that the splitting type of ${\mathcal{P} }^1({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ as left ${\mathcal{O} }$-module is ${\mathcal{O} }(n-1)\oplus {\mathcal{O} }(n-1)$ if the characteristic of $F$ does not divide $n$. We next consider the right ${\mathcal{O} }$-module structure. Let $p$ and $q$ be the projection maps from ${\mathbf{P} }^1 \times {\mathbf{P} }^1$ to ${\mathbf{P} }^1$. By definition, ${\mathcal{P} }^1({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ is $p_*({\mathcal{O} }_{\Delta^1}\otimes q^*{\mathcal{O} }(n))$, where ${\mathcal{O} }_{\Delta^1}$ is the first order infinitesimal neighborhood of the diagonal. By Proposition \[pushiso\] we get the right ${\mathcal{O} }$-module structure, by considering the module $q_*({\mathcal{O} }_{\Delta^1}\otimes q^*{\mathcal{O} }(n))=q_*({\mathcal{O} }_{\Delta^1})\otimes {\mathcal{O} }(n)$. And we see that ${\mathcal{E}}=q_*({\mathcal{O} }_{\Delta^1})\otimes {\mathcal{O} }(n)$ is locally free, since it is the tensor-product of two locally free sheaves. One checks that ${\mathcal{E}}|_{{\operatorname{U}}_0}$ is a free $k[u]$-module on the basis $E=\{1\otimes x_0^n, du\otimes x_0^n\}$ where $du=t-u$. Similarly, ${\mathcal{E}}|_{{\operatorname{U}}_1}$ is a free $k[{\frac{1}{u} }]$-module on the basis $E'=\{1\otimes x_1^n,
d({\frac{1}{u} })\otimes x_1^n\}$ where $d({\frac{1}{u} })={\frac{1}{t} }-{\frac{1}{u} }$. On ${\operatorname{U}}_{01}$ the module ${\mathcal{E}}$ is free on $E$ and $E'$ as $F[u,{\frac{1}{u} }]$-module. We compute the transition-matrix $[R]^{E'}_{E}$. We see that $1\otimes x_1^n$ equals $u^n\otimes x_0^n$. By definition, $d({\frac{1}{u} })\otimes x_1^n$ equals $({\frac{1}{t} }-{\frac{1}{u} })u^n\otimes x_0^n$. We get $$({\frac{1}{t} }-{\frac{1}{u} })u^n\otimes x_0^n=\frac{u-t}{ut}u^n\otimes x_0^n=
-u^{n-1}du({\frac{1}{t} })\otimes x_0^n.$$ By definition, $t=u+du$, hence we get $$-u^{n-1}du\frac{1}{u+du}\otimes x_0^n=-u^{n-2}du\frac{1}{1+du/u}\otimes x_0^n.$$ And since $du^2=du^3=\cdots =0$, we see that $$d({\frac{1}{u} })\otimes x_1^n=-u^{n-2}du\otimes x_0^n,$$ hence the transition-matrix looks as follows: $$[R]^{E'}_E=
\begin{pmatrix} u^n & 0 \\
0 & -u^{n-2} \end{pmatrix} ,$$ and it follows that ${\mathcal{E}}$ splits as ${\mathcal{O} }(n)\oplus {\mathcal{O} }(n-2)$ as ${\mathcal{O} }$-module. Recall the transition-matrix for ${\mathcal{P} }^1({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ as left ${\mathcal{O} }$-module, $$[L]^{C'}_C=
\begin{pmatrix} t^n & 0 \\
nt^{n-1} & -t^{n-2} \end{pmatrix}.$$ Then we see that if the characteristic of $F$ divides $n$, the splitting-type of ${\mathcal{P} }^1({\mathcal{O} }(n))$ is ${\mathcal{O} }(n)\oplus {\mathcal{O} }(n-2)$ as left and right ${\mathcal{O} }$-module, and we have proved the theorem.
[4]{}
A. Grothendieck, Éléments de géométrie algébrique IV$_4$,Ètude locale des schèmas et des morphismes de schèmas , *Publ. Math. IHES* no. 32 (1967)
A. Grothendieck, Sur la classification des fibrés holomorphes sur la sphère de Riemann, *Amer. J. Math.* 79 (1957),121–138
D. Laksov, A. Thorup, Weierstrass points on schemes, *J. Reine Angew. Math.* 460 (1995),127–164
D. Perkinson, Curves in Grassmannians, *Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.* 347 (1995), no. 9, 3179–3246
D. Perkinson, Principal parts of linebundles on toric varieties, *Compositio Math.* 104 (1996), no.1, 27–39
R. Piene, G. Sacchiero, Duality for rational normal scrolls, *Comm. Algebra* 12 (1984), no. 9-10, 1041–1066
S. di Rocco, A. J. Sommese, Line bundles for which a projectivized jet bundle is a product, *Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.* 129, (2001), no.6, 1659–1663
[^1]: Research supported by the EAGER foundation, the Emmy Noether Research Institute for Mathematics, the Minerva Foundation of Germany and the Excellency Center “Group Theoretic Methods in the Study of Algebraic Varieties”
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'By considering a thermodynamic force as gauge field, we extend constitutive equations of Onsager’s non-equilibrium thermodynamics to non-linear equations. In Onsager’s non-equilibrium thermodynamics, the thermodynamic force corresponds to a pure gauge, for which the constitutive equations are obtained by gauge fixing. If we extend the thermodynamic force from pure gauge to physical one, we obtain the non-linear constitutive equations of non-equilibrium thermodynamics.'
author:
- 'So Katagiri[^1]'
title: 'Non-equilibrium thermodynamics as gauge fixing'
---
Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, The Open University of Japan, Chiba 261-8586, Japan
Introduction
============
Onsager’s theory is the most important one in non-equilibrium thermodynamics with linear constitutive equations [@key-2; @key-3], in which constitutive equations for currents are derived from the minimum energy dissipation principle. Later on, this argument was supported by the path integral representation of the probability distribution [@key-25; @key-26; @key-27; @key-28; @key-4]. Onsager’s theory holds in the case of linear constitutive equations, but it is not well understood in the non-linear case (for the latest research see [@key-29; @key-19]). Recently, Sugamoto pointed out with his collaborators including the present author that thermodynamic force can be viewed as a gauge field [@key-1].
In this paper we discuss this statement more definitely by means of gauge fixing, and derive the non-linear constitutive equation by adding the free action of the usual electromagnetism.
The paper contains the following sections. In the next section, we review the electromagnetism in a pure gauge as an useful analogy in the later discussions. In section 3, non-equilibrium thermodynamics is introduced using a differential form. In section 4, we examine gauge properties of the thermodynamic force. We extend thermodynamic force to thermodynamical gauge field in section 5. In section 6, we discuss this gauge theory in the path integral method. The final section is devoted to discussion.
In addition, the paper contains the following appendices. In Appendix A, the meaning of the time dependence of $S(a,t)$ is discussed. In Appendix B, we examine restriction from the second law of thermodynamics. In Appendix C, we discuss how non-linear effects work in dimensional analysis. In Appendix D, a simple example is derived in our model.
Electromagnetism
================
First, we consider electromagnetism as a typical gauge theory. The notion of a pure gauge and its gauge transformation (local phase shift) is important in later sections in order to consider thermodynamics as a gauge theory.
As is well known, a pure gauge $A_{\mu}$ is described as $$d\theta(x)=A_{\mu}(x)dx^{\mu},$$ where $$A_{\mu}(x)\equiv\frac{\partial\theta(x)}{\partial x^{\mu}},$$ using phase $\theta(x)$. The gauge transformation
$$\delta A_{\mu}(x)=\partial_{\mu}\epsilon(x)$$
causes a phase shift $$\delta\theta(x)=\epsilon(x).$$
At the pure gauge, electromagnetic field $F$ is zero,
$$F=dA=dd\theta=0.$$
For a general gauge potential $A_{\mu}$, $F$ satisfies Maxwell’s equations,
$$\partial_{\mu}F_{\nu\rho}+\partial_{\nu}F_{\rho\mu}+\partial_{\rho}F_{\mu\nu}=0,$$
$$\partial^{\mu}F_{\mu\nu}=0.$$
Differential form of non-equilibrium thermodynamics
===================================================
A linear constitutive equation in non-equilibrium thermodynamics is expressed as
$$\dot{a}^{i}=L^{ij}X_{j},\label{eq:coeq}$$
where $a^{i}$ is extensive quantity for entropy, $X_{j}$ is thermodynamic force for $a^{j}$, and $L^{ij}$ is Onsager’s phenomenological matrix. According to Onsager’s theory [@key-2; @key-3], is obtained by taking variation
$$\delta\left(-\frac{1}{2}R_{ij}\dot{a}^{i}\dot{a}^{j}+X_{i}\dot{a}^{i}\right)=0$$
with respect to $\dot{a}^{i}$, where $R_{ij}$ is the inverse matrix of $L^{ij}$,
$$R_{ij}L^{jk}=\delta_{i}^{k}.$$
As its dual version, is also obtained by taking variation
$$\delta\left(-\frac{1}{2}L^{ij}X_{i}X_{j}+X_{i}\dot{a}^{i}\right)=0$$
with respect to $X_{i}$.
At a first glance, thermodynamics and electromagnetism are different theories. In thermodynamics, an important quantity, entropy $S(a,t)$, is described in terms of extensive quantities $a^{i}$s and time $t$. If we describe, however, entropy $S(a,t)$ in terms of differential form, then quantities analogous to Lagrangian $L$ and gauge field $A$ appear.[^2]
The differential form of entropy $S(a,t)$ is expressed as
$$dS(a,t)=\Phi(a,t)dt+X_{i}(a,t)da^{i},\label{eq:dS}$$
with $$\Phi(a,t)\equiv\frac{\partial S(a,t)}{\partial t},$$
$$X_{i}(a,t)\equiv\frac{\partial S(a,t)}{\partial a^{i}},$$
where $\Phi(a,t)$ is called the dissipation function.
We will take the following notations: $$X_{0}\equiv\Phi,$$
$$a^{0}\equiv t,$$
and $X_{\mu},~a^{\mu}$ by $$\{X_{\mu}\}=X_{0},X_{1},\dots X_{N},$$
$$\{a^{\mu}\}=a^{0},a^{1},\dots,a^{N}.$$
Then, (\[eq:dS\_xt\]) is rewritten as $$dS(a)=X_{\mu}(a)da^{\mu},$$ where $$X_{\mu}(a)\equiv\frac{\partial S(a)}{\partial a^{\mu}}.\label{eq:thermopuregauge}$$
If we describe $a^{\mu}$ using parameter $\tau$, we get non-equilibrium thermodynamical Lagrangian $L$ as follows[^3]:
$$L(a,\frac{da}{d\tau})d\tau=X_{\mu}(a)\frac{da^{\mu}}{d\tau}d\tau.\label{eq:dStau}$$
Gauge transform property of $X_{\mu}$
=====================================
In order to know the properties of the above non-equilibrium thermodynamical Lagrangian $L$, we have to choose an “appropriate gauge fixing condition” so that we can get the Onsager’s phenomenological transfer matrix $L^{ij}$ and its constitutive equations for $X_{i}$.
The Lagrangian $L$ in (\[eq:dStau\]) has gauge symmetry described by the transformation
$$\delta X_{\mu}(a)=\partial_{\mu}\epsilon(a).\label{eq:gaugetr}$$
The transformation (\[eq:gaugetr\]) causes entropy shift,
$$\delta S(a)=\epsilon(a).\label{eq:Sshift}$$
Since the gauge transform (\[eq:gaugetr\]) introduces entropy’s shift (\[eq:Sshift\]), we want to fix this gauge. To fix gauge, we take a gauge fixing condition,
$$X_{0}(a)=-\frac{1}{2}L^{ij}X_{i}(a)X_{j}(a),\label{eq:gaugefix}$$
Here, we assume $\tau=t$ to fix the parametrization invariance.
Finally, the thermodynamical Lagrangian $L$ becomes
$$L(a,\dot{a})dt=-\frac{1}{2}L^{ij}X_{i}(a)X_{j}(a)dt+X_{i}(a)\dot{a}^{i}dt.\label{eq:thermoL}$$
Since $X_{i}$ is a nondynamical field, the equation of motion for $X_{i}$ produces a constitutive equation [@key-2; @key-3]
$$\dot{a}^{i}=L^{ij}X_{j}(a).\label{eq:constitutiveeq}$$
Substituting (\[eq:constitutiveeq\]) into (\[eq:thermoL\]), we obtain
$$L(a,\dot{a})dt=\frac{1}{2}R_{ij}\dot{a}^{i}\dot{a}^{j}dt.$$
[^4]
Thermodynamical gauge theory
============================
According to gauge theory, if we consider the thermodynamic force as a gauge potential, then the equation (\[eq:thermoL\]), with Onsager’s phenomenological matrix, corresponds to a pure gauge theory. On the other hand, if we introduce the physical gauge theory instead of pure one into this thermodynamic system, then we will obtain a different equation of motion for $X_{\mu}$, reflecting gauge-fixing condition for the physical gauge theory. This equation of motion is similar to Maxwell’s equations in electromagnetism. Furthermore, we can obtain the non-linear constitutive equation of non-equilibrium thermodynamics.
So far we define thermodynamic gauge field $F$ by
$$F(a)=dX(a),$$
but because $dS(a)=X(a)$, $F(a)$ is always zero,
$$F(a)=ddS(a)=0.$$
Now, we will generalize this, and assume that $X_{\mu}$ is not a pure gauge field, but a gauge field in a physical gauge theory[^5]. The action
$$S_{F}[X]=\int d^{N+1}a\,F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}\label{eq:FF}$$
is added to the original action with gauge fixing condition, $$S_{a}[a,X,\lambda]=\int d\tau\left(X_{\mu}(a)\frac{da^{\mu}}{d\tau}-\lambda\left(X_{0}(a)+\frac{1}{2}L^{ij}X_{i}(a)X_{j}(a)\right)\right),$$ where $\lambda$ is a Lagrange multiplier.
The equation of motion for $X_{\mu}$ is
$$\frac{da^{0}}{d\tau}-\lambda=\partial_{\mu}F^{\mu0}(X)=\partial_{i}E^{i}(X),\label{eq:a0equation}$$
$$\frac{da^{i}}{d\tau}-\lambda L^{ij}X_{j}(a)=\partial_{\mu}F^{\mu i}(X)=\dot{E}^{i}(X)+\partial_{j}B^{ji}(X),\label{eq:aiequation}$$
where $E_{i}$ and $B_{ij}$ are
$$\begin{split}E_{i}(X) & \equiv F_{i0}(X)=\partial_{i}\Phi(X)-\dot{X}_{i}\\
& =L^{jk}X_{j}\partial_{i}X_{k}-\dot{X}_{i},
\end{split}$$
$$B_{ij}(X)\equiv F_{ij}(X)=\partial_{i}X_{j}-\partial_{j}X_{i}.$$
We call $E_{i}(X)$ and $B_{ij}(X)$ thermodynamic electric field and thermodynamic magnetic field, respectively.
(\[eq:a0equation\]) is solved for $\lambda$,
$$\lambda=\frac{da^{0}}{d\tau}-\partial_{i}E^{i},$$
and we take static gauge $\tau=t$, then (\[eq:aiequation\]) yields
$$\dot{a}^{i}=\left(1+\partial_{k}E^{k}\right)L^{ij}X_{j}+\dot{E}^{i}+\partial_{j}B^{ji}.\label{eq:dota_EB}$$
From
$$\partial_{i}E^{i}=L^{il}L^{jk}\partial_{l}X_{j}\partial_{i}X_{k}+L^{il}L^{jk}X_{j}\partial_{l}\partial_{i}X_{k}-L^{ij}\partial_{i}\dot{X}_{j},$$
$$\dot{E}_{i}=L^{jk}\dot{X}_{j}\partial_{i}X_{k}+L^{jk}X_{j}\partial_{i}\dot{X}_{k}-\ddot{X}_{i},$$
we get a non-linear constitutive equation of non-equilibrium thermodynamics, $$\dot{a}^{i}=L^{ij}X_{j}+\xi^{i}\label{eq:dota_Langevin}$$ where $\xi^{i}$ is a term from the thermodynamic gauge fields: $$\begin{split}\xi^{i} & =L^{ml}L^{jk}L^{in}\partial_{l}X_{j}\partial_{m}X_{k}X_{n}+L^{ml}L^{jk}L^{in}X_{j}\partial_{l}\partial_{m}X_{k}X_{n}-L^{kj}L^{il}\partial_{k}\dot{X}_{j}X_{l}\\
& +L^{jk}L^{il}\dot{X}_{j}\partial_{l}X_{k}+L^{jk}L^{il}X_{j}\partial_{l}\dot{X}_{k}-L^{ij}\ddot{X}_{j}\\
& +L^{jk}L^{il}\partial_{j}\partial_{k}X_{l}-L^{jk}L^{il}\partial_{j}\partial_{l}X_{k}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:dotq_A}$$
What we have done is, by introducing the usual kinetic action of electromagnetism into the thermodynamics, the gauge field $X_{i}(a)$ can have the additional transverse components, in addition to the longitudinal (or the pure gauge) component existing in the Onsager’s non-equilibrium thermodynamics. Then, the non-linear constitutive equation is obtained.
The second law of thermodynamics restricts thermodynamic gauge fields to $\dot{E}^i+\partial_{j}B^{ji}\geq-\left(\frac{1}{2}+\partial_{k}E^{k}\right)L^{ij}X_{j}$.[^6]
From the dimensional analysis in Appendix C, the non-linear term dominates and our model with a non-linear constitutive equation becomes effective at long relaxation time.
Thermodynamic gauge filed naturally leads to an oscillatory phenomena[^7].
Path Integral
=============
Here, let us discuss this gauge theory in the path integral representation. For the thermodynamic variable $a(t)$, let $P[a]$ be the probability that a thermodynamic path will be realized with. We will call entropy for this probability as path entropy, given by
$$S[a]\equiv-k_{B}\log P[a].$$
The probability of the transition from state $(a_{i},t_{i})$ to $(a_{f},t_{f})$ can be written by path integration,
$$P(a_{f},t_{f}|a_{i},t_{i})=\int\mathcal{D}a\,P[a],$$
where the path is fixed at times $t_{i}$ and $t_{f}$. The path entropy can generally be described by the entropic Lagrangian, $$S[a]=\int_{t_{i}}^{t_{f}}L(a,\dot{a})dt,$$
$$L=\dot{S}=X(a)\dot{a}+\Phi(X(a),a).$$
Here, in order to be able to regard $X$ as a free variable, we insert
$$\int\mathcal{D}X\,\delta\left(X(t)-\frac{\partial S}{\partial a}\right)=\int\mathcal{D}X\mathcal{D}\eta\,e^{i\int dt\,\eta(X-\frac{\partial S}{\partial a})}=1$$
into the path integral. Then, the entropic Lagrangian is rewritten as $$L=X\dot{a}+\Phi(X,a)+i\eta\left(X-\frac{\partial S}{\partial a}\right).\label{eq:L_Xa}$$
Solving (\[eq:L\_Xa\]) for $X$, we obtain the constitutive equation, $$\dot{a}^i=-\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial X_i}-i\eta^{i}.$$
Here, if we take $\Phi$ as $$\Phi=-\frac{1}{2}L^{ij}X_{i}X_{j},$$ the constitutive equation yields $$\dot{a}^{i}=L^{ij}X_{j}-i\eta^{i}.$$
Substituting this expression into $\dot{S}$, we get $$\dot{S}=\frac{1}{2}\dot{a}^{2}+i\eta\left(\dot{a}-\frac{\partial S}{\partial a}\right)-\frac{1}{2}\eta^{2},$$ and solving this equation for $\eta$, we get $$\dot{a}^{i}=L^{ij}\frac{\partial S}{\partial a^{j}}-i\eta^{i}.$$
Substituting this expression into $\dot{S}$, we obtain $$\dot{S}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial S}{\partial a}\right)^{2}-\frac{\partial S}{\partial a^{i}}i\eta^{i}.\label{eq:dotS_add_fluct}$$
Then, the first term of $\dot{S}$ gives the the entropy increasing law of macroscopic irreversible process, and the second term is an effect of fluctuation.
Next, let us assume that $\Phi$ is gauge-fixed like $$dS=X(a)da+\Phi(a)dt+B(\Phi(a)-\Phi(X(a),a))dt.$$
Then, we understand that before gauge fixing, $dS$ is $$dS=X(a)da+\Phi(a)dt.$$
This action before gauge fixing is invariant under gauge transformation, $$X(a)\to X(a)+\frac{\partial\epsilon}{\partial a},$$
$$\Phi(a)\to\Phi(a)+\frac{\partial\epsilon}{\partial t}.$$
Then, this theory is originally a gauge theory of $$A_{\mu}=(\Phi,X).$$
From the above discussion, the differential form representation of non-equilibrium thermodynamics is natural from the viewpoint of the path integral representation, and the gauge fixing is naturally introduced to obtain a specific thermodynamical physics.
Discussion
==========
We have assumed that the thermodynamic force is a gauge potential and generalized this potential from a pure gauge to a physical gauge potential. By gauge fixing (\[eq:gaugefix\]) and adding a thermodynamical gauge field action (\[eq:FF\]), we have obtained a non-linear constitutive equation for non-equilibrium thermodynamics (\[eq:dotq\_A\]). If we choose another gauge fixing condition, we may get another thermodynamical physics. This will be discussed elsewhere.
The viewpoint that the existing theory is some kind of gauge theory with gauge fixing may be useful to generalize the theory. One of the most interesting applications of this method is application to classical mechanics, where a momentum may be regarded as a kind of statistic [@key-34].
The entropy of a thermodynamic path, which is essential for the differential form representation of non-equilibrium thermodynamics, is also a key to the detailed fluctuation theorem [@key-35]. Then, the gauge fixing method and the gauge principle may help understand the second law of thermodynamics.
All arguments so far are in the realm of classical theory. Reconsideration of our discussion in the context of quantum theory is important. In the latter case, the quantum fluctiation may be added to .
For other applications, application to phase transition phenomena can be considered. In time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau theory [@key-36], the free energy is expressed in terms of a complex order parameter field and have the gauge symmetry of this parameter’s phase shift. By applying our gauge fixing method to time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau theory, we may obtain understanding between these two gauge symmetries.
Finally, optics and non-equilibrium thermodynamics may have a closer relationship than we have thought of, such as the invariance of the line element of light under the gauge transformation. We will investigate such relationship in future work.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
I am deeply grateful to Akio Sugamoto for discussions which clarify important points on thermodynamic forces. I am indebted to Ken Yokoyama and Shiro Komata for reading this paper and giving useful comments. I would also like to thank Jun Katagiri, Naoki Fujimoto, Shimpei Sugita, Noriaki Aibara and Tsukasa Yumibayashi for reading this paper.
[10]{} Onsager, Lars: “Reciprocal relations in irreversible processes. I.”, Phys. Rev. **37** (1931) 405.
Onsager, Lars: “Reciprocal relations in irreversible processes. II.”, Phys. Rev. **38** (1931) 2265.
Onsager, Lars, and S. Machlup: “Fluctuations and irreversible processes”, Phys. Rev. **91** (1953) 1505.
Machlup, S., and Lars Onsager: “Fluctuations and irreversible process. II. Systems with kinetic energy”, Phys. Rev. **91** (1953) 1512.
Hashitsume, Natsuki: “A statistical theory of linear dissipative systems”, Prog. Theor. Phys. **8** (1952) 461478.
Hashitsume, Natsuki: “A statistical theory of linear dissipative systems, II.”, Prog. Theor. Phys. **15** (1956) 369413.
Hashitsume, Natsuki: “Four ways of describing materials and two kinds of entropy” (in Japanese), in Ono, Shu *et al.* (Eds.) “The Development of the Second Law of Thermodynamics” published by Asakura Publishing Co., Ltd. (1990) 148166.
Andrieux, David, and Pierre Gaspard: “Fluctuation theorem for currents and Schnakenberg network theory”, J. Stat. Phys. **127** (2007) 107131.
Andrieux, David, and Pierre Gaspard: “A fluctuation theorem for currents and non-linear response coefficients”, J. Stat. Mech. (2007) P02006.
Sugamoto, Akio (private communication); Aibara, Noriaki *et al.* (The OUJ Tokyo Bunkyo Field Theory Collaboration): “Gravity analog model of non-equilibrium thermodynamics”, arXiv:1807.04132.
Katagiri, So (in preparation).
Kurchan, Jorge: “Fluctuation theorem for stochastic dynamics” J. Phys. A **31** (1998) 3719.
Schakel, Adriaan M. J.: “Time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau theory and duality” in Bunkov, Yuriy M. *et al.* (Eds.) “Topological Defects and the Non-Equilibrium Dynamics of Symmetry Breaking Phase Transitions”, Springer, Dordrecht (2000) 213238.
Arnol’d, Vladimir Igorevich. Mathematical methods of classical mechanics. Vol. 60. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.
Kitahara, Kazuo. The Hamilton-Jacobi-Equation Approach to Fluctuation Phenomena. Advances in Chemical Physics: Membranes, Dissipative Structures and Evolution (1975): 85-111.
Ruppeiner, George. Riemannian geometry in thermodynamic fluctuation theory. Reviews of Modern Physics 67.3 (1995): 605.
Heimburg, Thomas. Linear nonequilibrium thermodynamics of reversible periodic processes and chemical oscillations. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 19.26 (2017): 17331-17341.
A. The time dependence of $S(a,t)$ {#a.-the-time-dependence-of-sat .unnumbered}
==================================
In this Appendix, the meaning of the time dependence of $S(a,t)$ is discussed. As is well-known in classical mechanics [@key-37], for the action $$S[x]=\int dtL(x,\dot{x}),$$
the differential of the action is equal to
$$dS(x,t)=pdx-Hdt.\label{eq:dS_xt}$$
Then, we obtain $$p=\frac{\partial S(x,t)}{\partial x},$$
$$-H=\frac{\partial S(x,t)}{\partial t}.$$
The last equation is Hamilton-Jacobi equation. The application of the Hamilton-Jacobi-Equation to fluctuation phenomena is studied by Kitahara [@key-38].
If $H$ takes a constant value $E$, then we have
$$S(x,t)=-Et+\bar{S}(x),\label{eq:SSeparateVar}$$
and (\[eq:dS\_xt\]) becomes
$$dS(x,t)=\bar{p}dx-Edt$$
$$\bar{p}\equiv\frac{\partial\bar{S}(x)}{\partial x}$$
The entropy that does not depend on time is this $\bar{S}(x)$.
B. Restriction from the second law of thermodynamics {#b.-restriction-from-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics .unnumbered}
====================================================
We want to discuss the restriction from the second law of thermodynamics on our model with a non-linear constitutive equation.
The entropy production is
$$\dot{S}=\frac{\partial S}{\partial a^{i}}\dot{a}^{i}+\Phi=\frac{1}{2}L^{ij}X_{i}X_{j}+X_{i}\xi^{i}$$
$$\begin{split}X_{i}\xi^{i} & =X^{2}\left(\partial_{l}X_{k}\right)^{2}+X^{2}X^{k}\partial^{2}X_{k}-X^{2}\partial\cdot\dot{X}+X^{i}\dot{X}^{j}\partial_{i}X_{j}+X^{i}X^{j}\partial_{i}\dot{X}_{j}-X^{i}\ddot{X}_{i}\end{split}
\label{eq:dotq_A-1}$$
Since can be written as
$$S(a,t)=\Phi t+\bar{S}(a),\label{eq:SSeparateVar-1}$$
we get
$$dS(a,t)=\bar{X}_{i}(a)da^{i}+\Phi dt,$$
$$\bar{X}_{i}(a)\equiv\frac{\partial\bar{S}(a)}{\partial a^{i}}.$$
Then, under (\[eq:SSeparateVar-1\]), (\[eq:dotq\_A-1\]) becomes
$$\begin{split}\bar{X}_{i}\xi^{i} & =\bar{X}^{2}\left(\partial_{l}\bar{X}_{k}\right)^{2}+\bar{X}^{2}\bar{X}^{i}\partial^{2}\bar{X}_{i}\end{split}
\label{eq:dotq_A-1-1}$$
Here we note, $\dot{E}_{i}(\bar{X})=B_{ij}(\bar{X})=0$.
If it is assumed that the second law of thermodynamics can not be broken,
this requires the condition of
$$\frac{1}{2}+\left(\partial_{l}\bar{X}_{k}\right)^{2}+\bar{X}^{i}\partial^{2}\bar{X}_{i}\geq0.$$
If we use Ruppiner metric [@key-39]; $$g_{ij}^{R}\equiv\frac{\partial^{2}\bar{S}}{\partial a^{i}\partial a^{j}}=\frac{\partial\bar{X}_{i}}{\partial a^{j}},$$
this condition gives $$2\partial^{k}\left(\bar{X}^{i}g_{ik}^{R}\right)\geq-1$$
if $g_{ij}^{R}$ is constant, then $$2g^{Rik}g_{ik}^{R}\geq-1.$$
Because $L^{ij}$ is positive definite, $$g^{Rik}g_{ik}^{R}\geq0$$
always holds.
More generally, in term of thermodynamic electric field and thermodynamic magnetic field, the non-liner constitutive equation is
$$\dot{a}^{i}=\left(1+\partial_{k}E^{k}\right)L^{ij}X_{j}+\dot{E}^{i}+\partial_{j}B^{ji}.$$
Then, the entropy production can be given by
$$\dot{S}=(\frac{1}{2}+\partial_{k}E^{k})L^{ij}X_{i}X_{j}+X_{i}(\dot{E}^{i}+\partial_{j}B^{ji}).$$
Therefore, the restriction from the second law of thermodynamics on our model with a non-linear constitutive equation yields
$$\dot{E}^i+\partial_{j}B^{ji}\geq-\left(\frac{1}{2}+\partial_{k}E^{k}\right)L^{ij}X_{j}.$$
C. Dimensional analysis {#c.-dimensional-analysis .unnumbered}
=======================
To know physics, the dimensional analysis is important. From this analysis, we obtain relations,
$$[S]=[k_{B}],$$
$$[\Phi]=\frac{[S]}{[t]}=\frac{[k_{B}]}{[t]},$$
$$[\frac{\partial}{\partial a^{i}}]=\frac{1}{[a^{i}]},$$
$$[X_{i}]=\frac{[S]}{[a^{i}]}=\frac{[k_{B}]}{[a^{i}]},$$
$$\text{\ensuremath{\frac{[a^{i}]}{[t]}}}=[L^{ij}][X_{j}]=[L^{ij}]\frac{[k_{B}]}{[a^{j}]},$$
$$[L^{ij}]=\frac{[a^{i}][a^{j}]}{[t][k_{B}]},$$
$$[R_{ij}]=\frac{[t][k_{B}]}{[a^{i}][a^{j}]},$$
$$[F_{\mu\nu}]=\frac{[k_{B}]}{[a^{\mu}][a^{\nu}]},$$
$$[F^{\mu\nu}]=\frac{[a^{\mu}]}{[k_{B}]}\frac{[a^{\nu}]}{[t^{2}]},$$
$$[E_{i}]=[F_{i0}]=\frac{[k_{B}]}{[a^{i}][t]},$$
$$[E^{i}]=\text{\ensuremath{\frac{[a^{i}]}{[k_{B}][t]}}},$$
$$[B_{ij}]=\frac{[k_{B}]}{[a^{i}][a^{j}]},$$
$$[\xi^{i}]=[\dot{a}]=\frac{[a]}{[t]}.$$
Under these relations, we insert a basic constant of time, $\tilde{t}$ and we get
$$\lambda=\frac{da^{0}}{d\tau}-k_{B}\tilde{t}\partial_{i}E^{i}$$
$$\dot{a}^i=(1+k_{B}\tilde{t}\partial_{k}E^{k})L^{ij}X_{j}+k_{B}\tilde{t}\left(\dot{E}^{i}+\partial_{j}B^{ji}\right)$$
Then, if $\tilde{t}$ is long, then the non-linear term dominates and our model with a non-linear constitutive equation becomes effective.
D. Simple example {#d.-simple-example .unnumbered}
=================
As a simple example, we assume,
$$X_{i}=g_{ij}^{R}a^{j}.$$
$$\partial_{j}X_{i}=g_{ij}^{R}$$
$$\begin{array}{cc}
\xi^{i}= & k_{B}\tilde{t}\left(\left(g_{mk}^{R}\right)^{2}L^{in}g_{np}^{R}a^{p}+L^{jk}L^{il}g_{jp}^{R}\dot{a}^{p}g_{lk}^{R}-L^{ij}g_{jp}^{R}\ddot{a}^{p}\right)\end{array}$$
In this case, we can derive the following we get second order linear differential equation,
$$A_{p}^{i}\ddot{a}^{p}+B_{p}^{i}\dot{a}^{p}+C_{p}^{i}a^{p}=0,\label{eq:ABC}$$
$$A_{p}^{i}\equiv k_{B}\tilde{t}L^{ij}g_{jp}^{R},$$
$$B_{p}^{i}\equiv\left(1-k_{B}\tilde{t}L^{jk}L^{il}g_{jp}^{R}g_{lk}^{R}\right),$$
$$C_{p}^{i}\equiv-\left(1+k_{B}\tilde{t}(g_{ml}^{R})^{2}\right)L^{ij}g_{jp}^{R}.$$
If we modify the coefficient of the first term in to be 1, we get
$$\ddot{a}^{i}+D_{p}^{i}\dot{a}^{p}+E_{p}^{i}a^{p}=0,$$
$$D_{p}^{i}\equiv\left(A^{-1}\right)_{j}^{i}B_{p}^{j}=(\frac{1}{k_{B}\tilde{t}}g^{Rik}R_{kp}-L^{ik}g_{kp}^{R}),$$
$$E_{p}^{i}\equiv(A^{-1})_{j}^{i}C_{p}^{j}=\epsilon\delta_{p}^{i},$$
$$\epsilon\equiv-\left(\frac{1}{k_{B}\tilde{t}}+(g_{ml}^{R})^{2}\right).$$
Here we note
$$[D,E]=0.$$
If $\tilde{t}\to0$, we get well known linear constitutive equation.
We take a linear transformation of $b$,
$$a^{p}=P_{o}^{p}b^{o},$$
$$\ddot{b}^{i}+\left(P^{-1}DP\right)_{p}^{i}\dot{b}^{p}+\epsilon b^{p}=0.$$
If we assume it can be diagonalized,
$$\left(P^{-1}DP\right)_{p}^{i}=\lambda_{(i)}\delta_{p}^{i},$$
we get
$$\ddot{b}^{i}+\lambda_{(i)}\dot{b}^{i}+\epsilon b^{i}=0,$$
$$\omega^{2}+\lambda_{(i)}\omega+\epsilon=0,$$
$$\omega=\frac{-\lambda_{(i)}\pm\sqrt{\lambda_{(i)}^{2}-4\epsilon}}{2}.$$
Under $\tilde{t}\to\infty$,
$$D_{p}^{i}=-L^{ik}g_{kp}^{R},$$
$$\epsilon=-\left(g_{lm}^{R}\right)^{2}.$$
If we assume for simplicity, $$L^{ik}g_{kp}^{R}=\alpha\delta_{p}^{i},$$
then
$$\alpha=\frac{L^{ik}g_{ki}^{R}}{N},$$
$$\epsilon=-L^{lk}L^{ms}g_{lm}^{R}g_{ks}^{R}=-N\alpha^{2},$$
$$P_{j}^{i}=\delta_{j}^{i}.$$
we get $$\ddot{a}^{i}-\alpha\dot{a}^{i}+N\alpha^{2}a^{i}=0,$$
$$\omega=\frac{\alpha\pm\sqrt{\alpha^{2}-4N\alpha^{2}}}{2}=\frac{1\pm i\sqrt{(4N-1)}}{2}\alpha.$$
Then, we get solution that decays while oscillating,
$$a(t)=a(0)e^{-\frac{\sqrt{4(N-1)}}{2}\left(\frac{L^{ik}g_{ki}^{R}}{N}\right)t}\cos\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{L^{ik}g_{ki}^{R}}{N}\right)t\label{eq:aoci}$$
If we take limit $N\to\infty$, the oscillating of (\[eq:aoci\]) disappears,
$$a(t)=a(0)e^{-L^{ik}g_{ki}^{R}t}.$$
Non-equilibrium macroscopic oscillatory phenomena is discussed in the context of chemical reaction [@key-40].
[^1]: So.Katagiri@gmail.com
[^2]: In non-equilibrium thermodynamics, the time dependence of $S(a,t)$ is natural when we consider path integral formalism and WKB approximation. See Appendix A.
[^3]: The parameter $\tau$ is an arbitrary parameter, and it can always be introduced into a dynamical system.
[^4]: This corresponds to the Rayleigh dissipation function.
[^5]: It’s dimension is $N+1$ which is the number of components of $X$.
[^6]: See Appendix B for details.
[^7]: As a simple example, see Appendix D.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The Al/Si and Mg/Si ratios in non-carbonaceous chondrites are lower than the solar (i.e., CI-chondritic) values, [in sharp contrast to the non-CI carbonaceous meteorites and the Earth, which are enriched in refractory elements and have Mg/Si ratios that are solar or larger]{}. We show that the formation of a first generation of planetesimals during the condensation of refractory elements implies the subsequent formation of residual condensates with strongly sub-solar Al/Si and Mg/Si ratios. The mixing of residual condensates with different amounts of material with solar refractory/Si element ratios explains the Al/Si and Mg/Si values of non-carbonaceous chondrites. To match quantitatively the observed ratios, we find that the first-planetesimals should have accreted when the disk temperature was $\sim 1,330$–$1,400$ K [depending on pressure and assuming a solar C/O ratio of the disk]{}. We discuss how this model relates to our current understanding of disk evolution, grain dynamics, and planetesimal formation. We also extend the discussion to moderately volatile elements (e.g., Na), [explaining how it may be possible that the depletion of these elements in non-carbonaceous chondrites is correlated with the depletion of refractory elements (e.g., Al).]{} [Extending the analysis to Cr, we find evidence for a higher than solar C/O ratio in the protosolar disk’s gas when/where condensation from a fractionated gas occurred.]{} [Finally, we discuss the possibility that the supra-solar Al/Si and Mg/Si ratios of the Earth are due to the accretion of $\sim 40$% of the mass of our planet from the first-generation of refractory-rich planetesimals]{}.'
author:
- |
**A. Morbidelli$^{(1)}$, G. Libourel$^{(1)}$, H. Palme$^{(2)}$, S. A. Jacobson$^{(3)}$ and D. C. Rubie$^{(4)}$**\
(1) Laboratoire Lagrange, UMR7293, Université de Nice Sophia-Antipolis, CNRS, Observatoire de la Côte d’Azur. Boulevard de l’Observatoire, 06304 Nice Cedex 4, France. (Email: morby@oca.eu / Fax: +33-4-92003118)\
(2) Senckenberg, world of biodiversity, Sektion Meteoritenforschung. Senckenberganlage 25, 60325 Frankfurt am Main, Germany\
(3) Northwestern University, Dept. of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Evanston, 60208 Illinois\
(4) Bayerisches Geoinstitut, University of Bayreuth, 95440, Bayreuth, Germany\
title: 'Subsolar Al/Si and Mg/Si ratios of non-carbonaceous chondrites reveal planetesimal formation during early condensation in the protoplanetary disk'
---
Introduction
============
Carbonaceous chondrites (CCs), from CI to CM, CO and CV, show a progressive increase in Al/Si and Mg/Si ratios together with an increasing depletion in moderately volatile elements (e.g., Na) - see Fig. \[Palme\], table S1 and references therein. CI meteorites reflect the solar composition and the observed trend is interpreted as the consequence of an increasing abundance of minerals formed in high-temperature regions of the protoplanetary disk (e.g., CAIs: Hezel et al., 2008). The trend continues for the Earth, [if the upper mantle Mg/Si and Al/Si ratios are valid for the bulk mantle, which is often assumed (e.g., Palme and O’Neill, 2014; Hyung et al., 2016), but there are also arguments against a chemically uniform mantle (e.g., Ballmer et al., 2013). There is also some discussion]{} on the amount of Si in the core (Rubie et al., 2015). Thus, in Fig. \[Palme\] we report two values for the bulk Al/Si and Mg/Si ratios, computed assuming that the mantle is homogeneous (Hyung et al., 2016) but the core contains 0% or 7% Si by mass. This is intended to give a sense of the systematic uncertainty on the bulk composition ratios of the Earth. It remains clear, however, that the Earth is enriched in refractory elements and depleted in moderately volatile elements at least at the level of CO-CV meteorites.
Enstatite chondrites, [rumuruti]{} and ordinary chondrites (ECs, RCs and OCs hereafter, [generically denoted NCCs for non-carbonaceous chondrites]{}) surprisingly do not follow this trend, despite the fact that they should have formed in the relatively hot, inner solar system. Their Al/Si and Mg/Si ratios are sub-solar while they have only a small Na depletion compared to COs, CVs and the Earth (Fig. \[Palme\]).
![Abundances of Al, Mg, Fe, Cr, Na, S, relative to Si and normalized to the CI ratios for different chondrites and the Earth (data and references reported in table S1). For the bulk Earth (BE) two cases are given assuming 0 and 7wt% of Si in the core respectively. There is a clear difference in chemistry between the carbonaceous chondrites (CC) and the non-carbonaceous chondrites.[]{data-label="Palme"}](Palme-R-all.jpg){height="7.cm"}
The strong difference in Al/Si and Mg/Si ratios between the Earth and ECs poses a conundrum. [Most elements have the same ratios of stable isotopes (e.g., O-isotopes) in ECs and Earth, whereas other chondritic meteorites show significant differences. Small nucleosynthetic anomalies for ECs relative to Earth have been reported for Mo, Ru and Nd.]{} For this reason it is sometimes suggested that the Earth accreted mostly from enstatite chondrites ([see for instance]{} Javoy, 1995; [Lodders, 2000]{}, Dauphas, 2017). But the large differences in Al/Si and Mg/Si ratios between the Earth and ECs seem to preclude this possibility, [although some solutions have been proposed (e.g., incongruent vaporization of enstatite: see Mysen and Kushiro, 1988)]{}. Dauphas (2017) postulated that the precursors of the Earth had the same isotopic composition as ECs but a different element composition.
[It has been proposed that the sub-solar Al/Si and Mg/Si ratios in the NCCs are due to the loss of a refractory-rich component from a disk with an original solar composition (see Larimer, 1979; see also Alexander, 2019 and references therein). It has also been suggested that this refractory component was accreted by the Earth, thus explaining its enrichment in refractory elements. For instance, to explain the Mg-enrichment of the Earth, Dauphas et al. (2015) suggested that the ECs were depleted in a forsterite condensate and are complementary to the forsterite enriched Earth. This possibility has been explicitly excluded by Alexander (2019), for the reasons discussed in Sect. \[Earth\].]{} An alternative explanation for the relative deficiency of Si and Mg in the Earth is the evaporation from the molten surface of the protoplanetary embryos that made our planet (Pringle et al., 2014; [Mysen and Kushiro, 1988]{}; Hin et al., 2017; Young et al., 2019). However, the sub-solar Al/Si and Mg/Si ratios of the NCCs cannot be explained by evaporation models because Si should be lost preferentially relative to Mg and Al.
[In this paper, we revisit the idea of the sequestration of a refractory component from the protoplanetary disk in order to explain the depletion of refractory elements in the NCCs. In section \[context\], we discuss how a refractory-rich component could be sequestered, in the framework of modern models of disk evolution and planetesimal formation. In section \[char\], we determine the temperature at which this refractory-rich component should have been isolated from the condensation sequence in order to explain the Al/Si and Mg/Si of the NCCs. [In section \[others\], we extend our considerations to other elements: Fe, Na, Cr and S.]{} In section \[Earth\], we show that the enrichment in refractory elements of the Earth can be explained, within uncertainties, by the addition of the refractory component removed from the NCCs. We discuss how the issues that led Alexander (2019) to exclude this possibility can be solved, so that this possibility remains the most viable one. Section \[Conclusions\] summarizes the results and highlights the predictions of the properties of the protoplanetary disk that our results imply, that will need to be validated by future models of disk’s formation and evolution.]{}
An astrophysical scenario for the sequestration of refractory material {#context}
======================================================================
As often assumed, we consider that the inner disk was initially very hot, so all material was in a gaseous form, including refractory elements. As the disk was rapidly cooling, various species started to condense in sequence, from the most refractory to the more volatile. This is typical of equilibrium condensation where, with declining temperature, some earlier condensed species are destroyed to form new ones, in addition to condensing new species.
[However, it is unlikely that this process continued undisturbed to low temperatures]{}. When enough solid grains condensed, but well before the completion of the whole sequence, the ionization level of the gas was strongly reduced by the now present dust and the magneto-rotational instability (MRI) generating turbulence in the midplane of the disk was quenched (Desch and Turner, 2015). [Because the disk had a radial temperature gradient, this did not happen everywhere at the same time. The innermost part of the disk, hot enough to contain only small amounts of dust, remained MRI-active while the outer part located beyond a threshold distance corresponding to some temperature $T_{MRI}$ was MRI-inactive; the boundary between the two parts moved sunwards as the disk cooled with time. The value of $T_{MRI}$ is not known precisely. In this work, we will consider it as a free parameter [and we discuss its best-fit value in section \[cs\].]{}]{}
The transition from a MRI-active to a MRI-inactive region of the disk should correspond to a transition in gas density. The surface density of gas has to be larger in the MRI-inactive region for the conservation of mass flux: $F_M=2\pi r \Sigma v_r$, where $F_M$ is the mass flux, $r$ is the distance from the star, $\Sigma$ is the surface density of gas and $v_r$ its radial velocity. In fact, $v_r=-3/2(\nu/r)$ where $\nu$ is the gas viscosity, so there is an anti-correlation between $\Sigma$ and $\nu$, the latter being much larger in the MRI-active region of the disk. This steep density gradient, creating a pressure maximum, acts as a barrier to the inward radial drift of dust due to gas drag. Thus, at the boundary between the MRI-active and MRI-inactive parts of the disk we expect to find not just the locally-condensed grains corresponding to that temperature, but also grains that condensed earlier and farther away and whose radial migration was stopped at this boundary ([Flock et al., 2017]{}). Incidentally, these migrated grains trapped at $T_{MRI}$ would evolve to acquire the same chemistry as those condensed locally at $T_{MRI}$. Hence, the dust/gas ratio at $T_{MRI}$ can become much larger with time than the value due solely to the locally-condensed grains.
This accumulation of dust ([Flock et al., 2017]{}) should have triggered rapid planetesimal formation via the streaming instability (Youdin and Goodman, 2005; Johansen and Youdin, 2007). It is indeed known that this instability is triggered when the solid/gas mass ratio exceeds by 3-4 times the value corresponding to the condensation of dust from a gas of solar composition (the exact value depending on particle size; Yang et al., 2017). With the formation of planetesimals, the already condensed material stops participating in the gas-solid equilibrium chemistry because it becomes locked-up in large objects instead of small grains.
Consequently, at the temperature $T_{MRI}$ there should have been a bifurcation in the chemistry of the disk due to the fractionation of solids from gas. Below $T_{MRI}$, condensation could form new solid species only from the [*residual*]{} gas. Consequently, the first generation of planetesimals should have been refractory-rich, with strongly supra-solar Al/Si and Mg/Si ratios, whereas the second generation of solids condensed from the residual gas (denoted “residual condensates” hereafter for brevity) should have been extremely refractory-poor, with strongly sub-solar Al/Si and Mg/Si ratios.
![A flow-chart of the scenario explored in this paper. The vertical axis represents the evolution of time, from top to bottom, during which the temperature decreases. The blue ellipses show the material available (light blue for gas then -with increasing intensity of the color- grains, planetesimals and the Earth) and the red rectangles show the transformation processes. For simplicity, we do not track volatiles condensing below 1,250K, nor H and He. See also Supplementary Fig. 3 for a more comprehensive (but complicated!) sketch of the evolution of gas and solids in the disk as a function of distance, time and declining temperature.[]{data-label="sketch"}](Fig1new-sol.jpg){height="11.cm"}
[This sequence of events and the roles of residual condensates, first planetesimals and solar-composition material in making the NCCs and the Earth are depicted in Fig. \[sketch\] and are described in more details in the subsequent sections.]{}
Determining the temperature of sequestration of refractory material {#char}
===================================================================
[To determine $T_{MRI}$, the temperature of sequestration of the first condensates in planetesimals, we follow the condensation sequence from a gas of solar composition to track the species condensed and the chemical composition of the residual gas as a function of temperature (sect. \[cs\]). Then, we use these data to determine the temperature that fits best the observed Al/Si and Mg/Si ratios of the NCCs (sect. \[results\]).]{}
Condensation sequence {#cs}
---------------------
We have computed a condensation sequence, during the cooling of the disk at the mid-plane of the Solar Nebula, starting from 2,000 K and assuming a total pressure of $10^{-3}$ bar [and a solar C/O ratio]{}. [Some results for different pressures and C/O ratios are also reported below.]{} These calculations describe the equilibrium distribution of the elements and their compounds between coexisting phases (solids, liquid, vapor) in a closed chemical system with vapor always present upon cooling. We have used for this proof of concept a simplified solar gas composition taken from Ebel and Grossman (2000) composed of the most abundant elements of the solar photosphere: H, C, O, Mg, Si, Fe, Ni, Al, Ca, [ Ti, Cr, S]{} and Na.
The equilibrium condensation sequence of this simplified solar gas has been calculated using the FactSage software package (Bale et al., 2016) by means of a general Gibbs free energy minimization method (Eriksson and Hack, 1990). The thermodynamic data for each compound are taken from the database provided by the FactSage package. [The potential number of species that can be formed from the combination of the 13 elements considered in this system is over 450, comprising 150 gases and 320 pure solid phases (see tables S2, S3). For this proof of concept, condensation calculations have been performed in steps of 10 K, allowing only pure solid phases to condense, no solid solutions (see below). ]{}
![a) Fraction of the total condensable mass from a cooling vapor of solar composition (i.e., CI composition, including volatiles) at $P_{tot} = 10^{-3}$ bar. Arrows indicate the onset of pure solid phase condensation together with their temperature. Abbreviations, cor : corundum (Al$_2$O$_3$) ; hib : hibonite (CaAl$_{12}$O$_{19}$) ; per : perovskite (CaTiO$_3$); grs : grossite (CaAl$_4$O$_7$) ; mel : mellitite (Ca$_2$Al$_2$SiO$_7$) ; fas : Aluminous-rich clinopyroxene (CaAl$_2$SiO$_6$ – mimicking fassaite-like Fe poor, Ca, Al, Ti pyroxene); sp : spinel (MgAl$_2$O$_4$) ; met : Fe-Ni metal ; fo : forsterite (Mg$_2$SiO$_4$) ; an : anorthite (CaAl$_2$Si$_2$O$_8$) ; en : enstatite (MgSiO$_3$) ; alb : albite (NaAlSi$_3$O$_8$). b) Fractions of available Al, Mg and Si condensed as a function of temperature. Note that Al/Si and Mg/Si ratios of condensates become solar at a temperature of $\sim 1,250$K. Note also that the Al/Mg ratio becomes solar at larger temperature than the Al/Si ratio.[]{data-label="NewFig"}](Fig3a-HD.jpg){height="6.cm"}
![a) Fraction of the total condensable mass from a cooling vapor of solar composition (i.e., CI composition, including volatiles) at $P_{tot} = 10^{-3}$ bar. Arrows indicate the onset of pure solid phase condensation together with their temperature. Abbreviations, cor : corundum (Al$_2$O$_3$) ; hib : hibonite (CaAl$_{12}$O$_{19}$) ; per : perovskite (CaTiO$_3$); grs : grossite (CaAl$_4$O$_7$) ; mel : mellitite (Ca$_2$Al$_2$SiO$_7$) ; fas : Aluminous-rich clinopyroxene (CaAl$_2$SiO$_6$ – mimicking fassaite-like Fe poor, Ca, Al, Ti pyroxene); sp : spinel (MgAl$_2$O$_4$) ; met : Fe-Ni metal ; fo : forsterite (Mg$_2$SiO$_4$) ; an : anorthite (CaAl$_2$Si$_2$O$_8$) ; en : enstatite (MgSiO$_3$) ; alb : albite (NaAlSi$_3$O$_8$). b) Fractions of available Al, Mg and Si condensed as a function of temperature. Note that Al/Si and Mg/Si ratios of condensates become solar at a temperature of $\sim 1,250$K. Note also that the Al/Mg ratio becomes solar at larger temperature than the Al/Si ratio.[]{data-label="NewFig"}](Fig3b-HD.jpg){height="6.cm"}
Figure \[NewFig\] shows the fractions of the condensable mass and of Al, Mg, and Si that have condensed as a function of temperature, respectively. The comparison with published results on the condensation of a gas of solar composition (Yoneda and Grossman, 1995; Ebel and Grossman, 2000; Ebel 2006) shows a good agreement in terms of both the computed condensation temperatures and the sequence of appearance of solid phases upon cooling (Fig. \[NewFig\]a), despite the use of only pure solid phases.
As is well known, corundum starts to condense first at a temperature of $\sim 1,775$ K at the pressure considered here ($10^{-3}$ bar). It is followed by calcium aluminates (hibonite, perovskite, grossite and melilite), which set the Al contents of the first condensates to be very high. Magnesium and Si start to condense later, almost simultaneously at $T \sim 1,600$ K with the onset of the condensation of melilite. Both Mg and Si contents increase as cooling proceeds in response to condensation of fassaite and spinel at lower temperature. Initially, Si exceeds Mg in terms of fraction condensed but then, at 1,250 K$< T <$1,450 K, Mg exceeds Si because of the condensation of forsterite (Mg$_2$SiO$_4$), the first phase to remove major fractions of Si and Mg from the gas. Further cooling of the solar gas promotes the condensation of enstatite ($\sim 1,370$ K) and leads to the subsequent increase in Si of the solid. By the time the temperature has decreased to $\sim 1,250$ K, all available Al, Mg and Si atoms have condensed, which implies that the solar composition in terms of Al/Si and Mg/Si is achieved at this temperature.
![Top panel: the solid curves show the Al/Si (red) and Mg/Si (blue) ratios (normalized to CI values) of the condensed material as a function of gas temperature. The arrow indicates that the Al/Si ratio increases above the upper limit of the plot for $T>1,430$K. Bottom panel: the same but for the residual condensates, assuming that all the early condensed material has been sequestered in planetesimals at the temperature $T_{MRI}$. The horizontal lines show the mean Al/Si and Mg/Si ratios for ECs.[]{data-label="ratios"}](Fig4a-HD.jpg){height="6.cm"}
![Top panel: the solid curves show the Al/Si (red) and Mg/Si (blue) ratios (normalized to CI values) of the condensed material as a function of gas temperature. The arrow indicates that the Al/Si ratio increases above the upper limit of the plot for $T>1,430$K. Bottom panel: the same but for the residual condensates, assuming that all the early condensed material has been sequestered in planetesimals at the temperature $T_{MRI}$. The horizontal lines show the mean Al/Si and Mg/Si ratios for ECs.[]{data-label="ratios"}](Fig4b-HD.jpg){height="6.cm"}
The top panel of Fig. \[ratios\] shows the resulting Al/Si (red) and Mg/Si ratios (blue) as a function of temperature, normalized to the respective ratios in CI meteorites (i.e., the solar composition ratios). The Al/Si ratio drops monotonically with decreasing temperature and reaches the solar ratio (i.e., one when normalized) at $T\sim 1,250$ K. The Mg/Si ratio instead starts sub-solar but then becomes supra-solar for 1,250 K$<T<1,450$ K, with the bump due to the condensation of forsterite.
If condensates are isolated from the gas at a temperature $T_{MRI}$, they maintain the composition of the solids condensed at that temperature; thus, their Al/Si and Mg/Si ratios are those shown in Fig. \[ratios\]a at $T=T_{MRI}$. Strictly speaking, isolation occurs when condensates grow big enough to prevent further gas-solid exchanges. For example, given a diffusion coefficient of about $10^{-16}$m$^{2}$/s at 1,400 K for Fe-Mg interdiffusion in olivine (Holzapfel et al., 2003), a mm-size grain would equilibrate in approximately 300 y and a cm-size grain in 30,000 y. However, according to aggregation experiments it is likely that most grains are sub-mm in size (Güttler et al., 2010). Thus the most effective way to isolate solid material from exchange reactions with the gas is to incorporate it into macroscopic planetesimals, as explained in the previous section.
Consider now the possibility that at some temperature $T_{MRI}$ the condensed solids are sequestered in planetesimals. Then, with further decreasing temperature, new solids will condense from the residual gas. The bottom panel of Fig. \[ratios\] shows the Al/Si and Mg/Si ratios of these residual condensates as a function of $T_{MRI}$. They are completely different from those of the first condensates. The Al/Si ratio of the residual condensates is strongly sub-solar (essentially zero below 1600 K, when all Al is condensed) and the Mg/Si ratio is also sub-solar for $T_{MRI}<1,450$ K. Figure \[ratios\]b shows, for comparison, the Al/Si and Mg/Si ratios of ECs. Note that at no value of $T_{MRI}$ do the residual condensates have simultaneously both the Al/Si and Mg/Si ratios of these chondrites.
Making non-carbonaceous chondrites {#results}
----------------------------------
It is dynamically unlikely and chemically impossible that the NCCs formed solely from residual condensates. [A fraction of the first condensed grains may have been small enough to avoid piling up at $T_{MRI}$, thus remaining at equilibrium with the cooling gas. These grains would have eventually acquired a solar composition in terms of concentrations of Al, Mg and Si and -possibly also- moderately volatile elements. In addition, other grains with solar [elemental]{} composition may have arrived from farther out in the disk. We stress that these grains did not necessarily have the CI content of water and of other highly volatile components, condensible only at low temperature[^1]. [Likewise, the isotopic properties of this material are not necessarily the same as for CI meteorites.]{} Thus, hereafter when using the term “solar-composition” we [simply refer to material characterized by solar abundances of refractory and moderately volatile elements]{}. We postulate that the NCCs formed as a second generation of planetesimals from a mixture of these solar-composition grains and residual condensates, so that they appear as if a refractory-rich component had been partially subtracted, as the data suggest.]{}
[Thus, for each temperature $T_{MRI}$ we compute the relative amount of solar-composition material $M_{Sol}$ that has to be mixed with the residual condensates to reproduce the Al/Si and/or the Mg/Si ratio of the NCCs (Fig. \[ECs\]).]{} $M_{Sol}$ is computed from the two equations: $$\begin{aligned}
R^{NCC}&=&{{f_{Al,Mg}^{res}M_{res}+\tilde f_{Al,Mg}^{CI} M_{Sol}} \over{f_{Si}^{res}M_{res}+\tilde f_{Si}^{CI} M_{Sol}}}\cr
1&=&M_{res}+M_{Sol}
\label{eq.MCI}\end{aligned}$$ where $R^{NCC}$ is the Al/Si or the Mg/Si weight ratio in [the considered NCCs (ECs, RCs or OCs)]{}; $f_{Al,Mg}^{res}$ and $f_{Si}^{res}$ are the concentrations by mass of Al, Mg and Si in residual condensates (all these quantities depend on $T_{MRI}$ and are shown in Fig. S1), whose total mass is $M_{res}$; $\tilde f_{Al,Mg}^{CI}$ and $\tilde f_{Si}^{CI}$ are 1.66 times the concentrations of Al, Mg and Si in CI meteorites (see table S1 for element fraction in meteorites). The factor 1.66 takes into account the lack of volatiles (e.g., water) in the solar-composition material that we consider compared to CI meteorites, which reduces their total mass to 60%.
![The fraction of solar-composition material that needs to be mixed with residual condensates to reproduce the Al/Si (red) and Mg/Si (blue) ratios of ECs (solid), OCs (dashed) [and RCs (dotted)]{}, as a function of the temperature of formation of the first planetesimals, $T_{MRI}$. For ECs and OCs [we use the mean of the ratios of the various sub-classes]{}: Al/Si=0.67 and Mg/Si=0.78 and Al/Si=0.83 and Mg/Si=0.91 respectively, relative to CI ratios. The vertical band shows the range of values of $T_{MRI}$ that satisfy the considered elemental ratios of all the NCCs types: 1,385–1,410 K.[]{data-label="ECs"}](Fig5-HD-R-sol.jpg){height="7.cm"}
Obviously, for each meteorite class the concordia situation occurs at the intersection between the two solutions, when both the Al/Si and Mg/Si ratios are reproduced for the same combination of $T_{MRI}$ and $M_{Sol}$. [Note that the solutions for $T_{MRI}$ are [very similar (1,385–1,405 K) for all the NCC classes]{}. This means that the residual condensate material (or, equivalently, the subtracted refractory component) is the same for these classes of meteorites and that the different bulk chemical compositions of the ECs and OCs are mostly due to different mixing proportions with the solar-composition material.]{} [Notice that the relative mass of solar-composition material exceeds in all cases the fraction of matrix in these meteorites. This means that the formation of chondrules and matrix occurred after mixing solar-composition material and residual condensates. Hence, it does not contradict our model that the RCs are intermediate between ECs and OCs in terms of proportion of solar-composition material even if they have the largest proportion of matrix.]{}
[The elemental and the mineralogical compositions of the refractory material sequestered at 1,400 K are shown in the top panels of Fig. \[camembert\]]{}. [We have repeated the calculation for a pressure of $10^{-4}$ bar. Conceptually the results are the same, but all condensation temperatures shift to lower values; $T_{MRI}$ is found to be in the range 1,310–1,330 K.]{}
Other elements {#others}
==============
Now that $T_{MRI}$ is determined, we can check the consistency of the model with other [elements with different condensation temperatures.]{}
[We start our analysis with a moderate refractory element like Fe. For $P=10^{-3}$ bar, the residual condensates would have a sub-solar Fe/Si ratio (Fig. S1). However, for $P=10^{-4}$ bar Fe is less refractory and the Fe/Si ratio at $T_{MRI}$ is basically unfractionated.]{} The amount of Fe varies widely within the ECs and OCs, from EH to EL and H to LL. These changes cannot be explained by our simple model here. They may require different oxidation conditions, in the disk, during chondrule formation (Larimer, 1979; Alexander, 2019). We notice that because Fe tends to be present in meteorites as distinct metal blebs, Fe enrichment and depletion may also be due to size-sorting effects during the streaming instability.
[Notice that in the top panels of Fig. \[camembert\] Ni does not appear. This is an artifact of our calculation scheme since only pure Fe and pure Ni metal phases (and not the single FeNi solid solution) have been taken into account. Thus, the Ni/Fe ratios in both the first and the residual condensates are not realistic.]{}
[Sodium is a more interesting case, because in the NCCs, with the exception of the EH meteorites, it shows a striking correlation with Al (see Fig. \[Palme\]).]{} The same is true for the other alkali elements (Alexander, 2019). According to our model, when the refractory material is sequestered at 1,400 K, Na has not yet condensed, so the Na-Al correlation is not expected.
![The elemental (left pie-charts) and mineralogical (right pie-charts) weight fractions for the first condensates at 1,400K (top) and residual condensates down to 830K (bottom).[]{data-label="camembert"}](Fig7-HD.jpg){height="7.cm"}
However, as pointed out by Barshay and Lewis (1976), the sequestration of refractory elements prevents their further reaction with the gas at lower temperatures, making Na less able to condense, i.e., more volatile. For instance, in an equilibrium condensation sequence, [at $P=10^{-3}$ bar,]{} the condensation of Na would start by forming NaAlSi$_3$O$_8$ (albite) at 1,150 K. But as Al has been removed from the gas, this mineral cannot form. The first refractory-element-free condensate that Na can form is Na$_2$S (Fegley and Lewis, 1980), which starts to condense below 830 K at $P=10^{-3}$ bar. Thus, if gas condensation “ends” before this temperature is reached the residual condensates do not contain Na and the final depletion in Na in the ECs and OCs correlates perfectly with the depletion in Al, because both Na and Al are acquired only from the solar-composition component of these meteorites.
We stress that [it is natural that]{} the condensation sequence ends [when there is still gas left in the system. In fact, condensation requires cooling the gas but, although the disk cools over time at each location, parcels of gas are also radially transported towards the star. Thus, there is a competition between heating of gas due to its inward radial drift and secular cooling of the disk. Morbidelli et al. (2016) showed that a viscously evolving disk transitions from condensing (cooling) gas parcels to inwardly drifting (heating) parcels after half a viscous timescale]{} ($r^2/\nu$), which is a small fraction of the disk’s lifetime. [In the disk model of Bitsch et al. (2015) this happens at 1 AU at $t\sim 10^4$ y, when the stellar accretion rate is $10^{-6}M_\oplus$/y, before the temperature has reached $\sim 800$ K.]{} Assuming this is the case, we show in the bottom row of Fig. \[camembert\] the elemental and the mineralogical compositions of the residual condensates.
[The case of Cr is more difficult. Still for our nominal case of $P=10^{-3}$ bar 50% of Cr condenses at 1,300K, too close to $T_{MRI}$ to invoke the premature end of the condensation sequence, but not high enough to remove most of the Cr with the first condensates. Thus, we should expect that the residual condensates were enriched in Cr and that the NCCs have Cr/Si higher than the CI value. Instead, the depletion of Cr correlates with that of Al (Alexander, 2019). Accounting for the solubility of Cr in Fe-metal and olivine allows for the removal of $\sim$50% of the Cr with the first condensates, but $\sim$50% of Si is also removed, so that the residual condensates should be at best un-fractionated in Cr/Si, which is insufficient to explain the observed Al-Cr correlation. However, we find that if the C/O ratio of the gas is increased to 0.9, $T_{MRI}$ decreases to 1,280K (because the condensation temperatures of Al, Mg and Si decrease), so that nearly 100% of Cr is bound in the first condensates if one accounts for its solubility in iron and olivine. Thus a C/O$\ge 0.9$ enables the Cr-Al correlation in the NCCs to be explained. The same is true at lower pressure. A similar C/O ratio has been invoked by several authors (e.g., Lodders and Fegley, 1993) as the sole way to explain various properties of enstatite chondrites. It is interesting that from a completely different approach we also reach this conclusion, with the difference that in our model the high C/O ratio affected the formation of residual condensates that are a component of all the NCCs, not just of the ECs (although more prominent in ECs). The equivalent of Fig. \[camembert\], except for C/O=0.9, is given in Fig. S4.]{}
[Sulfur is more volatile than Na in a gas with solar C/O. But it starts to behave as a refractory element for C/O$> 0.9$, when oldhmite (CaS) begins to condense. For C/O$=1.2$, 40% of S is condensed at $T_{MRI}$ ($=$1,130 K for $P=10^{-3}$ bar). No S condenses from the residual gas before Na. Thus, S and Na depletions should correlate in the NCCs, but such a correlation is not observed. Sulfur is mostly found in the matrix and high concentrations of S are only observed in EC chondrules. Remembering that the mixing between residual condensates and solar-composition material should be done at the level of chondrule precursors this observation suggests that, for some reason, S was lost in the formation of OCs and RCs chondrules, but not Na (Alexander et al., 2008). ]{}
The Earth {#Earth}
=========
If the first-formed planetesimals had accreted with each other and possibly with additional solar-composition material, they would have formed a planet enriched in refractory elements. It is therefore important to check whether this scenario could explain the supra-solar Al/Si and Mg/Si ratios of the Earth.
[For simplicity we consider our nominal case of $P=10^{-3}$ bar and a solar C/O ratio.]{} We assume that the composition of the first-formed planetesimals is that obtained from the equilibrium condensation at $T_{MRI}=1,400$K (Fig. \[camembert\], top - see also Fig. S2) and use eq. (1) again. The Al/Si and Mg/Si ratios of the Earth increase as the relative mass fraction of these planetesimals incorporated in the planet increases (the rest of Earth’s mass having a solar composition) and we find that ratios consistent with the observed values within their broad uncertainties can be obtained for a mass fraction of about 35-45% (Fig. \[terrestrial\]).[^2]
![The Al/Si (red) and Mg/Si (blue) ratios as a function of the mass fraction of first, refractory rich planetesimals contributing to the Earth, the rest being accreted from solar-composition material. The horizontal colored bands show the estimated bulk terrestrial Mg/Si and Al/Si ratios and their uncertainties. These are reproduced if the Earth comprises 35-45% by mass of first planetesimals. []{data-label="terrestrial"}](Fig6-HD.jpg){height="7.cm"}
Alexander (2019) explicitly excluded the possibility that the refractory material missing from the NCCs (i.e., our first-formed planetesimals) has been accreted by the Earth. His conclusion is motivated by three arguments, which we review and discuss here.
First, he pointed out that the addition to solar-composition material of the refractory material missing from the NCCs does not fit well the Earth’s composition. This is visible also in Fig. \[terrestrial\] because the Al/Si and Mg/Si ratios can be simultaneously reproduced only at the opposite extremes of their error bars. If the uncertainties on these ratios are entirely due to the amount of Si incorporated in the terrestrial core, they are not independent. So, in this case one cannot claim success if one ratio is reproduced at the high-end of its uncertainty limit and the other at its low-end. However, [Young et al. (2019) argued that the Earth or its precursors lost by evaporation about 12% of Mg and 15% of Si. This would have left the Mg/Si ratio of the Earth basically unchanged, but would have increased the Al/Si ratio by 17%. For instance, in Fig. \[terrestrial\] at a value of 0.3 on the x-axis, the Mg/Si ratio predicted by our model falls in the middle of the observed uncertainty. The Al/Si ratio predicted by the model is too low (1.2), but with 15% Si evaporation it would have increased to 1.38, i.e. again in the middle of observed uncertainty. Thus, our model is consistent with the Al/Si and Mg/Si ratios of the bulk Earth, even if their uncertainties are correlated, provided that the evaporation of Si and Mg invoked to explain their isotopic fractionation is taken into account.]{}
Second, Alexander (2019) noted a correlation between the depletion of Al and the depletion of alkali elements in the NCCs. He concluded that alkalis were sequestered in the refractory material subtracted from these meteorites. Thus, if this material had been added to the Earth, our planet would be alkali-rich instead of alkali-poor. Although we have based our argument only on Na, in Sect. \[others\] we showed that the removal of a refractory component makes alkalis much more volatile than expected in an equilibrium condensation. Thus, the correlation between the depletions of alkalis and Al can be explained without the sequestration of the alkalis in the refractory material. Consequently, the addition of the refractory material to the Earth would make our planet alkali-poor, not alkali-rich.
Finally, Alexander (2019) noted a correlation between the depletion of Al in the NCCs and the isotopic ratios of some elements, such as Ti and Cr. He concluded that the removed refractory material carried strong isotopic anomalies for these elements. However, these anomalies are not observed in the Earth, implying that our planet did not accrete the refractory material missing from the NCCs. We find (Fig. \[camembert\]a) that the refractory material at 1,400 K would have sequestered virtually all of the Ti and, [for a sufficiently high C/O ratio, all the Cr as well]{}. Thus, the observed differences in Ti and Cr isotopic compositions among the NCCs cannot be related to the condensation and removal of this refractory material and instead have to be due to the isotopic heterogeneity of the solar-composition material in the disk, although the origin of this heterogeneity is not well understood.
[ We remark that in the case of C/O$\ge 0.9$, the bulk Earth should have a Cr/Si ratio larger than the CI value (as Cr is captured in the first-formed planetesimals). But Cr is a moderate siderophile element, so that most of it could be in the Earth’s core (e.g., McDonough and Sun, 1995), explaining why the bulk [*silicate*]{} Earth is depleted in Cr.]{}
We end this discussion by commenting that it is certainly possible to envision that the refractory material sequestered from the NCCs disappeared without contaminating the Earth. For instance, refractory elements could be locked-up in grains large enough to be out of equilibrium with the gas, but still small enough to migrate by gas-drag into the Sun. But then, one has to invoke that the Earth accreted some other refractory-rich material, that did not contaminate the NCCs although being isotopically identical to the ECs. Possibly by lack of imagination, we cannot envision a reasonable scenario for this to have happened. Thus, we conclude that the addition to the Earth of the refractory material sequestered from the NCCs remains the best option.
Conclusions and discussions {#Conclusions}
===========================
Summary of results
------------------
In this work, we have
proposed an astrophysical scenario, consistent with current models of disk evolution and planetesimal formation, that can explain the sequestration of refractory elements from the source region of the non-carbonaceous (NCC) chondrites and, therefore, their sub-solar Al/Si and Mg/Si ratios.
In brief,
while the disk was cooling, the massive condensation of olivine changed the disk from a low-dust to a high-dust environment, [quenched the magneto-rotational instability of the disk, triggering]{} the sudden formation of a first generation of planetesimals and the sequestration of the already condensed solid material. That material was, therefore, no longer available for the evolution of the gas-solid equilibrium chemistry. With a further decrease in temperature, new solids could form from residual gas. We called these “residual condensates” and the region where these events happened the “residual condensate region” (RCR). For genetic reasons, the first planetesimals and the residual condensates are complementary relative to the solar (CI) values in terms of Al/Si and Mg/Si ratios.
[We envisioned that the NCCs formed from a combination of these residual condensates and material that had solar composition in terms of refractory and moderately volatile elements. This material consisted of local grains that were not incorporated in the first planetesimals and remained at equilibrium with the gas and -possibly- also grains that]{} formed farther out in the disk, and migrated into the RCR without suffering element fractionation.
We have shown that, [if the first planetesimals formed at a temperature of $\sim 1,400$ K,]{} [(for a pressure of $10^{-3}$ bar and solar C/O, and a lower temperature, nevertheless exceeding 1,000 K, for lower pressure and/or increased C/O)]{} the mixture of appropriate proportions of solar-composition grains and residual condensates can reproduce simultaneously the Al/Si and Mg/Si ratios of all the NCCs. Obviously, the amount of solar-composition material has to increase from the ECs to OCs, as the latter have compositions that are closer to the CI ratios. [We also explained the correlation between the deficits of Na and Al in the NCCs, as a result of the fact that the sequestration of Al makes Na much more volatile than in an equilibrium condensation sequence (see Sect. \[others\]).]{} [To explain the correlation between the deficits of Cr and Al, we had to invoke that the first condensates formed in a gas with C/O$\ge 0.9$, in agreement with previous work on the ECs (e.g., Larimer, 1975; Lodders and Fegley, 1993).]{}
We showed that the Al/Si and Mg/Si ratios of the Earth can also be understood if our planet formed from a mixture of first planetesimals and solar-composition material. [Alexander (2019) explicitly excluded this possibility, but we provided in Sect. \[Earth\] some possible solutions to the obstacles that he discussed for this scenario.]{} Our full scenario is sketched in Fig. S3, which presents a global view of the composition of the disk as time evolves.
Our model is appealing in that it solves two long-standing problems. First, it explains the sub-solar Al/Si and Mg/Si ratios of the NCCs within a fractionated condensation sequence. Second, it clarifies the genetic relationship between the Earth and the ECs, as discussed below. Nevertheless, our model is simple and should be regarded mostly as a proof of concept. For instance, we assumed that all first planetesimals formed at the same temperature, [so that all the objects we considered are composed of only two components: residual condensates and solar-composition material for the NCCs or refractory-rich planetesimals and solar-composition material for the Earth.]{}
Earth – enstatite chondrites relationship
-----------------------------------------
As discussed in the introduction, the isotopic compositions of the Earth and of the ECs in terms of non-mass dependent isotopic variations are extremely similar. No other known meteorite class approximates the Earth better than the ECs from the isotopic point of view. But element ratios are so different that it is [difficult to envision]{} making the Earth out of the ECs. Here we find that an important component of the Earth is represented by the first planetesimals, while an important component of the ECs is represented by residual condensates. First planetesimals and residual condensates are complementary in terms of element ratios, but they both form out of the same gas in the RCR, so it is not surprising that they are isotopically very similar. In some sense, with the first refractory-rich planetesimals we have identified the hidden reservoir of objects with the same isotope composition as the ECs but different chemical composition, that was postulated by Dauphas (2017) to explain the Earth. [The opposite mass-dependent isotopic fractionation of Si in the Earth and ECs may be a natural consequence of the formation of the first condensates, as discussed by Kadlag et al. (2019).]{}
Pushed further, the genetic relationship between the Earth and the ECs illustrated in this paper can also help to understand the small differences in their respective Nd, Mo and Ru isotopic compositions. The Earth has an endmember isotopic composition relative to known meteorites, slightly enriched in isotopes produced by the s-process with respect to the ECs (see Burkhardt et al. 2016 and Bouvier and Boyet, 2016 for Nd; Burkhardt et al., 2014 for Mo and Fischer-G[ö]{}dde and Kleine, 2017 for Ru). If, for some reason, the material that condensed directly in the RCR is enriched in s-process isotopes relative to the solar-composition grains coming into the RCR once the temperature has decreased, we can understand this difference. In fact, in this case the first planetesimals and the residual condensates would have the same proportion of s-process isotopes but, as shown in Sect. \[results\], the Earth, EC and OC meteorites incorporated increasing fractions of solar-composition material, thus explaining -at least qualitatively- the relative ranking of s-process enrichment/deficiency observed in these objects.
Chondrules and CAIs
-------------------
Although we invoke here the mixing of residual condensates and solar-composition grains to make the ECs and OCs, these meteorites are made of chondrules and not grains. Chondrule formation is still not fully understood (Krot et al., 2018) and presumably the mixing we invoke occurred at the level of chondrule precursors and were transformed in the high-temperature events that led to chondrule formation. Our elemental and isotopic considerations should nevertheless hold even in this more complex scenario.
The relationship between the first condensed material discussed in this paper and the refractory materials (CAIs, AOAs) found in mostly in the CCs is more elusive. It would be tempting to identify CAIs with a fraction of the minerals condensed at $T\gtrsim 1,500$ K that escaped incorporation in the first generation of planetesimals and somehow reached the outer disk. But CAIs also carry isotopic anomalies (for instance in Nd or Mo) related to the p- and r-processes, which are not observed in the Earth, ECs and OCs. [However, Ebert et al. (2018) claim to have identified a refractory component isotopically distinct from CAIs in OCs. The first condensed material discussed in this paper would rather correspond to this refractory component rather than CAIs.]{}
Protoplanetary disk properties and grain dynamics
-------------------------------------------------
Although our work does not specify where the RCR was located, the fact that the first planetesimals have to be a primary component of the Earth suggests that the sequence of events described in this paper happened at $\sim 1$ AU. This implies that the disk at $\sim 1$ AU was originally hotter than 1,400K. Viscous-disk models (Bitsch et al., 2015) suggest that the temperature at 1 AU was initially lower, but these models neglect the heat released by the accretion of gas from the interstellar medium onto the disk, which was presumably vigorous at early times (P. Hannebelle, private communication). So, our model does not seem unreasonable, but it points to a disk much more complex than those usually envisioned.
[As long as the infall of gas on the inner disk is vigorous, the temperature remains very high. For instance, Baillié et al. (2018) find a temperature larger than 1,500 K up to 2 AU from the Sun for the first $10^5$ y. Thus, in this timeframe, only the gas viscously spreading beyond 2 AU would cool and condensate. Then, when the infall wanes, the temperature in the inner disk starts to decrease and condensation can occur [*locally*]{}, producing a second condensation front moving towards the star. The fractional condensation discussed in this paper would correspond to this second condensation front. This view of two condensation fronts could explain the difference between CAIs and the non-CAI refractory component of Ebert et al. (2018), if the isotopic properties of the infalling gas changed over time, as invoked in Nanne et al. (2019) to explain the isotopic radial heterogeneity of the protosolar disk[^3]. Similarly, if the gas changed of chemical composition, the high local C/O ratio required to explain Cr-abundances can be explained as well. Indeed, filaments of gas are observed to fall onto protoplanetary disks (Alves et al., 2019), carrying a different C/O composition (Segura-Cox, private communication). Moreover,]{} the rapid drop of temperature to $\sim 850$ K followed by slow cooling, that our model requires to end the residual condensation before the condensation of Na, could be due to the transition from a disk dominated by a rapidly waning infall of material from the ISM to a disk dominated by its own viscous evolution. [Admittedly, this scenario is speculative, but it is not implausible]{}.
[Our model also implies that the transition from the MRI-active to the MRI-dead zones of the disk happened at a temperature between 1,060 and 1,400 K depending on pressure and C/O ratio, but nevertheless larger than the temperature of condensation of K, whereas Desch and Turner (2015) argued that the condensation of K is the key to reducing the ionization of the gas and to quenching the MRI. The temperature $T_{MRI}$ we obtained was constrained by the elemental ratios in the NCCs. If the first planetesimals could form only in a MRI-inactive disk and this requires the condensation of K, we expect that K and refractory elements should always be correlated, which is not the case for the Earth or the CCs. A possible solution of this conundrum is that the first planetesimals did not form at the MRI-active/inactive transition, but in the turbulent disk, by concentrating dust into vortices.]{}
In our model, the residual condensates survive in the disk and mix with solar-composition grains to form eventually the NCCs. However, the parent bodies of these meteorites formed relatively late, after about 2-3 My (Sugiura and Fujiya, 2014). How grains could survive in the disk for so long despite their tendency to migrate towards the Sun is an open problem that this work does not help to solve. Possible explanations involve turbulent diffusion counteracting radial drift near the midplane of the disk (Ciesla, 2007), reduced or reversed radial drift due to the partial depletion of gas in the inner disk (Ogihara et al., 2018), recycling of material in disk winds or jets (Ciesla, 2009), [lock-up in planetesimals and later release as collisional droplets (Johnson et al., 2015).]{} We stress that in our model we do not need that all residual condensates survive. [If the total mass of planetesimals with NCC-like compositions was small, only a tiny fraction of residual condensates may have survived.]{}
Closing remarks
---------------
In summary, up to now the greatly different ratios among major refractory elements in the Earth and in non-carbonaceous chondrites have challenged our understanding of the formation of inner Solar System bodies. Although several unknowns remain, we have shown that the accretion of a first generation of planetesimals during the condensation sequence of refractory elements and the consequent formation of residual condensates are key processes that contribute to the solution of this problem.
Acknowledgments
===============
We thank K. Burkhardt, T. Kleine, E. Young and N. Dauphas for valuable suggestions on an earlier version of this manuscript. [We thank in particular C. Alexander for an open discussion on our respective models and B. Fegley and K. Lodders for an in depth critical assessment of our results during their visit to Nice and their historical perspective on this long-studied subject. The reviews from two anonymous referees have also helped to improve the manuscript and clarify the results.]{}
References
==========
- Alexander, C. M. O’D., Grossman, J. N., Ebel, D. S., Ciesla, F. J. 2008. The Formation Conditions of Chondrules and Chondrites. Science 320, 1617.
- Alexander, C. M. O’D. 2019. Quantitative models for the elemental and isotopic fractionations in the chondrites: The non-carbonaceous chondrites. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 254, 246.
- Alves, F. O., and 6 colleagues 2019. Gas flow and accretion via spiral streamers and circumstellar disks in a young binary protostar. Science 366, 90.
- Bailli[é]{}, K., Marques, J., Piau, L. 2019. Building protoplanetary disks from the molecular cloud: redefining the disk timeline. Astronomy and Astrophysics 624, A93.
- Bale, C. W., et al., 2016. FactSage Thermochemical Software and Databases, 2010-2016, Calphad, vol. 54, pp 35-53, 2016
- Ballmer, M. D., Houser, C., Hernlund, J. W., Wentzcovitch, R. M., Hirose, K. 2017. Persistence of strong silica-enriched domains in the Earth’s lower mantle. Nature Geoscience 10, 236.
- Barshay, S. S., Lewis, J. S. 1976. Chemistry of primitive solar material.. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 14, 81.
- Bitsch, B., et al. 2015. The structure of protoplanetary discs around evolving young stars. Astron. Astrophys. 575, A28.
- Bouvier, A., Boyet, M., 2016. Primitive Solar System materials and Earth share a common initial $^{142}$Nd abundance. Nature 537, 399-402.
- Burkhardt, C., et al., 2014. Evidence for Mo isotope fractionation in the solar nebula and during planetary differentiation. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 391, 201-211.
- Burkhardt, C., et al., 2016. A nucleosynthetic origin for the Earth’s anomalous $^{142}$Nd composition. Nature 537, 394-398.
- Ciesla, F. J., 2007. Outward Transport of High-Temperature Materials Around the Midplane of the Solar Nebula. Science 318, 613.
- Ciesla, F. J., 2009. Dynamics of high-temperature materials delivered by jets to the outer solar nebula. Met. Pl. Sci. 44, 1663-1673.
- Dauphas, N., Poitrasson, F., Burkhardt, C., Kobayashi, H., Kurosawa, K. 2015. Planetary and meteoritic Mg/Si and ${{\delta}}^{30}$ Si variations inherited from solar nebula chemistry. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 427, 236.
- Dauphas, N., 2017. The isotopic nature of the Earth’s accreting material through time. Nature 541, 521-524.
- Desch, S. J., Turner, N. J. 2015. High-temperature Ionization in Protoplanetary Disks. The Astrophysical Journal 811, 156.
- Ebel D. S, 2006. Condensation of Rocky Material in Astrophysical Environments. In: Meteorites and the Early Solar System II, D. S. Lauretta and H. Y. McSween Jr. (eds.), University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 943 pp., p.253-277.
- Ebel D. S and Grossman L., 2000. Condensation in dust-enriched systems. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 64, 339-366.
- Ebert, S., et al., 2018. Ti isotopic evidence for a non-CAI refractory component in the inner Solar System. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 498, 257-265.
- Eriksson, G, Hack, K., 1990. ChemSage - A computer program for the calculation of complex chemical equilibria, Metall. Trans. B, 21B, 1013
- Fegley, B., Lewis, J. S. 1980. Volatile element chemistry in the solar nebula: Na, K, F, Cl, Br, and P. Icarus 41, 439.
- Fischer-G[ö]{}dde, M., Kleine, T., 2017. Ruthenium isotopic evidence for an inner Solar System origin of the late veneer. Nature 541, 525-527.
- Flock, M., Fromang, S., Turner, N. J., Benisty, M. 2017. 3D Radiation Nonideal Magnetohydrodynamical Simulations of the Inner Rim in Protoplanetary Disks. The Astrophysical Journal 835, 230.
- G[ü]{}ttler, C., et al., 2010. The outcome of protoplanetary dust growth: pebbles, boulders, or planetesimals?. I. Mapping the zoo of laboratory collision experiments. Astron. Astrophys. 513, A56.
- Hezel, D. C., et al., 2008. Modal abundances of CAIs: Implications for bulk chondrite element abundances and fractionations. Met. Pl. Sci. 43, 1879-1894.
- Holzapfel, C., et al., 2003. Pressure effect on Fe-Mg interdiffusion in (FexMgx-1)O, ferropericlase. Phys. Earth Planet. Int. 139, 21-34.
- Hyung, E., Huang, S., Petaev, M. I., Jacobsen, S. B. 2016. Is the mantle chemically stratified? Insights from sound velocity modeling and isotope evolution of an early magma ocean. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 440, 158.
- Jacquet, E. 2019. Beryllium-10 production in gaseous protoplanetary disks and implications for the astrophysical setting of refractory inclusions. Astronomy and Astrophysics 624, A131.
- Javoy, M., 1995. The integral enstatite chondrite model of the Earth. Geophys. Res. Lett. 22, 2219-2222.
- Johansen, A., Youdin, A. 2007. Protoplanetary Disk Turbulence Driven by the Streaming Instability: Nonlinear Saturation and Particle Concentration. The Astrophysical Journal 662, 627.
- Johnson, B. C., Minton, D. A., Melosh, H. J., Zuber, M. T. 2015. Impact jetting as the origin of chondrules. Nature 517, 339.
- Kadlag, Y., Tatzel, M., Frick, D. A., Becker, H. 2019. The origin of unequilibrated EH chondrites - Constraints from in situ analysis of Si isotopes, major and trace elements in silicates and metal. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 267, 300.
- Krot, A.N., Connolly, H.C., Russel, S. 2018. Chondrules : records of protoplanetary disk processes. Cambridge University Press.
- Larimer, J. W. 1975. The effect of C/O ratio on the condensation of planetary material. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 39, 389-392.
- Larimer, J. W. 1979. The condensation and fractionation of refractory lithophile elements. Icarus 40, 446.
- Lodders, K., Fegley, B. 1993. Lanthanide and actinide chemistry at high C/O ratios in the solar nebula. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 117, 125.
- Lodders, K. 2000. An Oxygen Isotope Mixing Model for the Accretion and Composition of Rocky Planets. Space Science Reviews 92, 341.
- McDonough, W.F. and Sun, S.-s., 1995. The composition of the Earth. Chem Geol 120, 223-253.
- Morbidelli, A., et al., 2016. Fossilized condensation lines in the Solar System protoplanetary disk. Icarus 267, 368-376.
- Mysen, B. O., Kushiro, I. 1988. Condensation, evaporation, melting, and crystallization in the primitive solar nebula: experimental data in the system MgO-SiO-H$_{2}$ to 1.0x10$^{-9}$bar and 1870C with variable oxygen fugacity.. American Mineralogist 73, 1.
- Nanne, J. A. M., Nimmo, F., Cuzzi, J. N., Kleine, T. 2019. Origin of the non-carbonaceous-carbonaceous meteorite dichotomy. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 511, 44.
- Ogihara, M., et al., 2018. Formation of the terrestrial planets in the solar system around 1 au via radial concentration of planetesimals. Astron. Astrophys. 612, L5.
- Palme, H. and O’Neill, H. St. C., 2014. Cosmochemical estimates of mantle composition. Treatise on Geophysics Vol. 3. Elsevier pp. 1-39.
- Pringle, E.A., Moynier, F., Savage, P.S., Badro, J. and Barrat, J.A., 2014. Silicon isotopes in angrites and volatile loss in planetesimals. PNAS, 48, 17029-17032
- Rubie, D.C., Nimmo, F., Melosh, H.J. 2015. Formation of the Earth’s Core. In: Treatise on Geophysics Vol. 9 Elsevier pp. 43-79.
- Sugiura, N., Fujiya, W. 2014. Correlated accretion ages and [$\in$]{}$^{54}$Cr of meteorite parent bodies and the evolution of the solar nebula. Meteoritics and Planetary Science 49, 772.
- Yang, C.-C., et al., 2017. Concentrating small particles in protoplanetary disks through the streaming instability. Astron. Astroph. 606, A80.
- Yoneda, S., Grossman, L., 1995. Condensation of CaO sbnd MgO sbnd Al $_{2}$O $_{3}$sbnd SiO $_{2}$ liquids from cosmic gases. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 59, 3413-3444.
- Youdin, A. N., Goodman, J., 2005. Streaming Instabilities in Protoplanetary Disks. Astron. J. 620, 459-469.
- Young, E., et al., J., 2019. Near-equilibrium isotope fractionation during planetesimal evaporation. Icarus, 323, 1.
[^1]: As we will see below, 60–90% of solar-composition material is required in the NCCs and the Earth. If the solar-composition material had been real CI material, both these chondrites and the Earth would be rich in water and other volatile elements of comparable volatility, which is not the case.
[^2]: We note that combining first planetesimals with ECs would lead to equivalent results. In fact, the combination of first-condensed material with its complement of residual condensates gives by definition material with a solar bulk composition. Thus, the $x$-axis of Fig. \[terrestrial\] can be simply interpreted as the excess of first-condensed material in the Earth, whatever the combination of material that is envisioned.
[^3]: see Jacquet, 2019, for a discussion of the possibility that CAIs formed relatively far from the Sun from the point of view of $^{10}$Be production
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
Binary neutron stars (BNSs) are the primary source of gravitational waves for the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) and its international partners Virgo and KAGRA. Current BNS searches target field binaries whose orbits will have circularized by radiation reaction before their gravitational waves enter the Advanced LIGO sensitive band at $15$ Hz. It has been suggested that a population of BNSs may form by $n$-body interactions near supermassive black holes or in globular clusters and that these systems may have non-negligible eccentricity in the Advanced LIGO band. We show that for BNS systems with total mass of $2.4\,
M_\odot$ ($6\, M_\odot$), the effect of eccentricity $e \lesssim 0.02$ $(0.05)$ is negligible and a circular search is effectual for these binaries. For eccentricities up to $e = 0.4$, we investigate the selection bias caused by neglecting eccentricity in BNS searches. If such high eccentricity systems exist, searches that specifically target eccentric binaries will be needed in Advanced LIGO and Virgo.
author:
- 'E. A. Huerta'
- 'Duncan A. Brown'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: Effect of eccentricity on binary neutron star searches in Advanced LIGO
---
Introduction
============
Binary neutron star (BNS) mergers are expected to be rich sources of gravitational waves (GWs) [@Th300] and the progenitors of short gamma-ray bursts (SGRBs) [@Kochanek:1993mw], among other electromagnetic counterparts [@Metzger:2012]. These sources may be detected by advanced GW observatories [@aLIGo; @virgo; @kagra] within a horizon distance of 445 Mpc [@ratespap]. Observations of galactic double NS systems containing pulsars, which formed through binary evolution in the disk of the galaxy, suggest that five of these systems are expected to merge through GW radiation within a Hubble time [@bulic; @mandelbns]. Observed field BNSs have orbital periods of a few hours, merger times $\sim 10^{2-3}$ Myr, low-kick velocities $\lesssim 50 \,{\rm km \, s^{-1}}$, and are expected to enter the frequency band of ground-based GW detectors with negligible residual eccentricities [@bulic]: the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16 is expected to have an eccentricity $e \sim 10^{-6}$ when its gravitational-wave frequency is 15Hz [@peters; @Kalo:2001; @bulic]. Population synthesis models constrained by BNSs in the field predict a coalescence rate in Advanced LIGO (aLIGO) of 0.4–400 per year, with a likely value of 40 per year [@ratespap].
In addition to the observed field binaries, observations by Swift have detected a population of SGRBs in or near elliptical galaxies [@Bart:2005]. Some of these SGRBs have spatial offsets that cannot be attributed to the ejection of the progenitor compact binary from the host galaxy by the kick imparted to the system through the supernova explosions that create its components [@grind]. The necessary kick velocities for the progenitor compact binary to remain bound to the elliptical host galaxy and at the same time have its apogalacticon in the halo are very different to those observed in field BNSs [@Berger:2005]. In [@grind], Grindlay et al. propose that SGRBs observed in or near ellipticals may be produced by the mergers of BNSs formed by dynamical capture in core-collapsed globular clusters. In these dense stellar environments, $n$-body interactions may lead to the formation of binaries that have sizable eccentricities at merger [@east:2012]. Based on the globular-cluster population of elliptical galaxies, and scaling from the BNS observed in the globular cluster M15 [@Jac:2006], Grindlay et al. showed that around $10-30\%$ of SGRBs may be generated from BNSs in globular clusters, although the expected detection event rate of BNSs in globulars for ground-based detectors is a factor $\sim 200$ smaller than the expected rate for field BNSs [@ratespap; @Piran:2006].
Dynamical interactions in galactic nuclei may also lead to the formation of eccentric BNSs [@Leary:2009; @antonini]. BNSs formed near galactic nuclei may enter the LIGO band before the maximum eccentricity expected from Kozai oscillations is reached. After multiple periodic oscillations in the orbital elements, and before gravitational radiation becomes important, these BNSs may enter the LIGO band with high eccentricities [@antonini]. Nonetheless, the contribution of these type of sources to the BNS coalesce rates is likely to be small, namely: 10, 1 and 0.1$\%$ of the low, realistic and high estimates in [@ratespap]. The studies described in [@Bart:2005; @Leary:2009; @antonini] do not take into account natal kicks. In [@Chaurasia:2005], it is shown that if a BNS system receives a supernova kick which is similar in magnitude to its circular speed, then the likelihood of undergoing an extremely fast coalescence is very high. Indeed, for BNS systems that experience planar kicks, about $24\%$ of them coalesce ten thousand times faster than a BNS system that stays in a circular orbit immediately after the supernovae. These type of events would be observed as a supernova followed by an extremely fast coalescence that takes the form of a second consecutive catastrophic event. Since both events may take place in the same location within months or years apart, these events may be effectively detected as double supernovae. Pulsar surveys may not detect these events because current search algorithms are not equipped to cope with the strong Doppler smearing effects present in these systems [@Chaurasia:2005]. A pulsar can be detected if its lifespan is of the order of 10 Myrs, and so highly eccentric systems which are driven to coalescence within 1Myr or less constitute a currently ‘missing’ BNS population that aLIGO may detect [@Chaurasia:2005].
Motivated by the possibility of an additional population of eccentric BNSs as GW sources, in this Brief Report, we revise the study carried out in [@Brown:2010] for aLIGO. Although Ref. [@Brown:2010] briefly considered eccentric binaries in the context of aLIGO, the computational cost of such an analysis for aLIGO’s improved low-frequency sensitivity limited their study to only 280 simulated signals in the parameter space they considered for Initial LIGO ($2 \le M /
M_\odot \le 13$ and $0 \le e \le 0.4$). The resolution of Figs. 8 and 9 in Ref. [@Brown:2010] is insufficient to understand the effect of eccentricity in aLIGO searches. Hence, we have improved the numerical techniques used to simulate the eccentric waveforms using the model introduced in [@hinder], and are now able to simulate 40,000 signals in the space of eccentric BNS signals. This allows us to determine the eccentricity at which circular templates will fail and to demonstrate that effort will be needed to construct new searches for low to moderate eccentricities for advanced GW searches. This work is complementary to that of Ref. [@Bence:2012], which considers “repeated bursts” from highly eccentric binaries. Based on results of radio surveys that have confirmed the existence of pulsars with masses heavier than the canonical value of $1.35 M_{\odot}$ [@Thorsett:1999], we consider binaries with component masses between $1 M_{\odot}-3 M_{\odot}$. Throughout this analysis, we use the Zero Detuned High Power (ZDHP) noise curve for aLIGO [@ZDHP:2010]. The results of this study are organized as follows: In Section \[bss\] we describe the method used to construct a template bank of non-eccentric BNS waveforms and the model used to simulate eccentric BNS signals. Section \[res\] presents the results of our investigations. Finally, Section \[conclu\] presents a summary of our findings and future directions of work.
Bank simulation studies {#bss}
=======================
We now discuss the efficacy with which a template bank [@Sathyaprakash:1991mt; @Balasubramanian:1995bm] of non-eccentric waveforms can recover GW signals of eccentric BNSs. To do so, we introduce a few data-analysis concepts: on the vector space of signals, the Fourier transform of a GW signal $h(t)$ is given by
$$\tilde{h} (f) =\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-2i\pi f t } h(t)\mathrm{d}t \, .
\label{ft}$$
The noise-weighted inner product between two signals $h_1$ and $h_2$ is given by
$$\left(h_1|h_2\right)= 2\int_{f_{\rm{min}}}^{f_{\rm{max}}} \frac{\tilde{h}_1^{*} (f) \tilde{h}_2 (f) + \tilde{h}_1(f) \tilde{h}_2^{*}(f)}{S_n(f)} \mathrm{d}f\, ,
\label{ip}$$
where $S_n(f)$ is the power spectral density (PSD) of the detector noise, i.e., aLIGO ZDHP. We set the lower limit of the integral in Eq. (2) to $f_{\rm{min}}=15$Hz. Given that the waveforms used in this study do not capture the merger and ring-down of the signals, we terminate the waveforms at the Schwarzschild innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO), namely, $f_{\rm{max}} = f_{\rm{ISCO}} = 1/(6\sqrt{6} \pi M)$, where $M$ stands for the total mass of the binary system. From this, we can construct the matched-filter signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) [@Wainstein]
$$\rho = \frac{(s|h)}{\sqrt{(h|h)}}\, ,$$
where $s = n (+ h)$ is the output of the detector, and $n$ is the detector noise. The normalized overlap between any two waveforms $h_1$, $h_2$ is
$$\left(\hat{h}_1 | \hat{h}_2\right)= \frac{\left(h_1|h_2\right)}{\sqrt{ \left(h_1|h_1\right)\left(h_2|h_2\right) }}\, .
\label{over}$$
The time of coalesce $t_c$ and phase of coalescence $\phi_c$ are maximized over in both the SNR and the overlap [@Allen:2005fk]. The maximized overlap
$${\cal{O}} \left(h_1, h_2\right) = \underset{t_c,\, \phi_c }{\rm max}\, \left(\hat{h}_1| \hat{h}_2 e^{i(2\pi f t_c - \phi_c)} \right)\, ,
\label{mover}$$
gives the loss in signal-to-noise ratio incurred due to mismatches in the waveforms [@FittingFactorApostolatos]. To compute the effectualness of non-eccentric templates to recover eccentric systems, we construct a ‘bank’ of templates which covers the space of circular BNS signals, and which are placed on a hexagonal lattice using the method introduced in [@saton; @BabaketalBankPlacement], so that the loss in signal-to-noise ratio between a signal and the nearest template is no more than $3\%$. The metric used to place the template grid is constructed using TaylorF2 inspiral templates that include corrections to the orbital phase evolution at 2 post-Newtonian (PN) order. The waveform family used to create the template bank waveforms is Taylor T4 [@TaylorT4Origin; @NRPNComparisonBoyleetal], which includes corrections to the phase of the waveform to 3.5PN order [@Blanchet:1995ez; @Blanchet:2004ek; @Blanchet:2005a]. We have confirmed that this bank is effectual for TaylorT4 waveforms before considering the effect of eccentricity.
To simulate the eccentric BNS signals, we use the $x$-model introduced in [@hinder], which consists of a PN model that was calibrated by comparison to a numerical relativity (NR) simulation of an eccentric, equal-mass binary black hole. This model combines the 3PN conservative quasi-Keplerian orbit equations [@Gopa:2004] with the 2PN evolution of the orbital elements [@Gopa:2004b] to construct an adiabatic waveform that best matches the NR simulation. This model is named after the choice of coordinates used to express the PN equations of motion, namely, the angular velocity of the compact objects, $\omega$, via the variable $x=\left(M\omega\right)^{2/3}$. This coordinate choice leads to a GW phase agreement between the PN model and the NR simulation used to calibrate the model of the order of $\pm 0.1$ radians between 21 and 11 cycles before merger. Given the differences in the PN order for the energy flux between the $x$-model (2PN order) and TaylorT4 3.5 PN, we have studied the faithfulness between these two waveform families and have found that the faithfulness for a $(1.35 M_{\odot}, 1.35 M_{\odot})$ BNS system is $95\%$ in the limit $e\rightarrow 0$. In order to carry out a detailed study of the importance of eccentricity in advanced searches of BNSs, we have substantially improved the implementation of the $x$-model described in [@Brown:2010], by adding an adaptive mesh-refinement method coupled with an accelerated integrator.
As discussed in Ref. [@Bence:2012], PN calculations tend to slowly converge at late inspiral. Hence, more work is needed to improve the accuracy of PN-based waveforms for source detection and parameter estimation. This work is particularly important to accurately model systems with small pericenter distances and to faithfully capture the late inspiral evolution of eccentric systems. The $x$-model used to simulate the eccentric signals presents a similar behaviour: the phase difference between the $x$-model and the simulation used to calibrate it grows up to 0.7 radians around 5 cycles before merger. This is a modeling issue that requires further improvement [@hinder].
We compute the correlation or overlap between a simulated eccentric GW signal ($h^{e}$) and the best fitting non-eccentric template ($h^{T}_b$) by maximizing the overlap over the templates in the bank. This is known as the Fitting Factor (${\cal{FF}}$) [@FittingFactorApostolatos], and is defined as
$${\cal{FF}} = \underset{b\in {\rm{bank}} }{\rm max}\, {\cal{O}}(h^{e}, h^{T}_b)\, .
\label{FF}$$
Results {#res}
=======
The Monte Carlo simulation includes 40,000 points uniformly distributed in individual component mass $1M_{\odot}<m_{1,\,2}<3M_{\odot}$, and with a uniform distribution of eccentricity in the range $e\in[0,0.4]$. The template waveforms are generated from an initial gravitational wave frequency of 15Hz. We evolve the equations of motion (Eqs. (4)-(10) in [@hinder]) of the eccentric waveform from a Keplerian mean orbital frequency of 7Hz (this Keplerian mean orbital frequency is one half the dominant, quadrupole GW frequency. Hence, the equations of motion of the $x$-model are evolved from a fiducial GW frequency of 14Hz (see Eq. 3.2 in [@Yunes:2009]) ).
{height="38.00000%"} {height="38.00000%"}
The left panel of Figure \[FFI\] presents a cumulative histogram of the injected eccentric signals with ${\cal{FF}}$ less than the value associated on the $x$-axis. There are two intrinsic parameters that determine the effectualness of the circular bank to recover eccentric signals. The right panel of Figure \[FFI\] shows that the ${\cal{FF}}$ decreases for increasing values of eccentricity, and suggests that some systems can be recovered with ${\cal{FF}} \gtrsim 0.95$ in an eccentricity range $e\in[0.02,0.05]$.
Figure \[eanomFF\] shows that the ${\cal{FF}}$ depends primarily on the initial value of the eccentricity and on the total mass of the system. It does not depend on additional parameters that define the dynamics of the orbit at early inspiral, i.e., the value of the anomaly (left panel of Figure \[eanomFF\]), and depends only weakly on the mass ratio of the binary. The right panel of Figure \[eanomFF\] shows that the ${\cal{FF}}$ tends to be larger for systems with larger total mass, since differences in GW phase evolution between eccentric and circularized waveforms have less cycles to accumulate. In contrast, systems with low total mass live longer and the discrepancies in the waveforms accumulate over time, leading to larger phase discrepancies, and hence lower ${\cal{FF}}$s. Therefore, using a template bank of circularized waveforms, and the placement bank algorithm described in Section \[bss\], is sufficient to recover signals with $M_{\rm Total} \sim 2.4M_{\odot} \,(6M_{\odot})$ emitted by BNS systems whose eccentricity at a fiducial GW frequency of 14Hz is $e\lesssim 0.02\, (0.05)$ with ${\cal{FF}}$$\gtrsim 0.95$.
We compare our findings with those reported in [@Brown:2010]. Therein, it was found that Initial LIGO may be able to efficiently detect BNS systems with $M_{\rm Total} \sim 2.4M_{\odot} \,(6M_{\odot})$ with residual eccentricity $e\lesssim 0.05\, (0.08)$ at 40Hz. The authors in [@Brown:2010] also probed the effect of eccentricity in the context of advanced LIGO assuming the PSD given in Eq. (29) of [@Brown:2010] and using a low-frequency cut off of 10Hz. Given the demanding computational cost of such an analysis, they injected a few hundred signals to obtain a general, yet insufficient, picture of the efficacy with which aLIGO could recover eccentric BNS signals. Thus, in order to provide useful input to the ongoing planning of GW searches that will be carried out in the advanced detector era, we have substantially improved the analysis presented in [@Brown:2010] for aLIGO. The results presented in this article, which are based on our up-to-date understanding of the sensitivity that advanced detectors will achieve, provide a complete picture of the efficacy with which circular templates can recovered signals from BNS systems with low to moderate eccentricity.
{height="38.00000%"} {height="38.00000%"}
Conclusions {#conclu}
===========
BNSs formed in core-collapsed globular clusters [@grind] or near supermassive black holes in galactic nuclei [@antonini] may have high residual eccentricities when emitting gravitational radiation in aLIGO band. Still, the detection of eccentric BNSs with the upcoming generation of GW detectors is not yet certain due to the uncertainty on the rate of these events [@antonini]. Nonetheless, the detection of eccentric BNSs is not implausible, and since the electromagnetic emission of these events is distinguishable from quasi-circular mergers, it is crucial to understand both types of events [@east:2012]. The study presented in this paper is important to study the selection bias introduced by neglecting eccentricity in advanced searches of BNSs, and provides useful information when planning GW searches in the advanced detector era in order to extract the most from the observations.
The Monte Carlo analysis we have carried out shows that, assuming aLIGO ZDHP PSD, BNS systems with total mass $ \sim 2.4M_{\odot} \,( 6M_{\odot})$ and initial eccentricity $e \lesssim 0.02\,(0.05)$ at a fiducial GW frequency of 14Hz, could be recovered with ${\cal{FF}}$$\gtrsim 0.95$ using a template bank of circularized waveforms. Our findings suggests that in order to detect and study the rate of eccentric stellar-mass compact binaries in aLIGO, a search specifically targeting these systems will need to be constructed.
Extending this study to higher-mass systems systems requires input from NR simulations both to construct template banks and to simulate the signals. Recent simulations of eccentric neutron star-black hole (NSBH) systems show that GW emission is significantly larger than perturbative models suggests for periapsis distances close to effective innermost stable separations [@east:2012a]. Modeling these events requires higher resolution simulations, additional computational resources, and a better method for creating initial data for eccentric binaries [@east:2012a; @Foucart:2012]. Furthermore, PN approximants are not suitable for detection purposes if the total mass of the system $M\gtrsim 11.4 M_{\odot}$ [@pnbuo; @Prayush:2013a]. Hence, we have considered binary systems that are not affected by waveform uncertainties in aLIGO band. The development of accurate waveform models to extend this analysis to higher-mass systems [@ET1; @ET2; @Huerta:2012], and the construction of a template matched filter search for eccentric binaries is the subject of future work.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by NSF grants PHY-0847611 and PHY-0854812. DB and EH would also like to thank the Research Corporation for Science Advancement and the Cottrell Scholars program for support. The Monte Carlo simulations described in this paper were performed using the Syracuse University Gravitation and Relativity (SUGAR) cluster, which is supported by NSF grants PHY-1040231, PHY-0600953 and PHY-1104371. EH thanks Stefan Ballmer, Alessandra Buonanno, Peter Couvares, Jolien Creighton, Ryan Fisher, Chris Fryer, Ian Harry, Alex Huerta, Prayush Kumar, Alex Nitz, Bangalore Sathyaprakash, Peter Saulson and Matt West for useful discussions. We thank Ray Frey for carefully reading this manuscript. We also thank the anonymous referee for their constructive comments. Part of this work was carried out at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at Santa Barbara University, which is supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. NSF PHY05-51164
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We present measurements of the pion transverse momentum ($p_t$) spectra in central Si-nucleus collisions in the rapidity range $2.0 < y < 5.0$ for $p_t$ down to and including $p_t$ = 0. The data exhibit an enhanced pion yield at low $p_t$ compared to what is expected for a purely thermal spectral shape. This enhancement is used to determine the $\Delta$ resonance abundance at freeze-out. The results are consistent with a direct measurement of the $\Delta$ resonance yield by reconstruction of proton-pion pairs and imply a temperature of the system at freeze-out close to 140 MeV.'
address:
- ' $^1$ Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973'
- ' $^2$ Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany'
- ' $^3$ McGill University, Montreal, Canada'
- ' $^4$ University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131'
- ' $^5$ University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260'
- ' $^6$ SUNY, Stony Brook, NY 11794'
- ' $^7$ University of São Paulo, Brazil'
- ' $^8$ Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202'
- ' $^9$ Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511'
author:
- |
J. Barrette$^3$, R. Bellwied$^8$, P. Braun-Munzinger$^6$, W. E. Cleland$^5$, T. M. Cormier$^8$, G. David$^6$, J. Dee$^6$, G. E. Diebold$^9$, O. Dietzsch$^7$, J. V. Germani$^9$, S. Gilbert$^3$, S. V. Greene$^9$, J. R. Hall$^4$, T. K. Hemmick$^6$, N. Herrmann$^2$, B. Hong$^6$, K. Jayananda$^5$, D. Kraus$^5$, B. S. Kumar$^9$, R. Lacasse$^3$, D. Lissauer$^1$, W. J. Llope$^6$, T. W. Ludlam$^1$, S. McCorkle$^1$, R. Majka$^9$, S. K. Mark$^3$, J. T. Mitchell$^9$, M. Muthuswamy$^6$, E. O’Brien$^1$, C. Pruneau$^3$, M. N. Rao$^6$, F. Rotondo$^9$, N. C. daSilva$^7$, U. Sonnadara$^5$, J. Stachel$^6$, H. Takai$^1$, E. M. Takagui$^5$, T. G. Throwe$^1$, G. Wang$^3$, D. Wolfe$^4$, C. L. Woody$^1$, N. Xu$^6$, Y. Zhang$^6$, Z. Zhang$^5$, C. Zou$^6$\
(E814 Collaboration)
title: ' Measurement of Pion Enhancement at Low Transverse Momentum and of the $\Delta$ Resonance Abundance in Si-Nucleus Collisions at AGS Energy '
---
Collisions of heavy nuclei at ultrarelativistic energies produce a zone of hot, compressed matter. Information from measurements of transverse energy production [@814prl1; @814prl2] and baryon distributions [@814zphys1; @802prl1; @gonin] indicate that baryon densities up to ten times normal nuclear matter density are reached during the collision [@landau1; @rqmd1; @arc1]. This highly compressed system then expands [@814plb1] until its constituents cease to interact, [*i.e.*]{} “freeze out”. The expansion is reflected in the slopes of transverse momentum spectra at midrapidity, which systematically become flatter with increasing particle mass [@jsgy; @jsqm93]. Very recently [@814prl3] sidewards flow was directly identified for Au+Au collisions at AGS energy. Such flow effects demonstrate the presence of large thermal pressures, and should provide information on the equation of state of the hot and dense matter formed in the collision. At the same time, the connection between the transverse momentum spectra of hadrons and the temperature of the fireball at freeze-out is complicated by additional parameters such as flow velocities and flow profile.
To provide information on the composition of the fireball formed in the collision, and to get an independent measurement of the freeze-out temperature we report here measurements of the double differential cross sections for charged pions near the beam rapidity ($y$ = 3.4) in central ${\rm^{28}Si}$+Al, Pb collisions at ${p_{lab}}$ = 14.6 GeV/c per nucleon. The aim of these experiments was to measure transverse momentum ($p_t$) spectra for pions in a kinematical region where predicted enhancements at low $p_t$ would show up strongly. The experimental status of low $p_t$ phenomena in high energy nuclear collisions and possible interpretations have been summarized recently [@Gillo]. At AGS energies a major source of the enhancement is expected to be [@stock; @Johanna] the pions produced by the decay of the $\Delta(1232)$ resonance. The decay preferentially populates the spectrum at low $p_t$ wherefrom the abundance of the $\Delta$ at freeze-out can be inferred. This can then be used [@Johanna] to determine the system’s true temperature. To provide further support for the feeding scenario and independent information on the $\Delta$ abundance, we also present the results of an effort to directly reconstruct the $\Delta^{++}$ using the p$\pi^+$ invariant mass spectrum.
The experiment was performed using the E814 apparatus at the AGS at Brookhaven National Laboratory. The apparatus is described in detail elsewhere [@814prl1; @814prl2; @814zphys1; @JD]. A 14.6 GeV/c per nucleon $^{28}\rm{Si}$ beam was incident upon Pb targets of thicknesses of 1.1 and 2.2 g/cm$^2$ and Al targets of 0.33 and 0.66 g/cm$^2$, corresponding to 1.2 and 2.4 % of a silicon interaction length, respectively. Collision centrality was determined via a charged particle multiplicity measurement in the interval ${\rm 0.85 < \eta < 3.8}$. Experimental details and the connection between centrality and charged particle multiplicity are discussed in [@jhall].
Particles emitted in the forward direction were accepted and analyzed by a forward spectrometer. We define z along the incident beam, y vertically upward and x so as to make a right handed coordinate system. The spectrometer aperture $-115 {\rm mr} < \theta _{\rm x} <
14 {\rm mr}$ and $|\theta _{\rm y}| < 21 {\rm mr}$ was defined by a Pb/steel collimator. Accepted particles pass through a dipole magnet and are momentum analyzed via a pair of drift/pad tracking chambers. The momentum resolution of the spectrometer has been modelled using the GEANT package [@geant]. At the low field used in the present measurements, the resolution in momentum [*p*]{} is dominated by multiple scattering and is nearly uniform in momentum with $\delta p/p \sim 4.1 \%$ for the momentum range considered here. Scattering in the target creates a distortion in $p_t$ without significantly altering [*p*]{}. This effect together with all other imperfections implies that $\delta p_t < 4$ MeV/c for $p_t < 100$ MeV/c and $\delta p_t/p_t =4\%$ for larger $p_t$ values. All data are presented in 10 MeV/c $p_t$ bins.
Time-of-Flight and hence velocity is determined by one of two scintillator hodoscopes located 12 m (200 psec resolution) and 31 m (350 psec resolution) from the target. The spectrometer is capable of separating protons and pions up to $p$ = 7 GeV/c. Background in the pion sample due to kaons and unrecognized decays is less than 10%. Possible electron contamination was investigated in two ways. First, for momenta below 0.5 GeV/c electrons can be separated via time-of-flight. In this momentum range, the electron to pion ratio is observed to decrease with increasing [*p*]{} and is close to 5% at 0.5 GeV/c. Simulations imply that the primary source of electron contamination is photon conversion in the target. A comparison of results for the 1% and 2% targets shows no statistically significant evidence for electron contamination in the pion sample presented here. We conclude that electron contamination can be neglected. Consequently, the data obtained with the 1.1 and 2.2 % targets were combined.
Fig. \[Fig:mt\] shows a summary of the measured $\pi^-$ transverse mass ($m_t = \sqrt{p_t^2+m_{\pi}^2}$) spectra for central ($\sigma/\sigma_{geo} \leq 2\%$) Si+Pb collisions. Here $m_{\pi}$ is the pion rest mass. The vertical axis is $1/m_t^2 \times d^2N/dm_tdy$, the representation in which a Boltzmann (or thermal) distribution is a pure exponential in $m_t$. Our acceptance in $m_t$ is largest for rapidities $3.0 < y < 4.0$. The measurable range in $m_t$ is limited by the geometrical opening of the spectrometer at low [*y*]{} and particle identification at high [*y*]{}. The solid curves in Fig. \[Fig:mt\] show Boltzmann fits to the data, with the fit interval restricted to ($m_t$ - $m_\pi$ $)>$ $160$ MeV/c$^2$. The data exhibit a significant enhancement over this functional form at low $m_t$. This is most clearly seen in the inset which shows the ratio of the data to the thermal fit on a linear scale. The dashed line demonstrates that the data rise also faster than expected from an invariant distribution $1/m_t \times d^2N/dm_tdy \propto \exp(-m_t/T)$. Results for $\pi^+$, and for the Al target, (not shown here) exhibit enhancements of similar strength as those in Fig. \[Fig:mt\]. The strength of the enhancement does not vary significantly with centrality in the range $\sigma/\sigma_{geo}$ = (2-10)%.
The large stopping at AGS energies [@814zphys1] implies that the fireball formed in the collision is baryon-rich. Therefore, baryonic resonances and in particular the $\Delta(1232)$, in the following simply denoted $\Delta$, with its low decay momentum of 227 MeV/c are therefore anticipated to be the major contributors to pion spectra at low $p_t$ [@Johanna; @Heinz]. One can extract from the pion spectra an estimate of the fraction of pions resulting from $\Delta$ decay. To do this we have computed the pion spectral shape by superposition of direct thermal pions (with spectral slope adjusted at high $m_t$) and pions from $\Delta$ decay for various ratios $f =
\pi_{\Delta}/\pi_{direct}$. Rapidity and $p_t$ distributions of the $\Delta$ were taken to follow predictions by the RQMD model [@rqmd2] but the assumption that the $\Delta$ distributions follow those of the measured [@814zphys1] protons yields very similar results. Fig. \[Fig:ratios\] shows the ratio of the pion spectra to the fitted Boltzmann distribution. The data are compared to model calculations using [*f*]{}=0.4 and 0.6. The calculations bracket the data quite well and establish that the ratio $f = 0.5 \pm 0.1$ implying that 1/3 of all pions come from $\Delta$ decay without further interaction. The ratio between the number of pions and nucleons for central Si+Pb collisions is observed to be $(\pi/N)_{exp}
\approx 1.07$ [@jsqm93; @bodrum]. Hence the fraction of nucleons excited to the $\Delta$ resonance at freezeout is $0.36 \pm 0.05$.
The measured pion spectra are also well reproduced by cascade models such as RQMD[@rqmd2] and ARC[@arc1] which have the $\Delta$ resonance explicitely built into the collision dynamics. This is illustrated by the dashed lines in Fig. \[Fig:mt\] representing the RQMD prediction, which accounts for shape and absolute yield of the data once the experimental trigger conditions are incorporated. Predictions using the RQMD and ARC models are in good agreement with all our pion data (for both charges and both targets). The dominant source of the rise at low $m_t$ in pion spectra calculated with RQMD can be traced back [@rqmd2] to the $\Delta(1232)$ resonance decay. The overall predicted freeze-out $\Delta$ excitation probability of 0.35 is very close to the experimental value given above.
Close inspection of Fig. \[Fig:mt\] reveals that in addition to the low $p_t$ enhancement discussed above there is also visible in the data an increase with even steeper slope at very low transverse momenta ($p_t
< 50$ MeV/c corresponding to $m_t-m_{\pi} < 0.01$ GeV/c$^2$). A similar effect is seen [@corm] in our recent measurement covering backward rapidities with a different detector. Whether this is also due to resonance decays (such as $\eta$ decay, see [@Johanna]) or has a more exotic origin (such as chiral symmetry restoration [@gerry]) remains to be quantitatively explored.
To get an independent measurement of the number of $\Delta$’s at freeze-out in Si+Pb collisions we have reconstructed the $\Delta^{++}$ via its decay to p$\pi^+$. This is the most easily measured of all $\Delta$ decays since (i) its branching ratio is nearly 100%, (ii) all particles in the final state are charged, and (iii) there is no interference from $\Lambda$ decay (which could disturb $\Delta^0$ measurements). Additionally, the asymmetry of the E814 spectrometer makes it best suited for like-sign pair measurements.
The invariant mass for p$\pi^+$ pairs was reconstructed for central ($\sigma/\sigma_{geo} \leq 10\%$) collisions. Protons near beam rapidity (y $\geq$ 3.1) were rejected from the sample since they are in part projectile fragments. Pions below rapidity 3.0 were rejected since the $\Delta$ decay kinematics does not permit such pions into the E814 spectrometer acceptance with the proton rapidity cut used.
Fig. \[Fig:delta\] shows a summary of our measurement of the $\Delta^{++}$ using p$\pi^+$ pairs. The analysis employs the “mixed events” technique. This method allows to separate a small signal from a large combinatorial due to uncorrelated pairs. One determines the shape of the combinatorial background by constructing an invariant mass spectrum using (uncorrelated) protons and pions from different events. The resulting distribution is normalized (see below) to the true pair spectrum and subtraction yields the signal. To normalize, we treat the combinatorial spectrum as a function of a single free parameter, the normalization constant. This function is fitted to the high mass end ($M_{inv} > M_1$) of the true pair spectrum, choosing a normalization constant which minimizes $\chi^2$. The net $\Delta^{++}$ yield was found to not differ beyond statistics using $M_1$ values in the range $1.4<M_1< 1.8$ GeV/c$^2$. Lower values of $M_1$ result in over-subtraction and higher values suffer from statistical uncertainties. Note that the true pair acceptance for decay of a nuclear resonance with M $\geq$ 1.4 GeV/c$^2$ is vanishing. A value of $M_1
=1.4 {\rm GeV/c^2}$ was selected for the analysis. The solid and dashed histograms in Fig. \[Fig:delta\] show the results for the true pair invariant mass ($M_{inv}$) distribution and the normalized combinatorial background distribution.
The robustness of the analysis procedure was tested via Monte Carlo analysis. A “negative test” data sample of uncorrelated p$\pi^+$ pairs was generated using the measured single particle distributions. Analysis of these data shows no $\Delta$ signal. Additionally, a “positive test” was performed on p$\pi^+$ pairs from RQMD-generated events to verify that the $\Delta$ resonance is observed correctly there.
The $M_{inv}$ spectrum of p$\pi^+$ pairs after background subtraction is shown in the bottom panel of Fig. \[Fig:delta\]. The total yield into the E814 acceptance for $ 4.01 \times 10^5$ central collisions is 587 $\pm$ 165 $\Delta^{++}$. We have computed the acceptance of the E814 spectrometer for $\Delta^{++}$ using GEANT. Over the rapidity interval $1.9 < y < 3.1$ covered by the experiment the acceptance varies between $3 \times 10^{-4}$ at y=2 and $1.2 \times 10^{-2}$ at y=3. Assuming that the shape of the $\Delta$ rapidity and $p_t$ distribution is close to that measured for protons [@814zphys1; @JD], and taking into account a track reconstruction efficiency of 73% per particle, the yield corresponds to 1.7 $\pm$ 0.5 $\Delta^{++}$ per central Si+Pb collision into $1.9 < y < 3.1$. Using the $\Delta$ distributions in [*y*]{} and $p_t$ from RQMD gives a very similar result.
The predicted $\Delta^{++}$ yield at freeze-out from the RQMD model is in good agreement with the measurement. To best approximate our experimental conditions, we have chosen to analyze RQMD events in a similar manner as the actual data and extract the predicted $\Delta$ yield using a combinatorial mass spectrum and a mixed-event subtraction. The RQMD prediction is then 1.6 $\pm$ 0.3 $\Delta^{++}$ per event in the rapidity interval $1.9 < y < 3.1$, in remarkable agreement with our measurement. The same calculation yields a rapidity integrated yield of $\Delta^{++}$ of 14.7 $\pm 0.9$ and finds 35 % of all nucleons in the $\Delta$ resonance at freeze-out.
Assuming thermal equilibrium, the measured $\Delta$ abundance yields information [@Johanna] on the freeze-out temperature of the system, independent of analyses of the slopes of particle spectra. To determine the freeze-out temperature [*T*]{}, we calculated the number density of all nonstrange baryonic resonances with masses less than 2 GeV/c$^2$ as a function of temperature. The calculation closely follows that of [@Johanna] but takes, in addition, into account the widths of all states. The results for population ratios (which are essentially independent of baryon chemical potential) are presented in Fig. \[Fig:tempdep\] as a function of [*T*]{} for all included baryons. Using the population ratio for $\Delta$’s of 0.36$\pm 0.05$ determined from our data we extract the freeze-out temperature to be $T
= 138 ^{+23}_{-18}$ MeV.
In summary, we have shown that pion spectra from Si-nucleus collisions at AGS energy exhibit a significant enhancement at low $p_t $. A simple model incorporating pions from $\Delta$ decay accounts quite accurately for the observed shape if $\Delta$/nucleon ratios in the range 0.36 $\pm$ 0.05 are assumed. RQMD calculations are consistent with our result and also reproduce accurately the measured pion spectra. Additionally, the results from the analysis of spectral shapes are consistent with a direct measurement of the $\Delta^{++}$ abundance for Si+Pb, which yields 1.7 $\pm$ 0.5 $\Delta^{++}$ per collision in the rapidity interval $1.9 < y < 3.1$. Our measurement thus quantitatively establishes the importance of the $\Delta$ resonance to the dynamics of the collision. We find that the same concentration of freeze-out $\Delta$’s simultaneously explains our pion enhancement and the directly measured yield of $\Delta^{++}$. Finally, the results imply that in central Si+Pb collisions a fireball is formed with substantial excitation of $\Delta$ baryons which freezes out at $T = 138
^{+23}_{-18}$ MeV.
We wish to thank the Brookhaven Tandem and AGS staff for their excellent support and are particularly grateful for the expert help of W. McGahern and Dr. H. Brown. R. Hutter and J. Sondericker provided important technical support. Financial support by the US DoE, the NSF, the Canadian NSERC, and CNPq Brazil is gratefully acknowledged.
J. Barrette [*et al.*]{}, E814 Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett [**64**]{}, 1219(1990).
J. Barrette [*et al.*]{}, E814 Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett [**70**]{}, 2996(1993).
J. Barrette [*et al.*]{}, E814 Collaboration, Z. Physik [**C59**]{}, 211(1993).
T. Abbott [*et al.*]{}, E802 Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 847(1990).
M. Gonin for the E802/E866 Collaboration, Nucl. Phys. [**A566**]{}, 601c(1994).
J. Stachel and P. Braun-Munzinger, Phys. Lett [**B216**]{}, 1(1989).
H. Sorge, A. von Keitz, R. Mattiello, H. Stöcker and W. Greiner, Phys. Lett [**B243**]{}, 7(1990).
Y. Pang, T. J. Schlagel, and S. H. Kahana, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 2743(1992); T. J. Schlagel, S. H. Kahana and Y. Pang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 3290(1992).
J. Barrette [*et al.*]{}, E814 Collaboration, Phys. Lett. [**B333**]{}, 33(1994).
J. Stachel and G. R. Young, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**42**]{}, 537(1992).
J. Stachel, E814 Collaboration, Nucl. Phys. [**A566**]{}, 135c(1994).
J. Barrette [*et al.*]{}, E877 Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**73**]{}, 2532(1994).
J. Simon-Gillo, Nucl. Phys. [**A566**]{}, 175c(1994).
R. Stock, Phys. Rep. [**135**]{}, 259(1986) and references therein.
G.E. Brown, J. Stachel, and G.M. Welke, Phys. Lett. [**B253**]{}, 19(1991).
H. Sorge, Phys. Rev. [**C49**]{}, 1253(1994).
J. Barrette [*et al.*]{}, E814 Collaboration, Phys. Rev. [**C50**]{}, 3047(1994).
J. Barrette [*et al.*]{}, the E814 collaboration, Phys. Rev. [**C46**]{}, 312(1992).
R. Brun, F. Bryant, A.C. McPherson, and P. Zanarini, GEANT 3 Users Guide, CERN DD Division Report No. DD/EE.84-1, 1984, unpublished.
H. Sorge, R. Mattiello, H. Stöcker, W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 286(1992).
P. Braun-Munzinger [*et al.*]{}, E814/E877 Collaboration, Proc. Nato Advanced Study Institute on Hot and Dense Nuclear Matter, Bodrum, Turkey, Oct. 1993 (Plenum, New York) in press.
J. Barrette [*et al.*]{}, E814 preprint, Oct. 1994.
G.E. Brown, private communication.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Let $F$ be a $p$-adic field and $\boldsymbol{{\mathrm{U}}}$ be a unipotent group defined over $F$, and set ${\mathrm{U}}=\boldsymbol{{\mathrm{U}}}(F)$. Let $\sigma$ be an involution of $\boldsymbol{{\mathrm{U}}}$ defined over $F$. Adapting the arguments of Yves Benoist ([@B1], [@B2]) in the real case, we prove the following result: an irreducible representation $\pi$ of ${\mathrm{U}}$ is ${\mathrm{U}}^{\sigma}$-distinguished if and only if it is $\sigma$-self-dual and in this case ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathrm{U}}^\sigma}(\pi,{\mathbb{C}})$ has dimension one. When $\sigma$ is a Galois involution these results imply a bijective correspondence between the set $\Irr({\mathrm{U}}^\sigma)$ of isomorphism classes of irreducible representations of ${\mathrm{U}}^\sigma$ and the set $\Irr_{{\mathrm{U}}^\sigma-\mathrm{dist}}({\mathrm{U}})$ of isomorphism classes of distinguished irreducible representations of ${\mathrm{U}}$.'
address: |
Université de Poitiers, Laboratoire de Mathématiques et Applications,\
Téléport 2 - BP 30179, Boulevard Marie et Pierre Curie,\
86962, Futuroscope Chasseneuil Cedex. France.
author:
- Nadir Matringe
bibliography:
- 'unipotentdistinction.bib'
title: 'Distinction for unipotent $p$-adic groups'
---
Introduction
============
Let $\mathbf{G}$ be a connected algebraic group defined over a field $F$, and $\sigma$ be an $F$-rational involution of ${\mathrm{G}}$. One says that a complex representation $\pi$ of ${\mathrm{G}}=\mathbf{G}(F)$ is distinguished if ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathrm{G}}^\sigma}(\pi,{\mathbb{C}})\neq 0$. One is in general interested in computing the dimension of ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathrm{G}}^\sigma}(\pi,{\mathbb{C}})$ when $\pi$ is irreducible, as well understanding the relation between irreducible distinction and conjugate self-duality.
One extensively studied situation is that of distinction by a Galois involution. Let $E/F$ be a separable extension of quadratic field, take $\mathbf{G}={\operatorname{Res}}_{E/F}(\mathbf{H})$ for $\mathbf{H}$ be a connected algebraic group defined over $F$. Then $\sigma$ is taken to be the corresponding Galois involution. A case of interest is that of finite fields, in which case it has been shown in [@Pcomp Theorem 2] that an irreducible representation $\pi$ of ${\mathrm{G}}$ which is stable is distinguished if and only if it is conjugate self-dual: $\pi^\vee\simeq \pi^\sigma$.
The question of the relation between distinction and conjugate self-duality as well as that of the dimension of ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathrm{H}}}(\pi,{\mathbb{C}})$ remains interesting for smooth representations when $F$ is $p$-adic, and it has attracted a lot of attention when $\mathbf{G}$ is reductive. The answer is not known in general, but a conjectural and very precise answer in terms of Langlands parameters is provided by [@Pconj]. It in particular roughly says that if $\pi$ is an irreducible distinguished (by a certain quadratic character) representation of ${\mathrm{G}}$, then $\pi^\vee$ and $\pi^\sigma$ should be in the same ${\mathrm{L}}$-packet, and moreover there should be a correspondence between irreducible distinguished representations of ${\mathrm{G}}$ and irreducible representations of $\mathbf{H}^{{\mathrm{op}}}(F)$ where the opposition group $\mathbf{H}^{{\mathrm{op}}}$ is a certain reductive group defined over $F$ and isomorphic to $\mathbf{H}$ over $E$.
Going back to a general involution, still with $F$ a $p$-adic field, it seems that such questions have not attracted as much attention when $\mathbf{G}$ is unipotent. It turns out that the different answers, provided by this paper, are simple as well as their proofs. In fact they were completely solved when $F={\mathbb{R}}$ by Y. Benoist in [@B1] and [@B2], where moreover a Plancherel formula for the corresponding symmetric space was established. Our results are the same, and the proofs are very close though sometimes the arguments have to be different. Let us quickly describe the content of this note.
If $\boldsymbol{{\mathrm{G}}}=\boldsymbol{{\mathrm{U}}}$ is unipotent, then a smooth irreducible representation of ${\mathrm{U}}=\boldsymbol{{\mathrm{U}}}(F)$ is distinguished if and only if it is conjugate self-dual, in which case ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathrm{U}}^\sigma}(\pi,{\mathbb{C}})$ has dimension one (Proposition \[prop mult 1\] and Theorem \[thm distinction and sel-duality\]). Moreover when $\sigma$ is a Galois involution, there is a bijective correspondence between distinguished irreducible representations of ${\mathrm{U}}$ and representations of ${\mathrm{U}}^\sigma$ (Corollary \[cor correspondence\]). Hence, setting $\mathbf{H}=\mathbf{U}$, in a certain sense $\boldsymbol{\mathbf{U}}^{{\mathrm{op}}}=\boldsymbol{\mathbf{U}}$ when $\mathbf{U}$ is unipotent.
As in [@B1] and [@B2], all proofs are based on the Kirillov construction and parametrization ([@K], [@VD]) of irreducible representations of ${\mathrm{U}}$. In fact as the Kirillov construction in the case of smooth irreducible representations of $p$-adic fields seems not to be fully written in details in the litterature, we do this work in Section \[section kirillov\] for the convenience of the reader. Note that the classification for continuous irreducible unitary representations of ${\mathrm{U}}$ on Hilbert spaces is available in several papers (see [@EK] and the references there), so that the Kirillov classification of smooth irreducible can certainly be deduced from it by conisdering the injection of this category into that of smooth irreducible representations by taking smooth vectors (though we could not find a proof of this result in the case at hand), but in any case we give a direct proof here, for which we claim no originality other than that we did not find it written as such in the litterature. We make use of a result of [@VD], which is very well suited to obtain Kirillov’s classification in a quick manner.
Notations
=========
In this paper $F$ is a $p$-adic field, i.e. a finite extension of ${\mathbb{Q}}_p$, with ring of integers $O_F$. We consider $\mathbf{U}$ a (necessarily connected) unipotent group defined over $F$. We denote by $\mathbf{U}$ a connected unipotent group defined over $F$ with Lie algebra $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{N}}$ so that $$\exp:\boldsymbol{\mathcal{N}}\rightarrow \mathbf{U}$$ is an isomorphism of algebraic $F$-varieties with reciprocal map $\ln$ ([@DG Proposition 4.1]).
We set ${\mathrm{U}}=\mathbf{U}(F)$ and $\lN=\boldsymbol{\mathcal{N}}(F)$, the map $\exp$ restricts as a homeomorphism from $\lN$ to ${\mathrm{U}}$. We will say that ${\mathrm{U}}'$ is an $F$-subgroup of ${\mathrm{U}}$ if it is the $F$-points of a closed algebraic subgroup $\mathbf{U'}$ of $\mathbf{U}$ defined over $F$. The map $\exp$ induces a bijection between Lie sub-algebras of $\lN$ (resp. $\mathbf{\lN}$) and the $F$-subgroups of ${\mathrm{U}}$ (resp. $\mathbf{U}$), for which ideals correspond to normal subgroups. Moreover if $\mathbf{U}'$ is an $F$-subgroup of $\mathbf{U}$ then ${\mathrm{U}}/ {\mathrm{U}}'\simeq (\mathbf{U}/\mathbf{U'})(F)$ by [@Spr 14.2.6], and this bijection becomes a group isomorphism if $\mathbf{U'}$ is normal in $\mathbf{U}$ in which case both quotients identify to $\lN/\lN'= (\boldsymbol{\lN}/\boldsymbol{\lN'})(F)$ via $\exp$.
We denote by ${\mathcal{Z}}$ the center of $\lN$, and by ${\mathrm{Z}}$ the center $\exp(\mathcal{Z})$ of ${\mathrm{U}}$.
As a convention if ${\mathrm{U}}_i$ or ${\mathrm{U}}'$ is a subgroup of ${\mathrm{U}}$ given by the $F$-points of an algebraic subgroup of $\mathbf{U}$ defined over $F$, we will denote by $\lN_i$ or $\lN'$ its Lie algebra.
A fundamental example of unipotent group is the Heisenberg group $${\mathrm{U}}={\mathrm{H}}_3=\{h(x,y,z):=\begin{pmatrix} 1 & x & z \\ & 1 & y\\ & & 1\end{pmatrix}, \ x, \ y, \ z \in F\}.$$ We will denote by $${\mathrm{L}}=\{h(0,y,z), \ y, \ z \in F\}$$ its normal Lagrangian subgroup ${\mathrm{H}}_3$.
We denote by $\Irr({\mathrm{U}})$ the set of isomorphism classes of (always smooth) irreducible representations of ${\mathrm{U}}$ and by $\Irr_{{\mathrm{U}}^\sigma-\mathrm{dist}}({\mathrm{U}})$ the subset of isomorphism classes of distinguished irreducible representations of ${\mathrm{U}}$. For $\pi\in \Irr({\mathrm{U}})$ we will write $c_\pi$ its central character. We will say that a representation is unitary if it preserves a hermitian positive definite hermitian form. We write ${\operatorname{ind}}$ for compact induction and ${\operatorname{Ind}}$ for induction (in our situation normalized induction will coincide with non-normalized induction). We recall that if $\pi'$ is a smooth representation of a closed subgroup ${\mathrm{U}}'$ of ${\mathrm{U}}$, then if ${\operatorname{ind}}_{{\mathrm{U}}'}^{{\mathrm{U}}}(\pi)$ is admissible we have ${\operatorname{ind}}_{{\mathrm{U}}'}^{{\mathrm{U}}}(\pi)={\operatorname{Ind}}_{{\mathrm{U}}'}^{{\mathrm{U}}}(\pi)$.
The Kirillov classification {#section kirillov}
===========================
Definitions
-----------
In this section we fix $\psi:F\rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}_u$ a non trivial character. Take $\phi\in {\operatorname{Hom}}_{F}(\lN,F)$ and let $\lN'$ be a Lie sub-algebra of $\lN$, we will say that the pair $(\phi,\lN')$ is *polarized* for $\lN$ if $\lN'$ is a totally isotropic sub-space of maximal dimension for the $F$-bilinear form $$B_\phi:\lN\times \lN\rightarrow F$$ defined by $$B_\phi(X,Y)=\phi([X,Y]).$$ We denote by $\mathcal{P}(\lN)$ the set of polarized pairs for $\lN$. The group ${\mathrm{U}}$ acts on $\mathcal{P}(\lN)$ by the formula $$u.(\phi,\lN')=(\phi\circ {{\operatorname{Ad}}}(u)^{-1}, {{\operatorname{Ad}}}(u)(\lN')).$$ More generally it acts by the same formula on the set of pairs $(\phi,\lN')$ where $\phi$ is a linear form on $\lN$ and $\lN'$ is a sub-algebra of $\lN$.
Whether $(\phi,\lN')$ is polarized or not, as soon as $\lN'$ is totally isotropic for $B_\phi$, the linear form $\phi$ defines a character $\psi_\phi$ of ${\mathrm{U}}':=\exp(\lN')$ given by $$\psi_\phi(u')=\phi(\ln(u')).$$ We set $$\pi({\mathrm{U}}',{\mathrm{U}},\psi_\phi)={\operatorname{ind}}_{{\mathrm{U}}'}^{{\mathrm{U}}}(\psi_\phi).$$ Note that if $(\phi,\lN')$ and $(\phi',\lN'')$ are in the same ${\mathrm{U}}$-orbit, then the inducing data $(\psi_\phi,{\mathrm{U}}')$ and $(\psi_{\phi'},{\mathrm{U}}'')$ are conjugate and $$\pi({\mathrm{U}}',{\mathrm{U}},\psi_\phi)\simeq \pi({\mathrm{U}}'',{\mathrm{U}},\psi_{\phi'}).$$ The author of [@VD] notices in [@VD Section 6] that the results of [@K] on unitary representations of real unipotent groups apply with the same proofs to unitary representations (acting on Hilbert spaces) of unipotent $p$-adic groups. They also apply to smooth representations of unipotent $p$-adic groups with the same proofs. For the sake of completeness we will recall the proofs, making use of useful facts proved in [@VD Proof of Theorem 4].
Preparation
-----------
In this paragraph we suppose that ${\mathcal{Z}}$ is of dimension $1$. By Kirillov’s lemma ([@K Lemma 4.1]) there is a “canonical” decomposition $$\lN=F.X\oplus F.Y\oplus F.Z \oplus W$$ which means that the vectors $X$, $Y$, $Z$ and the $F$-vector space $W$ have the following properties:
1. ${\mathcal{Z}}= F.Z$.
2. $[X,Y]=Z$.
3. $[Y,W]=\{0\}$.
The Lie sub-algebra $$\lN_0:=F.Y \oplus F.Z \oplus W$$ is automatically a codimension $1$ ideal of $\lN$ and we set $${\mathrm{U}}_0=\exp(\lN_0).$$
Note that $\Vect_F(X,Y,Z)$ is a Lie algebra isomorphic to that of ${\mathrm{H}}_3$, hence $\exp(\Vect_F(X,Y,Z))$ is a closed subgroup of ${\mathrm{U}}$ isomorphic to ${\mathrm{H}}_3$. We set $$h(x,y,z)=\exp(y.Y)\exp(x.X)\exp(z.Z)$$ and use $h$ to consider ${\mathrm{H}}_3$ as a subgroup of ${\mathrm{U}}$ which satisfies $${\mathrm{H}}_3\cap {\mathrm{U}}_0={\mathrm{L}}.$$
We note that $Y$ and $Z$ are central in $\lN_0$ hence they belong to $\lN'$ whenever $(\phi,\lN')\in \mathcal{P}(\lN_0)$.
By [@VD Proof of Theorem 4] we have:
\[prop of VD\] Let $\pi$ be an irreducible representation of ${\mathrm{U}}$ with non trivial central character $c_\pi$, then there is $\pi_0\in \Irr({\mathrm{U}}_0)$ such that $$\pi={\operatorname{ind}}_{{\mathrm{U}}_0}^{{\mathrm{U}}}(\pi_0).$$ In fact one can choose $\pi_0$ such that if we identify the space of $\pi$ with $\mathcal{C}_c^\infty(F,V_{\pi_0})$ via the map $f\mapsto [x\mapsto f(h(x,0,0))]$, setting $\chi(z)=c_\pi(h(0,0,z))$, we have $$\label{equation action of pi0} (\pi(u_0)f)(0)=\pi_0(u_0)f(0)$$ for any $u_0\in U_0$ and $$\label{equation action de H3} (\pi(h(x,y,z))f)(x')=\chi(z+x'y)f(x'+x).$$
Note that Equation (\[equation action of pi0\]) is automaticially satisfied when $\pi={\operatorname{ind}}_{{\mathrm{U}}}^{{\mathrm{U}}_0}(\pi_0)$. On the other hand Equation (\[equation action de H3\]) is not. One can in fact characterize the representations $\pi_0$ of ${\mathrm{U}}_0$ in the above proposition:
\[lemma complement of VD\] The irreducible representation $\pi_0$ is such that Equation (\[equation action de H3\]) is satisfied if and only if $c_{\pi_0}$ is trivial on $h(0,F,0)$.
Suppose that Equation (\[equation action de H3\]) is satisfied. Then by Equation (\[equation action of pi0\]) and Equation (\[equation action de H3\]) evaluated at $x'=x=z=0$, we see that the group $h(0,E,0)$ acts trivially on $V_{\pi_0}$. Conversely, suppose that $h(0,E,0)$ acts trivially on $V_{\pi_0}$. Then $$(\pi(h(x,y,z))f)(x')=\pi(h(x',0,0)h(x,y,z))f)(0)=\pi(h(x+x',y,z+x'y))f)(0)$$ $$= \pi(h(0,y,z+yx')h(x+x',0,0))f)(0)=\pi_0(h(0,y,z+x'y))(\pi(h(x+x',0, 0))f)(0)$$ $$=\chi(z+x'y)(\pi(h(x+x',0, 0))f)(0)=\chi(z+x'y)f(x+x').$$
We will say that $\pi_0\in \Irr({\mathrm{U}}_0)$ as in Lemma \[lemma complement of VD\] is *good*.
Classification
--------------
An immediate corollary of Proposition \[prop of VD\] proved in [@VD] is:
\[cor unitaire et admissible\] Any $\pi\in \Irr({\mathrm{U}})$ is admissible and unitary.
By induction in $\dim({\mathrm{U}})$. If $\dim({\mathrm{U}})=1$ it is clear. If not, if either $\dim({\mathrm{Z}})\geq 2$ or if $c_\pi$ is trivial, then setting ${\mathrm{K}}={\mathrm{Ker}}(c_\pi)$, the group $\overline{{\mathrm{U}}}={\mathrm{U}}/{\mathrm{Ker}}(c_\pi)$ has dimension smaller than that of ${\mathrm{U}}$ and we conclude by induction because $\pi$ is a representation of $\overline{{\mathrm{U}}}$. If $\dim({\mathrm{Z}})=1$ and $c_\pi$ is nontrivial we can write $\pi={\operatorname{ind}}_{{\mathrm{U}}_0}^{{\mathrm{U}}}(\pi_0)$ thanks to Proposition \[prop of VD\]. In this case $\pi_0$ must be irreducible so by induction it is unitary and admissible, from which we already conclude that $\pi$ is unitary. Moreover take a function $f\in {\operatorname{ind}}_{{\mathrm{U}}_0}^{{\mathrm{U}}}(\pi_0)\simeq \mathcal{C}_c^\infty(F,V_{\pi_0})$ which is fixed by ${\mathrm{U}}(O_F)$. Then by Equation (\[equation action de H3\]), $f$ is an $O_F$-invariant function on $F$ which must vanish when outside the orthogonal of $O_F$ with respect to $\chi$, so it is determined by its values on a finite set $A$, and moreover its image is a subset of the finite dimensional space $V_{\pi_0}^{{\mathrm{K}}}$ where ${\mathrm{K}}=\cap_{a\in A} a^{-1}{\mathrm{U}}_0(O_F)a$. This means that ${\operatorname{ind}}_{{\mathrm{U}}_0}^{{\mathrm{U}}}(\pi_0)^{{\mathrm{U}}(0_F)}$ has finite dimension so that $\pi$ is admissible.
Because irreducible representations are unitary the following can be proved.
\[cor induction irreductible\] Suppose that $Z$ has dimension $1$, and let $\pi_0\in \Irr({\mathrm{U}}_0)$ be a good representation, then $\pi={\operatorname{ind}}_{{\mathrm{U}}_0}^{{\mathrm{U}}}(\pi_0)$ is irreducible. Moreover if $\pi_0'\in \Irr({\mathrm{U}}_0)$ is another good representation such that $\pi={\operatorname{ind}}_{{\mathrm{U}}_0}^{{\mathrm{U}}}(\pi_0')$, then $\pi_0'\simeq \pi_0$.
Because $\pi_0$ is unitary so is $\pi$, hence $\pi$ is semi-simple, and it is thus sufficient to prove that ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathrm{U}}}(\pi,\pi)$ is one dimensional. Now Equation (\[equation action de H3\]) is satisfied for $\pi_0$ and $\pi$ thanks to our hypothesis, and the proof of Corollary \[cor unitaire et admissible\] shows that $\pi$ is in fact admissible, so $$\pi={\operatorname{Ind}}_{{\mathrm{U}}_0}^{{\mathrm{U}}}(\pi_0)\simeq{\operatorname{Ind}}_{{\mathrm{U}}_0}^{{\mathrm{U}}}(\pi_0').$$ Hence one has $${\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathrm{U}}}(\pi,\pi)\simeq {\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathrm{U}}_0}(\pi,\pi_0')$$ and it remains to show that this latter space is one dimensional when $\pi_0'\simeq \pi_0$ and $\{0\}$ otherwise. Take $L\in{\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathrm{U}}_0}(\pi,\pi_0')$. We identify $\pi$ with $\mathcal{C}_c^\infty(F,V_{\pi_0}).$ For $\phi \in \mathcal{C}_c(F)$ and $f\in \mathcal{C}_c^\infty(F,V_{\pi_0})$ we set $$\pi(\phi)f=\int_{F} \phi(y)\pi(0,y,0)f dy.$$ Note that $$(\pi(\phi)f)(x)=\widehat{\phi}(x)f(x)$$ where the Fourier transform is taken with respect to $\chi$ and the fixed Haar measure on $F$. On the other hand because $c_{\pi_0}(h(0,F,0)=\{1\}$ there is $c>0$ such that $$L(\pi(\phi) f)=\pi_0'(\phi) L(f)=c\widehat{\phi}(0)L(f)$$ giving the equality $$L(\widehat{\phi}f)=c\widehat{\phi}(0)L(f)$$ for all $\phi\in \mathcal{C}_c^\infty(F)$ and $f\in \mathcal{C}_c^\infty(F,V_{\pi_0}).$ In particular if $f(0)=0$, taking $\widehat{\phi}$ the characteristic function of a small enough compact open subgroup of $F$, we see that $L(f)=0$ hence there is $L_0\in {\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathrm{U}}_0}(V_{\pi_0},V_{\pi_0'})$ such that $$L=[\phi\mapsto \phi(0)]\otimes L_0.$$ We thus just exhibited a linear injection $L\mapsto L_0$ of ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathrm{U}}_0}(\pi,\pi_0)$ into ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathrm{U}}_0}(V_{\pi_0},V_{\pi_0}')$ which is zero if $\pi_0'\not \simeq \pi_0$ and one-dimensional by Schur’s lemma otherwise. This concludes the proof.
Before we state Kirillov’s classification let’s state another lemma.
\[lemma reducible when non polarized\] Let $(\phi,\lN')$ be a pair with $\phi$ a linear form on $\lN$ and $\lN'$ a sub-algebra $\lN$ such that $B_{\phi}$ is isotropic on $\lN'$, but which is not polarized, then $\pi({\mathrm{U}}',{\mathrm{U}},\psi_\phi)$ is reducible.
By transitivity of induction it is enough to show this when $(\phi,\lN)$ is polarized. In this case $\psi_\phi$ defines a character of the whole group ${\mathrm{U}}$. Suppose that ${\operatorname{ind}}_{{\mathrm{U}}'}^{{\mathrm{U}}}(\psi_\phi)$ was irreducible, in particular we would have ${\operatorname{ind}}_{{\mathrm{U}}'}^{{\mathrm{U}}}(\psi_\phi)={\operatorname{Ind}}_{{\mathrm{U}}'}^{{\mathrm{U}}}(\psi_\phi)$ by admissibility of irreducible representations. But then $${\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathrm{U}}}(\psi_\phi,{\operatorname{Ind}}_{{\mathrm{U}}'}^{{\mathrm{U}}}(\psi_\phi))\simeq {\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathrm{U}}'}(\psi_\phi,\psi_\phi)\neq 0$$ which is absurd as it would imply that ${\operatorname{Ind}}_{{\mathrm{U}}'}^{{\mathrm{U}}}(\psi_\phi)$ is a character, which it is not by assumption.
We can now obtain Kirillov’s classification.
\[theorem K\]
1) The representation $\pi({\mathrm{U}}',{\mathrm{U}},\psi_\phi)$ is irreducible if and only if $(\phi,\lN')$ is polarized for $\lN$.
2) Any irreducible representation of ${\mathrm{U}}$ is of the form $\pi({\mathrm{U}}',{\mathrm{U}},\psi_\phi)$ with $(\phi,\lN')$ polarized for $\lN$.
3) Two irreducible representations $\pi({\mathrm{U}}',{\mathrm{U}},\psi_\phi)$ and $\pi({\mathrm{U}}'',{\mathrm{U}},\psi_{\phi'})$ are isomorphic if and only if $(\phi,\lN')$ and $(\phi',\lN'')$ are in the same ${\mathrm{U}}$-orbit.
Thanks to Lemma \[lemma reducible when non polarized\], the first point will be proved if we show that $\pi({\mathrm{U}}',{\mathrm{U}},\psi_\phi)$ is irreducible when $(\phi,\lN')$ is polarized for $\lN$. We do an induction on $\dim({\mathrm{U}})$. If it is $1$ there is nothing to prove. If not we take $\pi=\pi({\mathrm{U}}',{\mathrm{U}},\psi_\phi)$ with $(\phi,\lN')\in\mathcal{P}(\lN)$. If $\dim({\mathrm{U}})>1$ and $c_\pi$ is trivial or if $\dim({\mathrm{Z}})>1$, take $H\in {\mathcal{Z}}$ such that $\phi(H)=1$, then $\pi$ is in fact a representation of ${\mathrm{U}}/\exp(F.H)$, and $(\lN'/F.H,\overline{\phi})\in \mathcal{P}(
\lN/F.H)$, so we conclude by induction. If $\dim({\mathrm{Z}})=1$ and $c_\pi$ is non trivial, then according to [@K Lemma 5.1] we can suppose that $\lN'$ is a subalgebra of $\lN_0$ and that $\phi(Y)=0$. Then the pair $(\phi_{|\lN_0},\lN')$ is polarized for $\lN_0$ and by induction the representation $\pi_0=\pi({\mathrm{U}}',{\mathrm{U}}_0,\psi_{\phi_{|\lN_0}})$ is irreducible; it is moreover good because $\phi(Y)=0$. But then $({\mathrm{U}}',{\mathrm{U}},\psi_\phi)={\operatorname{ind}}_{{\mathrm{U}}_0}^{{\mathrm{U}}}(\pi_0)$ is irreducible thanks to Corollary \[cor induction irreductible\].
For point 2) we do again an induction on $\dim({\mathrm{U}})$, the one dimension case being obvious. Then if $c_\pi$ is trivial or if $\dim({\mathrm{Z}})>1$ we conclude by induction. If not $\pi={\operatorname{ind}}_{{\mathrm{U}}_0}^{{\mathrm{U}}}(\pi_0)$ with $\pi_0$ good. By induction $\pi_0={\operatorname{ind}}_{{\mathrm{U}}'}^{{\mathrm{U}}_0}(\psi_{\phi_0})$ for $(\phi_0,\lN')\in \mathcal{P}(\lN_0)$. Then extend $\phi_0$ to a linear form $\phi$ on $\lN=F.X\oplus \lN_0$, we claim that the pair $(\phi,\lN')$ remains polarized for $\lN$. Indeed if it was not then one would have $B_\phi[X',\lN']=0$ for $X'\notin \lN_0$. Writing $X'=aX+N_0$ with $N_0\in \lN_0$, then in particular one would have $B_\phi[aX+N_0,Y]=0$, but $[aX+N_0,Y]=aZ+0=aZ$ so this would mean that $\phi(Z)=0$ i.e. that $c_\pi$ is trivial, which it is not.
Point 3) is proved by induction on $\dim({\mathrm{U}})$ as well, and we only focus on the case $\dim({\mathrm{Z}})=1$ and $c_{\pi}\neq {\mathbf{1}}$. By [@K Lemma 5.1] we can suppose that both $\lN''$ and $\lN'$ are sub-algebras of $\lN_0$ and that $\phi(Y)=\phi'(Y)=0$. In particular $\pi_0=\pi({\mathrm{U}}',{\mathrm{U}}_0,\psi_{\phi_{|\lN_0}})$ and $\pi_0'=\pi({\mathrm{U}}'',{\mathrm{U}}_0,\psi_{\phi'_{|\lN_0}})$are both good, and both induce to $\pi$ so they are isomorphic by Corollary \[cor induction irreductible\]. By induction this means that $(\phi_{|\lN_0},\lN')$ and $(\phi_{|\lN_0},\lN'')$ are ${\mathrm{U}}_0$-conjugate. Then it is explained just before [@K Lemma 5.2] at the end of the proof of [@K Theorem 5.2] that this implies that $(\phi,\lN')$ and $(\phi,\lN'')$ are indeed ${\mathrm{U}}$-conjugate.
Unipotent symmetric spaces
==========================
We recall that the map $x\mapsto x^2$ is bijective from ${\mathrm{U}}$ to itself. We set ${\mathrm{U}}^{\sigma,-}$ for the closed subset of ${\mathrm{U}}$ given by the equation $\sigma(u)=u^{-1}$. We have a polar decomposition on ${\mathrm{U}}$.
\[lemme polar dec\] The multiplication map $m:{\mathrm{U}}^{\sigma}\times {\mathrm{U}}^{\sigma,-}\rightarrow {\mathrm{U}}$ given by $m(u^+,u^-)=u^+u^-$ is a homeomorphism.
This is is just [@B1 Proposition 2.1, 3)], the proof of which is valid in our setting.
We will use the following fixed point result in replacement of that used in [@B1 Proof of Lemma 4.3.1]. It could be used in ibid. as well.
\[lemma pro p action with involution\] Let $X$ be the $F$-points of an $F$-algebraic variety on which ${\mathrm{U}}$ acts in an $F$-rational manner, and $\sigma$ be an $F$-rational involution of $X$ (i.e. we have two involutions on different sets which we denote by the same letter) such that $\sigma(u.x)=\sigma(u).\sigma(x)$ for all $u\in {\mathrm{U}}$ and $x\in X$. Then a ${\mathrm{U}}$-orbit in $X$ is $\sigma$-stable if and only if it contains a fixed point of $\sigma$.
Take $O={\mathrm{U}}.x$ a ${\mathrm{U}}$-orbit in $X$. If it contains a $\sigma$-fixed point $y$, then $y=u.x$ and $\sigma(x)=\sigma(u).y=\sigma(u)u^{-1}.x$ so $O$ is $\sigma$-stable. Conversely suppose that $\sigma(O)=O$. We denote by ${\mathrm{K}}$ the stabilizer of $x$ (it an $F$-subgroup of ${\mathrm{U}}$). If ${\mathrm{K}}={\mathrm{U}}$ there is nothing to prove. If not because $\mathbf{U}$ is unipotent there is a sequence ${\mathrm{K}}<{\mathrm{V}}\triangleleft{\mathrm{U}}$ with ${\mathrm{V}}$ a normal $F$-subgroup of ${\mathrm{U}}$ such that ${\mathrm{U}}/{\mathrm{V}}$ is commutative of dimension $1$ (this property can be proved by induction on $(\dim({\mathrm{U}}),\dim({\mathrm{U}})-\dim({\mathrm{K}}))$ with lexicographic ordering). Now $\sigma(x)=u.x$ for $u\in {\mathrm{U}}$ by assumption. This implies that $\sigma(u)u$ belongs to ${\mathrm{K}}$ hence to ${\mathrm{V}}$, so $\sigma(\overline{u})=\overline{u}^{-1}\in {\mathrm{U}}/{\mathrm{V}}$ i.e. $\overline{u}=\overline{u}^{-}= \overline{u^{-}}$ in ${\mathrm{U}}/{\mathrm{V}}$. Setting $v=u^{1/2}$ and $u'=v^{-1}uv^{-1}\in {\mathrm{U}}$, then $u'$ belongs to ${\mathrm{V}}$ as its image in the commutative group ${\mathrm{U}}/{\mathrm{V}}$ is trivial. Note that as well, $\sigma(\overline{v})=\overline{v}^{-1}$ in ${\mathrm{U}}/{\mathrm{V}}$ because this relation is true when squared, hence $\sigma(v)v\in {\mathrm{V}}$ as well. So setting $y=v.x$ this implies that $\sigma(y)=\sigma(v).\sigma(x)=\sigma(v)u.x=(\sigma(v)v. u').y$. Hence $\sigma(y)$ and $y$ are in the same ${\mathrm{V}}$-orbit $O'$ inside $O$. Now because ${\mathrm{V}}$ has dimension smaller than that of ${\mathrm{U}}$, we conclude by induction that $\sigma$ fixes a point of $O'$, hence a point of $O$.
We make $\sigma$ act on the set of pairs $(\phi,\mathcal{V})$ with $\phi$ a linear form on $\lN$ and $\mathcal{V}$ an $F$-subspace of $\mathcal{N}$ by the formula $$\sigma(\phi,\mathcal{V})=(-\phi^\sigma,\mathcal{V}^\sigma).$$ Then Lemma \[lemma pro p action with involution\] implies:
\[lemme existence de polarisations stables\] Let $(\phi,\lN')$ be a polarized pair for $\lN$. Then $\sigma(\phi,\lN')$ and $(\phi,\lN')$ are in the same ${\mathrm{U}}$-orbit if and only if there is a $\sigma$-fixed polarized pair in the ${\mathrm{U}}$-orbit of $(\phi,\lN')$.
Finally we have:
\[lemma orbits of distinguished polarizations\] Let $(\phi,\lN')$ and $(\phi',\lN'')$ be two $\sigma$-fixed ${\mathrm{U}}$-conjugate polarized pairs for $\lN$, then they are ${\mathrm{U}}^\sigma$-conjugate.
It follows from the polar decomposition as in [@B1 Lemma 4.3.1, b)]. Note that in the proof of ibid. it is enough to argue that if $u^2$ is in the stabilizer of $\phi$, then clearly $u$ is because the stabilizer in question is unipotent as well (so that $u \mapsto u^2$ is a bijection of it).
Distinction, conjugate self-duality and multiplicity one {#section distinction}
========================================================
We now recover the results we are interested in from [@B1] and [@B2], with the same proofs. Multiplicity one and conjugate self-duality for distinguished representations of ${\mathrm{U}}$ follow from the Gelfand-Kazhdan argument, or more precisely its simplification by Bernstein-Zelevinsky ([@BZ76]). We indeed notice that the space of double cosets $${\mathrm{U}}^{\sigma}\backslash {\mathrm{U}}/{\mathrm{U}}^{\sigma}$$ is fixed by the anti-involution $$\theta(g)\rightarrow \sigma(g)^{-1}$$ thanks to Lemma \[lemme polar dec\]. In particular any bi-${\mathrm{U}}^\sigma$-invariant distribution on ${\mathrm{U}}$ is fixed by $\theta$ thanks to [@BZ76 Theorems 6.13 and 6.15]. This implies as in [@GK], or more precisely as in [@Ptri Lemma 4.2], that for any irreducible representation $\pi\in \Irr({\mathrm{U}})$ one has $$\dim({\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathrm{U}}^\sigma}(\pi,{\mathbb{C}}))\dim({\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathrm{U}}^\sigma}(\pi^\vee,{\mathbb{C}}))\leq 1.$$
\[prop mult 1\] For $\pi\in \Irr_{{\mathrm{U}}^\sigma}({\mathrm{U}})$ one has $\dim({\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathrm{U}}^\sigma}(\pi,{\mathbb{C}}))\leq 1$ and $\pi^\vee\simeq \pi^\sigma$.
Suppose that $\pi$ is distinguished and take $L\in {\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathrm{U}}^\sigma}(\pi,{\mathbb{C}})-\{0\}$. Because $\pi$ is unitary its contragredient $\pi^\vee$ it is isomorphic to $\overline{\pi}$ where $\overline{\pi}=c\circ \pi\circ c^{-1}$ with $c$ the complex conjugation on the space of $\pi$ obtained by the choice of a basis of this space. In particular $\overline{L}=L\circ c^{-1}\in {\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathrm{U}}^\sigma}(\overline{\pi},{\mathbb{C}})$. Then for any the map $$T_{L,\overline{L}}:f\in \mathcal{C}_c^\infty({\mathrm{U}})\mapsto \overline{L}((\pi(f) L)$$ is a bi-${\mathrm{U}}^\sigma$-invariant hence fixed by $\theta$. We conclude by applying [@H Lemma 3] (where we take ${\mathrm{H}}_1={\mathrm{H}}_2={\mathrm{U}}^{\sigma}$ and $\chi_2(zu^+)=\chi_1(zu^+)=c_\pi(z)$ for $u^+\in {\mathrm{U}}^{\sigma}$ and $z\in {\mathrm{Z}}$, remembering that $c_\pi$ is necessarily trivial on ${\mathrm{Z}}^\sigma$).
Denote by $\mathcal{P}^\sigma(\lN)$ the set of $\sigma$-fixed polarized pairs for $\lN$. It is a set acted upon by ${\mathrm{U}}^\sigma$.
\[thm distinction and sel-duality\] A representation $\pi\in \Irr_{{\mathrm{U}}^\sigma}({\mathrm{U}})$ is distinguished if and only $\pi^\vee=\pi^\sigma$. Moreover the map ${\mathrm{U}}^{\sigma}.(\phi,\lN')\mapsto \pi({\mathrm{U}},{\mathrm{U}}',\psi_{\phi})$ is a bijection from ${\mathrm{U}}^\sigma\backslash \mathcal{P}^\sigma(\lN)$ to $\Irr_{{\mathrm{U}}^\sigma}({\mathrm{U}})$.
Suppose that $\pi=\pi({\mathrm{U}}',{\mathrm{U}},\psi_{\phi})\in \Irr({\mathrm{U}})$ is conjugate self-dual, then $\sigma (\phi,\lN')$ and $(\phi',\lN)$ are in the same ${\mathrm{U}}$ orbit, which must contain a $\sigma$-fixed polar pair for $\lN$ thanks to Lemma \[lemme existence de polarisations stables\]. So we can in fact suppose that $(\phi,\lN')$ is fixed by $\sigma$. Seeing $\psi_\phi$ as a character of the abelianization ${\mathrm{U}}'^{{{\operatorname{ab}}}}$ of ${\mathrm{U}}'$, because $\phi^\sigma=-\phi$ the character $\psi_{\phi}$ is conjugate self-dual. However from Lemma \[lemme polar dec\] and the fact that $u\mapsto u^2$ is a bijection of $({\mathrm{U}}'^{{{\operatorname{ab}}}})^\sigma$, the map $u\mapsto \sigma(u)u$ is surjective on $({\mathrm{U}}'^{{{\operatorname{ab}}}})^\sigma$. So the character $\psi_{\phi}$ is $({\mathrm{U}}'^{{{\operatorname{ab}}}})^\sigma$-distinguished, so that $\psi_{\phi}$ is ${\mathrm{U}}'^\sigma$-distinguished. Then $\pi$ is distinguished, with explicit linear nonzero ${\mathrm{U}}^\sigma$-invariant linear form given on $\pi$ by $$\lambda:f\mapsto \int_{{\mathrm{U}}'^\sigma\backslash {\mathrm{U}}^\sigma} f(u)du.$$ To finish the proof it remains to prove the injectivity of the map ${\mathrm{U}}^{\sigma}.(\phi,\lN')\mapsto \pi({\mathrm{U}},{\mathrm{U}}',\psi_{\phi})$, which is Lemma \[lemma orbits of distinguished polarizations\].
In particular in the case of the Galois involution one gets a bijective correspondence between $\Irr({\mathrm{U}}^\sigma)$ and $\Irr_{{\mathrm{U}}^\sigma}({\mathrm{U}})$. Indeed $\mathbf{U}={\operatorname{Res}}_{E/F}(\mathbf{U}^\sigma)$ for $E$ a quadratic extension of $F$. Writing ${\delta}$ for an element of $E-F$ with square in $F$. One can identify $\mathcal{P}^\sigma(\lN)$ to the set $\mathcal{P}(\lN^\sigma)$ by the map $$\mathrm{C}: (\phi_\sigma,\lN_\sigma')\rightarrow (\phi,\lN')$$ where $$\lN'=\lN_\sigma'\otimes E$$ and $$\phi(N+{\delta}N')=\phi(N').$$ This yields:
\[cor correspondence\] When $E/F$ is a Galois involution, the map $\pi({\mathrm{U}}_\sigma',{\mathrm{U}}^\sigma,\psi_{\phi_\sigma})\rightarrow \pi({\mathrm{U}}',{\mathrm{U}},\psi_{\phi})$ is a bijective correspondence from $\Irr_{{\mathrm{U}}^\sigma}$ to $\Irr_{{\mathrm{U}}^\sigma-\mathrm{dist}}({\mathrm{U}})$
**Acknowledgements**. We thank Dipendra Prasad for useful comments on a previous version of this note concerned only with Galois involutions, and Abderrazak Bouaziz for bringing the papers [@B1] and [@B2] to our attention, which lead to the actual version of this note. We thank Maarten Solleveld for numerous useful comments and for pointing out a mistake in a previous version of Lemma \[lemma pro p action with involution\], and Ahmed Moussaoui for his help in finding a reference.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'E.V. Vetchanin$^1$, A.A. Kilin$^2$'
title: Control of body motion in an ideal fluid using the internal mass and the rotor in the presence of circulation around the body
---
$^1$ Kalashnikov Izhevsk State Technical University
$^2$ Udmurt State University
**Abstract.** In this paper we study the controlled motion of an arbitrary two-dimensional body in an ideal fluid with a moving internal mass and an internal rotor in the presence of constant circulation around the body. We show that by changing the position of the internal mass and by rotating the rotor, the body can be made to move to a given point, and discuss the influence of nonzero circulation on the motion control. We have found that in the presence of circulation around the body the system cannot be completely stabilized at an arbitrary point of space, but fairly simple controls can be constructed to ensure that the body moves near the given point.
Introduction
============
The problem of the motion of a rigid body in an ideal fluid is a classical problem of hydrodynamics and has been studied for a long time. Many significant results were obtained within the model of an ideal fluid by Kirchhoff [@Kirchhoff], Lamb [@Lamb], Chaplygin [@Chaplygin], and Steklov [@Steklov]. For a modern qualitative analysis of the motion of a rigid body in an ideal fluid, see [@Bor_Mam_2006; @BorKozMam_2007; @cite_23]. From a practical point of view, it is interesting to study the problem of controllable motion of a rigid body in a fluid. Viscosity is of significant importance for producing traction force [@Childress; @VMT_2013], but some interesting control methods can be explained using ideal fluid theory. For instance, a theoretical proof of the propulsion of a body by moving the internal masses is given in [@Kozlov_2001]. The results of [@Kozlov_2001] are extended in [@Kilin_Ram_Ten; @Kozlov_2003]. Another method of moving the body involves changing the gyrostatic momentum using the rotation of internal rotors. The application of rotors for the stabilization of motion of an underwater vehicle is examined in [@Woolsey_Leonard_2002]. Issues of the stability of equilibria of a neutral buoyancy underwater vehicle are considered in [@Leonard_Marsden; @Leonard]. Results of advanced investigations of the control of nonholonomic systems by means of internal rotors are presented in [@Bolotin; @BKM_Chap_2012; @BKM_Chap_2013; @Ivanov_2013; @Svinin_2012].
When the body’s motion in an ideal fluid is examined, nonzero circulation of the velocity of a fluid around the body is sometimes assumed. Such a problem statement goes back to Zhukovskii and Chaplygin and explains the lift force acting on the wing. The nonzero circulation results in the appearance of gyroscopic forces acting on the body [@Bor_Mam_2006], which change the dynamics of the system significantly. The controlled motion using an internal rotor changing the proper gyrostatic momentum of the system and using a Flettner rotor changing the circulation around the body is considered in [@Ram_Ten_Tre]. In [@Vetchanin_Kilin], analysis of the free motion of a hydrodynamically asymmetric body in an ideal fluid in the presence of circulation is performed and the controllability of the motion by changing the position of the center of mass of the system is proved.
An essential part of the investigation of the controlled motion is the proof of the possibility of control. In [@BKM_Chap_2012; @Kozlov_2001; @Murray_Sastry_1993; @Vetchanin_Kilin] the Rashevskii–Chow theorem is used to prove controllability [@Agrachev_Sachkov_2004]. In the original form this theorem applies only to driftless systems. In cases where the system is subject to drift, a modification of the Rashevskii–Chow theorem is used for the proof of controllability [@Bonnard]. In addition to the requirements of the initial theorem, the requirements of the modification involve proving the Poisson stability of drift. This modification was applied, for example, in [@Crouch].
The investigation of controlled motion leads to the operation speed problem. For example, it is of interest to construct time-optimal controls [@Leonard_Optimal; @Chyba_Leonard_Sontag]. For various aspects of control theory, see [@Agrachev_Sachkov_2004; @Jurdjevic].
This paper is an extension of [@Vetchanin_Kilin], but in contrast to the previous paper, we are concerned with a combined control scheme which uses the motion of the internal mass and rotation of the internal rotor. In Section 2, equations of motion and their first integrals are presented. In Section 3 the controllability is proved. It is shown that although controllability can be achieved by using the rotor alone, it is not constructive since it depends considerably on the drift. Note that in this case nonzero circulation facilitates controllability. Therefore, we have proved the controllability by means of the internal mass and the internal rotor in the following cases: the internal mass moves in a circle (cam), and the internal mass moves in a straight line (slider). These motion patterns have been selected because of ease of technical implementation. In Section 4, we show a negative influence of circulation, which leads to the necessity of applying controls to stabilize the body at the end point of the trajectory. In the previous paper [@Vetchanin_Kilin] we have shown that the internal mass needs to be moved uniformly in a straight line to ensure that the body is stabilized at a given point. Since the motion of the internal mass is bounded by the body’s boundary, this method of stabilization is not reasonable. In view of the above, it is proposed to ensure, by using controls, zero translational velocity of the body with its angular velocity being nonzero. The necessary calculations are presented in Appendices A and B.
The mathematical model
======================
Consider the two-dimensional problem of motion in an infinite volume of an ideal incompressible fluid of a hydrodynamically asymmetric body with mass $M$ and central moment of inertia $I$ (see Fig. \[frames\]).
![Body with an internal mass and an internal rotor[]{data-label="frames"}](pic1.eps){width="0.5\linewidth"}
The body carries a particle of mass $m$ and a rotor with mass $m_r$ and central moment of inertia $I_r$. The motion of the particle is limited by the shell, but the particle follows an arbitrary smooth trajectory ${{\boldsymbol \rho}}=(\xi(t),\, \eta(t))$. The rotor has the shape of a circular cylinder, is homogeneous, rotates with angular velocity $\Omega(t)$; its axis of rotation is perpendicular to the plane of motion of the body and passes through the center of mass of the rotor. We assume that there is a nonzero and constant (by the Lagrange theorem) circulation $\Gamma$ of the fluid velocity around the body.
To describe the motion of the system, we introduce two Cartesian coordinate systems: a fixed one, $Oxy$, and a moving one, $O_1\xi\eta$, attached to the body (see Fig. \[frames\]). Point $O_1$ coincides with the position of the center of mass of the body–rotor system. The position of the body in absolute space is characterized by the radius vector ${{\boldsymbol r}}= (x,\, y)$ and the angle of rotation $\alpha$ of the moving coordinate system relative to the fixed coordinate system. Thus, the configuration space of the system is $\mathcal{H} = \mathbb{R}^2 \times \mathbb{S}^1$, and the pair $({{\boldsymbol r}},\, \alpha)$ completely specifies the position and orientation of the body.
Let ${{\boldsymbol v}}= (v_1,\, v_2)$ denote the absolute velocity of point $O_1$ of the body referred to the axes of the moving coordinate system and $\omega$ the angular velocity of the body. Then the following kinematic relations hold: $$\begin{gathered}
\dot{{{\boldsymbol q}}} = {{\bold Q}}{{\boldsymbol w}}, \quad {{\bold Q}}= \begin{pmatrix}
\cos \alpha & -\sin \alpha & 0\\
\sin \alpha & \cos \alpha & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}\label{kinem}\end{gathered}$$ where ${{\boldsymbol q}}= (x,\, y,\, \alpha)$ is the vector of generalized coordinates and ${{\boldsymbol w}}= (v_1,\, v_2,\, \omega)$ is the vector of quasi-velocities.
We specify the position of the body’s center of mass (point $O_b$) by the radius vector $(\xi_b,\, \eta_b)$ and the position of the rotor’s center of mass (point $O_r$) by the radius vector $(\xi_r,\, \eta_r)$. In the chosen coordinate system the coordinates of points $O_b$ and $O_r$ are related by $$\begin{gathered}
M \xi_b + m_r \xi_r =0,\quad M \eta_b + m_r \eta_r =0.\nonumber\end{gathered}$$ The expressions for the kinetic energy of the body $T_b$, the internal mass $T_m$, the internal rotor $T_r$ and the fluid $T_f$ have the form $$\begin{gathered}
T_b = \frac{1}{2} M \left( (v_1-\eta_b \omega)^2 + (v_2+\xi_b\omega)^2\right) + \frac{1}{2} I \omega^2, \nonumber\\
T_m = \frac{1}{2} m \left( (v_1 +\dot{\xi} - \eta \omega)^2 + (v_2 + \dot{\eta} + \xi \omega)^2 \right), \nonumber\\
T_r = \frac{1}{2} m_r \left( (v_1 - \eta_r \omega)^2 + (v_2 + \xi_r\omega)^2 \right) + \frac{1}{2} I_r (\omega + \Omega)^2 , \nonumber\\
T_f = \frac{1}{2}\lambda_1 v_1^2 + \frac{1}{2} \lambda_2 v_2^2 + \frac{1}{2} \lambda_6 \omega^2, \nonumber\end{gathered}$$ where $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ are the added masses ($\lambda_1 \neq \lambda_2$), $\lambda_6$ is the added moment of inertia, and $\xi(t)$, $\eta(t)$, $\Omega(t)$ are known functions of time which play the role of controls in the system considered. With our choice of the origin of the moving coordinate system, the kinetic energy of the entire system is defined, up to the known functions of time, by the following expression: $$\begin{gathered}
T = \frac{1}{2} \left({{\bold A}}{{\boldsymbol w}},\, {{\boldsymbol w}}\right) + \left({{\boldsymbol u}},\, {{\boldsymbol w}}\right),\\
{{\bold A}}= \begin{pmatrix}
a_1 & 0 & f\\
0 & a_2 & g\\
f & g & b
\end{pmatrix}, \quad {{\boldsymbol u}}= \begin{pmatrix}
m \dot{\xi}\\
m \dot{\eta}\\
m (\xi \dot{\eta} - \dot{\xi} \eta) + I_r \Omega
\end{pmatrix}, \nonumber\\
a_1 = M + m + m_r + \lambda_1,\quad a_2 = M + m + m_r + \lambda_2, \nonumber \\
b = M (\xi_b^2 + \eta_b^2) + I + m(\xi^2 + \eta^2) + m_r (\xi_r^2 + \eta_r^2) + I_r + \lambda_6, \quad f = -m \eta,\quad g = m \xi.\nonumber\end{gathered}$$
The equations of motion of the system incorporating forces due to circulation around the body have the form $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{gathered}
\frac{d}{dt}\left( \frac{\partial T}{\partial v_1} \right) = \omega \frac{\partial T}{\partial v_2} - \lambda v_2 -\zeta \omega,\\
\frac{d}{dt}\left( \frac{\partial T}{\partial v_2} \right) =- \omega \frac{\partial T}{\partial v_1} + \lambda v_1 + \chi \omega,\\
\frac{d}{dt}\left( \frac{\partial T}{\partial \omega} \right) = v_2 \frac{\partial T}{\partial v_1} - v_1 \frac{\partial T}{\partial v_2} +\zeta v_1 - \chi v_2,
\end{gathered}\label{T_eq}\end{gathered}$$ where $\lambda = \rho \Gamma$, $\zeta = \rho \Gamma \mu$, $\chi = \rho \Gamma \nu$, and $\mu$, $\nu$ are the coefficients associated with the hydrodynamical asymmetry of the body [@Chaplygin].
Equations can be written in the form of Poincaré equations on the group $E(2)$ $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{gathered}
\frac{d}{dt}\left( \frac{\partial L}{\partial v_1} \right) = \omega \frac{\partial L}{\partial v_2} + \cos\alpha \frac{\partial L}{\partial x} + \sin\alpha \frac{\partial L}{\partial y},\\
\frac{d}{dt}\left( \frac{\partial L}{\partial v_2} \right) = - \omega \frac{\partial L}{\partial v_1} - \sin\alpha \frac{\partial L}{\partial x} + \cos\alpha \frac{\partial L}{\partial y},\\
\frac{d}{dt}\left( \frac{\partial L}{\partial \omega} \right) = v_2 \frac{\partial L}{\partial v_1} - v_1 \frac{\partial L}{\partial v_2} + \frac{\partial L}{\partial \alpha}
\end{gathered}\label{L_eq}\end{gathered}$$ with Lagrangian $$\begin{gathered}
L = \frac{1}{2} \left({{\bold A}}{{\boldsymbol w}},\, {{\boldsymbol w}}\right) + \left( {{\boldsymbol c}},\, {{\boldsymbol w}}\right) + \left({{\boldsymbol u}},\, {{\boldsymbol w}}\right),\\
{{\boldsymbol c}}= \begin{pmatrix}
- \frac{\lambda}{2}(x\sin\alpha -y \cos \alpha)\\
-\frac{\lambda}{2} (x\cos \alpha + y\sin \alpha)\\
-\chi (x\sin\alpha -y\cos\alpha)-\zeta(x\cos\alpha+y\sin\alpha)
\end{pmatrix}.\nonumber\end{gathered}$$
Equations , form a closed system of six equations $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{gathered}
\frac{d}{d t} (a_1 v_1 + f \omega + m \dot{\xi}) = \omega (a_2 v_2 + g \omega + m \dot{\eta}) - \lambda v_2 - \zeta \omega, \\
\frac{d}{d t} (a_2 v_2 + g \omega + m \dot{\eta}) = -\omega (a_1 v_1 + f \omega + m \dot{\xi}) + \lambda v_1 + \chi \omega,\\
\begin{split}
\frac{d}{dt} (f v_1 + g v_2 + b \omega + m (\xi \dot{\eta} - \eta \dot{\xi}) + I_r \Omega) = {} & {} \\
= v_2 (a_1 v_1 + f \omega + m \dot{\xi}) - {} & {} v_1 (a_2 v_2 + g \omega + m \dot{\eta}) + \zeta v_1 - \chi v_2,
\end{split}\\
\frac{d x}{dt} = v_1 \cos \alpha - v_2 \sin \alpha,\quad \frac{d y}{dt} = v_1 \sin \alpha + v_2 \cos\alpha,\quad \frac{d \alpha}{dt} = \omega
\end{gathered}\label{exp_full}\end{gathered}$$ in the variables $v_1$, $v_2$, $\omega$, $x$, $y$, $\alpha$ and completely describe the motion of the system considered.
For the case of a freely moving system, i.e., for $\dot{\xi} = \dot{\eta} = 0$, $\Omega = 0$, equations admit the first integrals [@Chaplygin; @Bor_Mam_2006] $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{gathered}
p_x = \left( \frac{\partial L}{\partial v_1} - \chi \right) \cos\alpha - \left( \frac{\partial L}{\partial v_2} - \zeta \right) \sin\alpha + \frac{\lambda}{2}y,\\
p_y = \left( \frac{\partial L}{\partial v_1} - \chi \right) \sin\alpha + \left( \frac{\partial L}{\partial v_2} - \zeta \right) \cos\alpha - \frac{\lambda}{2}x,\\
K = x p_y - y p_x + \frac{\partial L}{\partial \omega} + \frac{\lambda }{2} (x^2 + y^2) - c_3.
\end{gathered}\label{imp_int}\end{gathered}$$ These integrals are generalized to the case of controlled motion and can be written in explicit form as follows: $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{gathered}
p_x = (a_1 v_1 + f\omega + u_1 - \chi) \cos\alpha - (a_2 v_2 + g\omega + u_2 - \zeta)\sin\alpha + \lambda y,\\
p_y = (a_1 v_1 + f\omega + u_1 - \chi) \sin\alpha + (a_2 v_2 + g\omega + u_2 - \zeta)\cos\alpha - \lambda x,\\
K = f v_1 + g v_2 + b \omega + u_3 + \frac{\lambda}{2}(x^2+y^2)+x p_y - y p_x.
\end{gathered}\label{exp_int}\end{gathered}$$ The integrals $p_x$, $p_y$, $K$ have the meaning of the linear and angular momentum components of the body + control elements + fluid system and are a generalization of the integrals for a system with moving internal masses [@Kozlov_2001].
Note that contains only the derivative $\dot\Omega$ (and not the angular velocity $\Omega$ itself), hence, the rotor rotating with constant angular velocity does not influence the dynamics of the system.
+
Controllability
===============
To prove the controllability of motion on the fixed level set of first integrals, we shall use a modification of the Rashevskii-Chow theorem [@Agrachev_Sachkov_2004; @Chow_1939; @Rashevskii] for systems with drift[^1] [@Bonnard]. This theorem requires, in addition to completeness of the linear span of the vector fields and their commutators, that there exists everywhere a dense set of Poisson stable points for the free motion (drift) in the phase space of the system.
The issue of Poisson stability of drift is considered in our previous paper [@Vetchanin_Kilin]. In particular, it was shown that on the common level set of the integrals $p_x$ and $p_y$ the velocities $v_1$, $v_2$, and $\omega$ are related to the coordinates $x$ and $y$ by $$\begin{gathered}
(a_1 v_1 + f \omega - \chi)^2 + (a_2 v_2 + g \omega - \zeta)^2 = (p_x - \lambda y)^2 + (p_y + \lambda x)^2 \label{eq.compactness}\end{gathered}$$ It is clear from that the free motion is bounded by a circular region whose size and position depend on the level of the kinetic energy of the system $T$, the level sets of the integrals $p_x$ and $p_y$, the body geometry and circulation. In addition, the system of equations and is integrable; hence, by the Poincaré recurrence theorem [@Arnold], the free motion of the system is Poisson stable. Therefore, in what follows we shall investigate only the issue of completeness of the linear span of the vector fields and their commutators.
In [@Vetchanin_Kilin] the controllability of motion by means of an internal mass capable of moving arbitrarily inside the body is proved. Therefore, an analogous system to which an internal rotor is added is controllable as well. In this section we prove controllability for two particular cases in which the following restrictions are imposed on possible motions of the internal mass:
1. The internal mass is fixed.
2. The internal mass moves along a given curve.
The case of a fixed internal mass {#subsec_rot}
---------------------------------
Let us examine the controllability of the system’s motion only by changing the rotation of the rotor. In this case, $\dot{\xi} = \dot{\eta} = 0$, and the equations of motion and the first integrals are $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{gathered}
\frac{d}{dt}\left( a_1 v_1 + f\omega \right) = \omega (a_2 v_2 + g \omega) - \lambda v_2 -\zeta \omega,\\
\frac{d}{dt}\left( a_2 v_2 + g\omega \right) = - \omega (a_1 v_1 + f \omega) + \lambda v_1 + \chi \omega,\\
\frac{d}{dt}\left( f v_1 + g v_2 + b \omega + I_r \Omega \right) = v_2 (a_1 v_1 + f \omega) - v_1 (a_2 v_2 + g \omega) +\zeta v_1 - \chi v_2
\end{gathered}\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{gathered}
p_x = (a_1 v_1 + f\omega - \chi) \cos\alpha - (a_2 v_2 + g\omega - \zeta)\sin\alpha + \lambda y,\\
p_y = (a_1 v_1 + f\omega - \chi) \sin\alpha + (a_2 v_2 + g\omega - \zeta)\cos\alpha - \lambda x,\\
K = f v_1 + g v_2 + b \omega + I_r \Omega + \frac{\lambda}{2}(x^2+y^2)+x p_y - y p_x.
\end{gathered}\label{exp_int1}\end{gathered}$$
From the integrals $p_x$, $p_y$, and $K$ we express the velocities $$\begin{gathered}
{{\boldsymbol w}}= {{\bold A}}^{-1} \begin{pmatrix}
{\overline{x}} \cos\alpha + {\overline{y}}\sin\alpha + \chi\\
-{\overline{x}} \sin\alpha + {\overline{y}}\cos\alpha + \zeta\\
F - \frac{1}{2\lambda}({\overline{x}}^2 + {\overline{y}}^2) - I_r \Omega
\end{pmatrix},\label{vel_rot}\end{gathered}$$ where ${\overline{x}} = p_x - \lambda y$, ${\overline{y}} = p_y + \lambda x$, $F = \dfrac{2 K \lambda + p_x^2 + p_y^2}{2\lambda}$. Substituting into the kinematic relations , we obtain the equations of motion for the body on the fixed level set of the integrals $p_x$, $p_y$, $K$ in a standard form linear in the controls $$\begin{gathered}
\dot{{{\boldsymbol q}}} = {{\boldsymbol V}}_0({{\boldsymbol q}}) + {{\boldsymbol V}}_1 \Omega, \label{rot_cont}\\
{{\boldsymbol V}}_0({{\boldsymbol q}}) = {{\bold S}}\left( {\overline{x}} \cos \alpha + {\overline{y}} \sin\alpha + \chi,\; -{\overline{x}} \sin\alpha + {\overline{y}} \cos\alpha + \zeta,\; F - \frac{1}{2\lambda} ({\overline{x}}^2 + {\overline{y}}^2) \right)^T , \nonumber\\
{{\boldsymbol V}}_1 = {{\bold S}}(0,\; 0,\; -I_r)^T, \quad {{\bold S}}= {{\bold Q}}{{\bold A}}^{-1}.\nonumber\end{gathered}$$ Here the angular velocity of rotation of the rotor $\Omega$ is considered as control, the vector field ${{\boldsymbol V}}_0$ corresponds to the free motion (drift), and the vector field ${{\boldsymbol V}}_1$ is related to the control action. Consider the vector fields $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{gathered}
{{\boldsymbol V}}_0,\quad {{\boldsymbol V}}_1, \quad {{\boldsymbol V}}_{2}=\left[ {{\boldsymbol V}}_0,\, {{{\boldsymbol V}}}_1 \right], \quad {{\boldsymbol V}}_{3} =\left[{{\boldsymbol V}}_2,\, {{{\boldsymbol V}}}_1 \right],
\end{gathered} \label{rot_vect}\end{gathered}$$ where $\left[ \cdot,\, \cdot \right]$ is the Lie bracket. The rank of the linear span of the vector fields ${{\boldsymbol V}}_0,\, {{\boldsymbol V}}_1,\, {{\boldsymbol V}}_3$ is equal to three everywhere except on the surface given by $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{gathered}
2 (a_2^2 - a_1^2) \left( ({\overline{x}}^2 - {\overline{y}}^2) \sin\alpha \cos\alpha - {\overline{x}}{\overline{y}}(\cos^2\alpha-\sin^2\alpha) \right) + \\
+ a_1 (2a_1 - a_2) \zeta ({\overline{y}}\sin\alpha + {\overline{x}}\cos\alpha) + a_2 (2 a_2 - a_1) \chi ({\overline{x}} \sin\alpha - {\overline{y}} \cos\alpha) = 0.
\end{gathered}\label{surf1}\end{gathered}$$ In a similar way, the rank of the linear span of the vector fields ${{\boldsymbol V}}_1,\, {{\boldsymbol V}}_2,\, {{\boldsymbol V}}_3$ is equal to three everywhere except on the surface given by $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{gathered}
a_1^2 \zeta^2 + a_2^2 \chi^2 + 2 (a_1 - a_2)^2 ({\overline{x}}^2 + {\overline{y}}^2) + \\
+ 3a_1 (a_2 - a_1) \zeta ({\overline{x}}\sin\alpha - {\overline{y}}\cos\alpha) + 3 a_2 (a_2 - a_1) \chi ({\overline{y}} \sin\alpha + {\overline{x}}\cos\alpha)=0.
\end{gathered}\label{surf2}\end{gathered}$$
The expressions and hold in the case where the moving coordinate system is chosen such that the matrix ${{\bold A}}$ takes the diagonal form ${{\bold A}}= {\mathrm{diag}\,}(a_1,\, a_2,\, b)$.
It is easy to show that the surfaces and intersect along the curves $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{gathered}
{\overline{x}} = \left(\tau_1 + \tau_2 \right)\sin \alpha + \left(\tau_1 - \tau_2 \right)\cos \alpha,\\
{\overline{y}} = - \left(\tau_1 + \tau_2 \right)\cos \alpha + \left(\tau_1 - \tau_2 \right)\sin \alpha,
\end{gathered}\label{low_curve}\end{gathered}$$ where $\tau_1$ and $\,\tau_2$ are the solution of the system of equations $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{gathered}
\left( 8 \vert a_2 - a_1 \vert \tau_1 + 3 (a_1 \zeta + a_2 \chi) \right)^2 + \left( 8 \vert a_2 - a_1 \vert \tau_2 + 3 (a_1 \zeta - a_2 \chi) \right)^2 - 2 \left( a_1^2 \zeta^2 + a_2^2 \chi^2 \right) = 0,\\
\left(\tau_1 + \frac{a_2 (2a_2 - a_1) \chi + a_1 (2a_1 - a_2) \zeta}{8 (a_2^2 - a_1^2)} \right)^2- \left(\tau_2 - \frac{a_2 (2a_2 - a_1) \chi - a_1 (2a_1 - a_2) \zeta}{8 (a_2^2 - a_1^2)} \right)^2 - \\
\\ - \frac{4a_1 a_2 (2a_2 - a_1) (2a_1 - a_2) \chi \zeta}{16 (a_2^2 - a_1^2)} = 0.
\end{gathered}\label{rot_sing}\end{gathered}$$ Thus, in the configuration space $\mathcal{H}$ the dimension of the linear span of the vector fields is equal to three everywhere except along the curves . Since the above curves are the surfaces of codimension two, the following theorem holds.
\[theo.rotor\] An arbitrary body moving in a fluid (in the presence of circulation around the body) with a given initial velocity can be moved by an appropriate rotation of the internal rotor from any initial position to any end position.
We note that the controllability proved in Theorem \[theo.rotor\] is formal. Indeed, to construct control, the Rashevskii–Chow theorem uses the motion along the vector fields in both forward and backward time. When there is a drift, the motion along it is possible only in forward time. The motion in backward time is implemented by using the recurrence property of the trajectories. However, the calculation of the recurrence period in specific systems can be a fairly complicated problem (which can even defy a solution, for example, in the case of chaotic systems with measure), and the period itself can be very large or even tend to infinity. Thus, an appropriate construction of such controls is impossible.
For the chosen control method the presence of circulation is a necessary condition for controllability. Indeed, it is easy to show that for $\Gamma = 0$ the system becomes uncontrollable in the sense of Rashevskii–Chow. On the other hand, it follows from that the drift caused by circulation cannot be completely compensated for by rotating the rotor. Therefore, in what follows we consider a combined model of controlling by both the rotor and the moving internal mass.
The case of motion of the internal mass along a given curve
-----------------------------------------------------------
We shall assume that the internal mass can move only along some curve ${{\boldsymbol \rho}}= (\xi(s), \eta(s))$, where $s$ is a parameter of the curve. From the integrals we express the velocities $$\begin{gathered}
{{\boldsymbol w}}= {{\bold A}}^{-1} \begin{pmatrix}
\overline{x} \cos \alpha + \overline{y} \sin \alpha + \chi - m \frac{d \xi}{d s} \dot{s}\\
-\overline{x} \sin \alpha + \overline{y} \cos\alpha + \zeta - m \frac{d \eta}{d s} \dot{s}\\
F - \frac{\overline{x}^2+\overline{y}^2}{2\lambda} - m (\xi \frac{d \eta}{d s} - \eta \frac{d \xi}{ds}) \dot{s} - I_r \Omega
\end{pmatrix}. \label{veloc}\end{gathered}$$ Substituting into the kinematic relations , we obtain the equations of motion for the body on the fixed level set of the integrals . These equations depend on both the position $s$ of the mass on the curve and its velocity $\dot{s}$. Applying the standard method for phase space extension (Goh transformation [@Bonnard_Chyba]), we obtain the equations of motion in the form linear in the controls $$\begin{gathered}
\dot{{{\boldsymbol z}}} = {{\boldsymbol V}}_0({{\boldsymbol z}})+{{\boldsymbol V}}_1(s) \dot{s} + {{\boldsymbol V}}_2 \Omega, \label{kinem_1}\\
{{\boldsymbol V}}_0({{\boldsymbol z}}) = {{\bold R}}\left( \overline{x} \cos \alpha + \overline{y} \sin \alpha + \chi,\, -\overline{x} \sin \alpha + \overline{y} \cos\alpha + \zeta,\, F - \frac{\overline{x}^2+\overline{y}^2}{2\lambda},\, 0 \right)^T,\nonumber\\
{{\boldsymbol V}}_1(s) = {{\bold R}}\left( -m \frac{d \xi}{ds},\, -m \frac{d \eta}{ds},\, m \left( \eta \frac{d\xi}{ds} - \xi \frac{d \eta}{ds} \right),\, 1 \right)^T,\quad {{\boldsymbol V}}_2 = {{\bold R}}\left(0,\, 0,\, -I_r,\, 0 \right)^T,\nonumber\\
{{\bold R}}= \begin{pmatrix}
{{\bold Q}}{{\bold A}}^{-1} & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}. \nonumber\end{gathered}$$ Here ${{\boldsymbol z}}= (x,\, y,\, \alpha,\, s)^T$ is the vector in the expanded phase space $\mathcal{G}$. Note that not the coordinates of the internal mass, but its velocity of motion along the curve $\dot{s}$ and the angular velocity of the rotor $\Omega$ are taken as controls. The vector field ${{\boldsymbol V}}_0$ corresponds to the drift, and the vector fields ${{\boldsymbol V}}_1$, ${{\boldsymbol V}}_2$ are associated with the control actions. We consider the vector fields $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{gathered}
{{\boldsymbol V}}_1, \quad {{\boldsymbol V}}_2, \quad {{\boldsymbol V}}_3 = [{{\boldsymbol V}}_1,\, {{\boldsymbol V}}_2], \quad {{\boldsymbol V}}_4 = [{{\boldsymbol V}}_1,\, {{\boldsymbol V}}_3], \quad {{\boldsymbol V}}_5 = [{{\boldsymbol V}}_2,\, {{\boldsymbol V}}_3],\quad {{\boldsymbol V}}_6 = [{{\boldsymbol V}}_1,\, {{\boldsymbol V}}_4]
\end{gathered} \label{full_vect}\end{gathered}$$ and show the completeness of their linear span. Here we deliberately do not consider the field ${{\boldsymbol V}}_0$, since in the case of completeness of the linear span of the vector fields we also prove the controllability of motion for the case of zero circulation.
Consider separately two cases where the internal mass can move either along a straight line or along a circle. The choice of these curves is motivated by their simplicity.
1\. We parameterize the reciprocating motion of the internal mass along the straight line as follows: $$\begin{gathered}
\xi = k_1 \sin s,\quad \eta = k_2 \sin s, \label{fb_law}\end{gathered}$$ where $k_1$, $k_2$ are constants that do not vanish simultaneously. In this case, the vector fields ${{\boldsymbol V}}_1$, ${{\boldsymbol V}}_2$, ${{\boldsymbol V}}_3$, ${{\boldsymbol V}}_5$ are dependent for $$\begin{gathered}
s = \pi / 2~\mbox{and}~s = 3\pi / 2. \label{criteria1_full}\end{gathered}$$ On the surfaces given by , the condition of linear dependence of the vector fields ${{\boldsymbol V}}_1$, ${{\boldsymbol V}}_2$, ${{\boldsymbol V}}_4$, ${{\boldsymbol V}}_6$ is $$\begin{gathered}
A \sin\alpha + B\cos\alpha = 0,\label{criteria2_full}\end{gathered}$$ where $A$ and $B$ are the coefficients of rather complicated form which depend only on the system parameters. Thus, the rank of the linear span of the vector fields is four everywhere in the phase space $\mathcal{G}$ except on the surface of codimension two, defined by and . Hence, the following theorem holds.
\[t2\] An arbitrary body moving in a fluid (regardless of the presence of circulation around the body) with a given initial velocity can be moved by means of reciprocating motions of the internal mass and by rotating the internal rotor from any initial position to any final position with any initial and final positions of the internal mass.
2\. We parameterize the motion of the internal mass in a circle as follows: $$\begin{gathered}
\xi = r_o \cos s,\quad \eta = r_o \sin s, \quad r_o > 0.\end{gathered}$$ It is easy to show that in this case the vector fields ${{\boldsymbol V}}_1$, ${{\boldsymbol V}}_2$, ${{\boldsymbol V}}_3$, ${{\boldsymbol V}}_5$ are independent in the entire space $\mathcal{G}$. Hence, the following theorem holds.
\[t3\] An arbitrary body moving in a fluid (regardless of the presence of circulation around the body) with a given initial velocity can be moved by means of the motion of the internal mass in a circle and by rotating the internal rotor from any initial position to any final position with any initial and final positions of the internal mass.
Stabilization of the body at a given point
==========================================
Equations for controls
----------------------
Consider the stabilization of the body at a given point. Without loss of generality we assume that the system has started its motion from the origin of coordinates $x(0) = y(0) = 0$ with the initial orientation $\alpha(0) = 0$, the rotor and the movable mass being at rest. In this case the motion of the system occurs on the level set of the integrals $$\begin{gathered}
p_x = -\chi,\quad p_y = -\zeta,\quad K = 0,\quad F = \frac{\chi^2 + \zeta^2}{2 \lambda}.\end{gathered}$$
Suppose that over some interval the body moved under the control action and came at time $t = T$ to the point $(x,\, y)$ with orientation $\alpha$. Let us formulate the problem of the body stabilization at this point as follows:
*Can one choose limited control actions $\xi(t)$, $\eta(t)$ and $\Omega(t)$ at $t \geqslant T$ such that the body will stay arbitrarily long at point $(x,\, y)$ (possibly rotating about a fixed point).*
If a stabilization occurs without rotation ($\dot{\alpha} = 0$), we shall call it a complete stabilization, while a stabilization occurs with rotation about a fixed point ($\dot{\alpha} \neq 0$) will be called a partial stabilization. We impose the condition of limitation of control actions taking into account the possibility of their technical realization. In particular, the position of the moving mass is restricted by the boundary of the body, and the velocity of its motion and the rotor’s rotation are restricted by the capabilities of the motors.
Since the controlled motion is described by the system of differential equations in the expanded space, this problem may be viewed as a particular case of the problem of controlling *a part* of variables. Therefore, the solution of this problem reduces not to the solution of some system of algebraic equations, but to analysis of differential equations governing the evolution of control actions $\xi(t)$, $\eta(t)$, $\Omega(t)$ and the remaining “free” variable $\alpha(t)$.
To define these equations, we substitute the equalities $\dot{x} = \dot{y} = 0$ into the first three equations of the system . As a result, we obtain the system of differential equations in $\xi(t)$, $\eta(t)$, $\alpha(t)$ which contains an unknown function $\Omega(t)$ $$\begin{gathered}
{{\bold D}}\frac{d}{dt} \begin{pmatrix}
\xi \\ \eta \\ \alpha
\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}
\overline{x} \cos \alpha + \overline{y} \sin \alpha + \chi\\
-\overline{x} \sin \alpha + \overline{y} \cos\alpha + \zeta\\
\frac{\chi^2 + \zeta^2}{2\lambda} - \frac{\overline{x}^2+\overline{y}^2}{2\lambda}
\end{pmatrix} - \begin{pmatrix}
0 \\ 0 \\ I_r\Omega
\end{pmatrix}, \quad {{\bold D}}= \begin{pmatrix}
m & 0 & -m\eta\\
0 & m & m\xi\\
-m\eta & m\xi & b
\end{pmatrix}.\label{stop}\end{gathered}$$ We recall that ${\overline{x}} = p_x - \lambda y$, ${\overline{y}} = p_y + \lambda x$. Making the change of variables $$\begin{gathered}
\xi = \rho \cos \left( \varphi - {\overline{\varphi}} \right), \quad \eta = \rho \sin \left( \varphi - {\overline{\varphi}} \right), \quad \psi = \alpha + \varphi - {\overline{\varphi}} + {\overline{\psi}}, \nonumber\\
{\overline{\psi}} = \arctan \frac{{\overline{x}}}{{\overline{y}}},\quad {\overline{\varphi}} = \arctan \frac{\chi}{\zeta},\nonumber\end{gathered}$$ we can represent equations as $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{gathered}
m\rho\dot{\psi} = r \cos \psi + \sigma \cos \varphi,\\
m \dot{\rho} = r \sin \psi + \sigma \sin \varphi,\\
(m\rho^2 + {\overline{b}}) \dot{\psi} - {\overline{b}} \dot{\varphi} = C_{xy} - I_r \Omega,
\end{gathered}\label{polar_eq}\end{gathered}$$ where we have used the notation $$\begin{gathered}
r = \sqrt{{\overline{x}}^2+{\overline{y}}^2},\quad \sigma = \sqrt{\chi^2 + \zeta^2},\quad C_{xy} = \frac{\sigma^2 - r^2}{2\lambda},\nonumber\\
{\overline{b}} = b - m \rho^2 = M (\xi_b^2 + \eta_b^2) + I + m_r (\xi_r^2 + \eta_r^2) + I_r + \lambda_6. \nonumber\end{gathered}$$ The system contains three equations and four unknown functions $\rho$, $\psi$, $\varphi$, $\Omega$ and cannot be uniquely solved without using additional conditions. In what follows we consider several particular variations of the problem in which an answer to the question raised can be found.
Complete stabilization of the body
----------------------------------
In the case of complete stabilization of the body we assume that the conditions $\dot{x} = \dot{y} = 0$, $\dot{\alpha}=0$ are satisfied at $t > T$. In this case, the following proposition holds.
\[Supp.FullStop\] A complete stabilization of the body during an infinite interval of time is possible if and only if the center of the body (point $O_1$ in Fig. \[frames\]) is on the circle $$\begin{gathered}
x = \frac{\zeta}{\lambda} + \frac{\sqrt{\chi^2 + \zeta^2}}{\lambda} \cos \theta,\quad y = -\frac{\chi}{\lambda} + \frac{\sqrt{\chi^2 + \zeta^2}}{\lambda} \sin \theta,\quad \theta \in [0,\, 2\pi)\label{fixed}
\end{gathered}$$ and its orientation is given by $$\begin{gathered}
\alpha = \theta - \arctan \frac{\zeta}{\chi} - \frac{\pi}{2}.\label{connection}
\end{gathered}$$ The corresponding controls are equal to zero, i.e., the moving mass and the rotor are at rest.
**Necessity.** Setting $\dot{\alpha} = 0$ in , we obtain the equations for the control actions $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{gathered}
m \dot{\xi} = {\overline{x}} \cos \alpha + {\overline{y}} \sin \alpha + \chi,\\
m \dot{\eta} = - {\overline{x}} \sin \alpha + {\overline{y}} \cos \alpha + \zeta,\\
I_r \Omega + m (\xi \dot{\eta} - \dot{\xi} \eta) = \frac{\chi^2 + \zeta^2}{2\lambda} - \frac{{\overline{x}}^2 + {\overline{y}}^2}{2\lambda}.
\end{gathered}\label{full_stop}
\end{gathered}$$ Since the right-hand sides of the first two equations are constant and in the general case are not equal to zero, $\xi$ and $\eta$ are linear functions of time. Hence, at a certain instant of time the internal mass will reach the boundary of the body and will have to stop. Thus, a stabilization during an infinite interval of time is possible only if the right-hand sides of the first two equations of are equal to zero. Setting the right-hand sides of to zero and expressing $x$ and $y$ from them, we obtain the equations for the circle and the relation of the body’s orientation to a point on the circle .
By substituting the resulting coordinates of the points of stabilization into the third equation of , it is easy to check that all controls are equal to zero in this case.
**Sufficiency.** Substituting and into the integrals , we obtain a system of equations of the form $$\begin{gathered}
{{\bold A}}{{\boldsymbol w}}+ {{\boldsymbol u}}= 0.
\end{gathered}$$ The nondegeneracy of the matrix ${{\bold A}}$ implies that when there are no controls (${{\boldsymbol u}}=0$) and the body is at the points with orientation , the body is at rest (${{\boldsymbol w}}= 0$).
For a complete stabilization of the body on the circle the position of the internal mass is inessential.
Since a complete stabilization at an arbitrary point is possible only during a finite interval of time, we consider the partial stabilization, i.e., $\dot{x} = \dot{y} = 0$, $\dot{\alpha} \neq 0$, by using . In particular, we consider separately two cases in which additional restrictions (see Section 3) are imposed on the motion of the internal mass:
1. partial stabilization by rotating the rotor and by moving the internal mass in a circle ($\rho = {\mathrm{const}\,}$).
2. partial stabilization by rotating the rotor and by moving the internal mass along a straight line fixed in the body ($\varphi~=~{\mathrm{const}\,}$).
Partial stabilization at $\rho={\mathrm{const}\,}$
--------------------------------------------------
Consider the partial stabilization in the case where the internal mass can move only in the circle of a given radius. For $\rho = {\overline{\rho}} = {\mathrm{const}\,}$, equations take the form $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{gathered}
m {\overline{\rho}} \dot{\psi} = r \cos \psi + \sigma \cos \varphi,\\
r \sin \psi + \sigma \sin \varphi = 0,\\
(m{\overline{\rho}}^2 + {\overline{b}}) \dot{\psi} - {\overline{b}} \dot{\varphi} = C_{xy} - I_r \Omega.
\end{gathered}\label{rho123}\end{gathered}$$ The first two equations of form a closed system whose solution can yield the functions $\varphi(t)$ and $\psi(t)$. Then, using the known functions $\varphi(t)$ and $\psi(t)$ from the third equation of , we can express the dependence $\Omega(t)$ $$\begin{gathered}
\Omega = \frac{1}{I_r} \left( C_{xy} - \frac{1}{m{\overline{\rho}}} (r \cos \psi + \sigma \cos \varphi) \left( m {\overline{\rho}}^2 + {\overline{b}} + {\overline{b}} \frac{r \cos \psi}{\sigma \cos \varphi} \right) \right).\label{omega_pp}\end{gathered}$$
At the initial instant of time the functions $\varphi$ and $\psi$ must satisfy the second equation of . This condition can be fulfilled by choosing the initial position of the internal mass. The possibility of choosing this initial position is ensured by Theorem \[t3\], from which it follows that we can bring the body to the end point with an arbitrary position of the moving mass.
The solution of the system of equations depends on the relationship between the parameters $r$ and $\sigma$. By a direct substitution it is easy to show that the condition $r = \sigma$ corresponds to the points of the circle . This circle divides the plane $(x,\, y)$ into two regions (see Fig. \[no\_dreif\]), in which the solution of the system is different. Moreover, in what follows we shall prove that the following proposition holds.
![Regions of various solutions[]{data-label="no_dreif"}](pic2.eps){width="0.4\linewidth"}
\[Supp.rhoConst\] A partial stabilization during an infinite interval of time by rotating the rotor and by moving the internal mass in a circle is possible only inside and on the circle $r = \sigma$ (see Fig. \[no\_dreif\])
The proof of Proposition \[Supp.rhoConst\] is given in Appendix А.
Partial stabilization for $\varphi = {\mathrm{const}\,}$
--------------------------------------------------------
Consider a partial stabilization in the case where the internal mass can move only along a straight line fixed in the body. The controllability in this case was proved in Theorem \[t2\]. In the first two equations of we set $\varphi = \varphi _0 = {\mathrm{const}\,}$. Then they take the form $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{gathered}
m \rho \dot{\psi} = r \cos \psi + \sigma \cos \varphi _0, \\
m \dot{\rho} = r \sin \psi + \sigma \sin \varphi _0,
\end{gathered}\label{phi_eq1}\end{gathered}$$ Solving the system , we can obtain the functions $\varphi(t)$, $\rho(t)$. Then, using the known functions $\varphi(t)$ and $\rho(t)$ from the third equation of , we can express the velocity of rotation of the rotor $$\begin{gathered}
\Omega(t) = \frac{1}{I_r} \left( C_{xy} - \frac{m \rho^2 + {\overline{b}} }{m\rho} (r \cos \psi + \sigma \cos \varphi _0) \right)\label{phi_eq3}.\end{gathered}$$
Analysis of equations and shows that the following proposition holds.
\[Supp.phiConst\] A partial stabilization during an infinite interval of time by rotating the rotor and by means of reciprocating motions of the internal mass in a circle is possible only inside and on the circle $r = \sigma$ (see Fig. \[no\_dreif\])
The proof of Proposition \[Supp.phiConst\] is given in Appendix B.
Conclusion
==========
The investigation has shown that the motion of a hydrodynamically asymmetric body in an ideal fluid in the presence of circulation around the body is completely controllable (in the sense of the Rashevskii-Chow theorem) by changing the position of the center of mass (the motion of the internal mass is a motion in a circle or a reciprocating motion) and the angular momentum of the system. Moreover, an arbitrary motion of the system can be performed only by means of an appropriate rotation of the internal rotor.
We have also considered the possibility of compensation of drift by means of control. In particular, it was shown that by means of circular or reciprocating motion of the internal mass and by rotating the rotor the drift can be compensated for during an infinite interval of time if the body is inside some circular region. The center and the radius of this region are defined by the body geometry and by the amount of circulation of the velocity around the body. Outside this region, the drift can be compensated for using the above-mentioned patterns of motion of the internal mass only during a finite interval of time.
We list a number of open problems that must be solved to design real devices:
1. Construction of sufficiently simple and feasible patterns of motion of the internal mass to ensure a complete stabilization of the body at an arbitrary point of space during an infinite interval of time.
2. Construction of explicit control to ensure the motion from one point of space to another.
3. Motion control by variable circulation. For the case where circulation is a piecewise constant function of time, this problem has been solved in [@Ram_Ten_Tre]. In this case, preservation of first integrals of motion was used on the intervals of constant circulation. Of great interest is a more general problem, namely, that of constructing controls by changing circulation according to a smooth law, when the system admits no first integrals of motion.
The authors thank A.V.Borisov and I.S.Mamaev for fruitful discussions.
The work of E.V. Vetchanin was supported by the RFBR grant 15-08-09093-a. The work of A.A. Kilin was supported by the RFBR grant 14-01-00395-a.
Appendix A. Proof of Proposition 4.2
====================================
We break up the proof into three stages.
1\. For $r < \sigma$ the second equation of has two nonintersecting solutions $$\begin{gathered}
\varphi = \begin{cases}
- \arcsin \left( \dfrac{r}{\sigma} \sin \psi \right) \in \left[-\arcsin \dfrac{r}{\sigma},\, \arcsin \dfrac{r}{\sigma} \right] \subset \left[ - \dfrac{\pi}{2},\, \dfrac{\pi}{2} \right]\\
\pi + \arcsin \left( \dfrac{r}{\sigma} \sin \psi \right) \in \left[\pi -\arcsin \dfrac{r}{\sigma},\, \pi + \arcsin \dfrac{r}{\sigma} \right] \subset \left[ \dfrac{\pi}{2},\, \dfrac{3\pi}{2} \right]
\end{cases} \label{Phi_sol}
\end{gathered}$$ where $\psi \in [-\pi,\,\pi]$. The realization of a specific branch of the solution depends on the initial value of $\varphi$, which is determined by the position of the internal mass at the instant of arrival at the point $(x,\, y)$. Moreover, according to Theorem \[t3\] of complete controllability proved above, one can ensure, using appropriate controls, the realization of the required branch of the solution at the initial instant of time.
Consider the branch $\varphi \in \left[-\arcsin \dfrac{r}{\sigma},\, \arcsin \dfrac{r}{\sigma} \right]$. Then $\cos \varphi > 0$, and the first equation of , using the second equation, takes the form $$\begin{gathered}
m {\overline{\rho}} \dot{\psi} = r \cos \psi + \sigma \sqrt{1 - \dfrac{r^2}{\sigma^2} \sin ^2 \psi}.\label{Psi_eq}
\end{gathered}$$ Equation has the following solution: $$\begin{gathered}
E \left( \psi,\, \frac{r}{\sigma} \right) - E \left( \psi _0,\, \frac{r}{\sigma} \right) - \frac{r}{\sigma} (\sin \psi - \sin \psi_0) = \frac{\sigma^2 - r^2}{m {\overline{\rho}} \sigma} t,
\end{gathered}$$ where $E \left( \psi,\, \dfrac{r}{\sigma} \right)$ is the normal elliptic Legendre integral of the second kind. The right-hand side of is positive for any value of the angle $\psi$, hence, the function $\psi(t)$ increases monotonically. For the parameter values $\chi = 0.1$, $\zeta = 0.2$, $\lambda = 1.0$, $I_r = 1.0$, $m = 1.0$, ${\overline{\rho}} = 1.0$, ${\overline{b}} = 2.0$, $x = 0.1$, $y = 0.0$, $\varphi \in \left[-\arcsin \dfrac{r}{\sigma},\, \arcsin \dfrac{r}{\sigma} \right]$ the form of the functions $\psi$, $\varphi$, $\Omega$ is shown in Fig. \[internal\_contol\].
![Form of the functions $\psi$, $\varphi$, $\Omega$ for the parameter values $\chi = 0.1$, $\zeta = 0.2$, $\lambda = 1.0$, $I_r = 1.0$, $m = 1.0$, ${\overline{\rho}} = 1.0$, ${\overline{b}} = 2.0$, $x = 0.1$, $y = 0.0$[]{data-label="internal_contol"}](pic3.eps){width="0.5\linewidth"}
The constructed control is periodic, restricted and ensures a partial stabilization during an arbitrarily long interval of time.
Consider the second branch of the solution $\varphi \in \left[\pi -\arcsin \dfrac{r}{\sigma},\, \pi + \arcsin \dfrac{r}{\sigma} \right]$. The differential equation for the determination of $\psi$ has the form $$\begin{gathered}
m {\overline{\rho}} \dot{\psi} = r \cos \psi - \sigma \sqrt{1 - \dfrac{r^2}{\sigma^2} \sin ^2 \psi}.
\end{gathered}$$ Its solution is expressed, just as for the first branch, in terms of the normal elliptic Legendre integral of the second kind: $$\begin{gathered}
E \left( \psi,\, \frac{r}{\sigma} \right) - E \left( \psi _0,\, \frac{r}{\sigma} \right) + \frac{r}{\sigma} (\sin \psi - \sin \psi_0) = - \frac{\sigma^2 - r^2}{m {\overline{\rho}} \sigma} t.
\end{gathered}$$ A straightforward calculation shows that the controls corresponding to the second branch are restricted during an arbitrarily long interval of time also.
2\. For $r = \sigma$ the second equation of has two solutions $$\begin{gathered}
\varphi = \begin{cases}
\psi + \pi.\\
- \psi
\end{cases}
\end{gathered}$$
If the equality $\varphi = \psi + \pi$ holds at the instant of arrival at a given point of space, then the first equation of takes the form $$\begin{gathered}
m {\overline{\rho}} \dot{\psi} = 0
\end{gathered}$$ i.e., the point $\varphi = \psi + \pi$ is a fixed point of the system. By straightforward calculations one can readily verify that this case corresponds to the solution with $\alpha = {\overline{\varphi}} - {\overline{\psi}} - \pi$.
If the equality $\varphi = -\psi$ holds at the instant of arrival at a given point of space, then the first equation of takes the form $$\begin{gathered}
m {\overline{\rho}} \dot{\psi} = 2 r \cos \psi \label{eq111}
\end{gathered}$$
Equation has two steady-state solutions: a stable one, $\psi _1 = \dfrac{\pi}{2}$, and an unstable one, $\psi _2 = \dfrac{3\pi}{2}$. The general solution of this equation has the form $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{m {\overline{\rho}}}{4 r} \ln \left\vert \frac{1+\sin \psi}{1 - \sin \psi} \right\vert = t + C
\end{gathered}$$ where $C$ is the constant of integration. It is clear from the form of the general solution that the approach to the point $\psi _1$ occurs in infinite time.
The rotational velocity of the rotor can be calculated from the third equation of and takes the form $$\begin{gathered}
\Omega = - \frac{m {\overline{\rho}}^2 + 2 {\overline{b}}}{m {\overline{\rho}} I_r} 2 r \cos \psi,
\end{gathered}$$ whence it is clear that the value of $\Omega$ is finite. Thus, for $r = \sigma$ a stabilization is possible in infinite time.
3\. For $r > \sigma$ it is more convenient to express $\psi$ from the second equation of as follows: $$\begin{gathered}
\psi = \begin{cases}
- \arcsin \left( \dfrac{\sigma}{r} \sin \varphi \right) \in \left[-\arcsin \dfrac{\sigma}{r},\, \arcsin \dfrac{\sigma}{r} \right] \subset \left[ - \dfrac{\pi}{2},\, \dfrac{\pi}{2} \right]\\
\pi + \arcsin \left( \dfrac{\sigma}{r} \sin \varphi \right) \in \left[\pi -\arcsin \dfrac{\sigma}{r},\, \pi + \arcsin \dfrac{\sigma}{r} \right] \subset \left[ \dfrac{\pi}{2},\, \dfrac{3\pi}{2} \right]
\end{cases}\label{Psi_sol}
\end{gathered}$$ where $\varphi \in [-\pi,\,\pi]$. The realization of a specific branch of the solution depends on the initial value of $\psi$, which is defined by the position of the internal mass and by the orientation of the body at the instant of arrival at the point $(x,\, y)$. Moreover, according to Theorem \[t3\] of complete controllability proved above, using a suitable control one can ensure the realization of the required branch of the solution at the initial instant of time. Consider the branch $\psi \in \left[-\arcsin \dfrac{\sigma}{r},\, \arcsin \dfrac{\sigma}{r} \right]$ of the solution . This branch corresponds to the inequality $\cos\psi > 0$, and the differential equation for the determination of $\varphi$ is obtained from the second equation of and has the form $$\begin{gathered}
\left( \frac{\sigma^2 \cos ^2 \varphi}{\sqrt{r^2 - \sigma^2 \sin^2 \varphi}} - \sigma \cos \varphi \right) \dot{\varphi} = \frac{r^2 - \sigma^2}{m {\overline{\rho}}}.\label{eq_Phi1}
\end{gathered}$$ Let us examine the phase trajectories of . To do so, we express $\dot{\varphi}$ as follows: $$\begin{gathered}
\dot{\varphi} = \frac{r^2 - \sigma^2}{2 {\overline{\rho}}} \cdot \frac{\sqrt{r^2 - \sigma^2 \sin ^2 \varphi}}{\sigma \cos \varphi (\sigma \cos \varphi - \sqrt{r^2 - \sigma^2 \sin ^2 \varphi})}\label{phi_phase}
\end{gathered}$$ In the case at hand, $\sigma \cos \varphi - \sqrt{r^2 - \sigma^2 \sin ^2 \varphi} < 0$ always holds. Hence, $\dot{\varphi}(\varphi)$ undergoes a discontinuity of the second kind at the points $\varphi = \pm \dfrac{\pi}{2}$: $$\begin{gathered}
\lim _{\varphi \rightarrow \pm \frac{\pi}{2} \mp 0} \dot{\varphi} = -\infty,\quad \lim _{\varphi \rightarrow \mp \frac{\pi}{2} \pm 0} \dot{\varphi} = +\infty.
\end{gathered}$$ Note that these singularities do not depend on the value of $\dfrac{r}{\sigma}$. We also note that the function does not vanish, and hence the system has no fixed points.
The phase trajectories of for $\dfrac{r}{\sigma} = 1.1$ and various values of $\beta~=~\dfrac{r^2 - \sigma^2}{m {\overline{\rho}} \sigma}$ are shown in Fig. \[phase\_traj\]
{width="0.5\linewidth"} \[phase\_traj\]
Depending on the initial conditions, two motion patterns are possible for the same value of $\beta$. The corresponding functions $\varphi(t)$ and $\Omega(t)$ are shown in Figs. \[PhiOmega\].
![Functions $\varphi(t)$ and $\Omega(t)$ corresponding to different branches of the solution for $\beta~=~0.5$. The graphs correspond to the phase trajectories a) and b) in the previous figure.[]{data-label="PhiOmega"}](pic5a.eps "fig:"){width="0.48\linewidth"} ![Functions $\varphi(t)$ and $\Omega(t)$ corresponding to different branches of the solution for $\beta~=~0.5$. The graphs correspond to the phase trajectories a) and b) in the previous figure.[]{data-label="PhiOmega"}](pic5b.eps "fig:"){width="0.48\linewidth"}\
-- --
-- --
It can be seen from Figs. \[PhiOmega\] that the function $\varphi$ reaches the critical values $-\dfrac{\pi}{2}$ and $\dfrac{3\pi}{2}$ in finite time. Using , it is easy to check that $\Omega$ increases infinitely as $\varphi \rightarrow \pm \dfrac{\pi}{2}$. Hence, a partial stabilization is possible only in finite time.
Equation has the following solution: $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{split}
\frac{\sigma^2 - r^2}{r} \left( F \left(\varphi, \frac{\sigma}{r} \right) - F\left(\varphi _0, \frac{\sigma}{r} \right) \right) + {} & {} r \left( E \left(\varphi, \frac{\sigma}{r} \right) - E \left(\varphi _0, \frac{\sigma}{r} \right) \right) - \\
{} - {} & {} \sigma (\sin \varphi - \sin \varphi_0)= \frac{r^2 - \sigma^2}{m {\overline{\rho}}} t,
\end{split}\label{Phi_sol1}
\end{gathered}$$ where $F \left( \varphi,\, \dfrac{\sigma}{r} \right)$ is the normal elliptic Legendre integral of the first kind. The above solution includes two motion patterns corresponding to different initial conditions $\varphi \in \left(-\dfrac{\pi}{2},\, \dfrac{\pi}{2} \right)$ and $\varphi \in \left(\dfrac{\pi}{2},\, \dfrac{3\pi}{2} \right)$.
A straightforward calculation shows that the solution corresponding to the branch $\psi \in \left[\pi -\arcsin \dfrac{\sigma}{r},\, \pi + \arcsin \dfrac{\sigma}{r} \right]$ behaves similarly. In this case, the equation for the determination of $\psi$ and its solution have the form $$\begin{gathered}
\left( \frac{\sigma^2 \cos ^2 \varphi}{\sqrt{r^2 - \sigma^2 \sin^2 \varphi}} + \sigma \cos \varphi \right) \dot{\varphi} = \frac{\sigma^2- r^2}{m {\overline{\rho}}},\\
\begin{split}
\frac{\sigma^2 - r^2}{r} \left( F \left(\varphi, \frac{\sigma}{r} \right) - F\left(\varphi _0, \frac{\sigma}{r} \right) \right) + {} & {} r \left( E \left(\varphi, \frac{\sigma}{r} \right) - E \left(\varphi _0, \frac{\sigma}{r} \right) \right) + \\ {} + {} & {} \sigma (\sin \varphi - \sin \varphi_0)= \frac{\sigma^2 - r^2}{m {\overline{\rho}}} t.
\end{split}
\end{gathered}$$
Appendix B. Proof of Proposition 4.3
====================================
First of all, we examine the general properties of the system of equations –. It is easy to verify that equations possess the symmetry $$\begin{gathered}
\rho \rightarrow \rho,\quad \psi \rightarrow - \psi,\quad \varphi _0 \rightarrow - \varphi _0,\quad \Omega \rightarrow \Omega,\quad t \rightarrow -t \label{symmetry}
\end{gathered}$$ and the integral of motion $$\begin{gathered}
G = \rho e ^ {- \mathcal{F} (\psi)} = {\mathrm{const}\,}, \quad
\mathcal{F} (\psi) = \int \frac{r \sin \psi + \sigma \sin \varphi _0}{r \cos \psi + \sigma \cos \varphi _0} d\psi. \label{rho_psi_int}
\end{gathered}$$ The integral and hence the behavior of the system depend on three parameters $r$, $\sigma$, and $\varphi _0$. The parameter $\varphi _0$ is related to the direction of motion of the internal mass, to circulation and the body geometry.
Below we consider separately several cases depending on the values of these parameters.
1\. The condition $\sin \varphi _0 = 0$ corresponds to two values: $\varphi _0 = 0$ and $\varphi _0 = \pi$, and the integral takes the form $$\begin{gathered}
G = \rho (r \cos \psi \pm \sigma). \label{rho11}
\end{gathered}$$ Here the sign $+$ corresponds to $\varphi _0 = 0$, and the sign $-$ corresponds to $\varphi _0 = \pi$. In view of the first equation of takes the form $$\begin{gathered}
\dot{\psi} = \frac{1}{mG} (r \cos \psi \pm \sigma )^2. \label{Psi11}
\end{gathered}$$ Its solution depends on the relationship between the parameters $r$ and $\sigma$.
1.1. For $r < \sigma$ (the center of the body is inside the circle $r=\sigma$), according to , the function $\rho (t)$ has no singularities, is periodic and continuous for any value of $\psi$ and hence bounded on a given level set of the integral $G$. The right-hand side of preserves the sign and never vanishes, hence, the function $\psi (t)$ is monotonous and equation has no fixed points. An example of the functions $\rho (t)$, $\psi (t)$ and $\Omega (t)$ for $\varphi_0 = 0$ is shown in Fig. \[internal\_fb1\]. Thus, for $\sin \varphi _0 = 0$ and $r < \sigma$ a partial stabilization is possible during an arbitrarily long interval of time.
![Functions $\rho (t)$, $\psi (t)$ and $\Omega (t)$[]{data-label="internal_fb1"}](pic6a.eps "fig:"){width="0.48\linewidth"} ![Functions $\rho (t)$, $\psi (t)$ and $\Omega (t)$[]{data-label="internal_fb1"}](pic6b.eps "fig:"){width="0.48\linewidth"}
1.2. For $r = \sigma$ (the center of the body is on the circle $r=\sigma$) the system of equations has a family of fixed points lying on the straight line $\psi = \psi_* = \pi + \varphi _0$. The phase trajectories of the system for $\varphi _0 = \pi$ and various values of the integral $G$ are shown in Fig. \[Phase\_port10\].
![Phase trajectories of the system for $\varphi _0 = \pi$ and $\dfrac{r}{\sigma} = 1$[]{data-label="Phase_port10"}](pic7.eps){width="0.5\linewidth"}
It can be seen from Fig. \[Phase\_port10\] that the phase variable $\rho$ increases infinitely in a neighborhood of the straight line $\psi = \psi _*$.
Let us examine the attainability of a fixed point. To do so, we linearize equation in its neighborhood $$\begin{gathered}
\dot{\psi} = \frac{r^2 \sin ^2 \psi _*}{m G} (\psi - \psi _*)^2.\label{ser_eq}
\end{gathered}$$
Let us integrate equation on the interval $[\psi _* - \varepsilon,\, \psi _*)$ $$\begin{gathered}
t \frac{r^2 \sin^2\psi_*}{mG} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon} - \lim _{\psi \rightarrow \psi_*}\frac{1}{\psi - \psi_*} = \infty.
\end{gathered}$$ Consequently, the phase trajectories approach the straight line $\psi = \psi _*$ in infinite time. Thus, for $\sin \varphi _0 = 0$ and $r = \sigma$ a partial stabilization can be performed only in finite time.
1.3. For $r > \sigma$ (the center of the body is outside the circle $r=\sigma$), equation admits particular steady-state solutions $$\begin{gathered}
\psi ^*_\pm = \begin{cases}
\pm \left( \pi - \arccos \frac{\sigma}{r} \right), & \varphi_0 = 0,\\
\pm \arccos \frac{\sigma}{r}, & \varphi _0 = \pi.
\end{cases}\label{asymp}
\end{gathered}$$ The phase trajectories of the system on the plane $(\rho,\, \psi)$ for various values of the integral $G$ and the parameter values $r=1$, $\sigma = 0.5$ are shown in Fig.\[Phase\_port11\].
![Phase trajectories of the system for $\sin \varphi _0 = 0$ and $\dfrac{r}{\sigma} > 1$[]{data-label="Phase_port11"}](pic8.eps){width="0.5\linewidth"}
It can be seen from Fig.\[Phase\_port11\] that the phase trajectories approach the vertical asymptotes $\psi = \psi ^*_\pm$, hence, as time goes on, $\rho \rightarrow +\infty$. Performing the same analysis as in the previous case, we can show that the value $\psi = \psi _{+}$ is reached in infinite time. Thus, for $\sin \varphi _0 = 0$ and $r > \sigma$ a partial stabilization can be performed only in finite time.
2\. Consider a more general case for which the line of motion of the internal mass is such that $\sin \varphi _0 \neq 0$. In this case, the integral can be written as $$\begin{gathered}
G = \rho (r \cos \psi + {\overline{\sigma}} ) \exp \left( - \sigma \sin \varphi _0 \int \frac{d\psi}{r \cos \psi + {\overline{\sigma}}} \right)={\mathrm{const}\,},\quad {\overline{\sigma}} = \sigma \cos \varphi _0.\label{arb_Phi0}
\end{gathered}$$ The exact form of the integral depends on the relationship between $r$ and $\sigma \vert \cos \varphi _0 \vert$. The equality $r = \sigma \vert \cos \varphi _0 \vert$ defines the circle with the center at the point $\left(\dfrac{\zeta}{\lambda},\, -\dfrac{\chi}{\lambda} \right)$ and radius $\dfrac{\sqrt{\chi^2 + \zeta^2}}{\lambda} \vert \cos \varphi _0 \vert$.
2.1. For $r < \sigma \vert \cos \varphi _0 \vert$ (the center of the body is inside the circle $r = \sigma \vert \cos \varphi _0 \vert$) the integral is not unique and can be represented as $$\begin{gathered}
{\overline{G}} = \frac{G}{r} = \rho (\cos \psi + \varkappa ) \times \\
\times \exp \left( - \frac{2 \varkappa \tan \varphi _0}{\sqrt{\varkappa^2 - 1}} \left( \arctan \left( \frac{\sqrt{\varkappa^2 - 1}}{\varkappa + 1} \tan \frac{\psi}{2}\right) + \left[ \frac{\psi + \pi}{2\pi}\right] \pi \right) \right)={\mathrm{const}\,},\label{arb_Phi0_121}
\end{gathered}$$ where $\varkappa = \dfrac{{\overline{\sigma}}}{r}$, $\vert\varkappa\vert > 1$, $\psi \in [-\pi,\, \pi)$.
The trajectories of the system fill everywhere densely the plane $(\rho,\, \psi)$. Depending on the relationship between the parameters $r$, $\sigma$, and $\varphi _0$, two types of phase portraits are possible (see Fig. \[Phase\_port12\]).
![Phase portraits of the system for $\sigma = 1.5$, $\varphi _0 = 0.1$. a) $r = 0.1$, b) $r = 1$[]{data-label="Phase_port12"}](pic9a.eps "fig:"){width="0.48\linewidth"} ![Phase portraits of the system for $\sigma = 1.5$, $\varphi _0 = 0.1$. a) $r = 0.1$, b) $r = 1$[]{data-label="Phase_port12"}](pic9b.eps "fig:"){width="0.48\linewidth"}\
a) b)
Indeed, the right-hand side of the second equation of is nonnegative (nonpositive) for $\dfrac{\sigma \vert \sin \varphi _0 \vert}{r} \geqslant 1$. This means nondecrease (nonincrease) of the function $\rho$ (see Fig. \[Phase\_port12\]a). Otherwise the sign $\dot{\rho}$ changes twice in one period of the variable $\psi$, and the system trajectories have extrema (see Fig. \[Phase\_port12\]b).
According to the first equation of , the function $\psi(t)$ is monotonous, since the right-hand side of the equation is sign-definite by virtue of the condition $r < \sigma \vert \cos \psi _0 \vert$. Using the integral , we estimate the change of $\rho$ for one period of the variable $\psi \in [-\pi,\, \pi)$ $$\begin{gathered}
\Delta \rho = \rho _0 \left( \exp \left( \frac{2 \pi \varkappa \tan \varphi _0}{\sqrt{\varkappa^2 - 1}} \right) - 1 \right). \label{delta_rho}
\end{gathered}$$ It can be seen from that the increment $\Delta \rho$ of the phase variable $\rho$ is directly proportional to the value $\rho _0 = \rho \big\vert _{\psi=-\pi}$. Moreover, ${\mathrm{sign}\,}\Delta \rho = {\mathrm{sign}\,}\tan \varphi _0$. It is easy to show that for $N$ periods the increment is $$\begin{gathered}
\Delta \rho _N = \rho _0 \left( \exp \left( \frac{2 N \pi \varkappa \tan \varphi _0}{\sqrt{\varkappa^2 - 1}} \right) - 1 \right).
\end{gathered}$$ That is, the increment depends exponentially on the number of periods $N$. Thus, despite the existence of two types of phase portraits, the phase variable $\rho$ increases on an average if $\tan \varphi _0 > 0$ and decreases on an average if $\tan \varphi _0 < 0$.
According to , as $\rho$ decreases infinitely, $\Omega \rightarrow \infty$. Thus, if the condition $r < \sigma \vert \cos \varphi _0 \vert$ is satisfied, either $\rho$ or $\Omega$ increases indefinitely, depending on the value of $\varphi _0$. Thus, for $\sin \varphi _0 \neq 0$ and $r = \sigma \vert \cos \varphi _0 \vert$ a partial stabilization can be performed only in finite time.
2.2. For $r > \sigma \vert \cos \varphi _0 \vert$ (the center of the body is outside the circle $r = \sigma \vert \cos \varphi _0 \vert$) the integral can be written as
$$\begin{gathered}
{\overline{G}} = - \rho \frac{{\mathrm{sign}\,}(\tau_{+}(\psi) \tau_{-}(\psi) )}{1 + \tan ^2 \frac{\psi}{2}} \vert \tau _{-} (\psi) \vert ^{\delta + 1} \vert \tau _{+} (\psi) \vert ^{1-\delta},\label{int_rhoPsi}\\
\delta = \frac{\varkappa \tan \varphi_0}{\sqrt{1 - \varkappa^2}},\quad
\tau _{\pm}(\psi) = \sqrt{ 1 - \varkappa } \tan \frac{\psi}{2} \pm \sqrt{ 1 + \varkappa }\nonumber.
\end{gathered}$$
Consider the values $\psi _\pm = \mp 2 \arctan \sqrt{\frac{1 + \varkappa}{1 - \varkappa}}$, which are zeros of the functions $\tau _\pm(\psi)$. It is seen from that the behavior of the system in a neighborhood of the lines $\psi = \psi _\pm$ can change depending on the parameter $\delta$. For the values $\delta < 0$ three possible types of phase portraits are shown in Fig. \[Phase\_port13\].
![a) $\delta = -0.5$, b) $\delta = -1$, c) $\delta = -1.1$[]{data-label="Phase_port13"}](pic10a.eps "fig:"){width="0.32\linewidth"} ![a) $\delta = -0.5$, b) $\delta = -1$, c) $\delta = -1.1$[]{data-label="Phase_port13"}](pic10b.eps "fig:"){width="0.32\linewidth"} ![a) $\delta = -0.5$, b) $\delta = -1$, c) $\delta = -1.1$[]{data-label="Phase_port13"}](pic10c.eps "fig:"){width="0.32\linewidth"}\
a) b) c)
By virtue of the symmetry , the phase portrait for some $\delta = -\delta _0 < 0$ can be obtained by a mirror reflection of the phase portrait for $\delta = \delta _0$ relative to $\psi = 0$ and by changing the direction of motion along the trajectories.
2.2.1. If $\vert \delta \vert < 1$, the phase variable $\rho$ infinitely increases near $\psi _\pm$. The asymptotes $\psi = \psi _\pm$ are always separated from each other regardless of the relationship between the parameters $r$, $\sigma$, and $\varphi _0$. Hence, the qualitative behavior of the system trajectories on the plane $(\rho,\, \psi)$ (see Fig. \[Phase\_port13\]a) is also independent of the relationships between these parameters and is the same as the behavior considered in the case $\sin \varphi _0 = 0$, $r > \sigma$ (see Fig. \[Phase\_port11\]). Thus, for $\sin \varphi _0 \neq 0$ and $r < \sigma \vert \cos \varphi _0 \vert$ a partial stabilization can be performed only in finite time.
2.2.2. The condition $\vert \delta \vert = 1$ is equivalent to the equality $r = \sigma$. In this case, the right-hand sides of equations vanish simultaneously for $\psi = \pi + \varphi _0$. When $\delta = -1$, the asymptote $\psi = \psi _{-}$ disappears, and its place is taken by a family of fixed points; there are no qualitative changes in a neighborhood of the asymptote $\psi = \psi _{+}$ (see Fig. \[Phase\_port13\]b). Similarly, when $\delta = 1$, the lines $\psi = \psi _{+}$ correspond to a family of fixed points and $\psi = \psi _{-}$ is an asymptote. To perform a stability analysis of these fixed points, we represent the first equation of as $$\begin{gathered}
m \rho \dot{\psi} = -\frac{r}{1 + \tan ^2 \frac{\psi}{2}} \tau _{+} (\psi)\tau _{-} (\psi) \label{psi_tau}.
\end{gathered}$$
Let us analyze the stability of the family of fixed points $\psi = \psi _{-}$ for $\delta=-1$. For this purpose, we linearize equation in a neighborhood of $\psi = \psi _{-}$ $$\begin{gathered}
m \rho \dot{\Delta \psi} = - \frac{r}{1 + \tan^2 \frac{\psi _{-}}{2}} \tau _{+}(\psi _{-}) \frac{\sqrt{1 - \varkappa}}{2 \cos^2 \frac{\psi _{-}}{2}} \Delta \psi, \quad \psi = \psi _{-} + \Delta \psi .
\end{gathered}$$ Since the coefficient of $\Delta \psi$ is negative, the fixed points of the family $\psi = \psi_{-}$ are stable. In a similar way, it can be shown that the fixed points of the family $\psi = \psi _{+}$ are unstable for $\delta = 1$. Since ${\mathrm{sign}\,}\delta = {\mathrm{sign}\,}\tan \varphi _0$, the system has the above family of stable fixed points for $\tan \varphi _0 <0$, and the family of unstable fixed points for $\tan \varphi _0 > 0$. Thus, a partial stabilization is possible in infinite time when $\sin \varphi _0 \neq 0$, $r > \sigma \vert \cos \varphi _0 \vert$ and $\delta = -1$.
2.2.3. Consider the behavior of the system for $\vert \delta \vert > 1$. The phase portrait corresponding to $\delta < - 1$ is shown in Fig. \[Phase\_port13\]c. The behavior in a neighborhood of the straight line $\psi = \psi _{+}$ does not change qualitatively. In contrast to the cases considered above, the line $\psi = \psi_{-}$ becomes a discontinuity of the integral ${\overline{G}}$. Note that due to equation $\dot{\psi} > 0$ for $\psi \in (\psi_{+},\, \psi _{-})$ and $\dot{\psi} < 0$ for $\psi \in [-\pi / 2,\, \psi_{+}) \cup (\psi _{-},\, \pi / 2]$. Thus, all trajectories of tend to the point $\psi = \psi _{-}$, $\rho = 0$ on a given level set of the integral ${\overline{G}}$.
The point $\psi = \psi _{-}$, $\rho = 0$ is the singular point of . This singularity may be due to either the choice of polar coordinates or the existence of an essential singular point in the system. In order to define the type of singularity, it is necessary to examine the value of the limit $\lim \limits _{\rho \rightarrow 0} \dot{\rho}$ depending on $\psi$. This analysis for the system considered shows that the point $\psi = \psi _{-}$, $\rho = 0$ is an essential singular point and all trajectories of the system converge to it.
Consider the attainability of the point $\psi = \psi _{-}$, $\rho = 0$ in finite/infinite time. Let us eliminate $\rho$ from the first equation of using the integral $$\begin{gathered}
\dot{\psi} = \frac{1}{m G} \frac{1}{(1+\tan^2 \frac{\psi}{2})^2} \vert \tau_{+} (\psi) \vert ^{2-\delta} \vert \tau_{-} (\psi) \vert ^{2+\delta} \label{Psi13}.
\end{gathered}$$ Equation can be approximated by $$\begin{gathered}
\dot{\psi} = \Lambda (\psi - \psi_{-})^{2 + \delta} \label{approx_Psi}
\end{gathered}$$ using the Taylor series expansion of the function $\tau_{-}(\psi)$ in a neighborhood of $\psi = \psi _{-}$. Without loss of generality we set $\psi - \psi_{-} > 0$. Since $2 + \delta < 1$, the solution of is the following power function: $$\begin{gathered}
\psi = \psi_{-} + ( -(1 + \delta) (\Lambda t + C))^{-1 / (\delta + 1)},
\end{gathered}$$ whence it is clear that the line $\psi = \psi _{-}$ is attained in finite time.
Let us consider the behavior of the angular velocity $\Omega$ as the line $\psi = \psi _{-}$ is approached. Expression can be written as $$\begin{gathered}
\Omega = \frac{1}{I_r} \left( C_{xy} - (m \rho^2 + {\overline{b}}) \dot{\psi} \right). \label{last_eq}
\end{gathered}$$ It is seen from and that for $\delta \in (-2,\, -1)$ the derivative $\dot{\psi}$ tends to zero as $\psi = \psi _{-}$ is approached, hence, $\Omega \rightarrow \dfrac{C_{xy}}{I_r}$. If $\delta = -2$, then $\dot{\psi} = \Lambda$, hence, $\Omega \rightarrow \dfrac{C_{xy} - {\overline{b}} \Lambda}{I_r}$. If $\delta < - 2$, then $\dot{\psi} \rightarrow \infty$, hence, $\Omega \rightarrow \infty$. Thus, a partial stabilization is possible in finite time for $\sin \varphi _0 \neq 0$, $r > \sigma \vert \cos \varphi _0 \vert$ and $\vert \delta \vert > 1$.
[99]{}
Agrachev A. A., Sachkov Y. Control theory from the geometric viewpoint. – Springer Science & Business Media, 2004.
Arnold V.I. Mathematical methods of classical mechanics. – Springer Science & Business Media, 1989.
Bonnard B. Contrôlabilité des systèmes nonlinéaires // C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Sér. 1. 1981. V. 292. P. 535–537.
Bonnard B., Chyba M. Singular trajectories and their role in control theory. Vol. 40. Springer Science & Business Media, 2003.
Bolotin S.V. The problem of optimal control of a Chaplygin ball by internal rotors // Rus. J. Nonlin. Dyn., 2012, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 837–852 (Russian
Borisov A.V., Kilin A.A., Mamaev I.S. How to Control Chaplygin’s Sphere Using Rotors // Regul. Chaotic Dyn. 2012. V. 17 no. 3–4. pp. 258–272.
Borisov A.V., Kilin A.A., Mamaev I.S. How to Control the Chaplygin Ball Using Rotors. II // Regul. Chaotic Dyn., 2013, V. 18 no. 1–2, pp. 144–158.
Borisov A.V., Kozlov V.V., Mamaev I.S. Asymptotic stability and associated problems of failing rigid body // Regul. Chaotic Dyn. 2007. V. 12. no. 5. pp. 531–565.
Borisov A.V., Mamaev I.S. On the motion of a heavy rigid body in an ideal fluid with circulation, CHAOS, 2006, Vol. 16, no. 1, 013118 (7 pages)
Chaplygin S.A. On the influence of a plane-parallel flow of air on moving through it a cylindrical wing // Tr. Cent. Aerohydr. inst. 1926. Vyp. 19. pp. 300–382
Childress S., Spagnolie S. E., Tokieda T. A bug on a raft: recoil locomotion in a viscous fluid // J. Fluid Mech. 2011. V. 669. pp. 527–556.
Chow W. L. [Ü]{}ber Systeme von linearen partiellen Differentialgleichungen erster Ordnung //Math. Ann. 1939. V. 117. no. 1. pp. 98-105.
Chyba M., Leonard N.E., Sontag E.D Optimality for underwater vehicles // IEEE, 1998, 2001, vol. 5, pp. 4204-4209.
Chyba M., Leonard N. E., Sontag E.D. Singular trajectories in multi-input time-optimal problems: Application to controlled mechanical systems //Journal of dynamical and control systems. – 2003. – V. 9. – no. 1. – P. 103-129.
Crouch P.E. Spacecraft Attitude Control and Stabilization: Applications of Geometric Control Theory to Rigid Body Models // IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 1984, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 321-331
Ivanov A.P. On the Control of a Robot Ball Using Two Omniwheels, Regul. Chaotic Dyn., 2015, 20 (4), pp. 441-448.
Jurdjevic V. Geometric control theory. – Cambridge university press, 1997.
Kilin A.A., Vetchanin E.V. The contol of the motion through an ideal fluid of a rigid body by means of two moving masses, *Nelin. Dinam.*, 2015, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 633–645 (in Russian)
Kirchhoff G., Hensel K. Vorlesungen über mathematische Physik. Mechanik. Leipzig: BG Teubner, 1874. P.489
Kozlov V.V., Onishchenko D.A. The motion in a perfect fluid of a body containing a moving point mass // J. Appl. Math. Mech. 2003. V. 67. no. 4. P. 553–564
Kozlov V.V., Ramodanov S.M. On the motion of a variable body through an ideal fluid // PMM. 2001. V. 65. Vyp. 4. pp. 529–601
Lamb H. Hydrodynamics. New York: Dover, 1945. P.728
Leonard N.E., Marsden J.E. Stability and Drift of Underwater Vehicle Dynamics: Mechanical Systems with Rigid Motion Symmetry // Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena. – 1997. – V. 105. – no. 1. – pp. 130-162
Leonard N.E. Stability of a bottom-heavy underwater vehicle // Automatica. – 1997. – V. 33. – no. 3. – pp. 331-346.
Murray R.M., Sastry S.S. Nonholonomic motion planning: steering using sinusoids // IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, 1993, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 700-716
Ramodanov S. M., Tenenev V. A., Treschev D. V. Self-propulsion of a Body with Rigid Surface and Variable Coefficient of Lift in a Perfect Fluid // Regul. Chaotic Dyn. 2012 V.17 no. 6, P. 547–558.
Rashevskii P.K. About connecting two points of complete non-holonomic space by admissible curve (in Russian), Uch. Zapiski ped. inst. Libknexta (2): 83–94
Spindler K. Attitude maneuvers which avoid a forbidden direction //Journal of dynamical and control systems. – 2002. – V. 8. – no. 1. – V. 1-22.
Steklov V.A. On the motion of a rigid body through a fluid. Article 1 // Soob. Khark. mat. obsch. 1891. V. 2. no. 5–6. C.209–235
Svinin M., Morinaga A., Yamamoto M. On the Dynamic Model and Motion Planning for a Class of Spherical Rolling Robots // 2012 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2012, pp. 3226-3231
Vankerschaver J., Kanso E., Marsden J.E. The dynamics of a rigid body in potential flow with circulation // Regul. Chaotic Dyn. 2010 V. 15 no. 4–5. P. 606–629.
Vetchanin E.V., Kilin A.A. Free and controllable motion of a body through a fluid by means of an internal mass in the presence of circulation around the body // in press
Vetchanin E. V., Mamaev I. S., Tenenev V. A. The self-propulsion of a body with moving internal masses in a viscous fluid // Regul. Chaotic Dyn. 2013. V. 18. no. 1–2. P. 100–117.
Woolsey C.A., Leonard N.E. Stabilizing underwater vehicle motion using internal rotors // Automatica, 2002, vol. 38, no. 12, pp. 2053-2062
[^1]: The term [*drift*]{} is used to mean nonzero motion of the system with control disabled.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- Randy Lewis
date: 31 August 2006
title: Isospin breaking in the vector current of the nucleon
---
Motivation {#sec:mot}
==========
Isospin violation is generally a small effect. For example, consider the nucleon mass splitting, $(m_n-m_p)/m_p=0.1\%$. One similarly expects isospin violation to have a small impact on the nucleon’s electromagnetic and weak form factors. However, this does not imply that isospin violation must be small relative to strangeness effects. To illustrate, recall that an explicit calculation in the electroweak theory leads to $$\begin{aligned}
G_X^{p,Z}(q^2) = \hspace{67mm} \nonumber \\
(1-4\sin^2\theta_W)G_X^p(q^2) - G_X^n(q^2) - G_X^s(q^2) - G_X^{u,d}(q^2)
\hspace{3mm} \label{maindef}\end{aligned}$$ for electric ($X=E$) and magnetic ($X=M$) form factors. Experimental studies[@SAMPLE; @A4a; @A4b; @HAPPEXa; @HAPPEXb; @G0] show that the sum of the last two terms on the right-hand side is small. The size of isospin violation, $G_X^{u,d}(q^2)$, relative to strangeness, $G_X^s(q^2)$, is not obtained from these experiments.
In what follows, theoretical studies of $G_X^{u,d}(q^2)$ will be reviewed[@DP; @Mi; @Ma; @LM; @KL]. (Our entire discussion of isospin violation also fits within the more restrictive category called “charge symmetry breaking” and that language is used, for example, in Ref. [@Mi].) If the current understanding of these isospin violating effects is sufficiently precise, then the data from Refs. [@SAMPLE; @A4a; @A4b; @HAPPEXa; @HAPPEXb; @G0] allow for a determination of the authentic strange quark effects, $G_X^s(q^2)$, which are of great interest to many people at present.
Independent of any chosen theoretical approach, each isospin violating form factor is simply the difference of isoscalar and isovector terms, $$G_X^{u,d}(q^2) \equiv G_X^{s\!\!\!/}(q^2) - G_X^{v\!\!\!/}(q^2)\,,$$ where $G_X^{s\!\!\!/}$ is obtained from $$\label{isoscalar}
\left<p\left|\bar{u}\gamma_\mu u+\bar{d}\gamma_\mu d\right|p\right>
-
\left<n\left|\bar{u}\gamma_\mu u+\bar{d}\gamma_\mu d\right|n\right>$$ and $G_X^{v\!\!\!/}$ is obtained from $$\label{isovector}
\left<p\left|\bar{u}\gamma_\mu u-\bar{d}\gamma_\mu d\right|p\right>
+
\left<n\left|\bar{u}\gamma_\mu u-\bar{d}\gamma_\mu d\right|n\right>$$ in a straightforward manner (see Refs. [@DP; @KL] for details). Furthermore, we know that all isospin violation is ultimately a consequence of unequal quark masses, $m_u\neq m_d$, (“strong breaking”) and unequal quark electric charges, $e_u\neq e_d$ (“electromagnetic breaking”). The task for each theoretical approach is to determine the combinations of nucleon matrix elements shown in Eqs. (\[isoscalar\]) and (\[isovector\]), with both types of breaking included.
Since the sum of strangeness and isospin violation in Eq. (\[maindef\]) is measured to be a small fraction of the total form factors, and since isospin violation itself is expected to be a small fraction of the total form factors, it is reasonable to neglect contributions containing [*both*]{} strangeness and isospin violation as doubly (i.e. negligibly) small. This allows $G^{u,d}_X(q^2)$ to be calculated without dynamical strange-quark effects. Such an approach is clearly advantageous for chiral perturbation theory, where addition of a dynamical strange quark leads to severe degradation of convergence properties of the chiral expansion. All of the theoretical studies to date have computed isospin violation without dynamical strange quarks.
Our discussion will be approximately chronological. The constituent quark model studies of Dmitrašinović and Pollock[@DP] and Miller[@Mi], are discussed in Sec. \[sec:qm\], followed by Ma’s use of a light-cone meson-baryon fluctuation model[@Ma] in Sec. \[sec:lcm\]. The constraints of chiral symmetry are discussed in Sec. \[sec:chpt\], based on a collaboration with Mobed[@LM] using chiral perturbation theory. Section \[sec:res\] reviews the recent results from work with Kubis[@KL] that combines chiral perturbation theory with resonance saturation and information from dispersion analyses. The final section, Sec. \[sec:sum\], provides a brief summary.
Constituent quark model {#sec:qm}
=======================
In a constituent quark model, we might expect the scale of strong breaking to be set by [*constituent*]{} quark masses, which the authors of Ref. [@DP] take to be $(m_D-m_U)/m_Q\sim1.2\%$, and the scale of electromagnetic breaking to be set by $\alpha\sim0.7\%$. To do better than this order-of-magnitude guess, an explicit calculation is required.
The first calculation was carried out by Dmitrašinović and Pollock[@DP] using oscillator confinement and a Coulomb potential, $$\begin{aligned}
H &=& H_0 + V_{EM}\,, \\
H_0 &=& \sum_{i=1}^3\frac{{\bf p}_i^2}{2m_i}
+ \frac{k}{2}\sum_{i<j}^3({\bf r}_i-{\bf r}_j)^2\,, \\
V_{EM} &=& \sum_{i<j}^3\frac{e_ie_j}{4\pi\left|{\bf r}_i-{\bf r}_j\right|}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Recall that this choice for $H_0$ produces Gaussian spatial wave functions. With parameters fixed to be $m_Q=330$ MeV, $m_D-m_U=4$ MeV, and $k$ determined from the experimental mass difference between $\Delta(1232)$ and nucleon, Ref. [@DP] finds $$\begin{aligned}
G_M^{s\!\!\!/}(0) = G_M^{v\!\!\!/}(0)
&=& \frac{1}{3}\left[\frac{m_D}{m_U}-\frac{m_U}{m_D}\right] \approx 0.008\,, \\
G_M^{u,d}(0) &=& G_M^{s\!\!\!/}(0) - G_M^{v\!\!\!/}(0) = 0\,, \label{DP0} \\
\frac{\delta\left<r_E^2\right>}{\left<r_E^2\right>} &=& 1.1\%\,, \\
\frac{\delta\left<r_M^2\right>}{\left<r_M^2\right>} &=& 0.4\%\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $r_X^2$ denotes a squared radius as usual. These estimates are compatible with our order-of-magnitude guesses, but what confidence level should be assigned to the precise values?
Here is a list of some limitations of this model (all of which are mentioned explicitly in Ref. [@DP]):
- The chosen parameters lead to, $m_n-m_p=3$ MeV, 230% above experiment.
- The nucleon charge radius, $\sqrt{\left<r_E^2\right>}=0.62$ fm, is 30% below experiment.
- Gaussian spatial wave functions cause both $G_E(q^2)$ and $G_M(q^2)$ to be unrealistic at large ${\bf q}^2$.
- The strong hyperfine interaction is omitted.
- Chiral symmetry is absent.
In Section IV B of Ref. [@DP], the authors conclude, “…we may expect to have calculated the correct sign and order of magnitude of the effects of interest.”
Subsequently, Miller[@Mi] used a more complete constituent quark model and explicitly addressed each of the limitations listed above, except chiral symmetry. (Miller says chiral symmetry is implicit in the charge symmetry conserving pion cloud of this model[@private].) His Hamiltonian is $$\begin{aligned}
H &=& K + V_{\rm con} + V_{\rm em} + V_g\,, \hspace{4cm} \\
K &=& \sum_{i=1}^3\left(m_i+\frac{p_i^2}{2m_i}\right)\,,\end{aligned}$$ $$V_{\rm em} = \alpha\sum_{i<j}q_iq_j\left(\frac{1}{r_{ij}}-\frac{\pi}{2}
\delta(\vec r_{ij})\left[\frac{2}{\bar{m}^2}+\frac{4}{3}
\frac{\vec\sigma(i)\cdot\vec\sigma(j)}{\bar{m}^2}\right]\right)\,,$$ $$V_g = -\alpha_s\!\!\sum_{i<j}\lambda_i\cdot\lambda_j\!\!\left[\frac{\pi}{2}
\delta(\vec r_{ij})\!\left(\frac{1}{m_i^2}+\frac{1}{m_j^2}+\frac{4}{3}
\frac{\vec\sigma(i)\cdot\vec\sigma(j)}{m_im_j}\right)\right]\!.$$ Two options for $V_{\rm con}$ are studied; one gives Gaussian form factors, $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi(\rho,\lambda) &=& N\exp{\left(\frac{\rho^2+\lambda^2}{-2\beta}\right)}\,,
\\
\vec\rho &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\vec r_1-\vec r_2)\,, \\
\vec\lambda &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(\vec r_1+\vec r_2-2\vec r_3)\,,\end{aligned}$$ and the other gives power-law form factors, $$\begin{aligned}
&& \Psi^2(R) = \frac{2\sqrt{6}\Lambda^7}{\pi^36^5}RK_1\left(\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}
\Lambda R\right)\,, \nonumber \\
\Rightarrow &&
G_E(Q^2) = \left(\frac{\Lambda^2}{Q^2+\Lambda^2}\right)^4\,.\end{aligned}$$
For the Gaussian case, Ref. [@Mi] uses the experimental proton magnetic moment to determine $\bar m=337$ MeV, the experimental $m_\Delta-m_N$ value to fix $\alpha_s$ as a function of $\beta$, and then considers three choices for $\beta$ which define three models as shown in Table \[tab:Mi\].
[llll]{} Model & 1 & 2 & 3\
$\sqrt{\beta}$ (fm) & 0.7 & 0.6 & 0.5\
$\alpha_s$ & 2.3 & 1.2 & 0.35\
$m_D-m_U$ (MeV) & 5.2 & 3.8 & 2.3\
Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Ref. [@Mi] display the resulting effects of isospin violation on $G_E(q^2)$ and $G_M(q^2)$, including the separate contributions from $K$, $V_{\rm em}$ and $V_g$. In each case, the isospin violating contributions vanish for $q^2=0$, and are less than 0.2% in magnitude for a momentum transfer of 0.1 GeV$^2$. For power-law form factors, Ref. [@Mi] obtains $\Lambda=5.90$/fm from the experimental value of $\left<r_E^2\right>$, and all isospin violating effects remain small.
The combined work of Refs. [@DP; @Mi] provides an excellent understanding of isospin violation within the constituent quark model, but we must now ask which features of the results are a true reflection of nature, and which are model-dependent. For example, there are symmetries in these quark models that lead to $G_M^{u,d}(0)=0$, recall Eq. (\[DP0\]), but, as we’ll see in Sec. \[sec:chpt\], this is not a symmetry of nature. It is therefore interesting to explore other theoretical approaches as well.
Light-cone meson-baryon fluctuation model {#sec:lcm}
=========================================
To discuss the method used by Ma[@Ma], we must think at the hadron level rather than the constituent quark level. Fluctuations of a nucleon into a virtual pion-nucleon pair, $p\to\pi^+n$ and $n\to\pi^-p$, occur commonly. As always, isospin violation arises from strong breaking (at the hadron level, this means $m_n-m_p\neq0$) and from electromagnetic breaking (which now means the Coulomb attraction of a charged/charged $\pi^-p$ pair is different from the charged/neutral $\pi^+n$ pair). The expression for isospin violation in the magnetic form factor at vanishing momentum transfer, is $$\label{Ma0}
G_M^{u,d}(0) = \bigg(P(n\to\pi^-p)-P(p\to\pi^+n)\bigg)
\bigg(\mu^n_{\pi^-p}-\mu_n\bigg)\,,$$ where $P()$ denotes a fluctuation probability, and $\mu^n_{\pi^-p}$ is the magnetic moment for the neutron’s fluctuation.
To determine $\mu_{\pi^-p}^n$, begin with the fact that total angular momentum is orbital angular momentum plus proton spin, $$\left|\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right>_J
= \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\bigg|1,1\bigg>_L
\left|\frac{1}{2},-\frac{1}{2}\right>_S
- \sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\bigg|1,0\bigg>_L
\left|\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right>_S\,.$$ This leads directly to $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_{\pi^-p}^n &=& -\frac{\mu_p}{3}
+ \frac{\mu_n}{3}\left(\frac{2m_n}{m_{\pi^-}+m_p}\right)
\left(\frac{m_{\pi^-}}{m_p}-\frac{m_p}{m_{\pi^-}}\right)
\nonumber \\
&=& -4.75~~~~~~
\Rightarrow~~~~~~\mu_{\pi^-p}^n - \mu_n = -2.84\,.\end{aligned}$$
To determine the difference of fluctuation probabilities needed for Eq. (\[Ma0\]), a light-cone Gaussian wave function is used, $$\psi = Ae^{-({\cal M}^2-m_N^2)/(8\alpha^2)}\,,$$ where $${\cal M}^2=\sum_{i=1}^2\frac{{\bf k}_{\perp\,i}^2+m_i^2}{x_i}$$ is the invariant mass of the meson-baryon state. (Note the implicit assumption that $A$ is independent of which nucleon is fluctuating; Ref. [@Ma] points out that this assumption is not required, but the uncertainties associated with relaxing it are difficult to estimate.) From the experimental Gottfried sum rule, one finds $$P(p\to\pi^+n)\approx P(n\to\pi^-p)\approx0.15\,.$$
The final remaining parameter is the radius, $\alpha$, and it leads to a large uncertainty. Ref. [@Ma] uses two bounds, $$\alpha=300 {\rm MeV} ~~~\Rightarrow~~~ P(n=\pi^-n)-P(p=\pi^+n)=0.2\%\,,$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\left.\begin{array}{l} \alpha(n\to\pi^-p)=205 {\rm MeV} \\
\alpha(p\to\pi^+n)=200 {\rm MeV} \end{array}
\right\} && \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{-2cm} \Rightarrow~~~ P(n=\pi^-n)-P(p=\pi^+n)=3\%\,, \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ to arrive at $$G_M^{u,d}(0) \approx 0.006\to0.088\,.$$ However, Miller suggests that (205-200)/200=2.5% is too large for a Coulomb effect, and states: “A reasonable estimate of the effect could be 0.03 nuclear magnetons.”[@Mi].
Thus, the light-cone meson-baryon fluctuation model provides an explicit example of a model that does not lead to $G_M^{u,d}(0)=0$. In particular, this model predicts $G_M^{u,d}(0)>0$.
Chiral perturbation theory {#sec:chpt}
==========================
Chiral perturbation theory is not a model; it merely administrates the global symmetries of QCD. This has the advantage of retaining no model dependence in predictions, and it has the disadvantage that quantities not determined by global symmetries remain completely unknown. In Ref. [@LM], isospin violation in the nucleon’s vector form factors is studied within chiral perturbation theory to leading order for the electric case, and to next-to-leading order for the magnetic case.
Because isospin violation arises from both strong breaking and electromagnetic breaking, our chiral perturbation theory must include dynamical photons as well as dynamical pions. A single baryon will flow through the process, though its identity may change from proton to neutron or even to $\Delta(1232)$ by absorbing or emitting a pion (recall the fluctuations discussed in Sec. \[sec:lcm\]). Ref. [@LM] uses the formalism of heavy baryon chiral perturbation theory[@JM; @BKM], and the perturbative expansion is defined in powers of electric charge $e$, momentum $q/\Lambda$, pion mass $m_\pi/\Lambda$, and mass difference $(m_\Delta-m_N)/\Lambda$, where $\Lambda$ denotes either $4\pi F_\pi$ or $m_N$. Writing the Lagrangian in standard notation, $${\cal L}_{\rm ChPT} = {\cal L}^{(1)} + {\cal L}^{(2)} + {\cal L}^{(3)}
+ {\cal L}^{(4)} + {\cal L}^{(5)} + \ldots\,,$$ Ref. [@LM] shows that the isospin violating form factors begin in ${\cal L}^{(4)}$ (plus the corresponding loop diagrams), and next-to-leading effects are in ${\cal L}^{(5)}$ (plus the corresponding loop diagrams). For a general observable at this high order, two-loop diagrams routinely appear and the most general effective Lagrangian contains literally hundreds of low-energy constants (i.e. parameters whose numerical values are not constrained by global symmetries, and hence unknown to chiral perturbation theory).
For the specific case of $G_M^{u,d}(q^2)$, Ref. [@LM] shows that the situation is much simpler than for a general observable due to five key observations:
- $G_M^{u,d}(q^2)$ receives no two-loop contributions up to next-to-leading order. (In particular, “photon+photon” loop diagrams lack the required spin operators, “photon+ pion” loop diagrams sum to [*anticommutators*]{} of Pauli-Lubanski operators, and “pion+pion” loop diagrams have only higher-order isospin violation.)
- All one-loop photon effects in $G_M^{u,d}(q^2)$ can be absorbed into the physical value of $m_n-m_p$.
- Explicit $\Delta(1232)$ effects are found, numerically, to be smaller than systematic uncertainties.
- $G_M^{u,d}(q^2)$ contains just one combination of low-energy constants at leading order — it’s a simple additive constant — and no additional low-energy constants at next-to-leading order. (The fact that no global symmetry forces this constant to vanish is not realized in some constituent quark models, as discussed in Sec. \[sec:qm\].)
- All isospin breaking in loops, up to next-to-leading order, is ultimately due to $m_n-m_p$.
Based on these observations, a parameter-free prediction for the difference $G_M^{u,d}(q^2)-G_M^{u,d}(0)$ is obtained in Ref. [@LM].
Isospin violation in the electric form factor is discussed in Ref. [@MENU99], but only to leading order because in this case there [*are*]{} two-loop contributions and additional unknown constants at next-to-leading order.
Though it is useful to have these “pion cloud contributions” computed within chiral perturbation theory, the missing combination of low-energy constants indicates that chiral perturbation theory alone will not meet all of our goals, and we must turn our attention to a method for understanding the physics that resides within the low-energy constants.
Chiral perturbation theory with resonance saturation {#sec:res}
====================================================
The chiral perturbation theory calculations of Ref. [@LM] were reproduced in Ref. [@KL] using two separate formalisms: a repeat of the heavy baryon calculation, and a newer method known as infrared regularization[@BL]. This newer approach is simpler to manage and needs fewer Feynman diagrams, but physical results must be identical. Ref. [@KL] finds and corrects some errant factors of 2 in Ref. [@LM], and confirms all of the features mentioned in Sec. \[sec:chpt\].
With the results of chiral perturbation theory now firmly in hand, Ref. [@KL] addresses the issue of unknown low-energy constants. They are not constrained by chiral symmetry, nor by any other global symmetry of QCD. Since chiral perturbation theory is the low-energy effective theory of QCD, where pions (and in our case, photons too) are dynamical, the low-energy constants must account for all of the higher-energy QCD dynamics. Most important would be the exchange of the lightest resonances that are too heavy to appear explicitly in the effective theory: for vector form factors, these are the $\rho$ and $\omega$. Figure \[fig:ressat\] sketches this notion of resonance saturation.
Mathematically, it is easy to see that the exchange of a heavy particle is a low-energy constant at leading order, $${\rm propagator} \sim
\frac{1}{M^2-q^2}=\frac{1}{M^2}+O\left(\frac{q^2}{M^2}\right)\,.$$ Of course these resonances have to be coupled in a way consistent with chiral symmetry.
This type of resonance saturation was shown long ago to work very well in the meson chiral Lagrangian[@ressat1; @ressat2; @ressat3], though it has been shown that the nucleon’s vector form factors require inclusion of extra resonances beyond merely the $\rho$ and $\omega$[@KM]. Nevertheless, our present goal is only to compute the isospin violating pieces of these form factors; they come from $\rho-\omega$ mixing, and Ref. [@KL] points out that any effects of higher resonances are more severely suppressed in this case.
The contributions of resonance saturation to the isospin violating form factors are shown diagrammatically in Fig. \[fig:mixing\].
The corresponding equations are $$\begin{aligned}
\delta G_E^{u,d}(q^2) &=&
\frac{\Theta_{\rho\omega}}{M_V(M_V^2-q^2)^2}
\left[
\left(1 + \frac{\kappa_\omega M_V^2}{4m_N^2}\right)g_\omega F_\rho q^2
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
- \left(1 + \frac{\kappa_\rho M_V^2}{4m_N^2}\right)g_\rho F_\omega q^2
\right]\,,
\label{GEmixing} \\
\delta G_M^{u,d}(q^2) &=&
\frac{\Theta_{\rho\omega}}{M_V(M_V^2-q^2)^2}
\left[
\left(q^2 + \kappa_\omega M_V^2\right)g_\omega F_\rho
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
- \left(q^2 + \kappa_\rho M_V^2\right)g_\rho F_\omega
\right]\,,
\label{GMmixing}\end{aligned}$$ where $M_V$, $F_\rho$ and $F_\omega$ are the vector meson mass and decay constants, and the $\rho-\omega$ mixing parameter has been determined from experimental masses and branching ratios to be[@KucM] $$\Theta_{\rho\omega}=(-3.75\pm0.36)\times10^{-3}{\rm GeV}^{-2}\,.$$
If we had numerical values for the couplings of vector mesons to nucleons, $g_\rho$, $\kappa_\rho$, $g_\omega$ and $\kappa_\omega$, then Eq. (\[GMmixing\]) could be expanded in powers of $q^2$ to obtain the desired low-energy constant (at $q^2=0$) as well as additional contributions that are technically of higher order in the chiral expansion. We immediately see that Eq. (\[GEmixing\]) vanishes at $q^2=0$ as required by global symmetries, but nonzero contributions from higher orders in the chiral expansion would be obtained.
In principle, there is a wide assortment of techniques for attempting to quantify $g_\rho$, $\kappa_\rho$, $g_\omega$ and $\kappa_\omega$, but finding an approach with rigorously-quantifiable uncertainties is difficult. In an attempt to rely as directly as possible on experimental data rather than models, Ref. [@KL] uses values extracted from dispersive analyses of nucleon electromagnetic form factors. For the $\rho$ couplings, these analyses must account for the non-resonant two-pion continuum in addition to the Breit-Wigner $\rho$ resonance. Data from Refs. [@MMD; @BHM] lead to the ranges $$\begin{aligned}
4.0< & g_\rho& <6.2\,, \label{grho} \\
5.1< & \kappa_\rho& <6.8\,.\end{aligned}$$ For the $\omega$ couplings, it is sufficient to consider only pure zero-width resonance pole residues, and Refs. [@MMD; @HM; @BHM2] produce the ranges $$\begin{aligned}
41.8< & g_\omega& <43.0\,, \\
-0.16< & \kappa_\omega& <0.57\,. \label{komega}\end{aligned}$$ The final results of Ref. [@KL], reproduced in Fig. \[fig:final\], include the worst-case errors bars obtained from spanning the ranges in Eqs. (\[grho\]-\[komega\]) above; the poorly-known $\kappa_\omega$ dominates the uncertainties. Notice that the range of $G_M^{u,d}(0)$ does not include zero, while $G_E^{u,d}(0)=0$ is required. Both form factors are positive over the momentum range considered.
Summary {#sec:sum}
=======
Early studies of isospin violation in the nucleon’s vector form factors led to a clear understanding within specific quark models. Use of chiral perturbation theory avoids all model dependence, but leaves some parameters undetermined. Phenomenologically, those parameters are saturated by resonances, and numerical values are obtained with minimal model-dependence by using dispersive analyses. The results in Fig. \[fig:final\] represent a conservative determination of isospin violation, as obtained from worst-case error bars.
Because it is the sum $G_X^s(q^2)+G_X^{u,d}(q^2)$ from Eq. (\[maindef\]) that is measured in experiments, Fig. \[fig:final\] provides a theoretical error bar for the extraction of $G_X^s(q^2)$. As shown explicitly in Table III of Ref. [@KL], modern experiments are already approaching this level of precision.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
I am grateful to the organizers of PAVI06 for the opportunity to participate in such an excellent conference, and to my isospin breaking collaborators, Bastian Kubis and Nader Mobed. The critical reading of this manuscript by Bastian Kubis and Gerald Miller is greatly appreciated. The work was supported in part by the Canada Research Chairs Program and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
D. T. Spayde et al. (SAMPLE), Phys. Lett. [**B583**]{}, 79 (2004). F. E. Maas et al. (A4), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 022002 (2004). F. E. Maas et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 152001 (2005). K. A. Aniol et al. (HAPPEX), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 022003 (2006). K. A. Aniol et al. (HAPPEX), Phys. Lett. [**B635**]{}, 275 (2006). D. S. Armstrong et al. (G0), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 092001 (2005). V. Dmitrašinović and S. J. Pollock, Phys. Rev. [**C52**]{}, 1061 (1995). G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. [**C57**]{}, 1492 (1998). B.-Q. Ma, Phys. Lett. [**B408**]{}, 387 (1997). R. Lewis and N. Mobed, Phys. Rev. [**D59**]{}, 073002 (1999). B. Kubis and R. Lewis, Phys. Rev. [**C74**]{}, 015204 (2006). G. A. Miller, private communication. E. Jenkins and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Lett. [**B255**]{}, 558 (1991). V. Bernard, N. Kaiser and U.-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**E4**]{}, 193 (1995). R. Lewis and N. Mobed, PiN Newslett. [**15**]{}, 144 (1999). T. Becher and H. Leutwyler, Eur. Phys. J. [**C9**]{}, 643 (1999). G. Ecker, J. Gasser, A. Pich and E. de Rafael, Nucl. Phys. [**B321**]{}, 311 (1989). G. Ecker, J. Gasser, H. Leutwyler, A. Pich and E. de Rafael, Phys. Lett. [**B223**]{}, 425 (1989). J. F. Donoghue, C. Ramirez and G. Valencia, Phys. Rev. [**D39**]{}, 1947 (1989). B. Kubis and U.-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, Nucl. Phys. [**A679**]{}, 698 (2001). A. Kucurkarslan and U.-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, Mod. Phys. Lett. [**A21**]{}, 1423 (2006). P. Mergell, U.-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, Eur. Phys. J. [**A20**]{}, 469 (2004). M. A. Belushkin, H.-W. Hammer and U.-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, Phys. Lett. [**B633**]{}, 507 (2006). H.-W. Hammer and U.-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, Eur. Phys. J. [**A20**]{}, 469 (2004). M. A. Belushkin, H.-W. Hammer and U.-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, hep-ph/0608337. (Ref. [@KL] used preliminary results.)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The energy of a perfectly conducting rectangular cavity is studied by making use of pistons’ interactions. The exact solution for a 3D perfectly conducting piston with an arbitrary cross section is being discussed.'
author:
- |
Valery N. Marachevsky [^1]\
[*Laboratoire Kastler Brossel, CNRS, ENS, UPMC,*]{}\
[*Campus Jussieu case 74, 75252 Paris, France*]{}\
[*V. A. Fock Institute of Physics, St. Petersburg State University,*]{}\
[*198504 St. Petersburg, Russia*]{}
title: 'Casimir interaction: pistons and cavity.'
---
Introduction
============
The Casimir effect [@Casimir] was studied in various specific cases and geometries [@Bordag1]. A new geometry that recently attracted attention in the theory of the Casimir effect is the piston geometry.
A piston plate is perpendicular to the walls of a semi-infinite cylinder and moves freely inside it, this geometry was first investigated in a $2{\rm D}$ Dirichlet model [@Cavalcanti].
An exact solution for a perfectly conducting square piston at zero temperature was found in a $3{\rm D}$ model in the electromagnetic and scalar cases [@Jaffe2] by making use of a geometric optics approach; the limit of short distances between the piston and the base of a cylinder was found in [@Jaffe2; @Jaffe3] for an arbitrary cross section of a piston; rectangular geometries and finite temperatures were considered in [@Jaffe3].
In this paper and our previous related papers [@Mar1; @Mar2; @Mar3] we considered a slightly different geometry - two piston plates inside an infinite cylinder, which yielded the same results for rectangular pistons as in the case of a semi-infinite cylinder due to perfectly conducting boundary conditions. In [@Mar1; @Mar2; @Mar3] an exact solution for arbitrary cross sections and arbitrary distances between piston plates was found at zero and finite temperatures in the electromagnetic $3{\rm D}$ case. Rectangular and circular cross sections are special cases of our general solution.
A dilute circular piston and cylinder were studied perturbatively in [@Barton]. In this case the force on two plates inside a cylinder and the force in a piston geometry differ essentially. The force in a piston geometry can change sign in this approximation for thin enough walls of the material.
Different examples of pistons in a scalar case were investigated in [@Fulling; @Edery; @Zhai].
The case when the piston’s cross section differs from that of a cylinder was recently studied numerically [@Rod] and by means of a geometric optics approach [@Jaffe4].
Everywhere in this paper we study Casimir energies of an electromagnetic field with perfectly conducting boundary conditions imposed. First we study the energy of a rectangular cavity by making use of pistons’ interactions. Then we generalize the formulas for the case of a 3D piston with an arbitrary cross section and consider several special and limiting cases. Our formulas can be applied in every case when the two dimensional Dirichlet and Neumann boundary problems for Helmholtz equation can be solved analytically or numerically.
We take $\hbar=c=1$.
Construction of a rectangular cavity
====================================
The Casimir energy can be regularized as follows: $$E = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\omega_l} \omega_l^{-s} ,
\label{f23}$$ where $s$ is large enough to make (\[f23\]) convergent. Then it should be continued analytically (\[f23\]) to the value $s=-1$ , this procedure yields the renormalized finite Casimir energy. The regularized electromagnetic Casimir energy for the rectangular cavity $E_{cavity}(a,b,c,s)$ can be written in terms of Epstein $Z_3
\bigl(\frac{1}{a}, \frac{1}{b}, \frac{1}{c} ; s \bigr)$ and Riemann $\zeta_R(s)$ zeta functions: $$\begin{split}
E_{cavity}(a,b,c,s) &= \frac{\pi}{8} \Biggl(
\sum_{n_1,n_2,n_3=-\infty}^{+\infty\:\:\prime}
\Bigl[\Bigl(\frac{n_1}{a}\Bigr)^2 + \Bigl(\frac{n_2}{b}\Bigr)^2 +
\Bigl(\frac{n_3}{c}\Bigr)^2 \Bigr]^{-s/2} - \\
& \quad - 2 \Bigl(\frac{1}{a} + \frac{1}{b} + \frac{1}{c} \Bigr)
\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty} \frac{1}{n^s} \Biggr)
\end{split}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
Z_3 \Bigl(\frac{1}{a},
\frac{1}{b}, \frac{1}{c} ; s \Bigr) &=
\sum_{n_1,n_2,n_3=-\infty}^{+\infty\:\:\prime}
\Bigl[\Bigl(\frac{n_1}{a}\Bigr)^2 + \Bigl(\frac{n_2}{b}\Bigr)^2 +
\Bigl(\frac{n_3}{c}\Bigr)^2 \Bigr]^{-s/2} \\
\zeta_R (s) &= \sum_{n=1}^{+\infty} \frac{1}{n^s}\end{aligned}$$ The prime means that the term with all $n_i = 0$ should be excluded from the sum. The reflection formulas for an analytical continuation of zeta functions exist: $$\begin{aligned}
&\Gamma \Bigl(\frac{s}{2}\Bigr) \pi^{-s/2} \zeta_R (s) = \Gamma
\Bigl(\frac{1-s}{2}\Bigr) \pi^{(s-1)/2} \zeta_R (1-s) \label{refl1}
\\ &\Gamma \Bigl(\frac{s}{2}\Bigr) \pi^{-s/2} Z_3 (a,b,c;s) =
(abc)^{-1} \Gamma \Bigl(\frac{3-s}{2}\Bigr) \pi^{(s-3)/2} Z_3
\Bigl(\frac{1}{a},\frac{1}{b},\frac{1}{c}; 3-s \Bigr) .\label{refl2}\end{aligned}$$
The renormalized Casimir energy for a perfectly conducting rectangular cavity can therefore be written as [@Lukosz]: $$E_{cavity} (a,b,c) = - \frac{abc}{16\pi^2} Z_3(a,b,c; 4) +
\frac{\pi}{48} \Bigl(\frac{1}{a} + \frac{1}{b} + \frac{1}{c} \Bigr)
. \label{f24}$$ The expression (\[f24\]) can be rewritten in a different mathematical form [@Mar1] : $$\begin{gathered}
E_{cavity} (a,b,c) = \frac{\pi}{48 a} + \frac{\pi}{48 b} +
\frac{\pi}{48 c} + a E_{waveguide}(b,c) + \\ + \frac{1}{4}
\sum_{n_2, n_3 = -\infty}^{+\infty} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}
\frac{dp}{2\pi} \ln \biggl(1 - \exp \Bigl[-2 a \sqrt{\Bigl(\frac{\pi
n_2}{b}\Bigr)^2 + \Bigl(\frac{\pi n_3}{c}\Bigr)^2 + p^2}
\Bigr]\biggr) . \label{box}\end{gathered}$$ Here the Casimir energy for a unit length of a rectangular waveguide is ($t=b/c$ or $t=c/b$) : $$\begin{aligned}
&E_{waveguide} (b, c) = E_{waveguide} (c, b) = \nonumber \\ &= -\frac{\pi^2}{720 t^2 bc}
+ \frac{t}{4\pi bc}
\sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty} \int_{0}^{+\infty} dp \,\, p \,\,
\ln \biggl( 1 - \exp\Bigl(-2\sqrt{\frac{\pi^2 n^2}{t^2} + p^2 }
\Bigr) \biggr)= \nonumber \\
&= -\frac{\pi^2}{720 t^2 bc} - \frac{1}{bc}\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty}
\biggl(\frac{\csc^2{(n\pi/t )}}{16 n^2} + \frac{t \coth{(n\pi/t)}}{16\pi n^3} \biggr)
\label{wave}\end{aligned}$$
Let us discuss different terms appearing in (\[box\]) and thus clarify the physical meaning of a zeta function regularization in this case.
{width="12cm"}
Imagine that a piston is large in two dimensions with sides $a_0$ and $c_0$ (plates $1$ and $2$ on Fig.$1$). In this case the contribution to the energy in this geometry is given by the Casimir result for two parallel plates with the surface area $a_0 c_0$ and the edge term $\pi/48 b$: $$-\frac{\pi^2 a_0 c_0}{720 b^3} + \frac{\pi}{48 b} , \label{ch1}$$ where one of the terms in $a_0 E_{waveguide} (b, c_0)$ ($t=b/c_0$) is taken into account.
The next step is to move other pistons (plates $3$ and $4$ on Fig.$1$) that have a large side $a_0$ between these already existing parallel plates. The energy change is equal to $$a_0 E_{3-4}(b,c) + \frac{\pi}{48 c} , \label{ch2}$$ where $$E_{3-4}(b,c) = - \frac{1}{bc}\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty}
\biggl(\frac{\csc^2{(n\pi/t )}}{16 n^2} + \frac{t \coth{(n\pi/t)}}{16\pi n^3} \biggr)
.
\label{lm1}$$ In (\[ch2\]) another term in $a_0 E_{waveguide} (b, c)$ was taken into account ($c$ is a distance between the two piston plates $3$ and $4$, $t=b/c=c/b$). From the energy change (\[ch2\]) it is straightforward to obtain the force on the piston plates $3$ and $4$, and in the limit $a_0 \to \infty$ one immediately obtains the exact force on a unit length of stripes $3$ and $4$ from $E_{3-4}(b,c)$.
The expression for the energy change (\[ch1\]) is valid only when $b$ is much smaller than the sizes of the plates $1$,$2$, and (\[ch2\]) is valid when $c$ is much smaller than $a_0$ and of the order $b$ or less.
Some comments are needed to clarify the meaning of the terms $\pi/48b + \pi/48c$ in the energy expression (\[box\]). These terms appear due to edges of the piston. They are precisely equal to next to leading order terms in the expansion (\[r23\]), which means that they account for $4$ rectangular edges ($\chi=1/4$) of the finite piston in two different expansions (for small $b$ and small $c$).
The next possible step is to insert pistons $5$ and $6$ from the opposite sides of the existing waveguide with sides $b$ and $c$ and move them towards each other. The term $$\begin{aligned}
&E_{5-6}(a,b,c) = \nonumber \\ &= \frac{1}{4} \sum_{n_2, n_3 =
-\infty}^{+\infty \;\;\;\:\prime} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}
\frac{dp}{2\pi} \ln \biggl(1 - \exp \Bigl[-2 a \sqrt{\Bigl(\frac{\pi
n_2}{b}\Bigr)^2 + \Bigl(\frac{\pi n_3}{c}\Bigr)^2 + p^2}
\Bigr]\biggr) \label{lm3}\end{aligned}$$ yields the interaction energy of two plates distance $a$ apart inside an infinite rectangular cylinder with sides $b$ and $c$ (the term $n2=n3=0$ is excluded from the sum due to a cancellation with the term $\pi/(48a)$ in (\[box\])). The force on the pistons $5$ and $6$ is straightforward.
In summary, the expression $$\Delta E = E_{cavity}(a,b,c) - \frac{\pi}{48 b} - \frac{\pi}{48 c} +
\frac{ac}{a_0 c_0}\frac{\pi}{48 b} + \frac{a}{a_0} \frac{\pi}{48 c}
\label{E20}$$ yields the energy change inside a cavity volume with sides $(a,b,c)$ during a construction of the following system:
Step $1$:
: pistons $1$ and $2$ are being moved inside a waveguide with large sides $a_0, c_0$ from a large distance between them towards each other until the distance $b$ between them is achieved. For a validity of the energy change (\[ch1\]) it is necessary to assume $b \ll a_0, b \ll c_0$.
Step $2$:
: pistons $3$ and $4$ with sides $a_0$, $b$ are being moved inside the existing box $(a_0, b, c_0)$ between the existing pistons $1$ and $2$ towards each other until the distance $c$ between them is achieved. For a validity of the energy change (\[ch2\]) it is necessary to assume $c \ll a_0$, also $c \ll c_0$.
Step $3$:
: pistons $5$ and $6$ with sides $b, c$ are being moved inside the existing box $(a_0, b, c)$ towards each other until the distance $a$ between them is achieved. It is assumed here that $a\ll a_0$. However, the formula (\[lm3\]) itself is exact for arbitrary values of $a$ in the limit $a_0 \to \infty$, i.e. for plates inside an infinite waveguide.
During each step the energy in the system decreases.
In the limit of infinite plates $1,2$ and stripes $3,4$ ($a_0,
c_0\to\infty$) the total energy change (steps $1-3$) inside the cavity volume with sides $(a,b,c)$ can be written in the form: $$\Delta E_{tot} = - \frac{abc}{16\pi^2} Z_3(a,b,c; 4) +
\frac{\pi}{48a} \label{a30}$$
Arbitrary cross section results
===============================
Suppose there are two plates inside an infinite cylinder of an arbitrary cross section $M$ (Fig.$2$). To calculate the force on each plate imagine that $4$ parallel plates are inserted inside an infinite cylinder and then $2$ exterior plates are moved to spatial infinity. This situation is exactly equivalent to $3$ perfectly conducting cavities touching each other. From the energy of this system one has to subtract the Casimir energy of an infinite cylinder without plates inside it. Doing so we obtain the energy of interaction between the interior parallel plates and the attractive force on each interior plate inside the cylinder: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{E} (a) &= \sum_{\omega_{wave}} \frac{1}{2} \ln (1-\exp(-2 a
\, \omega_{wave})) \label{r7}\\
F (a) &= - \frac{\partial \mathcal{E}(a)}{\partial a}, \label{a13}\end{aligned}$$ the sum here is over all $TE$ and $TM$ eigenfrequencies $\omega_{wave}$ for a cylinder with the cross section $M$ and an infinite length.
In fact, the Casimir energy of our electromagnetic system is proportional to the sum of free energies for two boson scalar fields (with Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions imposed at the boundary of an infinite cylinder with a cross section $M$ and zero Neumann eigenvalue excluded) at finite temperature $T=1/\beta$ if we make a substitution $a \to \beta/2$. Free energies have a well defined finite part, their sum up to a factor $1/a$ coincides with (\[r7\]).
One can rewrite (\[r7\]) in a different form: $$\mathcal{E}(a) = -\frac{1}{2\pi} \sum_{l=1}^{+\infty} \biggl(\sum_{\lambda_{k D}}
\frac{\lambda_{k D} K_1 (2 l\lambda_{k D} a)}{l}
+ \sum_{\lambda_{i N}}
\frac{\lambda_{i N} K_1 (2 l\lambda_{i N} a)}{l}\biggr)
.\label{p10}$$ Here $$\begin{aligned}
& \Delta^{(2)} f_k (x,y) = - \lambda_{k D}^2 f_k (x,y) \label{Helm1} \\
& f_k (x,y) |_{\partial M} = 0 \nonumber \\
& \Delta^{(2)} g_i (x,y) = - \lambda_{i N}^2 g_i (x,y) \label{Helm4} \\
& \frac{\partial g_i (x,y)}{\partial n} \Bigl|_{\partial M} = 0 .
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The results (\[r7\]), (\[p10\]) are our main zero temperature results. Our results are [*exact for an arbitrary curved geometry of a cylinder*]{}.
{width="10cm"}
For a rectangular cylinder with sides $b$ and $c$ the exact Casimir energy of two plates inside it can be written as: $$\mathcal{E}_{rect} (a) =
-\sum_{l=1}^{+\infty}\sum_{m,n=-\infty}^{+\infty \: \prime}
\frac{\sqrt{m^2/b^2 + n^2/c^2}}{4l} \:\: K_{1} (2 l \pi a
\sqrt{m^2/b^2 + n^2/c^2}) . \label{p11}$$ The term $m=n=0$ is omitted in the sum.
For a circular cylinder the eigenvalues of the two dimensional Helmholtz equation $\lambda_{k D} , \lambda_{i N}$ are determined by the roots of Bessel functions and derivatives of Bessel functions. The exact Casimir energy of two circular plates of the radius $b$ separated by a distance $a$ inside an infinite circular cylinder of the radius $b$ is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathcal{E}_{circ}(a) = - \sum_{l=1}^{+\infty} \sum_{\nu =
0}^{+\infty} \sum_{j} \frac{1}{2\pi b}\frac{\mu_{D \nu j} K_1 (2 l
\mu_{D \nu j} a/b )
+ \mu_{N \nu j} K_1 (2 l \mu_{N \nu j} a/b)}{l} ,\label{p12}\\
&J_{\nu}(\mu_{D \nu j}) = 0 ,
\:\:\:\: J_{\nu}^{'} (\mu_{N \nu j}) = 0 . \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ The sum is over positive $\mu_{D \nu j}$ and $\mu_{N \nu j}$.
The leading asymptotic behaviour of $\mathcal{E}(a)$ for long distances $\lambda_{1 D} a \gg 1$, $\lambda_{1 N} a \gg 1$ is determined by the lowest positive eigenvalues of the two dimensional Dirichlet and Neumann problems $\lambda_{1 D}, \lambda_{1 N} $: $$\mathcal{E}(a)|_{\lambda_{1 D} a \gg 1, \: \lambda_{1 N} a \gg 1 }
\sim - \frac{1}{4\sqrt{\pi a}} \Bigl( \sqrt{\lambda_{1D}} e^{-2
\lambda_{1D} a} + \sqrt{\lambda_{1N}} e^{-2 \lambda_{1N} a} \Bigr) ,
\label{om1}$$ so the Casimir force between the two plates in a cylinder is exponentially small for long distances. This important property of the solution is due to the gap in the frequency spectrum or, in other words, it is due to the finite size of the cross section of the cylinder. Due to this property one needs a finite number of the eigenvalues of the Helmholtz equation for $2D$ Dirichlet and Neumann boundary problems (\[Helm1\]-\[Helm4\]) to obtain the Casimir energy at a specific distance $a$ between the plates with a desired accuracy.
The free energy at a temperature $T=1/\beta$ describing the interaction of two parallel perfectly conducting plates inside an infinite perfectly conducting cylinder with the cross section $M$ has the form: $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathcal{F} (a,\beta) = \nonumber \\ & =\frac{1}{\beta}
\sum_{\lambda_{k D}} \sum_{m=-\infty}^{+\infty} \: \frac{1}{2} \ln
\Bigl(1-\exp
\bigl(-2a\sqrt{\lambda_{k D}^2 + p_m^2} \bigr) \Bigr) + \nonumber \\
&+ \frac{1}{\beta} \sum_{\lambda_{i N}} \sum_{m=-\infty}^{+\infty}
\: \frac{1}{2} \ln \Bigl(1-\exp \bigl(-2a\sqrt{\lambda_{i N}^2 +
p_m^2} \bigr) \Bigr) . \label{r21}\end{aligned}$$ This is our central finite temperature result. Note that $\lambda_{iN} \ne 0$. We used the standard notation $p_m = 2 \pi m
T$.
In the long distance limit $a \gg \beta/(4\pi)$ one has to keep only $m=0$ term in $(\ref{r21})$. Thus the free energy of the plates inside a cylinder in the high temperature limit is equal to: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}(a, \beta)|_{a \gg \beta/(4\pi)} = & \frac{1}{2\beta}
\sum_{\lambda_{k D}} \: \ln \Bigl(1-\exp (-2a\lambda_{k D} ) \Bigr)
+ \nonumber \\ & \frac{1}{2\beta} \sum_{\lambda_{i N}} \: \ln
\Bigl(1-\exp (-2a\lambda_{i N} ) \Bigr) .\label{r24}\end{aligned}$$ One can check that the limit $\lambda_{1 D} a \ll 1$, $\lambda_{1 N}
a \ll 1$ in (\[r24\]) immediately yields the known high temperature result for two parallel perfectly conducting plates separated by a distance $a$ [@Brevik].
For $a \ll \beta/(4\pi)$ and $\lambda_{1 D} a \ll 1$, $\lambda_{1 N}
a \ll 1$ one can use the heat kernel expansion [@Vassilevich; @Gil] and properties of the zeta function [@Kirsten; @Santangelo2; @Elizalde] to obtain the leading terms for the free energy: $$\mathcal{F}(a,\beta)|_{a \ll \beta/(4\pi), \: \lambda_{1 D} a \ll 1,
\: \lambda_{1 N} a \ll 1} = -\frac{\zeta_R(4)}{8\pi^2}\frac{S}{a^3}
+ \frac{\zeta_R (2)}{4\pi a} (1 - 2 \chi) + O(1) , \label{r23}$$ where $$\chi = \sum_i \frac{1}{24} \Bigl(\frac{\pi}{\alpha_i}-
\frac{\alpha_i}{\pi}\Bigr) + \sum_j \frac{1}{12\pi} \int_{\gamma_j}
L_{aa} (\gamma_j) d\gamma_j.$$ Here $S$ is an area of the cross section $M$, $\alpha_i$ is the interior angle of each sharp corner at the boundary $\partial M$ and $L_{aa} (\gamma_j)$ is the curvature of each boundary smooth section described by the curve $\gamma_j$. The force calculated from (\[r23\]) coincides with the zero temperature force $F_C$ in [@Jaffe2], (Eq.7).
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
It is a pleasure to thank Michael Bordag for hospitality in Leipzig during ${\rm QFEXT-07}$, also all colleagues for fruitful discussions in Leipzig. This work has been supported by a CNRS grant ANR-06-NANO-062 and grants RNP $2.1.1.1112$, SS $.5538.2006.2$, RFBR $07-01-00692-a$.
[99]{}
H.B.G.Casimir 1948 [*K.Ned.Akad.Wet.Proc.*]{}[**51**]{} 793
Bordag M, Mohideen U, Mostepanenko V M 2001 [*Phys.Rept.*]{} [**353**]{} 1 ; Nesterenko V V, Lambiase G, Scarpetta G 2004 [*Riv.Nuovo Cim.*]{} [**27**]{} (N6) 1 ; Milton K A 2004 [*J.Phys. A*]{} [**37**]{} R209 ;\
Lambrecht A, Maia Neto P A and Reynaud S 2006 [*New J.Phys.*]{} [**8**]{} 243
Cavalcanti R M 2004 [*Phys.Rev.D*]{} [**72**]{} 065015
Hertzberg M P, Jaffe R L, Kardar M and Scardicchio A 2005 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**95**]{} 250402
Hertzberg M P, Jaffe R L, Kardar M and Scardicchio A 2007 Casimir forces in a piston geometry at zero and finite temperature [*Preprint*]{} quant-ph/0705.0139
Marachevsky V N 2005 One loop boundary effects: techniques and applications [*Preprint*]{} hep-th/0512221
Marachevsky V N 2006 Casimir energy of two plates inside a cylinder [*Preprint*]{} hep-th/0609116, published in QUARKS-2006 proceedings
Marachevsky V N 2007 [*Phys.Rev.D*]{} [**75**]{} 085019
Barton G 2006 [*Phys.Rev.D*]{} [**73**]{} 065018
Fulling S A and Wilson J H 2007 [*Phys.Rev.A*]{} [**76**]{} 012118
Edery A 2007 [*Phys.Rev.D*]{} [**75**]{} 105012 ; Edery A and MacDonald I 2007 JHEP09(2007)005
Xiang-hua Zhai and Xin-zhou Li 2006 Casimir pistons with hybrid boundary conditions [*Preprint*]{} hep-th/0612155
Rodriguez A, Ibanescu M, Ianuzzi D, Capasso F, Joannopoulos J D and Johnson S G 2007 [*Phys.Rev.Lett.*]{} [**99**]{} 80401
Zaheer S, Rodriguez A W, Johnson S G and Jaffe R L 2007 Optical-approximation analysis of sidewall-spacing effects on the force between two squares with parallel sidewalls [*Preprint*]{} quant-ph/0709.0699
Lukosz W 1971 [*Physica(Amsterdam)*]{} [**56**]{} 109
Sauer F 1962 PhD Thesis (Gottingen); Brevik I, Ellingsen S A and Milton K A 2006 [*New J. Phys.*]{} [**8**]{} 236
Vassilevich D V 2003 [*Phys.Rept.*]{} [**388**]{} 279 Gilkey P B 1994 [*Invariance theory, the heat equation, and the Atiyah-Singer index theorem*]{} (CRC Press)
Kirsten K 2002 [*Spectral functions in mathematics and physics*]{} (Boca Raton)
Santangelo E M 2002 [*Theor.Math.Phys.*]{} [**131**]{} 527; [*Teor.Mat.Fiz.*]{}[**131**]{} 98 ([*Preprint*]{} hep-th/0104025)
Elizalde E, Odintsov S D, Romeo A, Bytsenko A and Zerbini S 1994 [*Zeta regularization with applications*]{} (World Sci., Singapore)
[^1]: email: maraval@mail.ru
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Superpositions of rotational states in polar molecules induce strong, long-range dipolar interactions. Here we extend the rotational coherence by nearly one order of magnitude to 8.7(6) ms in a dilute gas of polar [$^{23}$Na$^{40}$K ]{}molecules in an optical trap. We demonstrate spin-decoupled magic trapping, which cancels first-order and reduces second-order differential light shifts. The latter is achieved with a dc electric field that decouples nuclear spin, rotation, and trapping light field. We observe density-dependent coherence times, which can be explained by dipolar interactions in the bulk gas.'
author:
- Frauke Seeßelberg
- 'Xin-Yu Luo'
- Ming Li
- Roman Bause
- Svetlana Kotochigova
- Immanuel Bloch
- Christoph Gohle
bibliography:
- 'PaperNo2\_clean.bib'
nocite: '[@*]'
title: |
**[Extending rotational coherence of interacting polar molecules\
in a spin-decoupled magic trap]{}**
---
Interacting particles with long coherence times are a key ingredient for entanglement generation and quantum engineering. Cold and ultracold polar molecules [@Ni2008; @Shuman2010; @Takekoshi2014; @Molony2014; @Park2015; @Guo2016; @Prehn2016; @Rvachov2017; @Seesselberg2018; @Anderegg2018; @Collopy2018] are promising systems for exploring such quantum many-body physics with long-range interactions [@Moses2016a; @DeMarco2018] due to their strong and tunable electric dipole moment and long single-particle lifetime [@Chotia2012; @Yan2013a]. The manipulation of their rich internal degrees of freedom has been studied for different molecular species [@Ospelkaus2010; @Will2016; @Guo2018; @Blackmore2018]. First observations include ultracold chemistry and collisions [@Ni2010; @Ye2018]. Nuclear spin states in the rovibronic ground state further promise exciting prospects for quantum computation due to their extremely long coherence times [@Park2017].
Rotation is a particularly appealing degree of freedom for molecules because it is directly linked to their dipolar interactions. It can be manipulated by microwave (MW) fields and superpositions of rotational states with opposite parity exhibit an oscillating dipole moment with a magnitude close to the permanent electric dipole moment $d_0$. Consequently, using rotating polar molecules has been proposed for quantum computation [@DeMille2002], to emulate exotic spin models [@Peter2012] or to create topological superfluids [@Yao2013].
In order to make use of the rotational transition dipole in a spatially inhomogeneous optical trap, the coupling of the rotation to the trap field needs to be canceled. To first order this may be achieved by choosing an appropriate angle between the angular momentum of the molecule and the trapping field polarization $\bm{\varepsilon}$ [@Kotochigova2010] or a special trap light intensity [@Blackmore2018] such that the differential polarizability between rotational ground and excited states is canceled. The trap is then referred to as “magic". Coherence times of about 1 ms have been achieved in bulk gases of polar molecules using these techniques [@Neyenhuis2012; @Blackmore2018]. However, this is much shorter than the dipolar interaction time, preventing observation of many-body spin dynamics.
The coherence time in such a magic trap is limited by the intensity dependence of the molecular polarizability, which originates from the coupling between rotation, nuclear spins, and the trapping light field. It has been suggested to apply large magnetic [@Deng2015] or electric fields [@Li2017] to reduce these couplings and thus simplify the polarizabilities of the involved states.
In this work, we realize a spin-decoupled magic trap, i.e. a magic polarization angle trap with moderate dc electric fields, which simplify the hyperfine structure of the rotational transition manifold ${\ensuremath{\lvert J=0,m_J=0 \rangle}\xspace}\rightarrow{\ensuremath{\lvert 1,0 \rangle}\xspace}$. Here, $J$ denotes the rotational quantum number and $m_J$ its projection onto the electric field axis. We characterize the magic trapping condition and demonstrate how the second-order light shift is related to the electric field strength. Using Ramsey- and spin-echo interferometry, we further study the rotational coherence time of polar molecules in a spin-decoupled magic one-dimensional (1D) lattice. A coherence time of almost 10 ms is achieved for a dilute gas of ultracold [$^{23}$Na$^{40}$K ]{}molecules; however, we find that the coherence time decreases with increasing molecular density. Using a simple numerical model [@Hazzard2014a], we conclude that the dipolar interaction between molecules plays a dominant role in the density-dependent decoherence. This interaction can become as large as $h\times 50$ Hz, due to the large permanent dipole moment $d_0 = 2.72$ D of [$^{23}$Na$^{40}$K ]{}[@Gerdes2011], at the highest accessible density of $6.8\times 10^{10}$/cm$^3$, comparable to the single particle dephasing.
Our experiments begin with the preparation of ultracold $^{23}$Na$^{40}$K molecules in the rovibronic ground state at 300 nK [@Seesselberg2018] in several layers of a 1D lattice, see Fig. \[fig:schematic\](a).
![\[fig:schematic\] (a) Schematic of the experimental setup. Molecules are confined to several pancake shaped optical traps (red) in the $x-y$ plane, formed by a 1D optical lattice along the $z$ axis with polarization vector $\bm{\varepsilon}$. Four in-vacuum rod electrodes (gray bars) generate dc electric fields along the $y$ axis. The angle $\phi$ between $\bm{\varepsilon}$ and $\bm{E}$ can be used to adjust the first-order differential ac Stark shift between rotational states. A near-field dipole antenna emits 5.6 GHz microwaves (MWs) and couples the rotational states ${\ensuremath{\lvert J, m_J \rangle}\xspace}$ (black lines) shown in (b). Blue boxes: nuclear spin states couple to rotation and mix in the $J=1$ manifold. A dc Stark shift $\Delta$ splits the ${\ensuremath{\lvert 1,0 \rangle}\xspace}$ and ${\ensuremath{\lvert 1,\pm1 \rangle}\xspace}$ states. ](Fig1.pdf)
The lattice is generated by a single, linearly polarized 1550 nm retro-reflected laser beam that propagates along the $z$ axis, which is also the direction of an 86 G magnetic field required for the molecule production. The polarization of the lattice beam can be adjusted with a half-wave plate within an uncertainty of $0.5$ degrees. Initially, the molecules are prepared in the ${\ensuremath{\lvert J,m_J, m_{I, \mathrm{Na}}, m_{I, \mathrm{K}} \rangle}\xspace} ={\ensuremath{\lvert 0,0,-1/2,-4 \rangle}\xspace}$ hyperfine state which will be referred to as the ground state ${\ensuremath{\lvert \downarrow \rangle}\xspace}$. Here, $m_I$ denotes the projections of the nuclear spins $I_{\mathrm{Na}}=3/2$ [@Steck2003] and $I_{\mathrm{K}}=4$ [@Tiecke2010] onto the electric field axis. A dc electric field along the $y$ axis is generated by applying voltages to four in-vacuum rod electrodes. Eight additional auxiliary electrodes compensate residual electric field gradients to below 0.5 $\text{V/cm}^2$[@Supplement]. As shown in Fig. \[fig:schematic\](b), molecules in the $J=0$ manifold can be coupled to the first excited rotational manifold ${\ensuremath{\lvert 1, (0,\pm1) \rangle}\xspace}$ via MW radiation with a frequency of $2 B_{\mathrm{rot}}/h\approx 5.6$ GHz [@Will2016], $B_{\mathrm{rot}}$ denotes the rotational constant.
![\[fig:acstark\] The ac Stark maps of the $J=0$ to $J=1$ transition manifold for two electric field strengths. (a) $E=$8.8 V/cm. Left panel: transition frequencies from the ${\ensuremath{\lvert \downarrow \rangle}\xspace}$ state to the $J=1$ manifold as a function of light intensity. The normalized transition strengths are encoded by line color. Only transitions stronger than 0.5% are shown. Right panel: molecule loss spectroscopy. Molecules remaining in ${\ensuremath{\lvert \downarrow \rangle}\xspace}$ after a MW sweep are recorded (blue). (b) $E=$101.3 V/cm at magic trapping conditions. The $m_J=0$ component (upper panel) is separated from the $m_J = \pm1$ components (lower panel) by the dc Stark shift $\Delta$. Consequently, the hyperfine structure of the $m_J=0$ manifold is simplified to two strong lines. Their transition frequency is almost independent of intensity. The red arrow denotes the ${\ensuremath{\lvert \uparrow \rangle}\xspace}$ state that will be used in the following. Theoretical (experimental) data in both subfigures are normalized to the same maximum transition strength (detected atom number). ](Fig2_V5.pdf)
There are $(2I_{\mathrm{Na}} + 1)(2I_{\mathrm{K}} +1) = 36$ hyperfine states in the $J=0$ manifold and 108 hyperfine states in the $J=1$ manifold. The nuclear spins in the $J=1$ manifold couple to rotation predominantly via the nuclear electric quadrupole moment. Furthermore, the trapping light field couples different $m_J$ states [@Gregory2017; @Blackmore2018]. Subsequently, the hyperfine levels in the excited states are mixed and their energies show many avoided crossings as a function of light field intensity, see the left panel of Fig. \[fig:acstark\](a). Because of the strong mixing of the hyperfine levels, transition bands emerge rather than transition lines. Even when the first-order differential light shift is canceled [@Kotochigova2010; @Blackmore2018], rotational states can therefore still rapidly dephase in an inhomogeneous optical trap. The right panel shows the result of the corresponding MW loss spectroscopy. In order to couple to states with different transition strengths, while maintaining good spectral resolution, we sweep the MW frequency across 10 kHz in 1.15 ms. The Rabi frequency for the strongest transition is 4.0 kHz. Whenever a reduction in ${\ensuremath{\lvert \downarrow \rangle}\xspace}$ molecules is detected, a transition to $J = 1$ has occurred [@Supplement]. In the presence of an electric field $E=101.3$ V/cm \[see Fig. \[fig:acstark\](b)\], the $m_J = 0$ states separate from the nearly degenerate $m_J=\pm1$ states due to the dc Stark splitting. Because this splitting is larger than all other interactions for electric fields as low as 60 V/cm, the nuclear spins decouple from the rotation, thus simplifying the ac Stark map. In addition, the rotation is decoupled from the light field, thereby reducing the curvature of the transition frequencies of these states. Simultaneously, the polarization of the lattice beam is set to the magic angle with respect to the static field $\bm{E}$, thereby realizing a spin-decoupled magic trap.
In the following, we focus on ${\ensuremath{\lvert \uparrow \rangle}\xspace}$, the hyperfine state of $J=1$, $m_J = 0$ with the largest transition strength.
![\[fig:magictrap\] Spin-decoupled magic trap. Blue circles are measurements, red lines are theory, black lines are fits of the data to Eq. (\[eq:pol\]). (a) Differential polarizability $\Delta \alpha$ for various lattice polarization angles at $E=144.3$ V/cm. Inset: exemplary ac Stark data to extract $\Delta\alpha$. Top panels: Schematics of trapping potentials of ${\ensuremath{\lvert \downarrow \rangle}\xspace}$ (black lines) or ${\ensuremath{\lvert \uparrow \rangle}\xspace}$ (red lines), which depend on the polarization angle $\phi$. At approximately 54$^\circ$, a magic trapping condition is fulfilled. (b) Hyperpolarizability $\beta$ at the magic angle for various dc electric fields. Inset: exemplary ac Stark data to extract $\beta$ for three electric fields. All error bars were calculated from the covariance matrix of the fits. ](Fig3.pdf)
The dependence of the transition frequency $\nu$ on the light intensity $I$, the polarization angle $\phi$, and the electric field $E$ can be approximated by $$\label{eq:pol}
\Delta \nu = \nu - \nu_{0} = \frac{1}{h}[\Delta \alpha(\phi) I + \beta(E,\phi) I^2 + \mathcal{O} (I^3)],$$ where $\nu_{0}$ denotes the transition frequency at $I=0$, $\Delta \alpha = \alpha_{{\ensuremath{\lvert \downarrow \rangle}\xspace}} - \alpha_{{\ensuremath{\lvert \uparrow \rangle}\xspace}}$ is the differential polarizability, and $\beta$ is the hyperpolarizability of $J=1$ as $\beta \approx 0$ for $J=0$. Specifically, $\Delta\alpha(\phi) = 2/15 \times (1-3\cos^2\phi)\Delta\alpha_\mathrm{ele}$, where $\Delta\alpha_\mathrm{ele}= h\times22$ Hz/(W/cm$^2$) [@Neyenhuis2012; @Supplement]. To characterize the magic angle for this transition, we work at $E=144.3$ V/cm and use a $\pi$ pulse for the MW spectroscopy, see Fig. \[fig:magictrap\](a). For each $\phi$ we measure the transition frequency $\nu$ as a function of trap intensity and find differential polarizabilities that agree well with theory. The magic condition $\Delta \alpha =0$ occurs for $\phi=54.0(5)^\circ$.
To determine $\beta$, the same $\pi$-pulse spectroscopy, albeit with higher frequency resolution, is employed at $\phi = 54^\circ$, and for various electric fields, see the inset of Fig. \[fig:magictrap\](b). We extract $\beta$ (blue circles) by fitting Eq. (\[eq:pol\]) to our data and find that it decreases with increasing $E$. If $d_0 E \ll B_\mathrm{rot}$ and $d_0^2E^2/B_\mathrm{rot}$ is much larger than $\Delta\alpha_\mathrm{ele}I$ and the Zeeman splitting of $m_J$ states with the same hyperfine character at $E=0$, and away from any spectral crossings, $\beta$ can be derived from second-order perturbation of the energy as $$\beta(E,\phi) = \frac{4}{15}\sin^2{(2\phi)}\frac{\Delta\alpha_\mathrm{ele}^2B_\mathrm{rot}}{d_0^2E^2} \;,
\label{eq:beta}$$ shown as red line in Fig. \[fig:magictrap\](b) for our parameters.
Next, we study the rotational coherence in the spin-decoupled magic trap, see Fig. \[fig:coherence\]. We use Ramsey and spin-echo pulse sequences [@Ramsey1950] and work at $I=3.4$ kW/cm$^2$.
We set $E=68.3$ V/cm, which is large enough to decouple the ${\ensuremath{\lvert \uparrow \rangle}\xspace}$ state and small enough to minimize inhomogeneous broadening or temporal noise of the dc Stark shift. The MW frequency $\nu$ is set to resonance. We scan the relative phase $\Delta \theta$ between the first and second $\pi/2$ pulse at a fixed evolution time $t$ to obtain Ramsey interference fringes. Each fringe is described by $$N_{{\ensuremath{\lvert \downarrow \rangle}\xspace}}(\Delta\theta, t)=\frac{N_{\mathrm{tot}}(t)}{2}[1-c(t)\cos(\Delta\theta+\theta_0)],$$ where $c(t)$ is the measured contrast, $N_{\mathrm{tot}}=N_{{\ensuremath{\lvert \downarrow \rangle}\xspace}}+N_{{\ensuremath{\lvert \uparrow \rangle}\xspace}}$ is the total molecule number and $\theta_0$ is a phase offset due to small detunings of the MW, e. g. due to electric field changes. We measure $c(t)$ for various molecule numbers, see Fig. \[fig:coherence\](a), and fit a Gaussian to extract the coherence time. Because $c$ is strictly positive in the fringe fitting, it biases the coherence time when the fringe amplitude becomes comparable to molecule number fluctuations. We therefore estimate the bias $\Delta c$ for each data point individually and exclude data taken after the first point where $c < 1.5\Delta c$ [@Supplement]. The Ramsey coherence time $\tau_c$, here defined as the $1/e$ time of the fit, amounts to 8.7(6) ms for a low molecule number $N_{\mathrm{tot}}=740(70)$, which is six times larger than previously achieved coherence times [@Neyenhuis2012; @Blackmore2018].
Residual single particle dephasing could arise due to residual differential light shifts, electric field gradients, and shot-to-shot fluctuations of the electric field. By adding a $\pi$ pulse in the middle of the evolution, we obtain a spin-echo sequence that cancels the slowly varying contributions to the single particle dephasing and allows us to increase the coherence time to $\tau_c = 13(2)$ ms for low initial molecule numbers. Note that the molecules in this work are moving with the trapping period of $T_{\mathrm{trap}}=16$ ms in the horizontal planes, which are weakly confined by the 1D lattice. Spin echo fails to suppress or even enhances the single particle dephasing when the evolution time is close to the trapping period [@Koller2015]. This explains why the maximum coherence time observed in our experiment remains below $T_{\mathrm{trap}}$.
Furthermore, we find that the coherence time depends on the initial molecule number and thus on density, see Fig. \[fig:coherence\](b) [@Supplement]. There could be several reasons for this, for example a loss of molecules. We measure an intrastate inelastic collision rate of below 3 Hz, because these collisions are suppressed by the $p$-wave barrier. Thus, interstate inelastic collisions dominate, which leads to equal loss of ${\ensuremath{\lvert \downarrow \rangle}\xspace}$ and ${\ensuremath{\lvert \uparrow \rangle}\xspace}$ and does not reduce the fringe contrast. Furthermore, this two-body loss occurs on much longer time scales than the decoherence, see inset of Fig. \[fig:coherence\](b). Another reason for the density dependent decoherence is the strong dipolar interaction present in the system.
To qualitatively understand the decoherence of the molecular rotation caused by dipolar interactions, we use the moving average cluster expansion (MACE) method [@Hazzard2014a] to simulate the spin dynamics of randomly distributed molecules in bulk during the Ramsey or spin-echo interferometry [@Supplement]. Neglecting loss and molecular motion, the system can be described by the following Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
H=\sum_{i>j}\frac{U_{ij}}{2}(\hat{S}^+_i\hat{S}^-_j+\mathrm{h.c.})+\sum_{i}\Delta(\mathbfit{r}_i)\hat{S}^z_i,
\label{eqs1}\end{aligned}$$ where the first term describes the dipolar spin-exchange interaction, where $\hat{S}^{\pm}_i$ and $\hat{S}^z_i$ are the spin-1/2 angular momentum operators of molecule $i$ in position $\mathbfit{r}_i$, $U_{ij}=2 d^2_ {\uparrow\downarrow}/{(4\pi\varepsilon_0)}\times{(1-3\cos^2\Theta_{ij})}/{(|\mathbfit{r}_i-\mathbfit{r}_j|^3)}$ is the dipole-dipole interaction strength between molecules $i$ and $j$, $d_{\uparrow\downarrow}=\sqrt{1/3}d_0$ is the transition dipole moment between ${\ensuremath{\lvert \downarrow \rangle}\xspace}$ and ${\ensuremath{\lvert \uparrow \rangle}\xspace}$ [@Micheli2007; @Gorshkov2011b], $\varepsilon_0$ is the vacuum permittivity, and $\Theta_{ij}$ is the angle between the vector connecting molecules $i$ and $j$ and the quantization axis. The second term describes the coupling to external fields, where $\Delta(\mathbfit{r}_i)$ is a spatially dependent detuning of the microwave transition [@Supplement]. We use $\Delta(\mathbfit{r}_i)$ to emulate the effects of single particle dephasing, especially the uncanceled, movement-induced, time-dependent gradient in the spin-echo case. By modeling this inhomogeneity as an effective external field gradient, the Ramsey (spin-echo) signal with very low molecule number, for which the dipolar interactions can be neglected, can be reproduced. The corresponding single particle dephasing rate is $h\times35(2)$ Hz ($h\times21(2)$ Hz), which corresponds to a dephasing time of 9 (15) ms for the Ramsey (spin-echo) case. Using these values as input for the MACE model leads to simulation results that are consistent with experimental observations for all other densities \[black lines, see [@Supplement] for all data sets\], four of which are shown in Fig. \[fig:coherence\](a). This indicates that dipolar interactions are the dominant source of the density-dependent decoherence. A theoretical model tailored to the trap geometry discussed in this work could improve the understanding of how molecular loss, motion and contact interaction modify the spin dynamics in a bulk gas of polar molecules.
In conclusion, we presented a novel trapping technique for rotating molecules that cancels differential polarizability and reduces the hyperpolarizability. With this method, applicable to a broad range of polar molecules, a density dependence of the rotational coherence time is observed, which is attributed to molecular dipole-dipole interactions and characterized using a simple numerical model. For low density, coherence times as large as 13(2) ms were obtained in the molecular clouds. This opens up exciting possibilities for further experiments. The interplay between the kinetic energy and dipolar interaction could be studied in a bulk gas of molecules. If even longer coherence times are required, a spin-decoupled magic 3D optical lattice could be used to freeze out any molecular motion. This seems very promising because rotational coherence times of about 100 ms were already achieved in a non-spin-decoupled magic 3D lattice [@Yan2013a]. For a near unity filling [$^{23}$Na$^{40}$K ]{}gas in a 3D optical lattice, we expect a dipolar interaction energy on the order of $h \times 1$ kHz, much stronger than the single particle dephasing. This will allow the observation of new states of dipolar quantum matter, e.g. a condensate of rotational excitations [@Kwasigroch2014].
We thank Kaden Hazzard, Tao Shi, Gang-Qin Liu and Richard Schmidt for inspiring discussions, Jun Ye for help with the high-precision high-voltage source, Marcel Duda and Scott Eustice for careful reading of the manuscript, and Nikolaus Buchheim and Zhen-Kai Lu for their contributions to the experimental setup. The MPQ team gratefully acknowledges support from the DFG (FOR 2247) and the EU (UQUAM). Work at Temple University is supported by the ARO-MURI Grant No. W911NF-14-1-0378, the ARO Grant No. W911NF-17-1-0563, the AFOSR Grant No. FA9550-14-1-0321, and the NSF Grant No.PHY-1619788.\
Supplementary Information {#supplementary-information .unnumbered}
=========================
Lattice calibration
-------------------
To determine the maximum intensity of the lattice $I_0$, we measure the differential ac Stark shift between the molecular ${\ensuremath{\lvert \downarrow \rangle}\xspace}$ state and the Feshbach molecular state using two-photon STIRAP spectroscopy at varying lattice intensities $I$. The observed relationship between two-photon detuning $\delta$ and $I$ is linear, as can be seen in Fig. \[fig:intensity\] a). The slope of $251(4)$ kHz/$I_0$ amounts to the effective polarizability $\alpha_{\mathrm{eff}}$, the difference between polarizabilities of the initial Feshbach molecular state ${\ensuremath{\lvert FB \rangle}\xspace}$ and the rovibronic ground state ${\ensuremath{\lvert \downarrow \rangle}\xspace}$, which is given by $$\label{eq:intens}
\alpha_{\mathrm{eff}} = \alpha_{FB} - \alpha_{{\ensuremath{\lvert \downarrow \rangle}\xspace}} = \alpha_{\mathrm{Na}} + \alpha_{\mathrm{K}} - \alpha_{{\ensuremath{\lvert \downarrow \rangle}\xspace}}.$$ The polarizability of Feshbach molecules $\alpha_{FB}$ is well approximated by the sum of the polarizabilities of the constituent sodium and potassium atoms, $\alpha_{\mathrm{Na}}$ and $\alpha_{\mathrm{K}}$. The atomic polarizabilities $\alpha_{\mathrm{Na}} = h\times9.0$ Hz/(W/cm$^2$) [@Na2013calculations] and $\alpha_{\mathrm{K}}=h\times17.6$ Hz/(W/cm$^2$) [@Grimm2000] in a 1550 nm trap. $\alpha_{{\ensuremath{\lvert \downarrow \rangle}\xspace}}$ is determined experimentally using parametric heating measurements [@Friebel1998; @Neyenhuis2012; @Gregory2017; @Rvachov2017] of the lattice depth of molecules and sodium atoms, which are related by $$\alpha_{{\ensuremath{\lvert \downarrow \rangle}\xspace}}= \frac{V^{\mathrm{NaK}}_{\text{lat}}}{V^{\mathrm{Na}}_{\text{lat}}}\alpha_{\mathrm{Na}},$$ where $V^{\mathrm{Na}}_{\text{lat}}$ ($V^{\mathrm{NaK}}_{\text{lat}}$) denotes the respective lattice depth of sodium atoms and molecules. In such a measurement the lattice intensity is modulated by $2.5\%$ for 8 ms. Then the molecules (atoms) are released from the lattice and the cloud radius along $z$-direction is recorded, see Fig. \[fig:intensity\] (b) and (c). Parametric heating occurs when the modulation frequency is equal to the transition frequency from the ground band to the second excited band, $f_{0\rightarrow2}$. We numerically solve the band structure of the optical lattice and obtain $f_{0\rightarrow2}$ as a function of the lattice depth, as shown in \[fig:intensity\] d). From our measurements we obtain $f_{0\rightarrow2}^{\mathrm{Na}}=76.5(2) $ kHz and $f_{0\rightarrow2}^{\mathrm{NaK}}= 75.2(8)$ kHz.
The corresponding lattice depth is 38.6(2) $E_R^{\mathrm{Na}}$ for sodium atoms and 226(4) $E_R^{\mathrm{NaK}}$ for [$^{23}$Na$^{40}$K ]{}molecules respectively, where $E_R^{\mathrm{Na}}=h\times 3.612$ kHz and $E_R^{\mathrm{NaK}}=h\times 1.319$ kHz are the recoil energies of sodium atoms and [$^{23}$Na$^{40}$K ]{}molecules respectively. We obtain $\alpha_{{\ensuremath{\lvert \downarrow \rangle}\xspace}}=h\times19.3(4)$ Hz/(W/cm$^2$), which agrees well with the theoretical *ab initio* value $\alpha^{\text{theory}}_{{\ensuremath{\lvert \downarrow \rangle}\xspace}}=h\times20.4$ Hz/(W/cm$^2$).
With these polarizabilities, we can calculate $\alpha_{\mathrm{eff}}$ according to Eq. \[eq:intens\] and determine the maximum lattice intensity to be $I_0=34(2)$ kW/cm$^2$.
Electric field generation and calibration
-----------------------------------------
Direction, strength and gradient of the electric field are controlled with three groups of rod electrodes along the $x$, $y$ and $z$ axis. Each group consists of four parallel rods.
The in-vacuum main electrodes along the $x$-direction shown in Fig. \[fig:schematic\] a) generate a near homogeneous electric field, in this work pointing along the $y$-direction. The other two groups of auxiliary electrodes along $y$ and $z$ axis are mounted outside the glass cell, are set up in a quadrupole configuration. They do not change the magnitude of the electric field at the position of the molecules to first order. We also add quadrupole voltages to the main electrodes and thus can compensate electric field gradients along all directions. This is necessary due to inhomogeneities of the main electrodes and electric charge accumulation on the glass cell walls, which can only partially be removed with UV light in the beginning of each experimental cycle.
Each of the main electrodes is individually connected to a high precision voltage source with $\pm 400$ V with an rms noise of 0.55 mV from 10 to 15 kHz [@Shaw2015]. The voltage sources are controlled by high precision digital-to-analog converters (DACs). The auxiliary electrodes are controlled by voltage sources with an rms noise of 1 mV. This allows us to apply stable electric fields up to $\pm 160$ V/cm to the molecules.
ac-Stark maps of the rotational transition
------------------------------------------
We perform MW spectroscopy at two electric field strengths, see right panels in Fig. \[fig:acstark\]. To ensure identical starting conditions for all data points, the preparation of molecules is always performed at the same lattice intensity, which is then ramped quickly to the respective spectroscopy intensity shortly before the MW sweep. Afterwards the lattice is ramped back and the remaining $J=0$ molecules are detected as described in [@Seesselberg2018]. Whenever $J=0$ molecules are lost, it is assumed that a transition to $J=1$ has occurred.
The theoretically expected frequency and strength for each MW transition are indicated by the lines in the left panels of Fig. \[fig:acstark\], where the strength of the transition is color coded. Only transitions with strengths larger than 0.5% are displayed for clarity.
In order to model the energies of all relevant rotational hyperfine levels in various external field set-ups, we follow the formalism of Ref. [@Li2017] and the references therein. In the rovibronic ground state manifold the effective Hamiltonian includes interactions from rotation, hyperfine, Zeeman, ac and dc Stark effects. We evaluate the effective Hamiltonian in the zero-field rotational hyperfine basis with $J=0$ to $3$, which is then diagonalized to obtain the eigenenergies and eigenvectors at various external field settings. The same set of parameters to describe various interactions are used as in Ref. [@Li2017] except dynamic polarizabilities at 1550 nm. We use the experimentally determined isotropic polarizability at 1550 nm, $\alpha_\mathrm{iso} = (2\alpha_{\perp}+\alpha_{{\mathbin{\!/\mkern-5mu/\!}}})/3 = h\times19.3$ Hz/(W/cm$^2$), where $\alpha_{\perp}$ and $\alpha_{{\mathbin{\!/\mkern-5mu/\!}}}$ are dynamic perpendicular and parallel radial electronic polarizabilities. The polarizability difference $\Delta\alpha_\mathrm{ele}= \alpha_{{\mathbin{\!/\mkern-5mu/\!}}} - \alpha_\mathrm{\perp}$ is obtained by fitting the experimental transition frequencies $\nu$ at $E=144.3$ V/cm$^2$ and various laser intensities and polarization angles to $\Delta\alpha(\phi) = 2/15 \times (1-3\cos^2\phi)(\alpha_{{\mathbin{\!/\mkern-5mu/\!}}} - \alpha_\mathrm{\perp})$. The fitted values are $\alpha_{\perp}=h\times12$ Hz/(W/cm$^2$) and $\alpha_{{\mathbin{\!/\mkern-5mu/\!}}}=h\times34$ Hz/(W/cm$^2$). Frank-Condon overlaps calculated from the eigenvectors are used as transition probabilities.
Ramsey and spin-echo contrast bias estimation
---------------------------------------------
To avoid ambiguities in the Ramsey fringe fitting due to an unknown and potentially slowly drifting phase of the fringe, we restrict the contrast of the fringe $c$ to positive values only. However, due to molecule number fluctuations, the fit contrast $c$ of an experimental Ramsey fringe is never 0. This biases $c$, especially when the molecule number is small [@Handel2010]. To quantitatively understand this, we simulate Ramsey interference fringes in presence of molecule number fluctuations, see Fig. \[ContrastBias\].
![(a) Simulated interference fringes in presence of molecule number noise when $N_{\mathrm{tot}}=400$. Symbols are the simulated population as a function of $\Delta\theta$, solid lines are the fitted interference fringes. The errorbar is the error of the mean of the molecule number. (b) Measured contrast $c$ as function of the real contrast $c_0$ when $N_{\mathrm{tot}}=$400 (light blue) or 800 (dark blue). Solid lines in the same color are the corresponding contrasts given by Eq. . The red line gives the measured contrast without noise. In all simulations $\Delta N=98$, and $M_{s}=35$ which is similar as in experiments.[]{data-label="ContrastBias"}](FigS4.pdf)
We add Gaussian noise with a standard deviation $\Delta N$ to the molecule number of an ideal sinusoidal fringe with contrast $c_0$ and fit the resulting contrast. We repeat this simulation 300 times to obtain an average measured contrast $c$ and find that the contrast bias $\Delta c$ adds to the real contrast quadratically as $$\begin{aligned}
c =\sqrt{c^2_0+\Delta c^2} \label{eqs2},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\Delta c =\sqrt{\frac{a}{M_{s}}}\frac{2\Delta N}{N_{\mathrm{tot}}}.$$ $M_{s}$ is the sampling size and $a=3.5$ is an empirical parameter obtained from our simulations. In our experiments, $\Delta c \approx 10\%$ depending on the molecule number, see Fig. \[FigS1\] and Fig. \[FigS2\] (dark grey shaded areas).
![\[FigS1\] Comparison of measurement (circles) and simulation (lines) of the Ramsey experiments. Numbers in the right corner denote the initial molecule number(error). Symbols are measured contrast values as function of evolution time. Black (orange) solid lines are MACE simulations with (without) external field gradient $h\times1.3(1)$ Hz/. The orange shaded region marks the effect of a factor of two change in density in either direction on the simulation. The dark grey shaded region indicates the bias of the data, the light grey region the cutoff for the data (empty circles).](FigS1.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
To avoid overestimation of the coherence time, we exclude data (empty circles) with a contrast smaller than $1.5\Delta c$ (light grey shaded areas) for fitting. The remaining data is fit with a Gaussian function of the form $$c(t) = c_i \exp\left(-\left(\frac{t}{\tau}\right)^2\right),
\label{eq:gauss}$$ where $c_i$ is the initial contrast at the shortest evolution time and $\tau$ denotes the coherence time.
Another approach would be to subtract the contrast bias using Eq. before the fitting. We found that in this case the overestimation is below $10\%$, even when the low contrast data is included. This is because the the tails of the Gaussian decay curve in Eq. contribute less to the fitting than the high contrast data.
The detection offset of the molecule number is less than 20 molecules and thus negligible.
Estimation of dipolar interaction
---------------------------------
The mean vaule of the angular-independent part of $U_{ij}$ sets an energy scale for the dipolar interaction, which is given as $$\label{eq:avint}
\langle U_d \rangle \approx \frac{2|d^2_ {\uparrow\downarrow}|}{4\pi\varepsilon_0 l^3},$$ where $l=n_0^{-1/3}$ is the average distance between molecules and $n_0$ is the peak molecular density.
As the lattice spacing 0.775 is much less than the average distance between molecules, the density distribution of the molecular gas is approximated by $$n(x,y,z)=n_0\exp\left(-\frac{x^2}{\sigma_x^2}-\frac{y^2}{\sigma_y^2}-\frac{z^2}{\sigma_z^2}\right),$$ where the peak molecular density is $$n_0=\frac{N_{\mathrm{tot}}}{\pi^{3/2}\sigma_x\sigma_y\sigma_z},$$ where $\sigma_x=\sigma_y=$ 27(4) and $\sigma_z=$11.5(6) are the $1/e$ radius of the molecular cloud in $x$-, $y$- or $z$-direction as determined by *in situ* imaging. In the experiment we change the molecule number by varying the hold time between Feshbach molecule production and further experiments, which leads to loss according to inelastic collisions. This allows us to keep the cloud radius almost independent of the molecule number. The peak density for the highest molecule number 3200(300) is $7(3)\times 10^{10}$ /cm$^3$ and the corresponding average distance is 2.4(3) . This results in a peak dipolar interaction of $\langle U_d \rangle=h\times 50(20)$ Hz, similar to the decoherence rate we observe at the highest molecule number.
Estimation of single-particle dephasing rates
---------------------------------------------
The transition frequency between ${\ensuremath{\lvert \downarrow \rangle}\xspace}$ and ${\ensuremath{\lvert \uparrow \rangle}\xspace}$ depends on temporal fluctuations and spatial variations in the external potential across the molecule cloud. These changes can be described by the MW detuning term $\Delta(\mathbf{r},t)$ of Eq. \[eqs1\], which can be written as $$\Delta(\mathbfit{r}, t)= \Delta\alpha I(\mathbfit{r})+\beta I^2(\mathbfit{r})+\xi E(\mathbfit{r},t)^2.
\label{eq:effmwd}$$ The first two terms are first-order and second-order differential light shifts from Eq. \[eq:beta\]. We assume that the lattice beam has a Gaussian intensity profile and ignore the intensity variation along z-direction $$I(\mathbfit{r})=I_{\text{peak}}\exp \left(-2\frac{x^2+y^2}{\omega^2_0} \right)$$ with beam waist $\omega_0=100$ . The third term of Eq. \[eq:effmwd\] is the differential dc Stark shift, where according to [@Micheli2007] $$\xi=\frac{4}{15}\frac{d^2_0}{B_{\text{rot}}}=h\times177~\frac{\mathrm{Hz}}{\mathrm{(V/cm)}^2}.$$ The electric field $E$ can be written as $$E(\mathbfit{r},t)\approx E_0(t)+\nabla E\cdot \mathbfit{r}+\mathcal{O}(r^2),$$ where $E_0(t)$ describes the temporal fluctuation and the second term is the first-order inhomogeneity of $E$.
The inhomogeneity of $\Delta(\mathbf{r})$ leads to dephasing of rotational excitations and can be calculated from Eq. \[eq:effmwd\] by numerical integration. The experimentally observed dephasing $\gamma$ thus has local and temporal contributions: Due to residual differential light shifts, $\gamma_{\text{L}}$, gradient electric fields, $\gamma_{\text{EG}}$, and temporal fluctuations of $E$, $\gamma_{\text{EN}}$. $$\gamma_{\text{L}}=\frac{\int{n(\mathbfit{r})\left|\delta\alpha \Delta I(\mathbfit{r})+\beta \Delta I^2(\mathbfit{r})\right|}\mathbf{d}\mathbfit{r}}{\int{n(\mathbfit{r})\mathbf{d}\mathbfit{r}}}$$ is the dephasing due to residual differential light shifts, where $\delta\alpha=h (\partial\nu/\partial I)|_{I=I_{\text{peak}}}=\Delta\alpha +2 \beta I_{\text{peak}}$ is the local differential polarizability, $\Delta I(\mathbfit{r})=I(\mathbfit{r})-I_{\text{peak}}$, and $n(\mathbf{r})$ is the density described in the last section. The dephasing rate due to gradient electric fields $|\nabla E|$ is given as $\gamma_{\text{EG}}=2\xi \overline{E_0}|\nabla E|\sigma_x$ assuming that the gradient is along x-direction for simplicity, where $\overline{E_0}$ is the time averaged electric field in the center of the molecular cloud. The dephasing due to temporal electric field noise $\delta E_0$ is $\gamma_{\text{EN}}=2\xi\overline{E_0}\delta E_0$.
source value dephasing rate
---------------- ------------------------------------ ---------------------------------
$\delta\alpha$ $ h\times 0.05~\text{Hz/(W/cm}^2)$
$\beta$ $h\times 30~\text{Hz/(kW/cm}^2)^2$
$\delta E$ $$0.5 mV/cm $\gamma_\text{EN}=h\times$12 Hz
$ \nabla E$ $$0.5 $\text{V/cm}^2$ $\gamma_\text{EG}=h\times$38 Hz
: Maximal dephasing rates at 68.3 V/cm due to imperfect cancellation of local differential polarizability $\delta\alpha$ and residual hyperpolarizability $\beta$, and due to electric field noise and gradients, $\delta E$ and $\nabla E$.[]{data-label="Tab1"}
The estimated maximal dephasing rates are summarized in Tab. \[Tab1\] together with their experimental origin.
The effective dephasing rate can then be calculated as $\gamma=\sqrt{\gamma^2_{\text{L}}+\gamma^2_{\text{EG}}+2\gamma^2_{\text{EN}}}$ and is related to the coherence time by $\tau\approx 2\hbar/\gamma$ which is verified by numerical simulation.
The dephasing rate is on the order of a few ten Hz in the current setup. In the future, the dephasing rate could be reduced to a few Hz by implementing less noisy, more homogeneous dc electric field as well as more precise laser polarization control.
MACE simulation of spin dynamics
--------------------------------
To understand the decoherence induced by the dipolar interaction, we implement the MACE simulation [@Hazzard2014a] in which molecules are spatially frozen and randomly distributed with a Gaussian probability distribution in tens of layers with a spacing of 0.775 . The cloud radius along x-, y-, and z-direction in the simulation is the same as in the experiments. In the simulation, we divide the molecules into hundreds of clusters of four molecules with the strongest dipolar interactions. Then we exactly solve the time evolution for each cluster and sum up the expectation values of all spins to obtain the Ramsey signal.
For a homogeneous external field, the decoherence is due to the random spread of the dipolar interaction of molecules. We expect the coherence time $\tau_c$ to be inversely proportional to the molecule number $N_{\mathrm{mol}}$ because the dipolar interaction is proportional to the molecular density. In this homogeneous MACE simulation the 1/$e$ coherence time is about 12 ms with 3000 and 70 ms with 500 molecules, see orange lines in Fig. \[FigS1\]. In the Ramsey experiments (circles) however, the coherence time is limited to about 8 ms even for 600 molecules when the dipolar interaction is negligible. This is due to the residual single particle dephasing discussed in the previous section. In order to qualitatively introduce this dephasing into the model, we implement a simple *effective* external field gradient along x-direction $\Delta=\Delta' x$. By fitting the experimental data with lowest molecule number we obtain $\Delta'= h\times1.3(1)$ Hz/ which corresponds to a dephasing rate of $h\times35(2)$ Hz. Taking the effective dephasing into account, we can reproduce the experiments with various molecule numbers in the simulation (black lines).
![\[FigS2\] Comparison of measurement and simulation of the spin-echo experiments. As Fig. \[FigS1\], but with spin-echo pulse sequence and an external field gradient of $h\times0.8(1)$ Hz/ in the MACE simulation.](FigS2.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
For the spin-echo experiments, see Fig. \[FigS2\], we obtain an effective external field gradient of $\Delta'=h\times 0.8(1)$ Hz/ in a similar manner to account for the uncancelled single particle dephasing of $h \times 21(2)$ Hz. Implementing a parabolic external field in the simulation also produced similar decoherence behavior.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We use Keck laser guide star adaptive optics imaging and exploit the magnifying effects of strong gravitational lensing (the effective resolution is FWHM $\approx 200$ pc) to investigate the sub-kpc scale of an intermediate-redshift ($z = 0.63$) massive early-type galaxy being lensed by a foreground early-type galaxy; we dub this class of strong gravitational lens systems EELs, e.g., early-type/early-type lenses. We find that the background source is massive (M$_* = 10^{10.9}$ M$_\odot$) and compact ($r_{\rm e} = 1.1$ kpc), and a two-component fit is required to model accurately the surface brightness distribution, including an extended low-surface-brightness component. This extended component may arise from the evolution of higher-redshift ‘red nuggets’ or may already be in place at $z \sim 2$ but is unobservable due to cosmological surface brightness dimming.'
author:
- |
M. W. Auger$^{1}$[^1], T. Treu$^{1}$, B. J. Brewer$^{1}$, P. J. Marshall$^{1,2}$\
$^{1}$ Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA\
$^{2}$ Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
title: 'A Compact Early-type Galaxy at $z = 0.6$ Under a Magnifying Lens: Evidence For Inside-out Growth'
---
galaxies: elliptical and lenticular, cD
Introduction
============
The hierarchical formation scenario of galaxy evolution suggests that galaxies grow via mergers with other galaxies. The early-type galaxies (ETGs) that are the products of these mergers follow a set of tight scaling relations, including a correlation between the sizes and stellar masses of ETGs at low redshifts [e.g., @shen; @hyde]. However, it has recently been found that ETGs at high redshifts ($z \gtrsim 1.5$) show substantial deviations from this relation [e.g., @daddi; @trujillo06; @vanderwel; @vanDokkum]; these ‘red nuggets’ have effective radii between 2 and 5 times smaller for a given stellar mass than is expected from the local $r_e$-M$_*$ relation. Recent deep spectroscopic observations have found that the stellar velocity dispersions of these objects are consistent with the inferred sizes and stellar masses [e.g., @cappellari; @vanDokkum09], although there is some evidence that many galaxies have had their sizes systematically under-estimated [@cappellari]. Furthermore, @newman find that the sizes of ETGs at slightly lower redshifts than the red nuggets ($1 \lesssim z \lesssim 1.6$) are *at most* a factor of two larger than ETGs in the local universe, which suggests that most of the size evolution of red nuggets – if required – occurs early in the lives of these galaxies.
Hierarchical growth through ‘dry’ mergers should lead to most red nuggets growing substantially in size but not as quickly in mass, therefore moving these galaxies towards the local $r_e$-M$_*$ relation, although the tight scatter observed in the $r_e$-M$_*$ relation indicates that at most only half of the growth can be due to major mergers [@nipoti]. Additionally, up to 10% of the red nuggets will not have experienced any major mergers to aid in this ‘puffing up’ [@hopkins09a] and should thus exist at low redshifts. Even if some red nuggets exist locally, most will have disappeared, presumably evolving into the cores of massive early type galaxies [e.g., @hopkinsBundy; @bezanson]. Several groups have attempted to find the surviving counterparts to these high-$z$ red nuggets at low redshifts with varying and sometimes discrepant results. @valentinuzzi examined the ETG population of the WINGS clusters and found that $\approx 20\%$ of these galaxies have properties similar to red nuggets and suggested that much of the observed evolution may be due to sample selection effects. Conversely, @trujillo09 and @taylor searched the SDSS and found that the number density of red nuggets must decrease by a factor of $\sim 5000$ between $z \approx 2$ and $z \approx 0.1$. This discrepancy makes it unclear how many red nugget analogs exist in the local universe.
Most studies have investigated massive red nuggets in the distant ($z \gtrsim 1.5$) or local ($z \approx 0.1$) universe [but see @stockton]. This is not due to a lack of interest in intermediate redshifts ($0.1 < z < 1$); indeed, the rate of evolution found by @bernardi suggests that the progenitors of $z = 0.1$ BCGs might still be red nuggets at $z < 1$, and @hopkins10 suggest that tracing the evolution of the faint ‘outer envelope’ of ETGs is a strong model discriminator. The problem with moving to intermediate redshifts has been in identifying compact red galaxies at these redshifts. For example, 0.5 kpc at $z = 0.5$ corresponds to 0.08$^{\prime\prime}$; such galaxies may be unresolved even in HST surveys.
We have implemented a novel approach to find and study intermediate-redshift analogs to the high-$z$ red nuggets: we use the SDSS spectroscopic database to find strong gravitational lens candidates that consist of an intermediate-redshift early-type galaxy being lensed by a lower-redshift early-type galaxy (we call these early-type/early-type lenses, or EELs). These natural telescopes provide a unique opportunity to identify and study red nuggets at $z \sim 0.6$, as high magnification is easier to achieve for compact sources [e.g., @marshall; @newton] and ETGs are massive. Furthermore, the lensing magnification significantly increases the effective depth [*and resolution*]{} of observations [e.g., @treuReview], opening the possibility to explore galaxies of unprecedented compactness.
This letter presents the discovery and first analysis of an EEL and demonstrates the unique utility of our approach. We present the data in Section 2, followed by our lensing and surface brightness fitting in Section 3, and conclude with a discussion in Section 4. All magnitudes are in the AB system, stellar masses are calculated assuming a Salpeter initial mass function [e.g., @augerIMF], and we use a flat $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with $\Omega_{\rm m} = 0.3$ and $h = 0.7$.
Observations and Data Reduction
===============================
We have used the SDSS spectroscopic database and archive to identify spectra that appear to be composed of two early-type galaxy spectra at different redshifts and are therefore candidate strong gravitational lenses; this selection is similar to that employed by the Sloan Lens ACS [SLACS; @slacsi] survey, although the SLACS survey looked for emission lines from the background objects and therefore selected late-type sources. The selection method essentially guarantees that the background galaxy is intrinsically luminous and therefore massive, as the spectroscopic continuum must be clearly visible in order to distinguish both the foreground and background redshifts.
We have observed 7 EEL candidates to date using NIRC2 with the laser guide star adaptive optics (LGS-AO) system on Keck II and have successfully confirmed that all of the observed candidates are strong gravitational lenses [@augerEELs]. Here we focus on the system SDSSJ1347-0101 with lens deflector redshift $z = 0.39$ and lens source redshift $z = 0.63$, which was observed on 21 April 2010 UT in clear skies using a tip-tilt star with magnitude $r = 16.8$ offset by 56from the lens system. We used the NIRC2 wide camera (with pixel scale 004 pixel$^{-1}$ and 011 FWHM resolution during our observation) with the Kp filter and obtained 30 exposures of length 40s for a total on-source time of 1200s. Each exposure also includes a star located 17from the lens which we use as the PSF star.
The data were reduced by flatfielding with a sky flat created from the median of the science exposures with all sources masked, and a median background was then subtracted from each image. These images were resampled to a distortion-corrected frame and the 30 images were then registered using cross-correlation and pixel-based techniques which find sub-pixel offsets between the images. These offsets and the distortion model were then used to [drizzle]{} the images onto a common output frame. The registration worked very well for the PSF star but we found that the distortion model left residual offsets of up to 0.7 pixels at the lens location, and we therefore re-registered the images with the PSF star masked to obtain an un-smeared final image of the lens system (Figure \[F\_lens\]).
{width="98.00000%"}
Mass and Surface Brightness Modelling
=====================================
We model the lens surface mass distribution as a singular isothermal ellipsoid [SIE; e.g., @kormann] and allow for external shear. The light of the lensing galaxy is modelled as an elliptical Sersic profile with Sersic index $n$ free to vary between 0.5 and 6, but we do not assume that the mass and the light of the lens are aligned. The background source was also initially modelled as a Sersic profile with Sersic index between 0.5 and 6. We convolve the models with an empirical PSF that was observed simultaneously with the lensing system and compare the convolved models with the data.
The best-fit model is obtained by using a Levenburg-Marquardt optimisation that minimises the $\chi^2$ of the difference between the data and the model. The data are generally well-described by the model, but we find that using a single Sersic component for the source results in a ring of residual flux left in the image (Figure \[F\_lens\]); the amplitude of these residuals is approximately 1.5 to 3 times the noise level. We also find that the data do not provide precise constraint on $n$ for the source (they only constrain $n$ to be large, i.e., $n > 3$) so we fix the source to have an elliptical de Vaucouleurs profile ($n = 4$). The residual flux is clearly not associated with the foreground deflector, as adding a second Sersic component does not improve the fit. However, adding a second component to the source surface brightness profile improves the fit dramatically, as shown in Figure \[F\_lens\], and the per-pixel significance of the residuals around the ring is below the noise. The best-fit parameters for the lensing mass distribution and the light profiles for the source for both the one- and two-component models are given in Table \[T\_parameters\].
[@ld[2]{}cd[1]{}cd[2]{}cd[1]{}d[2]{}c@]{} & & & & & & & & &\
One-component & 0.42 & 210 & 0.73 & 4 & 0.02 & -62 & 20.6 & 0.07 & 4\
Two-component & 0.42 & 210 & 0.80 & 4 & 0.01 & -39 & 20.3 & 0.16 & –\
de Vaucouleurs & & & & & & & 21.3 & 0.04 & 4\
Sersic & & & & & & & 20.9 & 0.25 & 0.6\
\[T\_parameters\]
We find that the foreground galaxy is well-described by a single Sersic component for the light a SIE for the mass distribution. The SIE Einstein radius is 042, which implies a lens velocity dispersion of 210$\pm15$ km s$^{-1}$. This is consistent with the stellar velocity dispersion of 203$\pm42$ km s$^{-1}$ that we obtain by fitting velocity-dispersion-broadened single-burst @bc03 templates to the SDSS spectrum; Figure \[F\_spectrum\] shows the result of this fit, which we use to decompose the spectrum into lens and source components. The observed lens Kp magnitude is 17.7 and we use a @bc03 instantaneous-burst galaxy template with formation redshift $z = 3$ and solar metallicity to determine rest-frame quantities. We find a K-band rest-frame magnitude of 18.4 and a luminosity of L$_{\rm K,lens} = 10^{11.4}~L_{\rm K,\odot}$, with a corresponding stellar mass M$_{\rm *,lens} = 10^{11.6}~{\rm M}_\odot$. We adopt error estimates of 0.1 dex on the luminosity and 0.2 dex on the stellar mass for both the lens and source.
![Smoothed SDSS spectrum of SDSSJ1347-0101 (black) and model template spectra for the lens (blue) and source (red). Ca K & H lines from the background source are clearly visible in the smoothed spectrum, and we use the lens/source decomposition to determine a stellar velocity dispersion $\sigma_{\rm SDSS} = 203\pm42~{\rm km~s^{-1}}$ for the lens. Furthermore, we find that the stellar masses required to normalise the template spectra to match the observed spectrum are consistent with the masses derived from the Keck AO imaging (see Section 3).[]{data-label="F_spectrum"}](SDSSJ1347_spec.eps){width="48.00000%"}
The source has a total Kp magnitude of 20.3 (20.6 if a single-component is fit) and, again assuming a formation redshift $z = 3$ and solar metallicity, this implies that the rest-frame K-band magnitude is 21.0, the luminosity is L$_{\rm K,src} = 10^{10.8}~L_{\rm K,\odot}$, and the stellar mass is M$_{\rm *,src} = 10^{10.9}~{\rm M}_\odot$. The *lensed* (i.e., observed) source magnitude is 17.6, and we therefore find a factor of 12 magnification due to lensing. The background source size is 0.5 kpc if a single de Vaucouleurs profile is assumed or 1.1 kpc if a two-component de Vaucouleurs and Sersic profile is used.
The SDSS spectrum allows us to verify that our stellar masses from the Keck AO-LGS photometry are robust. We fit @bc03 templates to the foreground and background components of the spectrum to determine the appropriate normalisation of the templates and therefore the stellar mass of the flux observed by the SDSS spectroscopic fibre. The lens (foreground) stellar mass determined from the SDSS spectrum is $10^{11.1}~M_\odot$ which implies a 0.5 dex loss of flux due to the fibre aperture; this is consistent with what we find if we convolve our model with the SDSS point spread function (which has FWHM = 22 for SDSSJ1347-0101) and integrate the flux within the SDSS fibre aperture. We perform the same procedure for the lensed (background) source and find that, when accounting for magnification and fibre losses, the source stellar mass inferred from the Keck LGS-AO photometry and the SDSS spectrum agree to within 0.2 dex, consistent with our assumed errors on the stellar mass.
Discussion and Conclusions
==========================
The background source of SDSSJ1347-0101 is a clear outlier from the size-mass relationship of local ETGs and has properties that are similar to high-redshift ETGs (Figure \[F\_sizeMass\]). However, the inferred size varies by a factor of two depending on whether a one- or two-component surface brightness model is fit to the galaxy; our imaging data clearly indicate that the two-component model is required to describe the light distribution of SDSSJ1347-0101. Larger samples of intermediate-redshift objects are need to make any strong claims, but we note that the extended ‘wing’ of flux from the background source of SDSSJ1347-0101 may help alleviate the tension between the very compact high-redshift galaxies and the apparent lack of local-universe counterparts [e.g., @trujillo09; @taylor] in two ways.
![The size-mass relation for high-redshift ETGs; black diamonds are from @newman, grey circles are from @cimatti, and light-grey squares are from @kriek and @vanDokkum. SDSSJ1347-0101 (red points; the square is for a single-component de Vaucouleurs fit, the hexagon is for the two-component fit, and the triangle is the de Vaucouleurs component of the two-component fit) has properties consistent with the high-redshift objects but is a significant outlier from the local-universe size-mass relation [black line with 1-$\sigma$ scatter indicated by dotted lines; @hyde].[]{data-label="F_sizeMass"}](sizeMass.eps){width="48.00000%"}
First, single-component fits may be poor models for the true surface brightness distribution of compact ETGs [e.g., @stockton], and observations of high-redshift galaxies may lack the sensitivity required to characterise low-surface-brightness extended components of red nuggets. This is unlikely to fully resolve the issue, however, since a factor of two size difference is not enough to move all of the high-redshift objects to the local size-mass relation. We also note that deep *HST* imaging of the high-redshift galaxies does not indicate the presence of a significant second component for most red nuggets [e.g., @damjanov].
Alternatively, the low-surface-brightness components of intermediate-redshift red nuggets might be due to evolution of the higher-redshift red nuggets. @hopkinsBundy show that massive ETGs in the local universe have extended low surface brightness components but the central surface mass density of these galaxies is similar to the central surface mass density of the red nuggets, indicating that the red nuggets may ‘grow’ extended wings of low-surface-brightness material. We find that SDSSJ1347-0101 is consistent with this scenario and has a peak (PSF-deconvolved) surface mass density of $10^{11.2} {\rm M_\odot kpc^{-2}}$, similar to both low- and high-redshift massive ETGs (Figure \[F\_sb\_profile\]).
![The observed surface density profile of the background source of SDSSJ1347-0101 (dotted grey line) and best-fit one-component (green) and two-component (purple) models plotted from the HWHM of the effective resolution to the surface brightness limit of our observations. We also plot the surface brightness profiles for massive Virgo ellipticals from @hopkinsBundy rescaled to a Salpeter IMF (blue lines) and for the $z \sim 2$ red nuggets (red lines) from @vanDokkum. The single-component model is unable to fit the low-surface-density tail and overfits the central region to compensate, as is seen in Figure 1.[]{data-label="F_sb_profile"}](SBprofile.eps){width="48.00000%"}
@stockton used 9-band photometry from SDSS and UKIDSS to identify compact objects that have colours consistent with ETGs at redshifts $0.4 \lesssim z \lesssim 0.6$. They found 14 compact massive galaxy candidates in an area of $\sim$200 square degrees and followed up 11 the them; 7 of these 11 were spectroscopically found to be galaxies and two were confirmed to be compact ($r_e \approx 1$ kpc) using LGS-AO imaging with NIRC2. These intermediate-redshift, massive compact galaxies also require low-surface-brightness components to adequately describe their surface brightness distributions, and this may indicate that lower-redshift compact massive galaxies require two-component models in general.
A larger number of intermediate-redshift red nuggets must be investigated to determine quantitatively their density, test the degree to which different physical mechanisms affect the evolution of the high-redshift red nuggets, and characterise the scatter in the size-mass relationship of these objects [e.g., @nipoti]. Depending on the slope of the size-luminosity function, lensed sources may be more compact than non-lensed counterparts due to the increased cross-section for lensing of high-surface-brightness sources [e.g., @newton]. Our Keck adaptive-optics imaging has been extremely successful at confirming the lensing nature of EEL candidates discovered in the SDSS spectroscopic database. However, there are several potential drawbacks to this approach, all of which are surmountable.
The first is the non-trivial selection function which makes calculating precise number densities, for example, difficult. @dobler have characterised the selection function for the SLACS survey, and a similar approach will yield the appropriate volume in which we search for EELs. We can nevertheless obtain an order of magnitude estimate of the number density of EEL sources by making some approximations. We find that roughly one out of every 1000 SDSS spectra (which have circular apertures with radius 15) contain a high-quality EEL candidate. If we assume that we are uniformly sensitive to sources between $0.3 < z < 0.7$ (this is an approximation; we neglect magnification bias and the actual selection is biased towards the higher redshift end of this interval due to the lensing cross section), this yields an EEL source density of $1.3\times10^{-3}$ Mpc$^{-3}$. This is a factor of a few smaller than the density of massive ETGs at these redshifts [e.g., @bundy], indicating that EELs sources are not an extreme subset of the overall population For comparison, the number density of EELs sources is slightly higher than high-redshift red nuggets [e.g., @taylor] and is several orders of magnitude larger than that of intermediate-redshift red nuggets inferred from the @stockton search (they find one object per 100 square degrees at $0.4 < z < 0.6$ while we find one EEL in every 2 square arcminutes at $0.3 < z < 0.7$). This difference is due in part to our higher sensitivity (and therefore lower stellar mass limit), but it also indicates that the selection function of @stockton is much more restrictive and suggests that the EEL source population may be more representative of the overall population of compact red galaxies at intermediate redshifts.
Two other drawbacks of our approach are related to the use of AO imaging to confirm and analyse the sources. The requirement of having a bright tip-tilt star within one arcminute of the lens substantially limits the ability to follow-up targets and therefore decreases the possible sample size. Additionally, accurately modelling the sources requires a good model for the AO PSF; in principle this can be obtained by observing stars off-axis from the science observation, although we have found that results are significantly more robust when the PSF star is observed simultaneously with the lens, as in the present case of SDSSJ1347-0101. We note, however, that space-based imaging of EEL candidates alleviates both of these concerns due to the stable PSF from space and the ability to observe any part of the sky.
Finally, we note that the strong lensing magnification increases the observed flux from the lensed source and therefore makes it easier to obtain spectroscopic follow-up of the background source (although the presence of the foreground lensing galaxy complicates the interpretation of the spectra). Our program therefore provides an efficient means of exploring the size-mass and mass-velocity dispersion relations of massive compact galaxies at intermediate redshifts, and we may be able to use spectroscopy to explore the stellar populations of the sources in detail to investigate evidence of a younger population of stars associated with the extended low-surface-brightness profile.
0.1in **ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS**
We thank K. Bundy for useful discussions and the referee for a constructive report. TT acknowledges support from the NSF through CAREER award NSF-0642621 and from the Packard Foundation through a Packard Fellowship. PJM acknowledges the Kavli Foundation for support in the form of a research fellowship. This Letter includes data obtained at the W. M. Keck Observatory, operated by Caltech, the University of California, and NASA, and made possible by the W. M. Keck Foundation. We recognise the very significant cultural role and reverence that the summit of Mauna Kea has always had within the indigenous Hawaiian community. This work has made extensive use of the SDSS database.
Auger, M. W., Treu, T., Gavazzi, R., Bolton, A. S., Koopmans, L. V. E., & Marshall, P. J. 2010a, , 721, L163
Auger, M. W., et al. 2010b, in preparation
Bernardi, M. 2009, , 395, 1491
Bezanson, R., van Dokkum, P. G., Tal, T., Marchesini, D., Kriek, M., Franx, M., & Coppi, P. 2009, , 697, 1290
Bolton, A. S., Burles, S., Koopmans, L. V. E., Treu, T., & Moustakas, L. A. 2006, , 638, 703
Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, , 344, 1000
Bundy, K., et al. 2006, , 651, 120
Cappellari, M., et al. 2009, , 704, L34
Cimatti, A., et al. 2008, , 482, 21 Damjanov, I., et al. 2009, , 695, 101
Daddi, E., et al. 2005, , 626, 680
Dobler, G., Keeton, C. R., Bolton, A. S., & Burles, S. 2008, , 685, 57
Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., Keres, D., & Wuyts, S. 2009a, , 691, 1424
Hopkins, P. F., Bundy, K., Murray, N., Quataert, E., Lauer, T. R., & Ma, C.-P. 2009b, , 398, 898
Hopkins, P. F., Bundy, K., Hernquist, L., Wuyts, S., & Cox, T. J. 2010, , 401, 1099
Hyde, J. B., & Bernardi, M. 2009, , 394, 1978
Kormann, R., Schneider, P., & Bartelmann, M. 1994, , 284, 285
Kriek, M., et al. 2008, , 677, 219
Marshall, P. J., et al. 2007, , 671, 1196
Newman, A. B., Ellis, R. S., Treu, T., & Bundy, K. 2010, , 717, L103
Newton, E. R., et al. 2010, submitted to
Nipoti, C., Treu, T., Auger, M. W., & Bolton, A. S. 2009, , 706, L86
Shen, S., Mo, H. J., White, S. D. M., Blanton, M. R., Kauffmann, G., Voges, W., Brinkmann, J., & Csabai, I. 2003, , 343, 978
Stockton, A., Shih, H.-Y., & Larson, K. 2010, , 709, L5
Taylor, E. N, Franx, M., Glazebrook, K., Brinchmann, J., van der Wel, A., & van Dokkum, P. G 2010, , 720, 723
Treu, T. 2010, , 48, 87
Trujillo, I., et al. 2006, , 373, L36
Trujillo, I., Cenarro, A. J., de Lorenzo-C[á]{}ceres, A., Vazdekis, A., de la Rosa, I. G., & Cava, A. 2009, , 692, L118
Valentinuzzi, T., et al. 2010, , 712, 226
van der Wel, A., Holden, B. P., Zirm, A. W., Franx, M., Rettura, A., Illingworth, G. D., & Ford, H. C. 2008, , 688, 48
van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2008, , 677, L5
van Dokkum, P. G., Kriek, M., & Franx, M. 2009, , 460, 717
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: mauger@physics.ucsb.edu
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Anomalous delta-type interactions, of both electric and magnetic nature, are introduced between the overlapping peripheral structures of the nucleons, which may explain the spin-triplet deuteron state and the absence of other nucleon-nucleon bound states.'
author:
- 'Nicolae Bogdan Mandache[^1]'
title: 'Anomalous delta-type electric and magnetic two-nucleon interactions'
---
National Institute for Lasers, Plasma and Radiation Physics, Magurele-Bucharest, POBox MG-36, Romania
PACS: *21.45.Bc; 13.75.Cs; 21.10.Dr*
Keywords: *Deuteron; Two-nucleon States; Residual Electromagnetic Interaction*
As evidenced by deuteron, the $p-n$ interaction favours the coupling of the proton and neutron intrinsic spins to *S=1* (lower energy) rather than $S=0$, which is in striking contrast to the like-nucleon residual interaction (pairing) that favours $S=0$.[@key-1] As it is well known, a spin dependent nuclear potential is introduced (the triplet potential is greater in absolute value than the singlet potential) to explain why the $n-p$ triplet state is bound in contrast to unbound $n-p$, $n-n$ and $n-p$ singlet states, which eventually solves the above contradiction.[@key-1]
The magnetic momentum of the proton ($+2.79\mu_{N}$, $\mu_{N}$ being the nuclear magneton) and the magnetic momentum of the neutron ($-1.91\mu_{N}$) exhibit in deuteron an ‘"antiferromagnetic‘" alignment. This is in contrast with the hydrogen atom, where, by hyperfine interaction, the magnetic momentum of the electron ($-1\mu_{B}$, $\mu_{B}$ being the Bohr magneton) gets parallel with the magnetic momentum of the proton, and the ground-state of the hydrogen is a spin singlet (para-hydrogen).
We suggests in this short letter a possible explanation for such a discrepancy, which may also throw light on the inexistence of other nucleon-nucleon bound states than the deuteron.
According to the laws of the electromagnetism and to our classical representation of the magnetic (and electric) momenta, it is very likely that the magnetic interaction is ferromagnetic at large distances, *i.e.* it favours the parallel alignment of the magnetic momenta. Similarly, by the same arguments, it is very likely that this interaction is antiferromagnetic, *i.e.* it favours the anti-parallel alignment of the magnetic momenta, at very short distances. It looks therefore as a delta-type interaction.
For the electron the ferromagnetic alignment is favourable, even at close range to the proton, in view of its point-like structure. This may explain the spin-singlet ground-state of the hydrogen.
For nucleons in nuclei, the situation is different. The spatial extension of the nucleons is well documented, as it is their compact packing in nuclei. A typical example for antiferromagnetic alignement could be the pairing interaction. Every pair of like nucleons in the same orbit (the wave functions of the two nucleons strongly overlap) couple to spin zero and zero magnetic moment for the lowest energy state.
There are some other puzzles related to this tight packing of the nucleons in atomic nuclei, like, for instance, the difference in the lifetimes of the free neutron and the bound neutron.
In deuteron there is a substantial overlapping between the peripheral nucleonic clouds put togheter around the central nucleonic cores, reminiscent of the molecular orbitals,[@key-2] which favours a strong residual delta-interaction. The high density cores of proton and neutron placed each other at a distance of $2fm$, in the central part of deuteron, interact electro-magnetically much weaker.
According to recent trends in conceiving the internal spin structure of the nucleons, it seems very likely that the anomalous magnetic momenta ($+1.79\mu_{N}$ for proton and $-1.91\mu_{N}$ for neutron) are to a great extent peripherally distributed. The pion contribution to the magnetic momenta of the nucleons was estimated to $+1\mu_{N}$ for proton and $-1\mu_{N}$ for neutron as arising in the peripheral cloud.[@key-3; @key-4] These anomalous magnetic momenta are therefore very prone to undergo an antiferromagnetic delta-interaction, which would explain thus the spin-triplet ground-state of the deuteron and the absence of the spin-singlet proton-neutron bound state.
At the same time, the electromagnetic nature of the magnetic momenta suggests also a peripheral delta -type electric (coulomb) interaction between the nucleons. The spatial extension of the nucleons imply both a spatial distribution of electric charge and magnetic momenta.[@key-3]-[@key-7] It is estimated that the negative charge in neutron extends from $1fm$ to $2-3fm$, the core being positively charged (such that the overall charge vanishes).[@key-2; @key-3] A similar but positive charge extension holds for proton (it is worth recalling here the approximate diameter of cca $4fm$ of the deuteron).
Hence the delta-type magnetic interaction is attractive for the $n-p$ triplet and the $n-n$ and $p-p$ singlet states, and is repulsive for the $n-p$ singlet state. The delta-type electric (coulomb) interaction is attractive for the $n-p$ triplet and singlet states and repulsive for the $n-n$ and $p-p$ singlet states. Consequently the most attractive is the $n-p$ triplet state, the only one with both delta-type interactions attractive.
Based on these observations and assuming that the nuclear interaction is the same for all the four states we may express the nucleon-nucleon interaction by means of three energies. The energy $E_{N}$ associated with the strong nuclear force (nucleons kinetic energy minus the nuclear potential well) and two anomalous delta-type interaction energies, one electrical denoted by $E_{e}$ and another magnetic denoted by $E_{m}$. We assume that $E_{m}$ and $E_{e}$, respectively, are the same for the $n-p$, $n-n$ and $p-p$, taking into account that the anomalous magnetic moments of proton and neutron are comparable in absolute values. This means that the fractions of electric charges and magnetic moments carried by the peripheral parts of proton and neutron are approximately equal in absolute values and of opposite signs.
The nucleon-nucleon relevant energies are the binding energy $-2.22MeV$ for the triplet proton-neutron state (deuteron), the energy $+0.07MeV$ for the singlet proton-neutron state and the energy $+0.15MeV$ for the singlet neutron-neutron and proton-proton states (after removing of course the proton-proton Coulomb repulsion between point-like charges).[@key-4; @key-7] We may write therefore:$$\begin{array}{c}
-E_{e}-E_{m}+E_{N}=-2.22MeV\,\,(n-p\,\, triplet)\\
\\-E_{e}+E_{m}+E_{N}=0.07MeV\,\,(n-p\, simglet)\\
\\+E_{e}-E_{m}+E_{N}=0.15MeV\,\,(n-n\, and\, p-p\, singlets)\end{array}$$
From these equations we get $E_{e}=1.19MeV$, $E_{m}=1.15MeV$ and $E_{N}=0.11MeV$. Since $E_{N}$ is positive it follows that all four basic states are sligthly unbound by nuclear force (the kinetic energy of the two nucleons slightly exceeds the nuclear potential well). The two anomalous delta-type magnetic and electric interactions make the difference between bound and unbound two-nucleon states.
The proton-proton and neutron-neutron magnetic delta-interaction introduced here is analogous to the corresponding pairing interaction which couples the like nucleons to the state of zero total angular momentum and zero magnetic moment, like in magic nuclei for instance.[@key-1] It is worth noting that the strength derived here for this magnetic interaction, $E_{m}=1.15MeV$, is comparable in magnitude to the pairing interaction (cca $1MeV$).
In conclusion, we put forward herein the hypothesis that anomalous delta-type electric and magnetic interactions may arise between the overlapping peripheral parts of the nucleons, and analyzed its conseqeunces. It is shown that such a hypothesis may explain the deuteron bound state and the inexistence of other nucleon-nucleon bound states, assuming an equal nuclear interaction for all four states.
**Acknowledgments.** The author expresses his sincere thanks to M. Apostol for valuable conversations and suggestions, and for help in making a clear exposition of these ideas.
[1]{} R. F. Casten, *Nuclear Structure from a Simple Perspective*, 2nd edition, Oxford (2000).
T. Ericson and W. Weise, *Pions and Nuclei*, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1988).
G. E. Brown and H. Myhrer, Phys. Lett. **B128**, 229 (1983).
K. N. Muhin, *Experimentalnaia Iadernaia Fizika* (in Russian), Atomizdat, Moscow (1974).
A. W. Thomas, S. Theberge and G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. **D24** 216 (1981).
H. Schmiden, Nucl. Phys. **A663-664** 21c (2000) (*15th International Conference on Particles and Nuclei*, Upssala, 2000)
S. S. M. Wong, *Introductory Nuclear Physics*, 2nd Ed, Wiley (1998).
[^1]: email: mandache@infim.ro
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we study the problem of decomposing a superposition of a low-rank matrix and a sparse matrix when a relatively few linear measurements are available. This problem arises in many data processing tasks such as aligning multiple images or rectifying regular texture, where the goal is to recover a low-rank matrix with a large fraction of corrupted entries in the presence of nonlinear domain transformation. We consider a natural convex heuristic to this problem which is a variant to the recently proposed Principal Component Pursuit. We prove that under suitable conditions, this convex program guarantees to recover the correct low-rank and sparse components despite reduced measurements. Our analysis covers both random and deterministic measurement models.'
author:
- |
Arvind Ganesh$^*$, Kerui Min$^*$, John Wright$^\dagger$, and Yi Ma$^{*,\ddagger}$\
$^*$ [Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign]{}\
$^\dagger$ [Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Columbia University]{}\
$^\ddagger$ [Visual Computing Group, Microsoft Research Asia]{}
bibliography:
- 'cpcp\_ls\_golfing.bib'
title: Principal Component Pursuit with Reduced Linear Measurements
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Low-rank matrix recovery and approximation has been a popular area of research in many different fields. The popularity of low-rank matrices can be attributed to the fact that they arise in one of the most commonly used data models in real applications, namely when very high-dimensional data samples are assumed to lie approximately on a low-dimensional linear subspace. This model has been successfully employed in various problems such as face recognition [@Wright2009-PAMI], system identification [@Fazel2004-ACC], and information retrieval [@Papadimitriou2000-JCSS], for instance.
The most popular tool for low-rank matrix approximation is the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) [@Eckart1936-Psychometrika; @Jolliffe1986]. The basic idea of PCA is to find the “best low-rank approximation” (in an $\ell_2$-sense) to a given input matrix. Essentially, PCA finds a rank-$r$ approximation to a given data matrix $D \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}$ by solving the following problem: $$\min_L \, \|D-L\| \quad \mathrm{s.t.} \quad {\mathrm{rank}}(L) \leq r,$$ where $\|\cdot\|$ denotes the matrix spectral norm. It is well-known that the solution to this problem can be easily obtained by computing the Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) of $D$ and retaining only the $r$ largest singular values and the corresponding singular vectors. Besides the ease of computation, the PCA estimate has been shown to be optimal in the presence of isotropic Gaussian noise. However, the biggest drawback of PCA is that it breaks down even when one entry of the matrix is corrupted by an error of very large magnitude. Unfortunately, such large-magnitude, [*non-Gaussian*]{} errors often exist in real data. For instance, occlusions in images corrupt only a fraction of the pixels in an image, but the magnitude of corruption can be quite large.
There have been many works in the literature that try to make PCA robust to such gross, non-Gaussian errors and many models and solutions have been proposed. We here consider the specific problem of recovering a low-rank matrix $L_0 \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m\times n}$ from corrupted observations $D = L_0 + S_0$, where $S_0 \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}$ is a sparse matrix whose non-zero entries may have arbitrary magnitude. This problem has been studied in detail recently by various works in the literature [@Candes2011-JACM; @Chandrasekaran2011-SJO; @Hsu2011-IT]. It has been shown that under rather broad conditions, the following convex program succeeds in recovering $L_0$ from $D$: $$\min_{L,S} \, \|L\|_* + \lambda \|S\|_1 \quad \mathrm{s.t.} \quad D = L + S,
\label{eqn:pcp}$$ where $\|\cdot\|_*$ denotes the nuclear norm[^1], $\|\cdot\|_1$ denotes the $\ell_1$-norm[^2], and $\lambda > 0$ is a weighting factor. This method has been dubbed Principal Component Pursuit (PCP) in [@Candes2011-JACM]. In addition to being computationally tractable, it comes with very strong theoretical guarantees of recovery. Furthermore, follow-up works have shown that PCP is stable in the presence of additive Gaussian noise [@Zhou2010-ISIT] and can recover $L_0$ even when the corruption matrix $S_0$ is not so sparse [@Ganesh2010-ISIT].
Besides being of theoretical interest, this convex optimization framework for low-rank matrix recovery has been employed very successfully to solve real problems in computer vision such as photometric stereo [@Wu2010-ACCV]. However, in practice, much more data, especially imagery data, can be viewed as low-rank only after some transformation is applied. For instance, an image of a building facade will become a low-rank matrix after the perspective distortion is rectified [@Zhang2011-IJCV] or a set of face images of the same person will become linearly correlated only after they are proper aligned [@Peng2011-PAMI]. With our terminology here, we can write as $D \circ \tau = L_0 + S_0$ where $\tau$ belongs to certain transformation group. As the transformation $\tau$ is also unknown, one natural way to recover $L_0, S_0$ and $\tau$ together is to approximate the nonlinear equation with its linearization at the current estimate of $\hat{\tau}$: $$D \circ \hat{\tau} + \sum_{i=1}^p J_i d\tau_i = L + S,$$ where $\{ J_i \} $ is the Jacobian of $D \circ \tau$ with respect to the parameters $\{ \tau_i \}$ of $\tau$. Then one can incrementally update the estimate for $\tau$ with $\hat{\tau} + d\tau$ by solving the following convex program: $$\min_{L,S, d\tau_i } \, \|L\|_* + \lambda \|S\|_1 \quad \mathrm{s.t.} \quad D + \sum_{i=1}^p J_i d\tau_i = L + S.
\label{eqn:rasl}$$ Empirically this scheme has been shown to work rather effectively in practice in both the image rectification problem [@Zhang2011-IJCV] and the image alignment problem [@Peng2011-PAMI].
Although the convex program was proposed in the same spirit as PCP, we note that the linear constraint is different, and hence, the theoretical guarantees for PCP shown in [@Candes2011-JACM; @Chandrasekaran2011-SJO; @Hsu2011-IT] do not directly apply to this case. In this work, we attempt to fill the gap between theory and practice and try to understand under what conditions, the above extended version of PCP is expected to work correctly.
Let $Q$ be the linear subspace in ${\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}$ that is the orthogonal complement to the span of all the $J_i$’s, then its dimension is $q = mn - p$. Clearly, we can rewrite the above program in the following form: $$\min_{L,S} \, \|L\|_* + \lambda \|S\|_1 \quad \mathrm{s.t.} \quad {\mathcal{P}_Q}D = {\mathcal{P}_Q}(L + S),
\label{eqn:cpcp}$$ where ${\mathcal{P}_Q}$ is the orthogonal projection onto the linear subspace $Q$. Clearly, this program is a variation to PCP in which the number of linear constraints has been reduced from $mn$ to $q = mn - p$. Indeed, if $Q$ is the entire space, then it reduces to the PCP. If $Q$ is a linear subspace of matrices with support in $\Omega \subseteq [m] \times [n]$, then we have the special case of recovering $L_0$ from $D$, when only a subset of the entries in $D$ are available. This case is akin to the low-rank matrix completion problem [@Candes2008; @Candes2009; @Gross2009-pp], and theoretical guarantees have been derived in [@Candes2011-JACM; @Li2011-pp]. However, to the best of our knowledge, the case with a general subspace $Q$ has not yet been analyzed in detail in the literature.
Our motivation to study when the convex program succeeds with such reduced linear constraints is at least twofold. First, the relationships between $Q$ and $L_0$ and $S_0$ will provide us better understanding about what type of images and signals for which techniques such as those used in [@Zhang2011-IJCV; @Peng2011-PAMI] are expected to work well. Second, we want to know how many general linear measurements we could reduce without sacrificing the robustness of PCP for recovering the low-rank matrix $L_0$. In these applications, the number of constraints reduced corresponds to the dimension of the transformation group. In the image rectification problem, the dimension of the transformation group $p$ is typically fixed with respect to the size of the matrix; in the image alignment problem, however, the dimension typically grows linearly in $m$ (or $n$). In either case, we need to know if the program can tolerate up to a constant fraction of gross errors.
Notation
--------
We first establish a set of notations that will be used throughout this work. We will assume that the matrices $L_0$, $S_0$ and $D$ in have size $m \times n$. Without any loss of generality, we assume that $n \leq m$. We denote the rank of $L_0$ by $r$. Let $L_0 = U\Sigma V^*$ be the reduced Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) of $L_0$. We define a linear subspace $T$ as follows: $$T \doteq \{UX^* + YV^* : X \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times r}, Y \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m \times r}\}.
\label{eqn:T}$$ Basically, $T$ contains all matrices that share a common row space or column space with $L_0$. We denote by $\Omega$ the support of $S_0$. By a slight abuse of notation, we also represent by $\Omega$ the subspace of matrices whose support is contained in the support of $S_0$. For any subspace $S \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}$, ${\mathcal{P}}_S : {\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n} \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}$ denotes the orthogonal projection operator onto $S$.
For any $X,Y \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}$, we define their inner product as $ \langle X, Y\rangle = {\mathrm{trace}}(X^*Y) = \sum_{ij} X_{ij} Y_{ij}. $ We let $\|\cdot \|_F$ and $\|\cdot\|$ denote the matrix Frobenius norm and spectral norm, respectively. We also denote the $\ell_\infty$-norm of a matrix $X$ as $\|X\|_\infty = \max_{ij} \, |X_{ij}|.$ We say that an event $E$ occurs with high probability if ${\mathbb{P}}[E^c] \leq C\, m^{-\alpha},$ for some positive numerical constants $C$ and $\alpha$. Here, $E^c$ denotes the event complement to $E$.
Main Assumptions {#sec:assumptions}
----------------
Obviously, successful recovery is not always guaranteed except under proper assumptions on the low-rank $L_0$, sparse $S_0$, and the subspace $Q$ involved. For instance, if the matrix $L_0$ is itself a sparse matrix, then there is a fundamental ambiguity in the solution to be recovered. Here, we outline some of our assumptions that we will use throughout this paper. The assumptions we make here on $L_0$ and $S_0$ are essentially the same as those for PCP [@Candes2011-JACM]. For completeness, we list them below.
We assume that each entry of the matrix belongs to the support of the sparse matrix $S_0$ independently with probability $\rho$. We denote this as ${\mathrm{supp}}(S_0) \sim {\mathrm{Ber}}(\rho)$. For simplicity, we assume the signs of the nonzero entries are also random.[^3] For the low-rank matrix $L_0$, we assume the subspace $T$ defined in is incoherent to the standard basis (and hence the sparse matrix $S_0$). To be precise, let us denote the standard basis in ${\mathbb{R}}^m$ and ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ by $\bar{e}_i$ and $e_j$, respectively, where $i \in [m]$ and $j \in [n]$. We assume (as in [@Candes2008]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\max_{i \in [m]} \|U^*\bar{e}_i\|_2^2 \leq \frac{\mu r}{m}, \quad
\max_{j \in [n]} \|V^*e_j\|_2^2 \leq \frac{\mu r}{n}, \quad
\|UV^*\|_\infty \leq \sqrt{\frac{\mu r}{mn}},
\label{eq:assumptionUV}
\label{eq:assumptionVe}
\label{eq:assumptionUe}
\label{eqn:incoh_subspace}\end{aligned}$$ for some $\mu > 0$ and for all $(i,j) \in [m] \times [n]$. We recall that $r = {\mathrm{rank}}(L_0)$. It follows from the above assumptions that for any $(i,j) \in [m] \times [n]$ $$\|{\mathcal{P}_T}\bar{e}_i e_j^*\|_F \leq \sqrt{\frac{2 \mu r}{n}}.
\label{eq:PTeiej}$$ Furthermore, it can be shown that $\|{\mathcal{P}_{T^\perp}}X\| \leq \|X\|$ for any $X \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}$.
In addition to the above assumptions, we define the following two properties of linear subspaces. We say that a linear subspace $S \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}$ is
- *$\nu$-coherent* if there exists an orthonormal basis $\{G_i\}$ for $S$ satisfying $$\max_i \|G_i\|^2 \le \frac{\nu}{n}.
\label{eqn:nu-coherence}$$
- *$\gamma$-constrained* if $$\max_{i,j} \|{\mathcal{P}}_S\bar{e}_i e_j^*\|_F^2 \le \gamma.
\label{eqn:gamma-constrained}$$
If $S$ is a random subspace, we say it is $\nu$-coherent and $\gamma$-constrained if Eqns. and hold with high probability, respectively.
In this paper, we will deal with two different assumptions on the subspace $Q$ as outlined below. We will see later that it is in fact convenient to make our assumptions on the subspace $Q^\perp$, rather than on $Q$ itself. This is partly motivated from the model in that was used in [@Zhang2011-IJCV; @Peng2011-PAMI], where the $J_i$’s are essentially a basis for $Q^\perp$. So, any assumptions on $Q^\perp$ can be easily interpreted in terms of the $J_i$’s and this would help us make the connection to these applications more directly. We denote by $p$ the dimension of the subspace $Q^\perp$.
- [**Random subspace model.**]{} Let $G_1, G_2, \ldots, G_p \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}$ be an orthonormal basis for $Q^\perp$. We assume that this basis set is chosen uniformly at random from all possible orthobasis sets of size $p$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}$. It can be shown that each of the $G_i$’s are identical in distribution to $H / \|H\|_F$, where the entries of $H\in {\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}$ are i.i.d. according to a Gaussian distribution with mean 0 and variance $1/mn$.
- [**Deterministic subspace model.**]{} Under this model, we assume that ${{Q^\perp}}$ is a fixed subspace which is $\nu$-coherent, for some $\nu\geq 1$.
Main Results
------------
With the above notation, we now briefly describe the main results we prove in this work. Although our results and proof methodology resemble those in [@Candes2011-JACM], there are some important differences here. Particularly, we will see that the assumptions we make on the subspace $Q$ greatly influences the kind of guarantees for recovery that can be derived. As mentioned earlier, we will consider two different assumptions on the subspace $Q$. In the first one, we assume a [*random subspace model*]{} for $Q^\perp$. The main result that we prove in this work under this random subspace model is summarized as the following theorem.
Fix any $C_p > 0$, and let $Q^\perp$ be a $p$-dimensional random subspace of ${\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}$ ($n \leq m$), $L_0$ a rank-$r$, $\mu$-incoherent matrix, and ${\mathrm{supp}}(S_0) \sim {\mathrm{Ber}}(\rho)$. Then, provided that $$r < C_r \frac{n}{\mu \log^2 m}, \quad p < C_p n, \quad \rho < \rho_0,$$ with high probability $(L_0, S_0)$ is the unique optimal solution to with $\lambda = m^{-1/2}$. Here, $C_r > 0$ and $\rho_0 \in (0,1)$ are numerical constants. \[thm:cpcp\_random\]
In Theorem \[thm:cpcp\_random\], “with high probability” means with probability at least $1- \beta(C_p) m^{-c}$, with $c > 0$ numerical.
The scaling in this result covers several applications of interest: in [@Zhang2011-IJCV], $p$ is a fixed constant, while in [@Peng2011-PAMI], $p$ scales linearly with $n$. Therefore, the above result already covers both these applications in terms of the number of reduced constraints. It states that with such reduced constraints, the convex program can recover the low-rank matrix $L_0$ essentially under the same conditions as PCP. In particular, it can tolerate up to a constant fraction of errors.
In a work that is closely related to this one [@Wright], we have shown that one can expect the convex program to work under much more highly compressive scenario. More precisely, the dimension of the subspace $Q$ only needs to be on the order of $(mr + k) \log^2m$ which is only a polylogarithmic factor more than the intrinsic degrees of freedom of the unknown $L_0$ and $S_0$. One nice feature about the work of [@Wright] is that the proof framework is very modular and the techniques are even applicable to more general structured signals beyond low-rank and sparse ones. Nevertheless, that result does not subsume the result here because in such highly compressive scenario, we cannot expect to tolerate error up to a constant fraction of the matrix entries. Obtaining the results in Theorem \[thm:cpcp\_random\] and Theorem \[thm:cpcp\_deterministic\] seems to require arguments that are specially tailored to the PCP problem. There is a common limitation for all results that are based on a random assumption for $Q$ or $Q^\perp$: the random assumption does not hold in many real applications. For instance, in [@Zhang2011-IJCV; @Peng2011-PAMI], the subspace $Q^\perp$ is typically spanned by a set of image Jacobians, which may not behave like random matrices. Therefore, it is desirable to have deterministic conditions on $Q^\perp$ (or $Q$) that can be verified for the given data. We need theoretical guarantees for recovery when $Q^\perp$ is a deterministic subspace. This is the second scenario that we will consider in this work, for which we have the following result:
Fix any $p \in \mathbb{Z}_+$, $\alpha \ge 1$, and $\nu \ge 1$. Then there exists $C_r> 0$ such that if $Q^\perp$ is a $\nu$-coherent $p$-dimensional subspace of ${\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}$ ($n\leq m \leq \alpha n$), $L_0$ is a rank-$r$, $\mu$-incoherent matrix, and $\mathrm{supp}(S_0) \sim \mathrm{Ber}(\rho)$, with high probability $(L_0, S_0)$ is the unique optimal solution to with $\lambda = m^{-1/2}$, provided that $$r < C_r \min\left\{\left(\frac{n}{\nu^2 p^2\alpha}\right)^{1/2}, \left(\frac{n}{\alpha \nu \mu p}\right)^{1/3}, \frac{n}{\mu \log m}\right\}, \quad \rho < \rho_0,$$ where $C_r, \rho_0 \in (0,1)$ are numerical constants. \[thm:cpcp\_deterministic\]
Here, “with high probability” means with probability at least $1- \beta(p,\alpha,\nu) m^{-c}$, with $c > 0$ numerical.
The $\nu$-coherence condition essentially requires there exists an orthonormal basis for $Q^\perp$ whose spectral norms are bounded above by $O(n^{-1/2})$. This is a condition that can be verified directly once the subspace $Q$ or $Q^\perp$ is given (say as the span of the Jacobians). This condition is also significantly weaker than the random subspace assumption in Theorem \[thm:cpcp\_random\]. Because the assumptions are weaker, the orders of growth in Theorem \[thm:cpcp\_deterministic\], quite a bit more restrictive than those in Theorem \[thm:cpcp\_random\]. Nevertheless, this result can be very useful for the practical problems that we encountered in image rectification where the dimension of the transformation group is typically fixed (i.e. does not change with the matrix dimension). Theorem \[thm:cpcp\_deterministic\] suggests we should expect the program to work at least for deformation groups whose dimension is fixed. Although empirical results suggest that it could even grow as $O(n)$, we leave that for future investigation.
#### **The remainder of this paper is organized as follows:**
In Section \[sec:dual\_cert\], we derive the optimality conditions for $(L_0,S_0)$ to be the optimal solution to the convex program . In particular, we derive the conditions that a certain dual certificate must satisfy that would establish our main result. In Section \[sec:dual\_cons\], we provide a constructive procedure for the aforementioned dual certificate. In Section \[sec:main\_random\_proof\], we describe our main assumptions and the detailed steps of the proof of Theorem \[thm:cpcp\_random\]. In Section \[sec:deterministic\_proof\], we outline the proof of Theorem \[thm:cpcp\_deterministic\]. Although the proof for both the deterministic case will follow a common strategy as the random case, there are a few important differences. In particular, we will highlight the parts where the proof deviates significantly from that of Theorem \[thm:cpcp\_random\].
Existence of Dual Certificate {#sec:dual_cert}
=============================
In this section, we prove the following lemma that establishes necessary and sufficient conditions for $(L_0,S_0)$ to be the optimal solution to .
Assume that $\dim(Q^\perp \oplus T \oplus \Omega) = \dim(Q^\perp)+\dim(T)+\dim(\Omega)$. $(L_0,S_0)$ is the unique optimal solution to if there exists a pair $(W,F) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}\times {\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}$ satisfying $$UV^* + W = \lambda ({\mathrm{sgn}}(S_0)+F) \in Q,
\label{eqn:dual}$$ with ${\mathcal{P}_T}W = {\mathbf{0}}, \|W\| < 1, {\mathcal{P}_\Omega}F = {\mathbf{0}}$, and $\|F\|_\infty < 1$. \[lem:dual\]
Consider a feasible solution to of the form $(L_0+H_L,S_0-H_S)$. Clearly, we have that ${\mathcal{P}_Q}H_L = {\mathcal{P}_Q}H_S$. Under the conditions mentioned in the lemma, we will show that this pair does not minimize the cost function in , unless $H_L = H_S = {\mathbf{0}}$.
We first use the fact that $\|\cdot\|_*$ and $\|\cdot\|_1$ are convex functions. Consider any pair $(W_0,F_0) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}\times {\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}$ satisfying ${\mathcal{P}_T}W_0 = {\mathbf{0}}$, $\|W_0\| \leq 1$, ${\mathcal{P}_\Omega}F_0 = {\mathbf{0}}$, and $\|F_0\|_\infty \leq 1$. Then, $UV^* + W_0$ is a subgradient to $\|\cdot\|_*$ at $L_0$, and ${\mathrm{sgn}}(S_0) + F_0$ is a subgradient to $\|\cdot\|_1$ at $S_0$. Therefore, $$\|L_0+H_L\|_* + \lambda \|S_0-H_S\|_1 \geq \|L_0\|_* + \lambda \|S_0\|_1 + \langle UV^* + W_0, H_L\rangle - \lambda \langle {\mathrm{sgn}}(S_0) + F_0, H_S\rangle.$$ By Hölder’s inequality (and the duality of norms), it is possible to choose $W_0$ and $F_0$ such that $$\langle W_0, H_L \rangle = \|{\mathcal{P}_{T^\perp}}H_L\|_*, \quad \langle F_0, H_S\rangle = -\|{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}H_S\|_1.$$ Then, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|L_0+H_L\|_* + \lambda \|S_0-H_S\|_1& \geq & \|L_0\|_* + \lambda \|S_0\|_1 + \langle UV^*, H_L \rangle - \lambda\langle {\mathrm{sgn}}(S_0), H_S \rangle \\
& & \quad + \|{\mathcal{P}_{T^\perp}}H_L\|_* + \lambda \|{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}H_S\|_1.\end{aligned}$$ By assumption, we have $$UV^* = \lambda ({\mathrm{sgn}}(S_0) + F) - W,$$ with $ \lambda ({\mathrm{sgn}}(S_0) + F) \in Q$. Substituting for $UV^*$ and using ${\mathcal{P}_Q}H_L = {\mathcal{P}_Q}H_S$, we get $$\langle UV^*, H_L\rangle = \lambda \langle {\mathrm{sgn}}(S_0), H_S \rangle + \lambda \langle F, H_S\rangle - \langle W, H_L \rangle.$$ Substituting this in the above inequality, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\|L_0+H_L\|_* + \lambda \|S_0-H_S\|_1 &\geq& \|L_0\|_* + \lambda \|S_0\|_1 + \|{\mathcal{P}_{T^\perp}}H_L\|_* + \lambda \|{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}H_S\|_1 \\
& & \quad+ \lambda \langle F, H_S \rangle - \langle W, H_L \rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Let $\beta = \max\{\|W\|,\|F\|_\infty\} < 1$. Using Hölder’s inequality, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\|L_0+H_L\|_* + \lambda \|S_0-H_S\|_1 &\geq& \|L_0\|_* + \lambda \|S_0\|_1 + (1-\beta) \|{\mathcal{P}_{T^\perp}}(H_L)\|_* \\
& & \quad+ (1-\beta) \lambda \|{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}(H_S)\|_1.\end{aligned}$$ For non-zero $H_L, H_S$, the last term on the right hand side above can be zero only if $H_L \in T \backslash \{{\mathbf{0}}\}$ and $H_S \in \Omega\backslash \{{\mathbf{0}}\}$. Since $\Omega \cap T = \{{\mathbf{0}}\}$, $H_L \neq H_S$. We also have ${\mathcal{P}_Q}(H_L- H_S) = {\mathbf{0}}$. This implies that $H_L - H_S \in Q^\perp$, which is a contradiction since $Q^\perp \cap (T \oplus \Omega) = \{{\mathbf{0}}\}$. Thus, we have $$\|L_0+H_L\|_* + \lambda \|S_0-H_S\|_1 > \|L_0\|_* + \lambda \|S_0\|_1,$$ for any non-zero [*feasible*]{} perturbation $(H_L, H_S)$.
It is often convenient to relax the equality constraints on the dual certificate given in . Thus, similar to the proof outline in [@Candes2011-JACM; @Gross2009-pp], we now provide a slightly relaxed dual certificate condition.
Let $S_1$ and $S_2$ be two linear subspaces in ${\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}$ with $S_1 \subseteq S_2$. Then, for any $X \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}$, we have ${\mathcal{P}}_{S_1}X = {\mathcal{P}}_{S_1}{\mathcal{P}}_{S_2}X$, and consequently, $\|{\mathcal{P}}_{S_1}X\|_F \leq \|{\mathcal{P}}_{S_2}X\|_F$. \[fact:subproj\]
Suppose that $\dim(Q^\perp \oplus T \oplus \Omega) = \dim(Q^\perp)+\dim(T)+\dim(\Omega)$. Let $\Gamma = Q \,\cap\, T^\perp$ so that $\Gamma^\perp = Q^\perp \oplus T$. Assume that $\|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}\| < 1/2$ and $\lambda < 1$. Then, $(L_0,S_0)$ is the unique optimal solution to if there exists a pair $(W,F) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}\times {\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}$ satisfying $$UV^* + W = \lambda ({\mathrm{sgn}}(S_0)+F + {\mathcal{P}_\Omega}D) \in Q,
\label{eqn:reldual2}$$ with ${\mathcal{P}_T}W = {\mathbf{0}}, \|W\| < 1/2, {\mathcal{P}_\Omega}F = {\mathbf{0}}$, $\|F\|_\infty < 1/2$, and $\|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}D\|_F \leq 1/4$. \[lem:reldual2\]
Proceeding along the same lines as in the proof of Lemma \[lem:dual\], for any feasible perturbation $(H_L, H_S)$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\|L_0 + H_L\|_* + \lambda \|S_0-H_S\|_1 & \geq & \|L_0\|_* + \lambda \|S_0\|_1 + \frac{1}{2} \|{\mathcal{P}_{T^\perp}}H_L\|_* \\
& & \quad + \frac{\lambda}{2} \|{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}H_S\|_1 + \lambda \langle {\mathcal{P}_\Omega}D, H_S\rangle \\
& \geq & \|L_0\|_* + \lambda \|S_0\|_1 + \frac{1}{2} \|{\mathcal{P}_{T^\perp}}H_L\|_* \\
& & \quad+ \frac{\lambda}{2} \|{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}H_S\|_1-\frac{\lambda}{4}\|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}H_S\|_F.\end{aligned}$$ We note that $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}H_S\|_F & \leq & \|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_\Gamma}H_S\|_F + \|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}H_S\|_F \\
& \leq & \|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_\Gamma}H_L\|_F + \frac{1}{2}\|H_S\|_F \\
& \leq & \|{\mathcal{P}_\Gamma}H_L\|_F + \frac{1}{2} \|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}H_S\|_F + \frac{1}{2} \|{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}H_S\|_F \\
& \leq & \|{\mathcal{P}_{T^\perp}}H_L\|_F + \frac{1}{2} \|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}H_S\|_F + \frac{1}{2} \|{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}H_S\|_F.\end{aligned}$$ In the second step above, we have used the fact that ${\mathcal{P}_\Gamma}H_L = {\mathcal{P}_\Gamma}H_S$ (since $\Gamma \subseteq Q$), and the final inequality follows from Fact \[fact:subproj\]. Thus, we have $$\|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}H_S\|_F \leq 2\|{\mathcal{P}_{T^\perp}}H_L\|_F + \|{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}H_S\|_F \leq 2\|{\mathcal{P}_{T^\perp}}H_L\|_* + \|{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}H_S\|_1.$$ Putting it all together, we get $$\|L_0 + H_L\|_* + \lambda \|S_0-H_S\|_1 \geq \|L_0\|_* + \lambda \|S_0\|_1 +\frac{1-\lambda}{2}\|{\mathcal{P}_{T^\perp}}H_L\|_* + \frac{\lambda}{4}\|{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}H_S\|_1.$$ The desired result follows from the fact that $Q^\perp \cap(T \oplus\Omega) = \{{\mathbf{0}}\}$.
Proof Strategy {#sec:dual_cons}
==============
By Lemma \[lem:reldual2\], in order for us to prove either Theorem 1 or 2, it is sufficient to produce a dual certificate $W \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}$ satisfying $$\left \{
\begin{array}{l}
W \in T^\perp, \\
{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}W = -{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}(UV^*), \\
\|W\| < 1/2, \\
\|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}(UV^* - \lambda {\mathrm{sgn}}(S_0) + W)\|_F \leq \lambda/4, \\
\|{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}(UV^* + W)\|_\infty < \lambda/2.
\end{array}
\right .
\label{eqn:dualcert}$$
To prove Theorems 1 and 2 under the above conditions, we try to construct the dual certificate $W$ by following a similar strategy as that in the original PCP [@Candes2011-JACM]. However, the extra projection of the observations onto the subspace $Q$ adds significant difficulty to various technical parts of the proof. In this section, we will outline the basic components for constructing such a certificate and then provide detailed proofs for each of the component in next sections. For simplicity, throughout our discussion below, we set $\Gamma \doteq Q \cap T^\perp$ so that $\Gamma^\perp = Q^\perp \oplus T$.
As the support of the sparse matrix is distributed as $\Omega \sim {\mathrm{Ber}}(\rho)$ for some small $\rho \in (0,1)$. This is, of course, equivalent to assuming that $\Omega^c \sim {\mathrm{Ber}}(1-\rho)$. Suppose that $\Omega_1, \Omega_2,\ldots,\Omega_{j_0}$ are independent support sets such that $\Omega_j \sim {\mathrm{Ber}}(q)$ for all $j$. Then, $\Omega^c$ and $\bigcup_{j = 1}^{j_0} \Omega_j$ have the same probability distribution if $\rho = (1-q)^{j_0}$. We now propose a construction for the dual certificate $W \doteq W^L + W^S + W^Q$ as follows. We use a combination of the golfing scheme proposed in [@Gross2009-pp] and the least norm approach.
1. [*Construction of $W^L$ using the golfing scheme.*]{} Starting with $Y_0 = {\mathbf{0}}$, we iteratively define $$Y_j = Y_{j-1} + q^{-1} {\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_j}}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}(UV^* - Y_{j-1}),
\label{eqn:yjs}$$ and set $$W^L = {\mathcal{P}_\Gamma}Y_{j_0},$$ where $j_0 = \lceil 2\log m \rceil$.
2. [*Construction of $W^S$ by least norm solution.*]{} We define $W^S$ by the following least norm problem: $$\begin{array}{ccl}
W^S & = & \quad \arg\min_X \, \|X\|_F \\
{\mathrm{subj. \: to}}& & {\mathcal{P}_\Omega}X = \lambda {\mathrm{sgn}}(S_0) \\
& & {\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}X = {\mathbf{0}}.
\end{array}$$
3. [*Construction of $W^Q$ by least squares.*]{} We define $W^Q$ by the following least squares problem: $$\begin{array}{ccl}
W^Q & = & \quad \arg\min_X \, \|X\|_F \\
{\mathrm{subj. \: to}}& & {\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}X = -{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}(UV^*) \\
& & {\mathcal{P}_\Pi}X = {\mathbf{0}},
\end{array}$$ where $\Pi = \Omega \oplus T$.
We note that under our assumptions (see Section \[sec:assumptions\]), both the least squares programs above are feasible with high probability under both the random subspace model and the deterministic subspace model. This is because we will later show that the spectral norms of the linear operators ${\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}$ and ${\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Pi}$ can be bounded below unity with high probability.
Thus, to prove that $W^L + W^S + W^Q$ is a valid dual certificate, we have to establish the following: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:3w-spectral}
\|W^L + W^S + W^Q\| < 1/2, \\
\|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}(UV^* + W^L)\|_F \leq \lambda/4, \\
\label{eq:3w-infty}
\|{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}(UV^* + W^L + W^S + W^Q)\|_\infty < \lambda/2.\end{aligned}$$
Assume that $\Omega \sim \text{Ber}(\rho)$ for some small $\rho \in (0,1)$ and the assumptions and hold true. Then, the matrix $W^L$ obeys, with high probability,
1. $\|W^L\| < 1/4$,
2. $\|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}(UV^*+W^L)\|_F < \lambda/4$,
3. $\|{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}(UV^*+W^L)\|_\infty < \lambda/4$.
\[con:wl\]
In addition to the assumptions in the previous lemma, assume that the signs of the non-zero entries of $S_0$ are i.i.d. random. Then, the matrix $W^S$ obeys, with high probability,
1. $\|W^S\| < 1/8$,
2. $\|{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}W^S\|_\infty < \lambda/8$.
\[con:ws\]
Assume that $\Omega \sim \text{Ber}(\rho)$ for some small $\rho \in (0,1)$ and the assumptions and hold true. Then, the matrix $W^Q$ obeys, with high probability,
1. $\|W^Q\| < 1/8$,
2. $\|{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}W^Q\|_\infty < \lambda/8$.
\[con:wq\]
The above lemmas together establish a valid dual certificate that satisfies Eqn. (\[eq:3w-spectral\]) to Eqn. (\[eq:3w-infty\]).
Random Reduction: Proof of Theorem \[thm:cpcp\_random\] {#sec:main_random_proof}
=======================================================
In this section, we provide a detailed proof of Lemmas \[con:wl\], \[con:ws\], and \[con:wq\] for the case when $Q$ is a random subspace. Before proceeding to the main steps of the proof, we first establish some important properties and relationships among the different quantities involved in the problem.
Preliminaries {#sec:prelim_random}
-------------
Let $Q^\perp$ be a linear subspace distributed according to the random subspace model described earlier. Then, for any $(i,j) \in [m] \times [n]$, with high probability, $$\|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}\bar{e}_i e_j^*\|_F \leq 4\, \sqrt{\frac{p\log(mnp)}{mn}}.$$ \[lem:qpeiej\]
For any $(i,j) \in [m] \times [n]$, we have $$\|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}\bar{e}_i e_j^*\|_F = \sqrt{\sum_{k = 1}^p |\langle G_k, \bar{e_i} e_j^* \rangle|^2} \leq \sqrt{p} \max_k \, \|G_k\|_\infty.
\label{eqn:pq_eiej}$$ We now derive a bound for $\|G_k\|_\infty$. Suppose that $M \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}$ is a random matrix whose entries are i.i.d. according to the standard normal distribution. Let us define $$H = \frac{1}{\sqrt{mn}} M,$$ and $G = H/\|H\|_F$. Clearly, $G$ is identical in distribution to $G_1, G_2, \ldots, G_p$. We know that, for any $(i,j) \in [m] \times [n]$, $${\mathbb{P}}[|M_{ij}| > t] \leq \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \,\frac{e^{-t^2/2}}{t}.$$ Therefore, using a union bound,we get $${\mathbb{P}}[\|M\|_\infty > t] \leq \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \,\frac{mn}{t} \, e^{-t^2/2},$$ or equivalently, $${\mathbb{P}}\left [\|H\|_\infty > \frac{t}{\sqrt{mn}}\right ] \leq \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \,\frac{mn}{t} \, e^{-t^2/2}.$$ Now, if we have $p$ random matrices $H_1, H_2, \ldots, H_p$, independent and identical in distribution to $H$, then $${\mathbb{P}}\left [\max_k \, \|H_k\|_\infty > \frac{t}{\sqrt{mn}}\right ] \leq \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \,\frac{mnp}{t} \, e^{-t^2/2}.$$ Setting $t = \sqrt{4\log(mnp)}$, we get $${\mathbb{P}}\left [\max_k \, \|H_k\|_\infty > \sqrt{\frac{4\log(mnp)}{mn}}\right ] \leq \sqrt{\frac{1}{2\pi}} \,\frac{1}{mnp\sqrt{\log(mnp)}}.$$ Thus, with high probability, we have that $$\max_k\, \|H_k\|_\infty \leq \sqrt{\frac{4\log(mnp)}{mn}}.$$ It can be shown that $\|H_k\|_F \geq 1/2$ with high probability. Thus, we have that $$\max_k\, \|G_k\|_\infty \leq \sqrt{\frac{16\log(mnp)}{mn}},$$ with high probability. The desired result follows from Eqn. .
Assume that $p < mn/4$. Let $Q^\perp$ be a linear subspace distributed according to the random subspace model. Then, with high probability, we have $$\|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_T}\| \leq 8 \left( \frac{\sqrt{p}+\sqrt{(m+n)r}}{\sqrt{mn}} \right).$$ \[lem:incoh\_QT\]
Firstly, we note that $Q^\perp$ is identical in distribution to a subspace spanned by $p$ independent random matrices, each of whose entries are i.i.d. according to a Gaussian distribution with mean zero and variance $1/mn$. Let ${\mathcal{H}}: {\mathbb{R}}^p \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}$ be a linear operator defined as follows: $${\mathcal{H}}({\mathbf{x}}) = \sum_{k=1}^p x_k \, H_k,$$ where the $H_k$’s are independent random matrices each of whose entries are i.i.d. according to a Gaussian distribution with mean zero and variance $1/mn$. Then, we have that ${\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}$ has the same distribution as the operator ${\mathcal{H}}({\mathcal{H}}^* {\mathcal{H}})^{-1} {\mathcal{H}}^*$. Therefore, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&& {\mathbb{P}}\left[ \|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_T}\| > 8 \left( \sqrt{\frac{p}{mn}} + \sqrt{\frac{(m+n)r}{mn}}\right) \right] \\
& = & {\mathbb{P}}\left[ \| {\mathcal{H}}({\mathcal{H}}^* {\mathcal{H}})^{-1} {\mathcal{H}}^* {\mathcal{P}_T}\| > 8 \left( \sqrt{\frac{p}{mn}} + \sqrt{\frac{(m+n)r}{mn}}\right) \right] \\
& \leq & {\mathbb{P}}\left[ \| {\mathcal{H}}({\mathcal{H}}^* {\mathcal{H}})^{-1}\| \|{\mathcal{H}}^* {\mathcal{P}_T}\| > 8 \left( \sqrt{\frac{p}{mn}} + \sqrt{\frac{(m+n)r}{mn}}\right) \right] \\
& \leq & {\mathbb{P}}\left[ \| {\mathcal{H}}({\mathcal{H}}^* {\mathcal{H}})^{-1}\| > 4\right] + {\mathbb{P}}\left[ \|{\mathcal{H}}^* {\mathcal{P}_T}\| > 2\left(\sqrt{\frac{p}{mn}} + \sqrt{\frac{(m+n)r}{mn}} \right) \right].\end{aligned}$$
Suppose that $R \in {\mathbb{R}}^{mn \times p}$ is a random matrix whose entries are i.i.d. according to a Gaussian distribution with mean zero and variance $1/mn$. It is easy to see that if we vectorize all the matrices, then $R$ is the matrix analogue of the operator ${\mathcal{H}}$. Therefore, $\|{\mathcal{H}}({\mathcal{H}}^* {\mathcal{H}})^{-1}\|$ has the same distribution as $(\sigma_\mathrm{min}(R))^{-1}$. Let $R' = \sqrt{mn}\,R$. Clearly, the entries of $R'$ are i.i.d according to the standard normal distribution. Using the concentration results for 1-Lipschitz functions (see Proposition 2.18 in [@Ledoux]) and the distribution of singular values of random Gaussian matrices [@Vershynin2010], it is possible to show that $${\mathbb{P}}\left[ \sigma_\mathrm{min}(R') \leq \sqrt{mn}-\sqrt{p} - t \right] \leq e^{-t^2/2},$$ for any $t \geq 0$. Consequently, we have that $${\mathbb{P}}\left[ \sigma_\mathrm{min}(R) \leq 1-\sqrt{\frac{p}{mn}} - t \right] \leq e^{-mnt^2/2}.$$ Setting $t = 1/4$ and by our assumption that $p < mn/4$, we get $${\mathbb{P}}\left[ \sigma_\mathrm{min}(R) \leq \frac{1}{4} \right] = {\mathbb{P}}\left[ \|{\mathcal{H}}({\mathcal{H}}^* {\mathcal{H}})^{-1}\| \geq 4 \right] \leq e^{-mn/32}.$$ We now note that $\|{\mathcal{H}}^* {\mathcal{P}_T}\| = \|{\mathcal{P}_T}{\mathcal{H}}\|$ is identical in distribution to $\|M\|$, where $M \in {\mathbb{R}}^{(m+n)r\times p}$ is a random matrix whose entries are i.i.d. ${\mathcal{N}}(0,1/mn)$. This is because the isotropic Gaussian distribution is rotation-invariant. Hence, without any loss of generality we can assume that the operator ${\mathcal{P}_T}$ preserves only the first $\dim(T) = (m+n)r$ components of the basis elements $H_1,\ldots,H_p$. Once again, invoking Proposition 2.18 in [@Ledoux], we can show that $${\mathbb{P}}\left[ \|M\| \geq \frac{\sqrt{p}+\sqrt{(m+n)r}}{\sqrt{mn}} + t \right] \leq e^{-mnt^2/2}.$$ Setting $t = \max\left\{\sqrt{p/mn}\, , \sqrt{(m+n)r/mn}\right\}$, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
&& {\mathbb{P}}\left[ \|M\| \geq 2\left(\frac{\sqrt{p}+\sqrt{(m+n)r}}{\sqrt{mn}}\right) \right] \\
&= & {\mathbb{P}}\left[ \|{\mathcal{H}}^*{\mathcal{P}_T}\| \geq 2\left(\frac{\sqrt{p}+\sqrt{(m+n)r}}{\sqrt{mn}} \right )\right] \\
&\leq &\min\left\{e^{-p/2},e^{-(m+n)r/2} \right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Putting it all together, we get $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\mathbb{P}}\left[ \|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_T}\| > 8 \left( \sqrt{\frac{p}{mn}} + \sqrt{\frac{(m+n)r}{mn}}\right) \right]\\
& \leq &e^{-mn/32} +\min\left\{e^{-p/2},e^{-(m+n)r/2} \right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we have that $$\|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_T}\| \leq 8 \left( \frac{\sqrt{p}+\sqrt{(m+n)r}}{\sqrt{mn}} \right)$$ with high probability.
Let $Q^\perp$ be a linear subspace distributed according to the random subspace model and $\Omega \sim {\mathrm{Ber}}(\rho)$. Then, with high probability, we have $$\|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}\| \leq 8\left( \sqrt{\frac{p}{mn}} + \sqrt{\frac{5\rho}{4}} \right).$$
Proceeding along the same lines of the proof of the previous lemma and conditioned on $\Omega$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
&& {\mathbb{P}}\left[ \|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}\| > 8 \left( \sqrt{\frac{p}{mn}} + \sqrt{\frac{5\rho}{4}} \right) \:\: \Big | \:\: |\Omega| \leq \frac{5}{4} \rho mn \right] \\
&\leq & e^{-mn/32} + \min\left\{ e^{-p/2}, e^{-5mn\rho/8} \right \}.\end{aligned}$$ Using Bernstein’s inequality, it is possible to show that $${\mathbb{P}}\left[ |\Omega| > mn\rho (1+\delta) \right] \leq 2\exp\left( - \frac{mn\rho \delta^2}{1-\rho+\frac{2\delta}{3}}\right) \leq 2\exp\left( -\frac{3}{5} mn\rho\delta^2\right),$$ for any $\delta \in (0,1)$. We set $\delta = 1/4$. Thus, we have $$\begin{aligned}
& & {\mathbb{P}}\left[ \|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}\| > 8 \left( \sqrt{\frac{p}{mn}} + \sqrt{\frac{5\rho}{4}} \right) \right] \\
& \leq & {\mathbb{P}}\left[ \|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}\| > 8 \left( \sqrt{\frac{p}{mn}} +\sqrt{\frac{5\rho}{4}} \right) \:\: \Big | \:\: |\Omega| \leq \frac{5}{4}\rho mn \right] + {\mathbb{P}}\left[ |\Omega| > \frac{5}{4}\rho mn\right] \\
& \leq & e^{-mn/32} + \min\left\{ e^{-p/2}, e^{-5mn\rho/8} \right \} + 2\,e^{-3mn\rho/80}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we have that $$\|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}\| \leq 8\left( \sqrt{\frac{p}{mn}} + \sqrt{\frac{5\rho}{4}} \right)$$ with high probability.
Let $\Omega \sim {\mathrm{Ber}}(\rho)$. Then, with high probability, $$\|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_T}\|^2 \leq \rho +\epsilon,$$ provided that $1-\rho \geq C_0 \epsilon^{-2} \frac{\mu r \log m}{n}$ for some numerical constant $C_0 > 0$. \[lem:incoh\_OT\]
See Corollary 2.7 in [@Candes2011-JACM].
We now prove the following two results that would help us establish incoherence relations with subspaces obtained by a direct sum of two incoherent subspaces.
Let $S_1$ and $S_2$ be any two linear subspaces in ${\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}$ satisfying $\|{\mathcal{P}}_{S_1} {\mathcal{P}}_{S_2}\| \leq \alpha < 1$. We define $S = S_1 \oplus S_2$. Then, for any $X \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}$, we have $$\|{\mathcal{P}}_S X\|_F^2 \leq (1-\alpha)^{-1}(\|{\mathcal{P}}_{S_1} X\|_F^2 + \|{\mathcal{P}}_{S_2} X\|_F^2).$$ \[lem:length\_sum\]
We denote by ${\mathrm{vec}}: {\mathbb{R}}^{m\times n} \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^{mn}$, the operation of converting a matrix to a vector by stacking its columns one below another. Suppose that $d_1$ and $d_2$ are the dimensions of the subspaces $S_1$ and $S_2$, respectively. Then, there exist matrices $B_1 \in {\mathbb{R}}^{mn \times d_1}$ and $B_2 \in {\mathbb{R}}^{mn \times d_2}$ whose columns constitute orthonormal bases for $S_1$ and $S_2$, respectively.
Let $M \doteq [B_1\quad B_2]$. Clearly, the columns of $M$ constitute a basis for the subspace $S$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^{mn}$. Hence, for any $X \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}$, its projection onto $S$ can be expressed as follows: $${\mathrm{vec}}({\mathcal{P}}_S X) = M (M^* M)^{-1} M^* {\mathrm{vec}}(X).$$ We note that $\|B_1^* {\mathrm{vec}}(X)\|_2 = \|{\mathcal{P}}_{S_1} X\|_F$ and $\|B_2^* {\mathrm{vec}}(X)\|_2 = \|{\mathcal{P}}_{S_2} X\|_F$. Therefore,we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\mathcal{P}}_S X\|_F^2 & = & \|{\mathrm{vec}}({\mathcal{P}}_S X)\|_2^2 \\
& = & \|M (M^* M)^{-1} M^* {\mathrm{vec}}(X)\|_2^2 \\
& \leq & \|M (M^* M)^{-1}\|^2 \cdot \|M^*{\mathrm{vec}}(X)\|_2^2 \\
& = & \|M (M^* M)^{-1}\|^2 \cdot (\|{\mathcal{P}}_{S_1} X\|_F^2 + \|{\mathcal{P}}_{S_2} X\|_F^2)\end{aligned}$$ Let $M^\dag \doteq (M^*M)^{-1}M^*$ denote the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse of $M$. It is evident that $\|M^\dag\| = \|M (M^* M)^{-1}\|$. But we know that $\|M^\dag\| = (\sigma_{\mathrm{min}}(M))^{-1}$, where $\sigma_{\mathrm{min}}(M)$ is the smallest non-zero singular value of $M$. Using the fact that $B_1$ and $B_2$ have orthonormal columns, we can show that $(\sigma_{\mathrm{min}}(M))^2 = \lambda_\mathrm{min}(M^*M) \geq 1-\alpha$, where $\lambda_\mathrm{min}(M^*M)$ is the smallest eigenvalue of $M^* M$.[^4] Therefore, we have $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\|{\mathcal{P}}_S X\|_F^2 & \leq & (\sigma_{\mathrm{min}}(M))^{-2}\, (\|{\mathcal{P}}_{S_1} X\|_F^2 + \|{\mathcal{P}}_{S_2} X\|_F^2) \\
& \leq &(1-\alpha)^{-1}(\|{\mathcal{P}}_{S_1} X\|_F^2 + \|{\mathcal{P}}_{S_2} X\|_F^2).
\end{array}$$
Suppose that $\|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_T}\| < 1/2$.[^5] Then, it follows that $$\|{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\bar{e}}_i e_j^*\|_F^2 \leq 4 \left(\frac{8p \log(mnp)}{mn} + \frac{\mu r}{n} \right),
\label{eqn:nu-coherence-random}$$ with high probability, for all $(i,j) \in [m] \times [n]$. In other words, with high probability, when $Q^\perp$ is distributed according to the random subspace model, we have that the subspace $\Gamma^\perp$ is $\gamma$-constrained with $\gamma=4 \left(\frac{8p \log(mnp)}{mn} + \frac{\mu r}{n} \right)$. We further note that $\gamma \log m = O(1/\log m)$ under the conditions of Theorem \[thm:cpcp\_random\]. This fact will be used frequently in our proof below.
Let $S_1$, $S_2$ and $S_3$ be any three linear subspaces in ${\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}$ satisfying $\dim(S_1 \oplus S_2 \oplus S_3) = \dim(S_1) + \dim(S_2) + \dim(S_3)$, and $\|{\mathcal{P}}_{S_1} {\mathcal{P}}_{S_2}\| \leq \alpha_{1,2} < 1$, $\|{\mathcal{P}}_{S_2} {\mathcal{P}}_{S_3}\| \leq \alpha_{2,3} < 1$ and $\|{\mathcal{P}}_{S_3} {\mathcal{P}}_{S_1}\| \leq \alpha_{3,1} < 1$. We define $S = S_1 \oplus S_2$. Then, we have $$\|{\mathcal{P}}_S {\mathcal{P}}_{S_3}\| \leq \sqrt{\frac{\alpha_{2,3}^2 + \alpha_{3,1}^2}{1-\alpha_{1,2}}}.$$ \[lem:norm\_sum\]
The proof is a simple application of Lemma \[lem:length\_sum\]. We note that, for any $X \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\mathcal{P}}_S {\mathcal{P}}_{S_3} X\|_F^2 & \leq & (1-\alpha_{1,2})^{-1} (\|{\mathcal{P}}_{S_1} {\mathcal{P}}_{S_3} X\|_F^2 + \|{\mathcal{P}}_{S_2} {\mathcal{P}}_{S_3} X\|_F^2 \\
& \leq & (1-\alpha_{1,2})^{-1} (\|{\mathcal{P}}_{S_1} {\mathcal{P}}_{S_3}\|^2 + \|{\mathcal{P}}_{S_2} {\mathcal{P}}_{S_3}\|^2) \|X\|_F^2\\
& \leq & (1-\alpha_{1,2})^{-1} (\alpha_{3,1}^2 + \alpha_{2,3}^2) \|X\|_F^2.\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $$\|{\mathcal{P}}_S {\mathcal{P}}_{S_3}\| \leq \sqrt{\frac{\alpha_{2,3}^2 + \alpha_{3,1}^2}{1-\alpha_{1,2}}}.$$
Let $\Omega \sim {\mathrm{Ber}}(\rho)$ and $\Gamma^\perp$ be $\gamma$-constrained. Then, for any $\epsilon \in (0,1)$, with high probability, $$\|{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}- \rho^{-1}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}\| \leq \epsilon,$$ provided that $\rho \geq C\cdot \epsilon^{-2} \gamma \log m$ for some numerical constant $C > 0$. \[lem:normbound\]
The proof is very similar to that of Theorem 4.1 in [@Candes2008]. We highlight the main steps here. For each $(i,j) \in [m] \times [n]$, we define binary random variables $\delta_{ij}$, each takes value 1 if $(i,j) \in \Omega$, and 0 otherwise. We note that $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}& = & \sum_{ij} \delta_{ij} \, {\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\bar{e}}_i e_j^* \otimes {\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\bar{e}}_i e_j^*, \\
{\mathbb{E}}[{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}] & = & \rho\,{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\otimes$ denotes the outer or tensor product between matrices. Applying a concentration result for operators of the above form, as established in [@Candes2007-IP], we have, with high probability, $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}- \rho^{-1} \,{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}\| & \leq C' \sqrt{\frac{\log (mn)}{\rho}} \max_{ij} \|{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\bar{e}}_i e_j^*\|_F\\
& \le C' \sqrt{\frac{\gamma \log (mn)}{\rho}} ,\end{aligned}$$ provided that the right hand side is smaller than 1. Here, $C' > 0$ is a numerical constant. The desired result follows by noting that $n \leq m$, and bounding the right hand side by $\epsilon \in (0,1)$.
Let $Z \in \Gamma^\perp$ be fixed, $\Gamma^\perp$ be $\gamma$-constrained, and $\Omega \sim {\mathrm{Ber}}(\rho)$. Then, with high probability, $$\|Z - \rho^{-1}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}Z\|_\infty \leq \epsilon \|Z\|_\infty,$$ provided that $\rho \geq C_0 \cdot \epsilon^{-2} \gamma \log m$ for some numerical constant $C_0 > 64/3$. \[lem:infbound\]
Let $\delta_{ij}$ be a sequence of independent Bernoulli random variables such that $$\delta_{ij} = \left \{
\begin{array}{ll}
1, & \mathrm{if} \: (i,j) \in \Omega, \\
0, & \mathrm{otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right .$$ We define $Z' \doteq Z - \rho^{-1}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}Z$. Then, $$Z' = \sum_{ij} (1-\rho^{-1}\delta_{ij})Z_{ij}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\bar{e}}_i e_j^*.$$ For any $(i_0,j_0) \in [m] \times [n]$, we can express $Z'_{i_0 j_0}$ as a sum of independent random variables as shown below: $$Z'_{i_0 j_0} = \sum_{ij}R_{ij}, \quad R_{ij} = (1-\rho^{-1}\delta_{ij})Z_{ij}\langle {\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}\bar{e}_i e_j^*, {\bar{e}}_{i_0}e_{j_0}^*\rangle.$$ It is easy to show that the $R_{ij}$’s are zero-mean random variables with variance given by $$\mathrm{Var}(R_{ij}) = (1-\rho)\rho^{-1}|Z_{ij}|^2 \,|\langle {\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\bar{e}}_i e_j^*, {\bar{e}}_{i_0}e_{j_0}^*\rangle|^2.$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{ij} \mathrm{Var}(R_{ij}) & = & (1-\rho)\rho^{-1}\sum_{ij}|Z_{ij}|^2 |\langle {\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\bar{e}}_i e_j^*, {\bar{e}}_{i_0}e_{j_0}^*\rangle|^2 \\
& \leq & (1-\rho)\rho^{-1}\|Z\|_\infty^2 \sum_{ij}|\langle {\bar{e}}_i e_j^*, {\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\bar{e}}_{i_0}e_{j_0}^*\rangle|^2 \\
& = & (1-\rho)\rho^{-1}\|Z\|_\infty^2 \|{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\bar{e}}_{i_0}e_{j_0}^*\|_F^2 \\
& \leq & (1-\rho)\rho^{-1}\gamma \|Z\|_\infty^2 ,\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality holds with high probability. Furthermore, we have $$\begin{aligned}
|R_{ij}| & \leq & \rho^{-1}\|Z\|_\infty |\langle {\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\bar{e}}_i e_j^*, {\bar{e}}_{i_0}e_{j_0}^*\rangle| \\
& \leq & \rho^{-1}\|Z\|_\infty \|{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\bar{e}}_i e_j^*\|_F \|{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\bar{e}}_{i_0} e_{j_0}^*\|_F \\
& \leq & \rho^{-1}\gamma \|Z\|_\infty,\end{aligned}$$ with high probability. Thus, using Bernstein’s inequality, we obtain $${\mathbb{P}}\left [|Z'_{i_0 j_0}| > \epsilon \|Z\|_\infty\right ] \leq 2 \exp\left( -\frac{\epsilon^2 \rho}{2\gamma \left( \frac{\epsilon}{3}+ 1-\rho\right)}\right).$$ Choosing $\epsilon < 1$, we can reduce the above expression to $${\mathbb{P}}\left [|Z'_{i_0 j_0}| > \epsilon \|Z\|_\infty\right ] \leq 2 \exp\left( -\frac{3\epsilon^2 \rho}
{8\gamma}\right).$$ If $\rho \geq C_0 \epsilon^{-2}\gamma \log m$ for some numerical constant $C_0 > 64/3$, then we have $${\mathbb{P}}\left [|Z'_{i_0 j_0}| > \epsilon \|Z\|_\infty \right ] \leq 2 \exp\left( - \frac{3 C_0 \log m}{32}\right).$$ Applying a union bound, we get $$\begin{array}{rcl}
{\mathbb{P}}\left [\|Z'\|_\infty > \epsilon \|Z\|_\infty\right ] & \leq & 2mn \exp\left( - \frac{3 C_0 \log m}{32}\right) \\
& \leq & 2m^{\left(2-\frac{3C_0}{32}\right)}.
\end{array}$$ Since $C_0 > 64/3$, we obtain the desired result.
The following lemma is a restatement of Theorem 6.3 in [@Candes2008].
Let $Z\in {\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}$ be fixed, and $\Omega \sim {\mathrm{Ber}}(\rho)$. Then, with high probability, $$\|Z - \rho^{-1} {\mathcal{P}_\Omega}Z\| \leq C_0' \sqrt{\frac{m \log m}{\rho}} \|Z\|_\infty,$$ provided that $\rho \geq C_0' \frac{\log m}{n}$, where $C_0' > 0$ is a numerical constant. \[lem:omeganormbound\]
Proof of Lemma \[con:wl\] {#sec:wl_random_proof}
-------------------------
Before proceeding to the actual proof, we introduce some additional notation. Let $Z_j \doteq UV^* - {\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}Y_j$, where $Y_j$’s are defined in Eqn. . Evidently, $Z_j \in \Gamma^\perp$ for all $j \geq 0$. The recursive relation between the $Y_j$’s can then be expressed as $$Z_j = ({\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}- q^{-1} {\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_j}}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}) Z_{j-1}, \quad Z_0 = UV^*.$$ Let us assume that $\epsilon \in (0,e^{-1})$. From Lemma \[lem:infbound\], we have that $$\|Z_j\|_\infty \leq \epsilon \|Z_{j-1}\|_\infty,$$ with high probability, provided that $$q \geq C_0 \epsilon^{-2}\gamma \log m,
\label{eqn:qcons}$$ where $C_0 > 64/3$ is a numerical constant. Since $Z_0 = UV^*$, with high probability, we have $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\|Z_j\|_\infty & \leq & \epsilon^j \|UV^*\|_\infty \\
& \leq & \epsilon^j \sqrt{\frac{\mu r}{mn}}.
\end{array}$$ The second inequality above follows from our assumptions about the matrices $U$ and $V$. Furthermore, when Eqn. holds, we also have, with high probability, $$\|Z_j\|_F \leq \epsilon \|Z_{j-1}\|_F$$ using Lemma \[lem:normbound\]. Once again, since $Z_0 = UV^*$, we deduce that $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\|Z_j\|_F & \leq & \epsilon^j \|UV^*\|_F \\
& = & \epsilon^j \sqrt{r}
\end{array}$$ with high probability.
### Bounding $\|W^L\|$ {#sub:|WL|}
We first introduce a few notions before deriving a bound on $\|W^L\|$. We let $R$ denote the linear subspace obtained by projecting all the points in $Q^\perp$ onto $T^\perp$. By a slight abuse of notation, we denote this by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:R}
R = {\mathcal{P}_{T^\perp}}Q^\perp.\end{aligned}$$ We note that if $Q^\perp$ is a random $p$-dimensional subspace in ${\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}$, then with probability one, $R$ is a $p$-dimensional subspace of $T^\perp$. It is easy to verify that for any $X \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}X & = & {\mathcal{P}_T}X + {\mathcal{P}_R}X.
$$ We note that $$Y_{j_0} = \sum_{j=1}^{j_0} q^{-1} {\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_j}}Z_{j-1}.$$ Thus, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|W^L\| & = & \|{\mathcal{P}_\Gamma}Y_{j_0}\| \\
& \leq & \sum_{j=1}^{j_0} \left\|q^{-1} {\mathcal{P}_\Gamma}{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_j}}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}Z_{j-1}\right\| \\
& = & \sum_{j=1}^{j_0} \left\|{\mathcal{P}_\Gamma}(q^{-1} {\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_j}}-{\mathcal{I}}){\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}Z_{j-1}\right\| \\
& \leq & \sum_{j=1}^{j_0} \left\|{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}(q^{-1} {\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_j}}-{\mathcal{I}}){\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}Z_{j-1}\right\| + \sum_{j=1}^{j_0} \left\|(q^{-1} {\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_j}}-{\mathcal{I}}){\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}Z_{j-1}\right\|.\end{aligned}$$ The second term in the above inequality can be bounded with high probability using Lemma \[lem:omeganormbound\] as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=1}^{j_0} \left\|(q^{-1} {\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_j}}-{\mathcal{I}}){\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}Z_{j-1}\right\| & \leq & C_0' \sqrt{\frac{m \log m}{q}} \sum_{j=1}^{j_0}\|Z_{j-1}\|_\infty \\
& \leq & C_0' \sqrt{\frac{m \log m}{q}} \sum_{j=1}^{j_0} \epsilon^{j-1} \sqrt{\frac{\mu r}{mn}} \\
& \leq & C_0' \sqrt{\frac{\mu r \log m}{q\,n}} (1-\epsilon)^{-1},\end{aligned}$$ provided that $$q \geq \max\left \{C_0' \frac{ \log m}{n}, C_0 \epsilon^{-2} \gamma \log m\right \}.$$ On the other hand, each term in the summation in the first term can be split as $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left\|{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}(q^{-1} {\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_j}}-{\mathcal{I}}){\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}Z_{j-1}\right\|\\
& \leq & \left\|{\mathcal{P}_T}(q^{-1} {\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_j}}-{\mathcal{I}}){\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}Z_{j-1}\right\| + \left\|{\mathcal{P}_R}(q^{-1} {\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_j}}-{\mathcal{I}}){\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}Z_{j-1}\right\| \\
& \leq & 2 \left\|(q^{-1} {\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_j}}-{\mathcal{I}}) {\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}Z_{j-1}\right\| + \left\|{\mathcal{P}_R}(q^{-1} {\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_j}}-{\mathcal{I}})Z_{j-1}\right\|.\end{aligned}$$ We have already seen how the first term in the above inequality can be bounded with high probability. Hence, we now focus on the second term. We first state the matrix Bernstein inequality (see Theorem 1.4 in [@Tropp2011-FCM]) that will enable us to derive a bound on the second term.
Let $M_1, \ldots, M_k \in {\mathbb{R}}^{d_1 \times d_2}$ be $k$ independent random matrices satisfying $${\mathbb{E}}[M_i] = {\mathbf{0}}, \quad \|M_i\| \leq S \:\: \mathrm{almost}\:\: \mathrm{surely}, \quad i = 1,\ldots,k.$$ We set $$\sigma^2 = \max \left \{ \left\| \sum_{i=1}^k {\mathbb{E}}[M_i^* M_i]\right \|, \left\| \sum_{i=1}^k {\mathbb{E}}[M_i M_i^*]\right \|\right \}.$$ Then, for any $t > 0$, we have $${\mathbb{P}}\left[\left\|\sum_{i=1}^k M_i \right \| > t\right] \leq (d_1 + d_2) \exp \left( -\frac{t^2}{2\sigma^2 + 3St}\right).$$ \[thm:operatorbound\]
Using Theorem \[thm:operatorbound\], we will now show that, with high probability, $$\left\|{\mathcal{P}_R}(q^{-1} {\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_j}}-{\mathcal{I}})Z_{j-1}\right\| \le \tilde{C} p \sqrt{ m} \log m \|Z_{j-1}\|_\infty.$$ The proof is as follows.
For every $(i,l) \in [m] \times [n]$, let us define $M_{il} \doteq H_{il} (Z_{j-1})_{il}{\mathcal{P}_R}\bar{e}_ie_l^*$, where the $H_{il}$’s are independent random variables distributed as follows: $$H_{il} = \left \{
\begin{array}{ll}
1, & \mathrm{w.p.} \:\:1-q \\
1-q^{-1}, & \mathrm{w.p.} \:\: q
\end{array}
\right .$$ We note that $\sum_{i,l} M_{il}$ has the same distribution as ${\mathcal{P}_R}({\mathcal{I}}- q^{-1}{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_j}})Z_{j-1}$. Since the $H_{il}$’s are independent zero-mean random variables that are independent of $Z_{j-1}$, we have that, for any $(i,l) \in [m] \times [n]$, $${\mathbb{E}}[M_{il} \, | \, Z_{j-1}] = {\mathbf{0}}.$$ We record two useful bounds. We have that $$1-\rho = {\mathbb{P}}\left[ \cup_j \left\{(i,l) \in \Omega_j\right\} \right] \;\le\; j_0 q.$$ So $q \ge (1-\rho)/j_0$. Since $|H_{il}| \le q^{-1}$ almost surely, and $j_0 \ge C/\log m$, we have $$|H_{il}| \leq O(\log m) \quad \mathrm{almost} \;\mathrm{surely}.$$ We also have $$\|{\mathcal{P}_R}\bar{e}_i e_l^* \| \leq \|{\mathcal{P}_R}\bar{e}_i e_l^* \|_F \leq 1,$$ for any $(i,l) \in [m] \times [n]$. It follows that $\|M_{il}\| \leq O(\log m) \|Z_{j-1}\|_\infty$ almost surely.
Now we bound the variance term. It can be shown that ${\mathbb{E}}[H_{il}^2] = O(\log m)$. Let $B_1,\ldots,B_p$ be such an orthonormal basis for $R$. Then, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left \| \sum_{il} {\mathbb{E}}[M_{il} M_{il}^*]\right \| & = \left \| \sum_{il} {\mathbb{E}}[H_{il}^2] {\mathcal{P}_R}[\bar{e}_ie_l^*] ({\mathcal{P}_R}[\bar{e_i} e_l^*])^* (Z_{j-1})_{il}^2 \right \| \\
& \leq O(\log m) \|Z_{j-1}\|_\infty^2 \left \| \sum_{il} {\mathcal{P}_R}[\bar{e}_i e_l^*] ( {\mathcal{P}_R}[\bar{e}_i e_l^*] )^* \right \| \\
& = O(\log m) \|Z_{j-1}\|_\infty^2 \left \| \sum_{il} \left (\sum_{s=1}^p B_s \langle B_s, \bar{e}_i e_l^*\rangle \right) \left (\sum_{t=1}^p B_t \langle B_t, \bar{e}_i e_l^*\rangle \right)^*\right \| \\
& = O(\log m) \|Z_{j-1}\|_\infty^2 \left \| \sum_{t} B_t B_t^*\right \| \\
\label{eq:Gincoherent}
& \leq O(\log m) p \|Z_{j-1}\|_\infty^2\end{aligned}$$ A similar bound holds for the other variance term ${\mathbb{E}}[M_{il}^* M_{il}]$.
Now, using the matrix Bernstein inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\mathbb{P}}\left( \|{\mathcal{P}_R}(q^{-1}{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_j}}- {\mathcal{I}})Z_{j-1}\| > t | Z_{j-1}, Q \right) \\
&\leq & (m+n) \exp\left ( - \frac{t^2}{C_1 p \log m \|Z_{j-1}\|_\infty^2 + C_2 \log m \|Z_{j-1}\|_\infty t}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, removing the conditioning, we have that, with high probability, $$\|{\mathcal{P}_R}(q^{-1}{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_j}}- {\mathcal{I}})Z_{j-1}\| \leq \tilde{C} \sqrt{ m} \log m \|Z_{j-1}\|_\infty,$$ for any $j$, for some numerical constant $\tilde{C} > 0$.
Thuswe have that, with high probability, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=1}^{j_0} \|{\mathcal{P}_R}(q^{-1}{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_j}}- {\mathcal{I}})Z_{j-1}\| & \leq & \sum_{j=1}^{j_0} \tilde{C} \sqrt{ m} \log m \|Z_{j-1}\|_\infty \\
& \leq & \tilde{C} \sqrt{ m} \log m \sqrt{\frac{\mu r}{mn}} (1-\epsilon)^{-1}\\
& \leq & \tilde{C} \log m \sqrt{\frac{\mu r}{n}} (1-\epsilon)^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$
Under the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:cpcp\_random\], the bound on the right hand side can be made arbitrarily small. This gives us the desired bound.
### Bounding $\|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}(UV^* + W^L)\|_F$ {#sec:POUVWL}
We now prove the second part of Lemma \[con:wl\]. First, we note that ${\mathcal{P}_\Omega}Y_{j_0} = {\mathbf{0}}$ by construction. Therefore, $${\mathcal{P}_\Omega}(UV^* + {\mathcal{P}_\Gamma}Y_{j_0}) = {\mathcal{P}_\Omega}(UV^* - {\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}Y_{j_0}) = {\mathcal{P}_\Omega}Z_{j_0}.$$ Consequently, we have $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}(UV^* + {\mathcal{P}_\Gamma}Y_{j_0})\|_F & = & \|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}Z_{j_0}\|_F \\
& \leq & \|Z_{j_0}\|_F \\
& \leq & \epsilon^{j_0} \sqrt{r} \\
& \leq & \frac{\sqrt{r}}{m^2}.
\end{array}$$ The last step follows from the fact that $\epsilon < e^{-1}$ and $j_0 \geq 2\log m$.
### Bounding $\|{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}(UV^* + W^L)\|_\infty$ {#sec:POpUVWL}
We now prove the final part of Lemma \[con:wl\]. We note that $$UV^* + W^L = UV^* + {\mathcal{P}_\Gamma}Y_{j_0} = Y_{j_0} + Z_{j_0}.$$ Since we have already proved that $\|Z_{j_0}\|_F < \lambda / 8$, it is sufficient to show that $\|Y_{j_0}\|_\infty < \lambda / 8$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\|Y_{j_0}\|_\infty & = & \| \sum_{j=1}^{j_0} q^{-1} {\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_j}}Z_{j-1} \|_\infty \\
& \leq & q^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{j_0} \|{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_j}}Z_{j-1} \|_\infty \\
& \leq & q^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{j_0} \|Z_{j-1} \|_\infty \\
& \leq & q^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{j_0} \epsilon^{j-1} \sqrt{\frac{\mu r}{mn}}\end{aligned}$$ Notice that $q\ge (1-\rho)/j_0\ge 4/\log m$ for $\rho<1/2$, $$\begin{aligned}
\|Y_{j_0}\|_\infty & \leq & \frac{\log m}{4(1-\epsilon)}\sqrt{\frac{\mu r}{mn}}\\
& \leq & \lambda/8,\end{aligned}$$ for sufficiently small $\epsilon$ and for some numerical constant $C_r$.
Proof of Lemma \[con:ws\] {#sec:ws_random_proof}
-------------------------
We recall the notation that $\Gamma^\perp = Q^\perp \oplus T$. By Lemma \[lem:norm\_sum\], we have that $$\|{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}\|^2 \leq \frac{\|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}\|^2 + \|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_T}\|^2}{1 - \|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_T}\|}.$$ Let us assume that $m, n$ are sufficiently large so that the following conditions hold true: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{p}{mn} & < & \frac{5\rho}{4}, \\
8 \left( \sqrt{\frac{p}{mn}} + \sqrt{\frac{(m+n)r}{mn}}\right) & < & \frac{1}{2}, \\
\rho^2(1-\rho) & \geq & C_0 \cdot \frac{\mu r \log m}{n},\end{aligned}$$ where $C_0 > 0$ is the numerical constant from Lemma \[lem:incoh\_OT\]. We also assume that $\rho < 1/5$. We note that it is possible to satisfy all of the above inequalities under the assumptions on $p$ and $r$ given in Theorem \[thm:cpcp\_random\], and because $\rho$ is a fixed constant in the interval $(0,1)$. Using Lemma \[lem:norm\_sum\], it is easy to verify that under these assumptions, with high probability, we have that $$\|{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}\| \leq \eta \sqrt{\rho},$$ where $\eta > 0$ is a numerical constant.
The basic steps of the proof closely follow that of Lemma 2.9 in [@Candes2011-JACM]. We recognize that using the convergent Neumann series, $W^S$ can be expressed as follows: $$W^S = \lambda ({\mathcal{I}}- {\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}){\mathcal{P}_\Omega}\sum_{k \geq 0} ({\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Omega})^k [{\mathrm{sgn}}(S_0)].$$ As mentioned in Section \[sec:assumptions\], we assume that the signs of the non-zero entries of $S_0$ are independent, symmetric $\pm 1$ random variables.
### Bounding $\|W^S\|$ {#sec:WS}
It is easy to show that $$\begin{aligned}
W^S & = & \lambda {\mathrm{sgn}}(S_0) - \lambda {\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}\sum_{k \geq 0} ({\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Omega})^k [{\mathrm{sgn}}(S_0)] \\
& : = & W^S_1 - W^S_2\end{aligned}$$ We now show that each of these components have spectral norm smaller than $1/16$ with high probability. This gives us the desired bound on $\|W^S\|$.
For the first term, we can use standard arguments about the norms of random matrices with i.i.d. entries (see [@Vershynin2011]) to show that, with high probability, $$\|{\mathrm{sgn}}(S_0)\| \leq 4 \sqrt{n\rho}.$$ Since $\lambda = m^{-1/2}$, we have that $\|W^S_1\| \leq 4\sqrt{\rho}$ with high probability. Thus, for sufficiently small $\rho$, we have that $\|W^S_1\| < 1/16$.
We use a discretization argument to bound $\|W^S_2\|$. Let $N_m$ and $N_n$ be $1/2$-nets for the unit spheres in ${\mathbb{R}}^m$ and ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, respectively. It can be shown that the sizes of $N_m$ and $N_n$ are at most $6^m$ and $6^n$, respectively (see Theorem 4.16 in [@Ledoux]). Then, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\|W^S_2\| & \leq & 4 \, \max_{{\mathbf{x}}\in N_m, {\mathbf{y}}\in N_n} \, {\mathbf{x}}^* W^S_2 {\mathbf{y}}\\
& = & 4 \, \max_{{\mathbf{x}}\in N_m, {\mathbf{y}}\in N_n} \, \left \langle {\mathbf{x}}{\mathbf{y}}^*, W^S_2 \right \rangle \\
& = & 4\, \max_{{\mathbf{x}}\in N_m, {\mathbf{y}}\in N_n} \, \left \langle {\mathbf{x}}{\mathbf{y}}^*, \lambda {\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}\sum_{k \geq 0} ({\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Omega})^k [{\mathrm{sgn}}(S_0)] \right \rangle \\
& = & 4\lambda \, \max_{{\mathbf{x}}\in N_m, {\mathbf{y}}\in N_n} \, \left \langle \sum_{k \geq 0} ({\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Omega})^k {\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}[{\mathbf{x}}{\mathbf{y}}^*], {\mathrm{sgn}}(S_0) \right \rangle \\
& = & 4\lambda \, \max_{{\mathbf{x}}\in N_m, {\mathbf{y}}\in N_n} \, \left \langle H({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}}), {\mathrm{sgn}}(S_0) \right \rangle.\end{aligned}$$ For any $({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}}) \in N_m \times N_n$, we bound $\|H({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}})\|_F$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\|H({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}})\|_F & = & \left \| \sum_{k \geq 0} ({\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Omega})^k {\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}[{\mathbf{x}}{\mathbf{y}}^*] \right \|_F \\
& \leq & \sum_{k \geq 0} \left \| ({\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Omega})^k {\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}[{\mathbf{x}}{\mathbf{y}}^*] \right \|_F \\
& \leq & \left (\sum_{k\geq 0} \|({\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Omega})\|^k\right) \|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}\| \|{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}[{\mathbf{x}}{\mathbf{y}}^*]\|_F \\
& \leq & \frac{\|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}\|}{1-\|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}\|^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Conditioned on $Q$ and $\Omega$, we use Hoeffding’s inequality to get $${\mathbb{P}}\left[ \left |\left\langle H({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}}), {\mathrm{sgn}}(S_0) \right \rangle \right | > t | \Omega, Q\right] < 2\exp\left( -\frac{2t^2}{\|H({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}})\|_F^2}\right).$$ Subsequently, using a union bound over $N_m \times N_n$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
& {\mathbb{P}}\left[ \max_{{\mathbf{x}}\in N_m, {\mathbf{y}}\in N_n} \left |\left\langle H({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}}), {\mathrm{sgn}}(S_0) \right \rangle \right | > t | \Omega, Q\right] \\
& < 2\cdot 6^{m+n}\cdot\exp\left( -\frac{2t^2}{\max_{{\mathbf{x}}\in N_m, {\mathbf{y}}\in N_n} \|H({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}})\|_F^2}\right) \\
& \leq 2\cdot 6^{m+n}\cdot\exp\left( -\frac{2t^2 (1-\|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}\|^2)^2}{\|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}\|^2}\right ).
\label{eq:epsilonnet}\end{aligned}$$ Let $E_1$ be the event $\{\|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}\| \leq \eta \sqrt{\rho}\}$. We know that this event occurs with high probability. Thus, removing the conditioning on $\Omega$ and $Q$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}\left[ \max_{{\mathbf{x}}\in N_m, {\mathbf{y}}\in N_n} \left |\left\langle H({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}}), {\mathrm{sgn}}(S_0) \right \rangle \right | > t \right] &< & 2\cdot 6^{m+n}\cdot\exp\left( -\frac{2t^2 (1-\eta^2\rho)^2}{\eta^2 \rho}\right ) \\
&& \quad+ {\mathbb{P}}[E_1^c].\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}\left[ 4\lambda \max_{{\mathbf{x}}\in N_m, {\mathbf{y}}\in N_n} \left |\left\langle H({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}}), {\mathrm{sgn}}(S_0) \right \rangle \right | > t \right] &< & 2\cdot 6^{m+n}\cdot\exp\left( -\frac{t^2 (1-\eta^2\rho)^2}{8\lambda^2\eta^2 \rho}\right ) \\
&& \quad+ {\mathbb{P}}[E_1^c].\end{aligned}$$ Setting $t = \frac{s\eta\sqrt{16\rho}}{1-\eta^2\rho}$ and substituting $\lambda = 1/\sqrt{m}$, we get $${\mathbb{P}}\left[ \|W^S_2\| > \frac{s\eta\sqrt{16\rho}}{1-\eta^2\rho}\right ] < 2\cdot\exp\left ( 2m (\log 6 - s^2) \right) + {\mathbb{P}}[E_1^c].$$ Let us choose any $s > \sqrt{\log 6}$. Then, for sufficiently small $\rho$, we have that $\|W^S_2\|< 1/16$ with high probability.
### Bounding $\|{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}W^S\|_\infty$ {#sec:ws_infty}
Once again, using the convergent Neumann series expansion for $W^S$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}W^S\|_\infty & = & \max_{(i,j) \in \Omega^c} \left | \left \langle \bar{e}_i e_j^*, \lambda ({\mathcal{I}}- {\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}){\mathcal{P}_\Omega}\sum_{k \geq 0} ({\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Omega})^k [{\mathrm{sgn}}(S_0)] \right \rangle \right | \\
& = & \lambda \max_{(i,j) \in \Omega^c} \left | \left \langle \sum_{k \geq 0} ({\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Omega})^k {\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}[\bar{e}_i e_j^*], {\mathrm{sgn}}(S_0) \right \rangle \right | \\
& = & \lambda \max_{(i,j) \in \Omega^c} \left | \left \langle X_{i,j}, {\mathrm{sgn}}(S_0) \right \rangle \right |.\end{aligned}$$ Conditioned on $Q$ and $\Omega$, we use Hoeffding’s inequality to get $${\mathbb{P}}\left[ \left |\left\langle X_{i,j}, {\mathrm{sgn}}(S_0) \right \rangle \right | > t | \Omega, Q\right] < 2\exp\left( -\frac{2t^2}{\|X_{i,j}\|_F^2}\right).$$ Using a union bound, we obtain $${\mathbb{P}}\left[ \max_{i,j} \left |\left\langle X_{i,j}, {\mathrm{sgn}}(S_0) \right \rangle \right | > t | \Omega, Q\right] < 2mn\exp\left( -\frac{2t^2}{\max_{i,j} \|X_{i,j}\|_F^2}\right).$$ We obtain a bound on $\|X_{i,j}\|_F$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\|X_{i,j}\|_F & = & \left \| \sum_{k \geq 0} ({\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Omega})^k {\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}[\bar{e}_i e_j^*] \right \|_F \\
& \leq & \sum_{k\geq 0} \left \| ({\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Omega})^k {\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}[\bar{e}_i e_j^*] \right \|_F \\
& \leq & \left( \sum_{k \geq 0} \|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}\|^k\right) \|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}[\bar{e}_i e_j^*] \|_F \\
& \leq & \frac{\|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}\| \|{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}[\bar{e}_i e_j^*]\|_F}{1 - \|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}\|^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we get $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\mathbb{P}}\left[ \max_{i,j} \left |\left\langle X_{i,j}, {\mathrm{sgn}}(S_0) \right \rangle \right | > t | \Omega, Q\right] \\
&< & 2mn\exp\left( -\frac{2t^2(1 - \|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}\|^2)^2}{\|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}\|^2 \max_{i,j}\|{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}[\bar{e}_i e_j^*]\|_F^2}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Removing the conditioning on $Q$ and $\Omega$, we get $${\mathbb{P}}\left[ \|{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}W^S\|_\infty > \lambda \sqrt{\frac{s\log(mn)}{2}}\frac{\|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}\| \max_{i,j}\|{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}[\bar{e}_i e_j^*]\|_F}{1 - \|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}\|^2 }\right] < 2 (mn)^{1-s}$$ Consider the two events: $$\begin{aligned}
E_1 & := & \left \{\|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}\| \leq \eta \sqrt{\rho} \right\}, \\
E_2 & := & \left \{ \max_{i,j} \,\|{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}\bar{e}_i e_j^*\|_F \leq \sqrt{\gamma} \right \},\end{aligned}$$ where we recall that $\gamma=4 \left(\frac{8p \log(mnp)}{mn} + \frac{\mu r}{n} \right)$. We have already shown that $E_1$ and $E_2$ occur with high probability. Substituting for the various bounds and setting $s = 2$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\mathbb{P}}\left[ \|{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}W^S\|_\infty > \lambda \sqrt{\gamma \log(mn)} \frac{\eta \sqrt{\rho}}{1-\eta^2\rho} \right ] \\ &< & \frac{2}{mn} + {\mathbb{P}}[ (E_1 \cap E_2)^c].\end{aligned}$$ Under the conditions of Theorem \[thm:cpcp\_random\], and for sufficiently large $m, n$ and sufficiently small $\rho$, we get that $ \|{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}W^S\|_\infty < \lambda/8$ with high probability.
Proof of Lemma \[con:wq\] {#sec:wq_random_proof}
-------------------------
### Bounding $||W^Q||$ {#sec:wq_spectral}
Using the convergent Neumann series expansion, we can write the analytical expression for $W^Q$ as follows: $$W^Q = {\mathcal{P}_{\Pi^\perp}}\sum_{k \geq 0} ({\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Pi}{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}})^k ({\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}(-UV^*)),$$ where we recall that $\Pi = \Omega \oplus T$. It follows that $$\|W^Q\|_F \leq \left \|\sum_{k \geq 0} ({\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Pi}{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}})^k \right \| \|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}(UV^*)\|_F.$$ Considering the first term of the product on the right hand side, $$\begin{aligned}
\left \|\sum_{k \geq 0} ({\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Pi}{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}})^k \right \| & \leq & \sum_{k \geq 0} \left \| ({\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Pi}{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}})^k \right \| \\
& \leq & \sum_{k \geq 0} \|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Pi}\|^{2k}.\end{aligned}$$ From Lemma \[lem:norm\_sum\], we have that, for any $\epsilon > 0$, with high probability, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Pi}\|^2 \\
&\leq& \frac{64}{1-\sqrt{\rho + \epsilon}} \left(\left( \sqrt{\frac{p}{mn}} + \sqrt{\frac{5\rho}{4}} \right)^2 + \left( \sqrt{\frac{p}{mn}} + \sqrt{\frac{(m+n)r}{mn}} \right)^2 \right).\end{aligned}$$ Assume that $\rho < 1/4$, and fix $\epsilon = 3\rho$. For $m,n$ large enough, we can assume that $\max\{ p/mn\, , r(m+n)/mn\} < \rho$. Then, we have that, with high probability, $$\|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Pi}\|^2 \leq \frac{832\, \rho}{1-2\sqrt{\rho}}.$$ Therefore, for sufficiently small $\rho$, we have that $$\|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Pi}\|^2 \leq \frac{1}{4},$$ with high probability. Consequently, $$\left \|\sum_{k \geq 0} ({\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Pi}{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}})^k \right \| \leq \frac{4}{3},$$ with high probability.
We bound $\|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}(UV^*)\|_F$ as follows. As explained earlier, suppose we vectorize all matrices, then ${\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}$ has the same distribution as $H (H^*H)^{-1} H^*$, where $H \in {\mathbb{R}}^{mn \times p}$ is a random Gaussian matrix with i.i.d. entries $\sim {\mathcal{N}}(0,1/mn)$. Therefore, we have $$\|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}(UV^*)\|_F = \|H (H^*H)^{-1} H^* {\mathrm{vec}}(UV^*)\|_2 \leq \|H (H^*H)^{-1}\|\, \|H^*{\mathrm{vec}}(UV^*)\|_2,$$ where the above equality is in distribution. We have already shown in the proof of Lemma \[lem:incoh\_QT\] that $${\mathbb{P}}\left[\|H (H^*H)^{-1}\| \geq 4 \right] \leq e^{-mn/32}.$$ We note that $H^*{\mathrm{vec}}(UV^*)$ is a $p$-dimensional vector whose components are i.i.d. and have the same distribution as $\langle G, UV^* \rangle$, where $G \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}$ is a random Gaussian matrix whose entries are i.i.d. $\sim {\mathcal{N}}(0,1/mn)$. It is easy to see that $\langle G, UV^* \rangle$ is distributed according to ${\mathcal{N}}(0,r/mn)$, and therefore, we have $${\mathbb{E}}[\|H^*{\mathrm{vec}}(UV^*)\|_F] \leq ({\mathbb{E}}[\|H^*{\mathrm{vec}}(UV^*)\|_F^2])^{1/2} = \sqrt{\frac{pr}{mn}}.$$ Since $\|\cdot\|_F$ is a 1-Lipschitz function, we use Proposition 2.18 in [@Ledoux] to get $${\mathbb{P}}\left[ \|H^*{\mathrm{vec}}(UV^*)\|_F \geq {\mathbb{E}}(\|H^*{\mathrm{vec}}(UV^*)\|_F) + t\cdot \sqrt{\frac{r}{mn}} \,\right] \leq e^{-t^2/2}.$$ Setting $t = \sqrt{6\log m}$, we get $${\mathbb{P}}\left( \|H^*{\mathrm{vec}}(UV^*)\|_F \geq \sqrt{\frac{pr}{mn}} + \sqrt{\frac{6r\log m}{mn}}\right) \leq \frac{1}{m^3}.$$ Putting it all together, we conclude that $$\|W^Q\| \leq \|W^Q\|_F \leq \frac{16}{3}\left( \sqrt{\frac{pr}{mn}} + \sqrt{\frac{6r\log m}{mn}}\right),$$ with high probability. Clearly, for sufficiently large $m$, the right hand side can be made arbitrarily small under the conditions of Theorem \[thm:cpcp\_random\] and hence, we have the desired bound.
### Controlling $\|{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}W^Q\|_\infty$ {#sec:wq_infty}
It is easy to show that the analytical expression for $W^Q$ can be written slightly differently as follows: $$W^Q = {\mathcal{P}_{\Pi^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}\sum_{k \geq 0} ({\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Pi}{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}})^k ({\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}(-UV^*)).$$ Consider any $(i,j) \in [m] \times [n]$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
|\langle W^Q, \bar{e}_i e_j^* \rangle| & = & \left |\left \langle \sum_{k \geq 0} ({\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Pi}{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}})^k ({\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}(-UV^*)), {\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_{\Pi^\perp}}\bar{e}_i e_j^* \right \rangle \right | \\
& \leq & \left \| \sum_{k \geq 0} ({\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Pi}{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}})^k {\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}(UV^*) \right \|_F \, \|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_{\Pi^\perp}}\bar{e}_i e_j^*\|_F \\
& \leq & \left \| \sum_{k \geq 0} ({\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Pi}{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}})^k \right \| \, \|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}(UV^*)\|_F \, \|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_{\Pi^\perp}}\bar{e}_i e_j^*\|_F.\end{aligned}$$ We have already derived bounds for the first two terms. For the final term in the product, we use the same technique we employed to bound $\|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}(UV^*)\|_F$. Using the fact that $\|{\mathcal{P}_{\Pi^\perp}}\bar{e}_i e_j^*\|_F \leq 1$, we can show that $${\mathbb{P}}\left[\|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_{\Pi^\perp}}\bar{e}_i e_j^*\|_F > \frac{16}{3}\left(\sqrt{\frac{p}{mn}} + \sqrt{\frac{6\log m}{mn}}\right)\right ] \leq \frac{1}{m^3} + e^{-mn/32}.$$ Using a union bound, we get $${\mathbb{P}}\left[ \max_{i,j}\,\|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_{\Pi^\perp}}\bar{e}_i e_j^*\|_F > \frac{16}{3}\left(\sqrt{\frac{p}{mn}} + \sqrt{\frac{6\log m}{mn}}\right)\right ] \leq mn(m^{-3} + e^{-mn/32}).$$ Putting all the bounds together, we have that, with high probability, $$\|{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}W^Q\|_\infty \leq \frac{256}{9} \frac{\sqrt{r}}{mn} \, \left(\sqrt{p} + \sqrt{6\log m}\right)^2.$$ Since $\lambda = m^{-1/2}$, it easy to show that under the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:cpcp\_random\], the right hand side in the above inequality can be made smaller than $C'\,\lambda$, for any fixed $C' > 0$. Thus, we have the desired bound.
Deterministic Reduction: Proof of Theorem \[thm:cpcp\_deterministic\] {#sec:deterministic_proof}
=====================================================================
In this section, we provide the proof for Theorem \[thm:cpcp\_deterministic\] under the deterministic subspace model for $Q^\perp$. We will adopt the same optimality conditions established in Lemma \[lem:reldual2\], and the same proof strategy outlined in Section \[sec:dual\_cons\], namely the construction of $W=W^L+W^S+W^Q$. To avoid redundancy, wherever possible, we will only highlight the parts that differ from the previous proof in Section \[sec:main\_random\_proof\] and refer the interested reader to Section \[sec:main\_random\_proof\] for more details. First, we derive the various incoherence relations associated with our fixed subspace $Q^\perp$. Then, we will prove Lemmas \[con:wl\], \[con:ws\] and \[con:wq\] using these relations.
Preliminaries {#preliminaries}
-------------
In this subsection, we provide several lemmas that will be used later in our proof.
If $X\in \mathbb{R}^{m\times n}$ is a rank-$r$ matrix, then $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}X\|_F^2\le \nu \frac{pr}{n} \|X\|_F^2.\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}X\|_F^2 & = & \sum_{i=1}^p \left|\braket{G_i,X}\right|^2 \\
& \le & p \left(\max_i \|G_i\|^2\right )\|X\|_*^2\\
& \le & pr \left(\max_i \|G_i\|^2\right ) \|X\|_F^2 \\
&\le & \nu \frac{pr}{n} \|X\|_F^2.\end{aligned}$$
For any $\nu$-coherent subspace $Q^\perp$, we have the following: \[coro:incoherence\_PQp\]
1. $\|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}\bar{e}_i e_j^*\|_F^2\le \nu \frac{p}{n}$;
2. $\|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}}_T\|^2\le 2\nu \frac{pr}{n}$;
3. $\|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}(UV^*)\|_F^2 \le 2\nu \frac{pr^2}{n}$.
The first two results follow from the fact that the $\bar{e}_i e_j^*$ are rank-$1$ matrices, and ${\mathrm{rank}}\left({\mathcal{P}_T}X\right)\le 2r \: \forall X \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}$. The last result can be derived from the second one as shown below: $$\|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}(UV^*)\|_F^2 \le \|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}}_T\|^2 \|UV^*\|_F^2 \le 2\nu \frac{pr^2}{n}.$$
Under the assumptions made in Theorem \[thm:cpcp\_deterministic\], we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}\|< 1/2,\end{aligned}$$ with high probability, provided that $\rho< \rho_0$ and $\nu^2 p^3 \log m/n \le C$. Here, $C > 0$ and $\rho_0 \in (0,1)$ are numerical constants. \[lemma:PQpPo\]
Please refer to Section \[sec:pqp\_po\] for a detailed proof.
Proof of Lemma \[con:wl\] (deterministic case)
----------------------------------------------
We use the same framework from Section \[sub:|WL|\] to bound the corresponding norms of $W^L$. We note that to bound $\|W^L\|$ in the previous case, the only key property of $Q^\perp$ that was critical to the proof was that $\Gamma^\perp = {{Q^\perp}}\oplus T$ is $O(\mu r/n)$-constrained. More specifically, the latter property is used in Lemma \[lem:normbound\] and Lemma \[lem:infbound\].
In the deterministic case, by assumption, ${{Q^\perp}}$ is $\nu$-coherent, where $\nu$ is a constant. In the following lemma, we will show that $\Gamma^\perp$ is $O(\mu r/n)$-constrained as well under our assumptions. We will show that, the proof of Lemma \[con:wl\] can be directly adopted for the deterministic case from the that with the random subspace model.
If ${{Q^\perp}}$ is $\nu$-coherent, then $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}\bar{e}_i e_j^*\|_F \le 4 \left(\sqrt{\frac{\nu p}{n}}+ \sqrt{\frac{2\mu r}{n}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ In other words, if ${{Q^\perp}}$ is $\nu$-coherent, then $\Gamma^\perp$ is $\gamma$-constrained for $\gamma = 16 \left(\sqrt{\nu p/n}+ \sqrt{2\mu r/n}\right)^2$.
Let us assume that $\|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_T}\| < 1/2$. This is true for sufficiently large $n$ under the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:cpcp\_deterministic\]. Using the convergent Neumann series expansion, it is possible to show that $${\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}\bar{e}_i e_j^* =\left((\mathcal{I}-{\mathcal{P}}_{{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}}_T)^{-1} {\mathcal{P}}_{{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}}_{T^\perp} + (\mathcal{I}-{\mathcal{P}}_T{\mathcal{P}}_{{Q^\perp}})^{-1} {\mathcal{P}}_T {\mathcal{P}}_{Q}\right)(\bar{e}_i e_j^*),$$ and therefore, $$\|{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}\bar{e}_i e_j^*\|_F \leq \|\mathcal{I}-{\mathcal{P}}_{{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}}_T)^{-1}\| \|{\mathcal{P}}_{{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}}_{T^\perp}(\bar{e}_i e_j^*)\|_F + \|\mathcal{I}-{\mathcal{P}_T}{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}})^{-1}\| \|{\mathcal{P}_T}{\mathcal{P}_Q}(\bar{e}_i e_j^*)\|_F.$$ From Eqn. and Corollary \[coro:incoherence\_PQp\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\mathcal{P}}_{{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}}_{T^\perp}(\bar{e}_i e_j^*)\|_F & \leq & \|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}(\bar{e}_i e_j^*)\|_F + \|{\mathcal{P}}_{{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_T}(\bar{e}_i e_j^*)\|_F\\
& \le & \|{\mathcal{P}}_{{Q^\perp}}(\bar{e}_i e_j^*)\|_F + \|{\mathcal{P}_T}(\bar{e}_i e_j^*)\|_F \\
& \le & \sqrt{\frac{\nu p}{n}}+ \sqrt{\frac{2\mu r}{n}}.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, we have $$\|{\mathcal{P}_T}{\mathcal{P}_Q}(\bar{e}_i e_j^*)\|_F \leq \sqrt{\frac{\nu p}{n}}+ \sqrt{\frac{2\mu r}{n}}.$$ We also have that $$\left\|(\mathcal I-{\mathcal{P}}_{{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}}_T)^{-1}\right\| = \left\|(\mathcal I-{\mathcal{P}_T}{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}})^{-1}\right\| = \left\|\sum_{k\ge 0} ({\mathcal{P}}_{{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}}_T)^k \right\| < 2.$$ Hence, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}e_i e_j^*\|_F & \le 4 \left(\sqrt{\frac{\nu p}{n}}+ \sqrt{\frac{2\mu r}{n}}\right).
\label{eq:PQp+T}\end{aligned}$$
It can be easily shown that the results in Section \[sec:prelim\_random\] all hold for the deterministic case as well with the modified value for $\gamma$ derived above. Consequently, the proof of Lemma \[con:wl\] from Section \[sec:wl\_random\_proof\] can be directly adopted for the deterministic case as well.
Proof of Lemma \[con:ws\] (deterministic case)
----------------------------------------------
We now provide a proof of Lemma \[con:ws\] under our deterministic subspace model. Since the basic framework of the proof is very similar to that in Section \[sec:ws\_random\_proof\], we will derive only the important steps here and refer the interested reader to Section \[sec:ws\_random\_proof\] for more details.
#### Controlling $\|{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}W^S\|_{\infty}$
Using the convergent Neumann series, we have $$W^S=\lambda \left(\mathcal{I}-{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}\right){\mathcal{P}}_\Omega \sum_{k\ge 0} ({\mathcal{P}}_\Omega {\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}}_{\Omega})^k \left[\text{sgn}(S_0)\right].$$ Therefore, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}W^S\|_{\infty} & = & \lambda \max_{(i,j)\in \Omega^c }\left|\left\langle \bar{e}_ie_j^*, \left(\mathcal{I}-{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}\right){\mathcal{P}}_\Omega \sum_{k\ge 0} ({\mathcal{P}}_\Omega {\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}}_{\Omega})^k \left[\text{sgn}(S_0)\right] \right\rangle\right|\\
& = & \lambda \max_{(i,j)\in \Omega^c }\left|\left\langle \sum_{k\ge 0} ({\mathcal{P}}_\Omega {\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}}_{\Omega})^k {\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}(\bar{e}_i e_j^*), {\mathrm{sgn}}(S_0) \right\rangle\right|\\
& = & \lambda \max_{(i,j)\in \Omega^c }\left|\left\langle H^{(i,j)}, {\mathrm{sgn}}(S_0) \right\rangle\right|.\end{aligned}$$ We now bound $\|H^{(i,j)}\|_F$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\|H^{(i,j)}\|_F & \le & \sum_{k \geq 0} \left \| ({\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Omega})^k {\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}(\bar{e}_i e_j^*) \right \|_F \\
& \leq & \left (\sum_{k\geq 0} \|({\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Omega})\|^k\right) \|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}\| \| {\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}(\bar{e}_i e_j^*)\|_F \\
& \leq & \frac{\|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}\|\|{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}(\bar{e}_i e_j^*)\|_F}{1-\|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}\|^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Conditioned on $\Omega$, using Hoeffding’s inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}\left[\left|\braket{H^{(i,j)}, {\mathrm{sgn}}(S_0)}\right|>t \ | \ \Omega \right] < 2\exp \left(-\frac{2t^2}{\|H^{(i,j)}\|_F^2}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Applying a union bound, we get $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}\left[\max_{i,j}\left|\braket{H^{(i,j)},{\mathrm{sgn}}(S_0)}\right|>t \ | \ \Omega \right] & \le& 2mn \exp\left(-\frac{2t^2}{\max_{i,j} \|H^{(i,j)}\|_F^2}\right)\\
& \le & 2mn \exp\left(-\frac{2t^2\left(1-\|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}\|^2\right)^2}{\|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}\|^2 \max_{i,j}
\|{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}(\bar{e}_i e_j^*)\|_F^2 }\right).\end{aligned}$$ Removing the conditioning on $\Omega$, we get $${\mathbb{P}}\left[ \|{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}W^S\|_\infty > \lambda \sqrt{\frac{s\log(mn)}{2}}\frac{\|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}\| \max_{i,j}\|{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}(\bar{e}_i e_j^*)\|_F}{1 - \|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}\|^2 }\right] < 2 (mn)^{1-s},$$ where $s > 0$. Consider the event $E = \left \{\|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{\Gamma^\perp}}\| \leq \eta \sqrt{\rho} \right\}$. Just like under the random subspace model, it is not difficult to show that the event $E$ occurs with high probability for some fixed $\eta > 0$. Furthermore, we have already shown that $\Gamma^\perp$ is a $\gamma$-constrained subspace with $\gamma \log m = O(1/\log m)$. Setting $s = 2$, we get $${\mathbb{P}}\left[ \|{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}W^S\|_\infty > \lambda \sqrt{\gamma \log(mn)} \frac{\eta \sqrt{\rho}}{1-\eta^2\rho} \right ] < \frac{2}{mn} + {\mathbb{P}}[ E^c].$$ Thus, we have the desired bound.
#### Controlling $\|W^S\|$
The proof is identical to the one in Section \[sec:WS\].
Proof of Lemma \[con:wq\] (deterministic case)
----------------------------------------------
We now prove Lemma \[con:wq\] under our deterministic subspace model. Once again, the basic structure of the proof is very similar to the one used in Section \[sec:wq\_random\_proof\]. So, we only provide the relevant bounds here and refer the interested reader to Section \[sec:wq\_random\_proof\] for the detailed steps involved.
#### Controlling $\|W^Q\|$
The proof framework is the same as the one in Section \[sec:wq\_spectral\]. We note that the key step is to bound $\|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}(UV^*)\|_F$ and $\left \|\sum_{k \geq 0} ({\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Pi}{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}})^k \right \|$, where we recall that $\Pi = \Omega \oplus T$. From Corollary \[coro:incoherence\_PQp\], we already know that $$\|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}(UV^*)\|_F \leq \sqrt{\frac{2 \nu p r^2}{n}}.$$ For the other quantity, we have that $$\left \|\sum_{k \geq 0} ({\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Pi}{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}})^k \right \| \leq \frac{1}{1 - \|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Pi}\|^2}.$$ By Lemma \[lem:norm\_sum\], we have $$\|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Pi}\|^2 \le \frac{\| {\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}}_\Omega\|^2+\|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}}_T \|^2}{1-\|{\mathcal{P}}_\Omega {\mathcal{P}}_T\|}.$$ From Lemma \[lem:incoh\_OT\], we know that $\|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_T}\| \leq \sqrt{\rho + \epsilon}$ with high probability, provided that $$(1-\rho) \geq C_0 \cdot \epsilon^{-2} \frac{\mu r \log m}{n}.$$ Suppose that the above condition holds with $\epsilon = \rho$, and assume that $$\frac{2 \nu p r}{n} < \rho.$$ We note that both the assumptions above can be true for sufficiently large $m$ and $n$ under the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:cpcp\_deterministic\]. Under these assumptions, along with Lemma \[lemma:PQpPo\], we have $$\|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Pi}\|^2 \le \frac{1/4+\rho}{1-\sqrt{2\rho}},$$ with high probability. Thus, we have that $\|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Pi}\|^2 \le 1/2$ with high probability, provided that $\rho$ is sufficiently small. Putting all these bounds together, we get $$\left\|W^Q\right\| \leq 2\sqrt{\frac{2 \nu p r^2}{n}},$$ with high probability. Under the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:cpcp\_deterministic\], the right hand side can be made arbitrarily small, and hence, we have the desired result.
#### Controlling $\|{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}W^Q\|_\infty$ {#controlling-mathcalp_omegaperpwq_infty}
Once again, the proof framework is identical to that used in Section \[sec:wq\_infty\]. The key step here is to bound $\max_{(i,j) \in \Omega^c} \, \|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_{\Pi^\perp}}\bar{e}_i e_j^*\|_F$. We first use the Neumann series to rewrite ${\mathcal{P}_\Pi}\bar{e}_i e_j^*$ as $${\mathcal{P}_\Pi}\bar{e}_i e_j^* = \left((\mathcal{I}-{\mathcal{P}}_\Omega {\mathcal{P}}_T)^{-1} {\mathcal{P}}_\Omega {\mathcal{P}}_{T^\perp} + (\mathcal{I}-{\mathcal{P}}_T{\mathcal{P}}_\Omega)^{-1} {\mathcal{P}}_T {\mathcal{P}}_{\Omega^\perp}\right)(\bar{e}_i e_j^*).$$ Now, for any $(i,j) \in [m] \times [n]$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{T^\perp}}\bar{e}_ie_j^*\|_F = \|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_T}\bar{e}_i e_j^*\|_F & \leq & \sqrt{\frac{2\mu r}{n}},\\
\|{\mathcal{P}_T}{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}\bar{e}_ie_j^*\|_F = \| {\mathcal{P}_T}\bar{e}_i e_j^*\|_F & \leq & \sqrt{\frac{2\mu r}{n}}.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, by the assumption we used earlier (to bound $\|W^Q\|$), we have that $\|{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_T}\| < \sqrt{2\rho}$ with high probability. Therefore, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left \|(\mathcal{I}-{\mathcal{P}}_\Omega {\mathcal{P}}_T)^{-1}\right \| & = & \left \|(\mathcal{I}-{\mathcal{P}}_T {\mathcal{P}_\Omega})^{-1}\right \| \\
& = & \left\|\sum_{k\ge 0} ({\mathcal{P}}_\Omega {\mathcal{P}}_T)^k \right\| \\
& \leq & \frac{1}{1 - \sqrt{2\rho}}\\
& \leq & 2\end{aligned}$$ with high probability, provided that $\rho\le 1/8$. Thus, we get $$\|{\mathcal{P}_\Pi}\bar{e}_i e_j^*\|_F \leq 4\sqrt{\frac{2\mu r}{n}},$$ with high probability. Consequently, for any $(i,j) \in \Omega^c$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_{\Pi^\perp}}\bar{e}_i e_j^*\|_F & \leq & \|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}\bar{e}_i e_j^*\|_F + \|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Pi}\bar{e}_i e_j^*\|_F \\
& \leq & \sqrt{\frac{\nu p}{n}} + 4\sqrt{\frac{2\mu r}{n}},\end{aligned}$$ with high probability.
Proceeding along the same lines as in Section \[sec:wq\_infty\], we have that $$|\langle W^Q, \bar{e}_i e_j^* \rangle | \leq 2\sqrt{\frac{2 \nu p r^2}{n}} \left( \sqrt{\frac{\nu p}{n}} + 4\sqrt{\frac{2\mu r}{n}}\right ),$$ with high probability, for any $(i,j) \in \Omega^c$. Therefore, we have that $$\|{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega^\perp}}W^Q\|_\infty \leq 2\sqrt{\frac{2 \nu p r^2}{n}} \left( \sqrt{\frac{\nu p}{n}} + 4\sqrt{\frac{2\mu r}{n}}\right ),$$ with high probability. Since $\lambda = m^{-1/2}$, under the assumptions made in Theorem \[thm:cpcp\_deterministic\], the right hand side can be made smaller than $\lambda/8$, provided that $n$ is sufficiently large.
Proof of Lemma \[lemma:PQpPo\] {#sec:pqp_po}
------------------------------
Consider the linear operator $$\mathcal A = {\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}- \rho {\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}.$$ It can be easily shown that $${\mathbb{E}}\left[\mathcal A\right] = 0.$$ First, we derive a bound for the spectral norm of $\mathcal A$. Let $\delta_{ij}$ be a sequence of independent Bernoulli random variables such that $$\delta_{ij} = \left \{
\begin{array}{ll}
1, & \mathrm{if} \: (i,j) \in \Omega, \\
0, & \mathrm{otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right .$$ Then, we can rewrite $\mathcal A$ as $$\mathcal A = \sum_{ij} \mathcal A_{ij},$$ where $$\mathcal A_{ij} = \delta_{ij} {\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}(\bar{e}_i e_j^*) \otimes {\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}(\bar{e}_i e_j^*) - \frac{\rho}{mn}{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}},$$ and $\otimes$ denotes the outer or tensor product between matrices. Then, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\|\mathcal A_{ij}\| & \le \| {\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}(\bar{e}_i e_j^*) \otimes {\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}(\bar{e}_i e_j^*) \| + \frac{\rho}{mn}\\
\label{eq:tensor}
& \le \| {\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}(\bar{e}_i e_j^*)\|_F^2 +\frac{\rho}{mn}\\
& \le \frac{\nu p}{n} + +\frac{\rho}{mn} \\
& \triangleq S,\end{aligned}$$ where in Eqn. (\[eq:tensor\]) we used the fact that $\|A \otimes B\| \le \|A\|_F \|B\|_F$.
We now bound the variance terms. $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma^2 & = \left\| \sum_{i,j} {\mathbb{E}}\left[\mathcal A_{ij}^2 \right] \right\|\\
\label{eq:sigmaA}
& = \left\| \sum_{i,j} \left (\rho \left[{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}(\bar{e}_i e_j^*) \otimes {\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}(\bar{e}_i e_j^*)\right]^2-\frac{2\rho^2 {\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}(\bar{e}_i e_j^*) \otimes {\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}(\bar{e}_i e_j^*)}{mn}+\frac{\rho^2}{m^2 n^2} {\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}\right ) \right\|\end{aligned}$$ We let ${\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_{ij}}}$ denote the orthogonal projector onto the subspace $\mathrm{span}({\bar{e}_i e_j^*})$. Clearly, we have $${\mathcal{P}_\Omega}= \sum_{(i,j)\in \Omega} {\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_{ij}}}.$$ Furthermore, we note that $${\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}(\bar{e}_i e_j^*) \otimes {\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}(\bar{e}_i e_j^*) = {\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_{ij}}}{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}.$$ Thus, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i,j} \frac{2\rho^2 {\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}(\bar{e}_i e_j^*) \otimes {\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}(\bar{e}_i e_j^*)}{mn}
& = & \frac{2\rho^2 {\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}\left( \sum_{i,j} {\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_{ij}}}\right) {\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}}{mn}\\
& = & \frac{2\rho^2 {\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}}{mn}.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i,j} \rho \left[{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}(\bar{e}_i e_j^*) \otimes {\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}(\bar{e}_i e_j^*)\right]^2
& = & \rho \sum_{i,j} {\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_{ij}}}{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_{ij}}}{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}\\
& = & \rho {\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}\left( \sum_{i,j} {\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_{ij}}}{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_{ij}}}\right) {\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}.\end{aligned}$$ Let $X\in {\mathbb{R}}^{m\times n}$ be any matrix satisfying $\|X\|_F = 1$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| \sum_{i,j} {\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_{ij}}}{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_{ij}}}X \right\|_F & = & \left\| \sum_{i,j} {\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_{ij}}}\left(\sum_{k=1}^p \braket{G_k, {\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_{ij}}}X} G_k\right ) \right\|_F\\
& = & \left\| \sum_{i,j} {\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_{ij}}}\left (\sum_{k=1}^p \braket{{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_{ij}}}G_k, X} G_k\right) \right\|_F,\end{aligned}$$ where we recall that the $G_i$’s constitute an orthonormal basis for $Q^\perp$ satisfying $\max_i \|G_i\|^2 < \nu/n$. We now bound $\|{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_{ij}}}G_k \|_F$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_{ij}}}G_k \|_F & = & |\braket{\bar{e}_i e_j^*, {\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}G_k}| \\
& = & |\braket{{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}\bar{e}_i e_j^*, G_k}| \\
& \le & \|G_k\| \|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}\bar{e}_i e_j^*\|_*\\
& \le & \|G_k\| \sqrt{n}\, \|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}\bar{e}_i e_j^*\|_F\\
&\le & \sqrt{\frac{\nu}{n}}\: \sqrt{n}\: \sqrt{\frac{\nu p}{n}}\\
& = & \nu \sqrt{\frac{p}{n}}.\end{aligned}$$ Combining the above bound with Hölder’s inequality, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:expandPOij}
\left\| \sum_{i,j} {\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_{ij}}}{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_{ij}}}(X) \right\|_F & \le \left\| \sum_{i,j,k } \braket{{\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_{ij}}}G_k, X} {\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_{ij}}}G_k \right\|_F\\
& \le \nu \sqrt{\frac{p}{n}}\left\| \left(\sum_{i,j} {\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_{ij}}}\right)\left(\sum_{k=1}^p G_k\right)\right\|_F\\
& \le \nu \sqrt{\frac{p^3}{n}}.\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, we have that the variance in Eqn. can be bounded as $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma^2 & \le &\rho \nu \sqrt{\frac{p^3}{n}}+ \frac{2\rho^2}{mn}+ \frac{\rho^2}{mn} \\
& \le &2\rho \nu \sqrt{\frac{p^3}{n}}\end{aligned}$$ Applying the matrix Bernstein inequality (Theorem \[thm:operatorbound\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}\left[\|\mathcal A\| > t \right] &\le& 2m^2 \exp\left(-\frac{t^2}{2\sigma^2+ 3St}\right)\\
&\le& 2m^2 \exp\left(-\frac{t^2}{C_1\rho \nu \sqrt{p^3/m}+ C_2 \nu pt/m}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Let us set $t=\rho$. Now, suppose that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\nu^2 p^3 \log m}{n} \le C_3 \rho^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $C_3 > 0$ is a numerical constant. Then, under the conditions of Theorem \[thm:cpcp\_deterministic\], $\|\mathcal A\|$ is bounded from above by $\rho$ with high probability. Since $\mathcal A = {\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}- \rho {\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}$, this implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}\|\le 2\rho,\end{aligned}$$ with high probability. It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\mathcal{P}_{Q^\perp}}{\mathcal{P}_\Omega}\| < 1/2,\end{aligned}$$ with high probability, provided that $\rho$ is sufficiently small and $\nu^2 p^3 \log m/ n \le C$, where $C$ is a numerical constant.
[^1]: The sum of all singular values.
[^2]: The sum of absolute values of all matrix entries.
[^3]: The random sign assumption is not entirely necessary for obtaining the same qualitative results. One can follow the derandomization process in [@Candes2011-JACM] to remove this assumption if needed.
[^4]: Since $M$ has full column rank, $M^* M$ is positive definite.
[^5]: From Lemma \[lem:incoh\_QT\] and the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:cpcp\_random\], this is true with high probability for sufficiently large $m,n$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- Bidya Binay Karak
- Arnab Rai Choudhuri
date: 'Received 2009 month day; accepted 2009 month day'
title: Studies of grand minima in sunspot cycles from a flux transport solar dynamo model
---
Introduction
============
One intriguing aspect of the solar cycle is the occurrence of grand minima when sunspots may not appear for several decades and a few cycles may go missing. Since the beginning of the telescopic observations of sunspots, one grand minimum known as the Maunder minimum occurred during 1645–1715 (Eddy 1976; Ribes & Nesme-Ribes 1993). We have to look for indirect proxy data to infer the occurrences of grand minima at still earlier times. When the magnetic field of the Sun is weak, more cosmic rays reach the Earth’s atmosphere, producing larger amounts of the cosmogenic isotopes like $^{14}$C and $^{10}$Be. From the study of $^{14}$C in old tree rings and $^{10}$Be in polar ice cores, several groups have identified a number of grand minima in the past few millennia (Usoskin et al. 2007; Steinhilber et al. 2012). Particularly, Usoskin et al. (2007) have detected about 27 such events of low activity in last 11,400 years from the $^{14}$C data. Even when sunspots are not seen, some of the indirect proxy data indicate the presence of continued oscillations at a subdued level during grand minima (Fligge et al. 1999). Miyahara et al. (2004) found the oscillations to have longer periods during the Maunder minimum. Miyahara et al. (2006, 2007) and Nagaya et al. (2012) found this to be true for other grand minima as well.
The aim of the present paper is to investigate whether different aspects of grand minima can be explained with a flux transport solar dynamo model. An earlier paper by Choudhuri & Karak (2012; hereafter CK12) (also see Karak & Choudhuri 2013) developed a theoretical model of grand minima by introducing appropriate fluctuations in our flux transport dynamo model and presented some preliminary result. This paper is a continuation of that work and addresses several aspects of the problem not discussed in CK12.
The has emerged as the most promising theoretical model for the sunspot cycle in recent years (Wang et al. 1991; Choudhuri et al. 1995; Durney 1995; Dikpati & Charbonneau 1999; Nandy & Choudhuri 2002; Charbonneau 2010; Choudhuri 2011; Karak & Petrovay 2013; Jiang et al. 2013). The primary mechanism for the poloidal field generation in this model is the mechanism involving the decay of tilted bipolar sunspots (Babcock 1961; Leighton 1969). Since this mechanism depends on the existence of sunspots in order to be operative, this mechanism may not work during a grand minimum when there are no sunspots. We would then require some other mechanism to pull the Sun out of the grand minimum. Early models of the solar dynamo invoked the $\alpha$-effect proposed by Parker (1955) and Steenbeck et al. (1966) to generate the poloidal field. The $\alpha$-effect can twist a toroidal field to produce a poloidal field only if the toroidal field is not stronger than the equipartition field. After simulations of the buoyant rise of flux tubes suggested a much stronger toroidal field (Choudhuri & Gilman 1987; Choudhuri 1989; D’Silva & Choudhuri 1993; Fan et al. 1993), the flux transport dynamo models used the mechanism as the favoured mechanism rather then the $\alpha$-effect for generating the poloidal field. During a grand minimum, the toroidal field presumably becomes much weaker and probably the $\alpha$-effect can be operative to pull the Sun out of the grand minimum. Since we have very little knowledge of the nature of this $\alpha$-effect, CK12 assumed the same mechanism to be operative all the time to simplify the theoretical calculations. One of the things we explore in this paper is the nature of the $\alpha$-effect needed to pull the dynamo out of the grand minimum. We shall see that various observational requirements put some important constraints on the nature of this $\alpha$-effect.
Let us now come to the question of what can cause irregularities in the solar cycle and the grand minima. One important question is whether the nonlinearities in the system can induce chaotic behaviour. The simplest kind of nonlinearity used extensively in the earlier dynamo models is the $\alpha$-quenching. If the magnetic field becomes stronger than usual due to some reason, this quenching makes $\alpha$ smaller and the dynamo weaker, bringing down the magnetic field. If the magnetic field becomes weaker, then the opposite happens. A nonlinearity in the form of $\alpha$-quenching makes the dynamo more stable instead of producing chaotic behaviour. A few authors have found intermittency behaviour in highly truncated dynamo models with more complicated kinds of nonlinearity which do not seem justified by solar observations (Weiss et al. 1984; Wilmot-Smith et. al. 2005).
One other source of irregularity is stochastic noise. Since the mean-field dynamo theory is obtained by averaging over turbulence, we expect turbulent fluctuations to provide a random noise. Hoyng (1988) realized this for the first time and later several authors showed that stochastic noise introduced in the mean-field dynamo equation can produce irregularities in solar cycles including grand minima-like episodes (Choudhuri 1992; Charbonneau et al. 2004; Gómez & Mininni 2006; Brandenburg & Spiegel 2008; Moss et al. 2008; Usoskin et al. 2009a; Passos et al. 2012). A scenario for the origin of stochastic noise in a flux transport dynamo was provided by Choudhuri et al. (2007). The Babcock–Leighton mechanism for poloidal field generation depends on the tilts of bipolar sunspots. Although the average tilt at a latitude is given by Joy’s law, one finds a scatter around the average (Dasi-Espuig et al. 2010), presumably due to the effect of convective turbulence on the rising flux tubes (Longcope & Choudhuri 2002). So we believe that the Babcock–Leighton process intrinsically has a random component. Choudhuri et al. (2007) incorporated this effect allowing the poloidal field generated at the end of a cycle to differ from its average value. This approach has been followed in subsequent papers (Jiang et al. 2007; Goel & Choudhuri 2009; Choudhuri & Karak 2009) as well as the present paper. Choudhuri & Karak (2009) have shown that, if the poloidal field becomes sufficiently weak at the end of a cycle due to fluctuations in the Babcock–Leighton mechanism, then that may trigger a grand minimum.
Another source of irregularities is fluctuations in meridional circulation, of which the importance has been recognized only recently (Yeates et al. 2008; Karak 2010; Karak & Choudhuri 2011; Passos 2012). The meridional circulation plays a crucial role in the (Choudhuri et al. 1994; Dikpati & Charbonneau 1999; Karak 2010). Although we have neither good theoretical understanding nor long observational measurements of the meridional circulation, Karak & Choudhuri (2011) used durations of sunspot cycles in the last 250 years to have some idea about fluctuations in . They concluded that the had large temporal variations with coherence time more than a solar cycle. There are also many other evidences for variations of the in past (e.g., Passos & Lopes 2008; Passos 2012). When the meridional circulation slows down, the period of the dynamo becomes longer. This has rather different effects on dynamo models with high and low turbulent diffusivity (Yeates et al. 2008; Karak 2010; Karak & Nandy 2012). If the turbulent diffusivity is assumed reasonably high (which is the case in our model), then the cycles become weaker because diffusivity has a longer time to act in a cycle. On the other hand, if the turbulent diffusivity is low (Dikpati & Charbonneau 1999), then the effect of diffusivity is not so strong and the cycles become stronger with decreasing meridional circulation because the differential rotation has a longer time to act on the magnetic fields. Only a dynamo model with reasonably high turbulent diffusion (like what we use) can explain observational effects like the dipolar parity of the Sun (Chatterjee et al. 2004; Hotta & Yokoyama 2010), the Waldmeier effect (Karak & Choudhuri 2011), the period and the amplitude relation (Karak 2010) and the lack of significant hemispheric asymmetry (Chatterjee & Choudhuri 2006; Goel & Choudhuri 2009). See § 5 of Jiang et al. (2007) and Miesch et al. (2012) (also see Muñoz-Jaramillo et al. 2013) for a discussion on this topic. In the dynamo model with high diffusivity in which a weaker makes cycles weaker, Karak (2010) has shown that a sufficiently weak can trigger a grand minimum.
Our recent paper CK12 studies the occurrence of grand minima in our theoretical dynamo model by introducing simultaneous fluctuations in the poloidal field generation and the . The levels of fluctuations were determined from the observational data of the last 28 cycles. With such fluctuations, the developed in our group showed 24–30 grand minima in a typical run of 11,000 years—in close agreement with observational data.
Because of the shortness of this Letter paper CK12, a full exploration of the different aspects of the problem could not be presented in it. This is done in the present paper. After giving a short introduction to the model in § 2, we present in § 3 various aspects of the results not discussed in CK12, such as the relative importance of the two fluctuations and the dependence on parameters like the coherence time of the meridional circulation. We also present some results of grand maxima, which could not be discussed in CK12. Finally, § 4 addresses the important question of how the dynamo comes out of the grand minimum and if we can say something about the nature of the $\alpha$-effect which may be needed for this.
Model
=====
We carry out all the calculations using a originally presented in Chatterjee et al. (2004). This model is based on the kinematic mean-field dynamo theory in which the poloidal field generation is assumed to be due to the process. Assuming axisymmetry, the evolutions of the magnetic field components in this model are described by the following two equations: $$\frac{\partial A}{\partial t} + \frac{1}{s}({\bf v}.\nabla)(s A)
= \eta_{p} \left( \nabla^2 - \frac{1}{s^2} \right) A + \alpha B,$$ $$\frac{\partial B}{\partial t}
+ \frac{1}{r} \left[ \frac{\partial}{\partial r}
(r v_r B) + \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}(v_{\theta} B) \right]
= \eta_{t} \left( \nabla^2 - \frac{1}{s^2} \right) B
+ s({\bf B}_p.{\bf \nabla})\Omega + \frac{1}{r}\frac{d\eta_t}{dr}\frac{\partial{(rB)}}{\partial{r}},$$ with $s = r \sin \theta$. Here $A$ is the vector potential of the poloidal magnetic field ($\bf {B}_p$), $B$ is the toroidal magnetic field, ${{\bf v}}=v_r \hat{r} +
v_{\theta} \hat{\theta}$ is the meridional circulation, $\Omega$ is the internal angular velocity, $\eta_p$, $\eta_t$ are the turbulent diffusivities for the poloidal and toroidal components, and $\alpha$ is the source term for the poloidal field which parameterized the mechanism. The details of all these parameters are specified in Chatterjee et al. (2004). However, Karak (2010) recently modified a few parameters slightly and in this work we are using exactly the same parameters as used in Karak (2010).
Just to remind the readers, we mention that in the expression of the there is a parameters $v_{0}$ which determines the strength of the meridional circulation. For normal cycle with period of 11 years we take $v_0 = 23$ m s$^{-1}$. However, in this work, when we introduce fluctuations in the meridional circulation, we change this $v_0$ to change the strength of the meridional circulation.
Let us make a comment on the absolute value of the magnetic field in our results. If the equations are completely linear in the magnetic field, then the unit of the magnetic field would be arbitrary. While (1) and (2) are linear equations, our problem becomes nonlinear when we include magnetic buoyancy following the methodology used in the earlier papers from our group (see Chatterjee et al. 2004). If the amplitude of the toroidal magnetic field $|B|$ above the bottom of the convection zone is larger than a critical value $B_c$, then a part of the toroidal field is made to rise to surface. This nonlinearity limits the amplitude of the magnetic field. We take $B_c = 0.8$ which makes the maximum value of the magnetic field at the bottom of the convection zone hover around 1. Since simulations of flux tube rise based on the thin flux tube equation (Spruit 1981; Choudhuri 1990) suggest magnetic fields of the order of $10^5$ G at the bottom of the convection zone (Choudhuri & Gilman 1987; Choudhuri 1989; D’Silva & Choudhuri 1993; Fan et al. 1993), it is tempting to identify the value 1 of the magnetic field in our simulations with $10^5$ G. However, such an identification is questionable. Apart from the fact this would give values of the polar magnetic field disagreeing with observations, we expect the magnetic field to be $10^5$ G only inside flux tubes, whereas the dynamo equation deals with the mean magnetic field. If the filling factor of flux tubes at the bottom of the convection zone is considerably less than 1, then the mean magnetic field which has to be identified with magnetic field computed in our model may be much less than $10^5$ G. We shall discuss these considerations further in § 4 where we discuss whether the dynamo requires an $\alpha$-effect in addition to the mechanism to bring it out of the grand minimum.
In the next section, we present results based on exactly the same model of producing grand minima which was used in CK12. We basically discuss a few important aspects of the problem which could not be included in CK12 due to the lack of space. Then, in § 4, we shall allow the possibility that the poloidal field generation under normal cycle conditions and during the may require different mechanisms.
Simulations of grand minima
===========================
Our earlier paper CK12 explained the basic assumptions of our model of grand minima and presented some illustrative results. CK12 being a letter paper, a full discussion of the results could not be presented in it. This section presents some additional results based on the grand minimum model of CK12. Since the details of the model have been given in CK12, we simply mention the salient features. The grand minima in our model were produced by fluctuations in and by fluctuations in the process that would make scaled polar field amplitude $\gamma$ at the end of a cycle vary from cycle to cycle. Assuming the fact that the solar cycle period is inversely related to the strength of the , we estimated the nature of fluctuations in the from the durations of the last 28 cycles. On the other hand, assuming that the solar cycle strength is directly correlated to the strength of the polar field at the end of the previous cycle, we have obtained the fluctuations in $\gamma$ from the strengths of the last 28 solar cycles. See Figure 2 of CK12 and the corresponding text for details. Assuming both the fluctuations to obey Gaussian distributions, we have constructed the distributions of these fluctuations by using the mean and the standard deviations of these data. Figure 1 shows the typical histograms of these. We then make $v_{0}$ and $\gamma$ vary randomly following these distributions. We point out that for different runs we generate different results for different realizations of the fluctuations of $v_{0}$ and $\gamma$. Another important thing to note is that we change the polar field by the factor $\gamma$ at every solar minimum whereas we change $v_{0}$ after a certain time interval called the coherence time $\tau_{MC}$. Now we shall explore the origin and different aspects of grand minima systematically.
![Typical histograms of (a) the strength of the $v_{0}$ (left plot) and (b) the strength of the poloidal field $\gamma$ (right plot) used for grand minima simulations. These randomly generated data are taken from Gaussian distributions whose means and standard deviations are derived in CK12.[]{data-label="hists"}](mc_gamma_hists.eps){width="100.00000%"}
![(a) Upper panel: Simulation of grand minima with fluctuating with $\tau_{MC} = 30$ years. The dashed (red) line shows the strength of $v_{0}$ used in the simulation whereas solid (blue) line shows the (theoretical) sunspot number as a function of time (years). Two grand minima are clearly evinced. (b) Bottom panel: Simulation with fluctuating . The dashed (pink) line shows the strength of $\gamma$ changed at every solar minimum, whereas solid (blue) line shows the sunspot number.[]{data-label="ssn_plot"}](ssn_mc_gamma.eps){width="110.00000%"}
Contributions of and the in triggering grand minima
-----------------------------------------------------
Using the same parameters of the basic dynamo model as used in CK12, we explore the relative importance of the contributions of the fluctuations and the fluctuations in triggering grand minima. We perform two separate simulation runs by including only one kind of fluctuations in each run. First, we do a simulation by randomly varying only $v_{0}$ after intervals of 30 years (i.e., $\tau_{MC}$ = 30 years). The random values for $v_{0}$ used for this run have been shown in Figure \[hists\](a). The top panel of Figure \[ssn\_plot\] shows the results of this run. For the clarity of display we show only a small clip of 1000 years long data. Next, we present a simulation with only poloidal field fluctuations. We change the poloidal field factor $\gamma$ at every solar minimum. The histogram of $\gamma$ for this run is shown in Figure \[hists\](b), whereas the results of this run is shown in Figure \[ssn\_plot\](b). Based on these simulations, we make the following important conclusions.\
[*i*]{}) The plays an important role in modulating the solar cycle period and the amplitude (consistent with Karak 2010). This is clear from Figure \[ssn\_plot\](a).\
[*ii*]{}) Most of the are produced when the becomes sufficiently weak, whereas the weak has very minor contribution in producing (compare two panels in Figure \[ssn\_plot\]). Fluctuations in has some effect in producing when combined with fluctuating , but are not able to produce any grand minima separately.
Although we ourselves had not been aware of these conclusions at the time of writing our earlier paper CK12, it now seems from hindsight that these conclusions would follow from Figure 1 of CK12, where the region of the parameter space required for producing is demarcated. When the polar field is not varied (i.e. $\gamma$ is always kept equal to 1), we see from Figure 1 of CK12 that it is necessary to make $v_0$ less than about 15.5 m s$^{-1}$ to produce and we find that the probability of this is not too low, as can be seen from Figure 2(a) of CK12. On the other hand, if fluctuations in are not included (i.e. $v_0$ is held fixed at the value 23 m s$^{-1}$), then $\gamma$ has to be made about $-1$ (below the bottom of Figure 1 of CK12) and we see from Figure 2(b) of CK12 that the probability of this is miniscule.
Now we come to the question whether our conclusion that the fluctuations in the polar field do not play an important role in producing grand minima changes when the parameters of the basic dynamo model are different. This is discussed in the next subsection.
Sensitivity of the results on the value of $\alpha$
---------------------------------------------------
When we run our basic dynamo model without fluctuations, we find that the critical value of the $\alpha$ coefficient is $\alpha_0 = 21.1$ m s$^{-1}$. In other words, when we run the code by varying $\alpha_0$ alone and keeping all the other parameters fixed (especially using the diffusivity $\eta_0 = 3 \times 10^{12}$ cm$^2$ s$^{-1}$), we get non-decaying oscillatory solution only if $\alpha_0$ is larger than this critical value. The results of CK12 as well as the results presented in § 3.1 are based on a model using a somewhat supercritical value $\alpha_0 = 30$ m s$^{-1}$. We now carry on some calculations using only a moderately critical value $\alpha_0 = 24$ m s$^{-1}$. We study the effect of introducing fluctuations in polar field alone on this moderately critical dynamo. Figure \[gm\_gamma\] shows a typical result of such a simulation. Now we find that 14 grand minima are produced in 11,000 yr. It is not difficult to give a physical argument why fluctuations in polar field produce grand minima more easily in a moderately critical dynamo. If the fluctuations make the polar field during a minimum much less than the polar field which such a moderately critical dynamo would normally produce, then this is almost as if the strength of $\alpha$ is temporarily reduced and this can make the dynamo subcritical, pushing it into a grand minimum. This is not likely to happen when the dynamo is reasonably supercritical. We thus conclude that fluctuations in the polar field would have a significant effect on the dynamo only if it is moderately critical.
![The durations of grand minima indicated by vertical bars at their times of occurrence in a 11,000 yr simulation with only fluctuations. Note that unlike earlier in this case we get 14 grand minima with fluctuations alone. In this simulation $\alpha_0 = 24$ m s$^{-1}$ instead of 30 m s$^{-1}$ used earlier; everything else remain unchanged.[]{data-label="gm_gamma"}](gm_gamma.eps){width="105.00000%"}
We have done some calculations introducing fluctuations in both the and the in a moderately critical dynamo. The number of becomes much larger than the observed value. Since the results of a supercritical dynamo are in such good agreement with the observations (CK12), one is tempted to conclude that the solar dynamo is supercritical and fluctuations in the polar field do not have much effect in inducing grand minima. It may be noted that Charbonneau et al. (2007) proposed that the Gnevyshev–Ohl effect is produced by period doubling, which also requires a reasonably supercritical dynamo. Other dynamo models which are not supercritical show the occurrence of grand minima on introducing fluctuations in $\alpha$-effect alone (Olemskoy et al. 2013).
We point out that the earlier paper by Choudhuri & Karak (2009) produced grand minima only with fluctuations in the mechanism. The model used in this paper was not too supercritical. Additionally, one ad hoc assumption used in this paper was to reduce the toroidal field also by a factor 0.8 when the poloidal field was reduced to create a grand minimum. This helped in creating the Maunder-like grand minima. In the present paper, we do not use this ad hoc assumption and the toroidal field is never changed when changing the poloidal field to incorporate fluctuations in the process.
The results presented in the remaining subsections of this section are all obtained with the supercritical dynamo used in CK12.
Are initiations of sudden or gradual?
--------------------------------------
One important question connected with grand minima is whether they initiate suddenly or gradually. Usoskin et al. (2000) concluded that the Maunder minimum started abruptly. However, Vaquero et al.(2011) now present evidence that the initiation of the Maunder minimum was more gradual. On the theoretical side, in our simulation runs we find both which start abruptly and which start gradually. Since we now recognize the fluctuations in to be the primary cause of , we discuss the results for the run with fluctuations in alone. Things can be seen more cleanly there. The results are qualitatively the same when both fluctuations in and polar field are present.
In Figure \[ssn\_plot\](a) we see that the grand minimum that started slightly before 1500 and also the grand minimum that started around 1900 initiated gradually. These did not start immediately after the became sufficiently weak. The dynamo took about one or two solar cycles to enter into . Therefore, one or two solar cycles before the beginning of , the solar cycle period tends to become longer (because the determines the cycle period). This result is remarkably consistent with the results of Miyahara et al. (2010) who have found sufficient evidences of the longer solar cycles even before the beginning of the and also the Spörer minimum.
Now we discuss an opposite case where the grand minimum starts suddenly and we do not see much change of the solar cycle period before the beginning of the grand minimum. In Figure \[ssn\_plot\](a), the grand minimum around 1100 shows this behaviour. We note that this grand minimum was caused by the falling to a rather very low value suddenly from a reasonably high value. Although the cycle period did not get elongated before the start of the grand minimum, the cycle period is longer than the usual during the actual grand minimum epoch.
Based on our theoretical results, we draw the following conclusion. As the is made to fluctuate randomly, it would sometimes happen that the would drop from a rather high value to a low value. In such a situation, the initiation of the grand minimum seems abrupt. More commonly, we may have the dropping from a more moderate value to a low value. The grand minimum starts more gradually in this situation. As we do not know at present how rapidly the can drop to a low value, we do not know which one is more physical. In our simulations done with both kinds of fluctuations present, we have noted that there are about $40\%$ grand minima which initiate abruptly whereas the remaining grand minima initiate more gradually. However the recovery from is always gradual, which is consistent with observations during the (Usoskin et al. 2000).
![Left panel (a) shows the distribution of the durations of the grand minima and the right panel (b) shows the distribution of the waiting times between the grand minima. This figure is produced from the data of 88,000 years of simulation run.[]{data-label="bl_histograms"}](bl_hists.eps){width="100.00000%"}
Statistics of grand minima
--------------------------
In Figure 5 of CK12 we presented the distributions of durations of grand minima and the waiting times between them. Since these distributions were constructed from the limited set of 29 which occurred during one run, the nature of these distributions was not very clear from this figure. To make a statistically reliable conclusion, we now make histograms from the data of a very long simulation (about 88,000 years) in which we have detected about 207 grand minima. The histograms are shown in Figure \[bl\_histograms\]. From this plot, we now clearly see that both the duration and the waiting time follow exponential behaviour. This tells that the duration and waiting time are governed by stationary memoryless stochastic processes. As the grand minima are produced by the random fluctuations in the and the , the occurrence of the grand minimum must be random events implying that the waiting time distribution is exponential. On the other hand, once the dynamo enters into a grand minimum state, the recovery of dynamo from state is only possible by the increase of which happens randomly. Since stochastic fluctuations in are responsible for bringing back the dynamo into the normal cycle, the distribution of the durations of is also exponential. We mention that the observational distribution of the waiting times of based on 27 grand minima in last 11,400 years reported by Usoskin et al. (2007) is also exponential, whereas the distribution of durations is not so conclusive.
![Dependence of the number of grand minima (shown by star and dashed line) in 11,000 years and their average duration (shown by circle and dotted line) along right vertical axis as a function of the coherence time of the meridional circulation ($\tau_{\mathrm{MC}}$).[]{data-label="tau_depen"}](tau_nomin.eps){width="70.00000%"}
The dependence of the coherence time of meridional circulation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Karak & Choudhuri (2011) pointed out that several successive cycles in the past often had very similar periods (see their Figure 2). This suggests that the probably had remained steady during those cycles before changing abruptly at the end of such an epoch. Given the limited data of the last few cycles, it is very difficult to estimate the coherence time $\tau_{MC}$ of the . Karak & Choudhuri (2011) concluded that this coherence time should lie in the range between 15 years and 45 years. All the results presented in CK12 were obtained by using a coherence time of 30 years. Here we explore the importance of this coherence time $\tau_{MC}$ of the on various features of grand minima.
In our earlier simulations of CK12 using $\tau_{MC} = 30$ years, after every 30 years $v_0$ was varied randomly in accordance with their distributions. Now we have performed several simulations by varying $\tau_{MC}$ from 10 to 50 years. We note the number of in a run of 11,000 years and also calculate the average duration of such for each run with a particular value of $\tau_{MC}$. Note that in all simulations the is changing at every solar minimum only. Figure \[tau\_depen\] shows the results. We see that the total number of initially increases with the increase of $\tau_{MC}$ and then, after a certain value around 30 years, it tends to decrease. This is easy to understand. If $\tau_{MC}$ is small, the dynamo does not get much time to make magnetic fields sufficiently weak even when the falls to a low value during a short coherence time. Therefore, the occurrence of grand minima becomes less. With the increase of $\tau_{MC}$, the number of increases. However, after $\tau_{MC}$ becomes comparable to the typical duration of a few cycles, further increase of it does not increase the number of grand minima rather it decreases. If the changes after long times, then the probability that it falls to a sufficiently low value also becomes less. Therefore the total number of grand minima in a finite period of run becomes less at large $\tau_{MC}$.
Another important result from this figure is that the average duration of is an increasing function of $\tau_{MC}$. In an earlier work with constant where were produced by fluctuations in polar field alone, Choudhuri & Karak (2009) found that the recovery to the normal state from a grand minimum is only determined by the dynamo growth rate (measured by the dynamo number $\sim \alpha/\eta^2$; where $\alpha$ is the strength of the poloidal field generation process during grand minimum episode). However, in the case of fluctuating , where are mostly caused by the weak , the recovery from grand minima state is not only determined by the dynamo number but also on how rapidly the comes back to a more usual value from the very low value that caused the grand minimum. If the recovers quickly from its low value, the duration of the grand minimum will be short and vice versa. Therefore the average duration of grand minima is strongly dependent on how frequently the changes, i.e., on $\tau_{MC}$.
Grand maxima
------------
Of late, grand maxima—epochs during which solar activity becomes exceptionally strong for sufficiently long time—are drawing more and more attention of solar physicists. The middle of the twentieth century was such an epoch when successive several solar cycles were rather strong (Solanki et al. 2004). Along with grand minima, Usoskin et al. (2007) also presented a study of grand maxima during the last 11,400 years. They identified 19 grand maxima and showed that their durations follow an exponential distribution, suggesting that the durations are determined by a memoryless random process.
![Statistics of grand maxima. (a) Shows the theoretical sunspot number. The three horizontal lines (solid, dashed and dash-dotted) indicate the values $SN_m$, $SN_m + \sigma$ and $SN_m + 1.2\sigma$, where $SN_m$ and $\sigma$ are the mean and the standard deviation of the peak sunspot numbers. (b) Shows the histogram of the peak sunspot numbers where the three vertical lines (solid, dashed and dash-dotted) indicate the values $SN_m$, $SN_m + \sigma$ and $SN_m + 1.2\sigma$. (c) and (d) Show the histograms of durations and waiting times of grand maxima defined to be above the $SN_m + \sigma$ level. (e) and (f) Show histograms similar to (c) and (d), except that the grand maxima are now defined to be above the $SN_m + 1.2\sigma$ level.[]{data-label="grand_maxima"}](grand_max.eps){width="100.00000%"}
We present a study of grand minima from our theoretical simulation. How you define grand maxima has more arbitrariness compared to how you define grand minima. We now explain how we select our grand maxima. Figure \[grand\_maxima\](a) plots the theoretical sunspot eruptions in the numerical run, whereas Figure \[grand\_maxima\](b) is a histogram showing the distribution of the peak values of these cycles. The solid horizontal line in Figure \[grand\_maxima\](a) and the solid vertical line in Figure \[grand\_maxima\](b) indicate the mean value $SN_m$ of the cycle peaks. We calculate the standard deviation ($\sigma$) of these peak values. The dashed (red) lines in Figure \[grand\_maxima\](a) and Figure \[grand\_maxima\](b) indicate the $SN_m + \sigma$ levels. If at least two successive solar cycles have their strengths above this level, then we take it as a grand maximum. Figure \[grand\_maxima\](c) and Figure \[grand\_maxima\](d) respectively are the histograms showing the distribution of the durations and the waiting times of these grand maxima. To figure out the extent to which the statistical distributions depend on the definition of grand maxima, we also present results by defining grand maxima as at least two successive cycles having peaks above $SN_m + 1.2 \sigma$ levels. These levels are indicated in Figure \[grand\_maxima\](a) and Figure \[grand\_maxima\](b) by the dash-dotted (pink) lines. The distributions of durations and waiting times for grand maxima defined in this way are shown in Figure \[grand\_maxima\](e) and Figure \[grand\_maxima\](f). Comparing them with Figure \[grand\_maxima\](c) and Figure \[grand\_maxima\](d), we conclude that the statistical behaviours of grand maxima are reasonably robust and do not change with the definition of grand maxima.
We remind the reader that, to get a statistically significant result, we used data of about 88,000 years long run. The numbers of grand maxima were 270 and 191 in the two definitions. This implies that the numbers of grand maxima in 11,000 years would be 34 and 24. Interestingly the distributions of durations and the waiting times of grand maxima as shown in Figure \[grand\_maxima\](c)–(d) also seem to follow the exponential distribution, which again tells us that the occurrence of grand maxima is governed by a stationary memoryless random process. On comparing with Figures \[bl\_histograms\](a)–(b) showing similar distributions for grand minima, we note that the durations of grand maxima tend to be shorter than the durations of grand minima. A physical explanation for this is not difficult to give. Once the Sun enters a grand minimum due to an effect like the slowing down of the , the dynamo has to build up the magnetic field again before the Sun can come out of the grand minimum even after the has returned to more normal values. This takes some time. On the other hand, from a state of grand maximum, the activity level can get reduced more easily when conditions change due to stochastic fluctuations. Another important point to note is that like grand maxima are mainly caused by the variable meridional circulation. This becomes clear by looking at Figure \[ssn\_plot\](a). We see that strong meridional circulation makes the cycle stronger.
The recovery phase of grand minima {#section:recovery}
==================================
Here we explore an important, yet unsettled, issue connected with : the recovery mechanism from grand minima states. If the or the somehow becomes sufficiently weak, then that can push the Sun into a grand minimum. However, we do not understand well how the Sun comes out of such a quiescent state. There are also many uncertainties in our understanding of the nature of the dynamo process during the grand minimum state. It has been clearly demonstrated by observations that the solar cycle continued during grand minima with weaker strength and also with polarity reversals (Fligge et al. 1999; Miyahara et al. 2004, 2010; Nagaya et al. 2012). The question that remains open is how the is generated during grand minima. The process depends on the decay of tilted active regions and at present we have strong observational evidence that this process is indeed working near the solar surface (Dasi-Espuig et al. 2010; Kitchatinov & Olemskoy 2011; Jiang et al. 2013). On the other hand, very few sunspots were detected during the (Sokoloff & Nesme-Ribes 1994; Hoyt & Schatten 1996). Therefore, the process may have been ineffective during the Maunder minimum. However, in all our earlier calculations (Choudhuri & Karak 2009; Karak 2010; CK12), we have used the same $\alpha$ concentrated near the solar surface corresponding to the mechanism all the time for the generation because of our lack of knowledge about handling the problem in a better way. Now we assume that the process cannot operate when the toroidal field is very weak and sunspots do not form. We make the $\alpha$ coefficient fall to zero when the dynamo enters a grand minimum and keep running the simulation. Then the dynamo cannot come out of the grand minimum state, as seen in Figure \[bl\_cutoff\].
![Simulation of the solar cycle with the Babcock-Leighton mechanism, which gets switched off when there are no sunspots. The dynamo is not able to recover from the grand minimum state.[]{data-label="bl_cutoff"}](grandmin_decay.eps){width="100.00000%"}
If we assume that the process cannot work during a grand minimum, we need some other mechanism to pull the dynamo out of the grand minimum. The obvious other candidate to produce the is the $\alpha$-effect based on helical turbulence ($\alpha_{\mathrm{HT}}$) proposed by Parker (1955) and Steenbeck et al. (1966). This is a mechanism of generating the in the convection zone by the twist of the helical turbulence which is effective in weak toroidal field regime. When flux tube simulations showed that sunspots form from toroidal magnetic fields as strong as $10^5$ G (Choudhuri & Gilman 1987; Choudhuri 1989; D’Silva & Choudhuri 1993; Fan et al. 1993), the mechanism was favoured over the $\alpha$-effect in the flux transport dynamo model, since the helical turbulence cannot twist toroidal fields as strong as $10^5$ G. Presumably the situation gets reversed during a grand minimum. While the mechanism may not be operative due to the lack of sunspots, the weaker toroidal magnetic field during the grand minimum may allow the $\alpha$-effect to work. We now present some simulations in which we switch on an $\alpha$-effect during the grand minima and investigate what conclusion we can draw about the nature of the $\alpha$-effect by requiring that results of the simulation agree with observations. These simulations pertaining to the plausible failure of the dynamo to recover from a grand minimum episode and the role of an additional mean-field alpha effect in a possible recovery are motivated by discussions with Dibyendu Nandy and Soumitra Hazra (private communications) and the work detailed in Passos (2010, PhD Thesis), Hazra, Passos and Nandy (2013) and Passos, Hazra and Nandy (2013). One other point needs to be noted. Because of the way we treat magnetic buoyancy in our code, whenever the toroidal field strength above the bottom of the convection zone exceeds $B_c$, a part of it is brought to the solar surface. During the usual situation (i.e. outside grand minima), the toroidal field near the surface in our simulation continuously gets enhanced by magnetic buoyancy. This does not happen during the grand minima. Whether we allow the process to continue or replace it by the $\alpha$-effect, the toroidal field at the solar surface during grand minima comes there due to turbulent diffusion or advection due to the after being created in the tachocline.
As soon as the dynamo enters into a grand minimum state and the sunspot eruption stops due to the weak toroidal field, we switch off the $\alpha_{\mathrm{BL}}$ corresponding to the mechanism and switch on the $\alpha_{\mathrm{HT}}$ representing the twisting of the toroidal field by helical turbulence. Then, after the recovery from the grand minimum state, we switch off the $\alpha_{\mathrm{HT}}$ and again switch on the $\alpha_{\mathrm{BL}}$. Although the nature and also the sign of this $\alpha_{\mathrm{HT}}$ is not certain at present, we use the following profile for it: $$\alpha_{\mathrm{HT}} = 1.1~ \mathrm{cos} \theta ~ \frac{1}{2}[1 + \mathrm {erf}( \frac {r - 0.85\Rs} {0.025\Rs})]~ \mathrm{m~s}^{-1}\eqno(3)$$ The profile of this $\alpha_{\mathrm{HT}}$ along with the $\alpha_{\mathrm{BL}}$ is shown in Figure \[alpha\_prof\]. Note that $\alpha_{\mathrm{HT}}$ is almost one order of magnitude smaller than the $\alpha_{\mathrm{BL}}$ and importantly $\alpha_{\mathrm{HT}}$ is zero below around $0.8\Rs$. We have seen that, if $\alpha_{\mathrm{HT}}$ is non-zero within the whole body of the convection zone, then the solar cycle periods during become very short, which is not supported by the observation (Fligge et al. 1999; Miyahara et al. 2004, 2010; Nagaya et al. 2012). One important conclusion we draw is that an $\alpha$-effect which gets switched on during grand minima has to be restricted in the upper regions of the convection zone if we do not want the periods to become too short.
![Variations of the strength of the Babcock-Leighton $\alpha_{\mathrm{BL}}$ (solid line) and the (helical) turbulent $\alpha_{\mathrm{HT}}$ (dashed line) as a function of solar radius at $45^0$ latitude.[]{data-label="alpha_prof"}](alpha_prof.eps){width="50.00000%"}
![The durations of grand minima indicated by vertical bars at their times of occurrence in a 11,000 yr simulation. This is the result of a particular realization of random fluctuations that produced 28 grand minima. In this simulation, during episodes, the $\alpha_{\mathrm{BL}}$ is switched off and a weak turbulent $\alpha_{\mathrm{HT}}$ is allowed to switch on with the amplitude 1.1 cm s$^{-1}$.[]{data-label="alpha_gm"}](czal.eps){width="100.00000%"}
{width="100.00000%"}
![Same as Figure \[bl\_histograms\], except that the turbulent $\alpha_{\mathrm{HT}}$ gets switched on during grand minima instead of $\alpha_{\mathrm{BL}}$ operating all the time.[]{data-label="alpha_hist"}](hist_czal.eps){width="100.00000%"}
Now let us comment on the amplitude of $\alpha_{\mathrm{HT}}$. If $\alpha_{\mathrm{HT}}$ has the amplitude 1.1 m s$^{-1}$ in the upper part of the convection zone which follows from (3), the results of the simulation are qualitatively exactly similar to the results we got by allowing the $\alpha_{\mathrm{BL}}$ to operate all the time. The results of the simulations of the with this $\alpha_{\mathrm{HT}}$ during grand minima is shown in Figure \[alpha\_gm\]. This plot shows the positions of the grand minima along the time axis whereas the vertical axis shows the durations of grand minima. In this 11,000 years simulation run, we get about 28 grand minima. A comparison with Figure 3 of CK12 shows that the results are qualitatively very similar. Figure 10 shows the results when $\alpha_{\mathrm{HT}}$ is made to have the slightly larger amplitude 1.2 m s$^{-1}$. We see that the number of grand minima is reduced in this situations. When $\alpha_{\mathrm{HT}}$ is larger, the dynamo gets out of the state of reduced activity very quickly. Since we count something as grand minimum only if two successive cycles are missed, the number of grand minima is reduced. We also did runs by using the slightly lower value of the amplitude 1.0 m s$^{-1}$ for $\alpha_{\mathrm{HT}}$. In this case, we found that the dynamo was unable to get out of a grand minimum after entering it. Figure \[alpha\_hist\] presents histograms of the durations and the waiting times of grand minima from 33,000 years long simulation data using the value of $\alpha_{\mathrm{HT}}$ given by (3), with amplitude 1.1 m s$^{-1}$. Again in this case both the distributions are exponential and qualitatively similar to the distributions shown in Figure \[bl\_histograms\].
We are not completely sure what conclusions we should make out of the results we have presented. It is quite remarkable that the results of our simulation by using the same $\alpha$ all the time, as had been done in CK12 and in § 3 of this paper, are in such good agreement with different aspects of observational data. On the other hand, if we switch off this $\alpha$ concentrated near the solar surface during the grand minima and use the traditional $\alpha$-effect to pull the dynamo out of the grand minima, then we have to fine-tune the nature of this $\alpha_{\mathrm{HT}}$ quite a bit in order to get results consistent with observational data. Interestingly, we get the best results when the amplitude of the $\alpha$-effect is just marginally above the critical value and only operating in the upper half of the convection zone. Does this tell us that $\alpha$ remains operative even during the grand minima for reasons we do not understand now? This is a very provocative question which needs further investigation. Smaller active regions with magnetic flux less than that of detectable sunspots may have some (statistical) systematic tilt to produce a significant during -like episodes (see the discussion in Wang & Sheeley 2013). In fact, Stenflo & Kosovichev (2012) find a systematic tilt for a long range of the magnetic fluxes in active regions, suggesting that the may be generated when there are no detectable sunspots. Importantly, even a few big sunspots (with correct tilt) can produce a significant poloidal field to maintain the polarity reversal—this might also be the case during . As we do not have sufficient observational study of all these issues during the , we cannot conclusively say anything about the generation mechanism during . However Passos (2010, PhD Thesis), Passos et al. (2013) and Hazra et al. (2013) believe the process cannot operate during the grand minimum episode and a weak mean-field $\alpha$ in the whole convection zone is needed to recover the Sun out of such phase based on their simulations with and low order time delay dynamo model.
Conclusion
==========
The aim of the present paper is to follow up our earlier paper CK12 in exploring whether different aspects of grand minima can be explained on the basis of the flux transport dynamo model of the solar cycle. Following earlier work done by our group, we keep using a reasonably high turbulent diffusivity, which implies that a slowing down of the results in longer and weaker cycles. In such a model, the plays a profound role in producing irregularities of the solar cycle and also the grand minima. One of the main uncertainties in theoretical models at the present time is our lack of understanding of the , either from the theoretical or the observational viewpoint. While we do not yet have a complete theory of the solar , we believe that the turbulent stresses in the solar convection zone drives it and hence we assume the to be confined within the solar convection zone. The poleward near the solar surface causes the advection of the poloidal field to higher latitudes (Wang et al. 1989; Dikpati & Choudhuri 1994, 1995). We need an equatorward counterflow at the bottom of the convection zone for flux transport dynamo to produce proper butterfly diagrams (Nandy & Choudhuri 2002). So far we do not have direct observational measurements of this counterflow. While helioseismology has been able to provide information about in the upper layers of the convection zone (Giles et al. 1997; Braun & Fan 1998), extracting unambiguous information about in the deeper layers has remained a challenge (Gough & Hindman 2010; Zhao et al. 2012). Any possible periodic modulations of the with the solar cycle is not expected to produced sustained irregularities of the cycle (Karak & Choudhuri 2012; Passos & Lopes 2012). But random fluctuations of the with coherence times longer than solar cycle periods, as suggested by the data of past cycles, can have profound effects on the dynamo.
Our earlier paper CK12 suggested that grand minima are produced by combined fluctuations in the and in the mechanism for generating the poloidal field. While our further calculations support this broad scenario, we now find that the fluctuations in the are more important in producing the grand minima (cf. § 3.1). From the theoretical viewpoint, such variations of are not surprising. We know that the is mainly generated from the imbalance between two large terms – the non-conservative part of the centrifugal force and the baroclinic torque (i.e., the deviation from the thermal wind balance) (Kitchatinov and Rüdiger 1995). It is not only the case that there is a deviation which produces the in the solar convection zone but also this deviation fluctuates because of the fact that the differential rotation is produced by turbulent convection and the fluctuations in it is unavoidable (Brun et al. 2010). This physics already been explored by a mean-field model of Rempel (2005). He introduced random fluctuations in the $\Lambda$-effect and found that it produced fluctuations in the differential rotation but in turn the fluctuations produced in is about two orders of magnitude larger than that in the differential rotation. Indeed helioseismology has detected a significant temporal variation of the in last several years (e.g., González-Hernández et al. 2006). Unfortunately we do not have any measurement of the during the . There are some observational studies which indicate that solar rotation was different during the (Casas et al. 2006, and references therein), suggesting also the variation of the . Some authors (Wang & Sheeley 2003; Passos & Lopes 2011) suggest weak during Maunder minimum.
Our calculations suggest that the fluctuations in the are more important than fluctuations in the polar field in inducing grand minima (cf. § 3.1), although fluctuations in the polar field have more effect if the dynamo is only moderately critical (cf. § 3.2). We have seen that the recovery phase is always gradual and supported by the observation. However, depending on the detailed nature of the fluctuations in the at the beginning of a grand minimum, we find that both sudden and gradual initiations of grand minima are possible. Since we are able to make only a very rough estimate of the coherence time of fluctuations, we explore how our results may change on varying the coherence time (cf. § 3.5). For coherence times lying in the range 20–50 yr, the results remain qualitatively similar. We also present statistical analyses of the characteristics of grand minima (cf. § 3.4). We have seen that both the distributions of the waiting times and the durations of the grand minima are exponential, suggesting that these are governed by the random process. Some of these results are supported by observational data (Usoskin et al. 2007). One issue we did not study here is the north-south asymmetry during grand minima. There are sufficient evidences that during the and the Dalton minimum (Ribes & Nesme-Ribes 1993; Usoskin et al. 2009b) there was strong north-south asymmetry in sunspots, indicating this to be a robust feature of grand minima. Choudhuri & Karak (2009) and Karak (2010) have proposed that if the or the becomes weak due to the stochastic fluctuations, then it is very unlikely that they become weak in both the hemisphere by the same amount. With this assumption they have demonstrated that by introducing a slight asymmetry in the or in the we can easily model the observed north-south asymmetry of sunspots during . We believe that the hemispheric asymmetry in grand minima may be another indication for the stochastic forcing as the origin of grand minima.
In this paper we have studied another interesting aspect of solar cycle which is grand maxima (cf. § 3.6). We have seen that similar to grand minima, grand maxima are mostly caused by the strong meridional circulation and the distributions of both the waiting times and the durations of the grand maxima are exponential. Although the definition of grand maxima is more subjective, we have seen that the average duration of grand maxima are shorter compare to that of grand minima.
One other issue we addressed here is how the Sun comes out of a grand minimum. The mechanism for the poloidal field generation depends on the existence of sunspots and one naively thinks that this mechanism would not be operational during the grand minima. We explored whether the $\alpha$-effect, which gets suppressed when the toroidal field is strong, could be operational during the grand minima when the toroidal field becomes weak and whether this $\alpha$-effect could pull the Sun out of a grand minimum (cf. § 4). We found that we can match various aspects of observational data only when we reside this $\alpha$-effect in the upper half of the convection zone and fine-tune its strength. On the other hand, on assuming that the mechanism remains operational throughout the grand minima, we get results remarkably close to the observational data. This raises the provocative question whether the mechanism could still remain operational during grand minima for reasons we do not understand. We merely pose this question which cannot be answered at our present level of understanding of the subject.
[**Acknowledgements**]{} We thank the referee for careful reading and raising a few comments which improved the manuscript. We also thank Dibyendu Nandy and Soumitra Hazra for the discussion which motivated us to study the recovery phase of grand minima presented in Section 4. ARC thanks DST for partial support through JC Bose Fellowship (project no. SR/S2/JCB-61/2009). BBK thanks Nordita for providing the hospitality where the revised version of the article was prepared.
[99]{} Babcock, H. W. 1961, ApJ, 133, 572 Brandenburg, A., & Spiegel, E. A. 2008, Astron. Nachr, 329, 351 Braun, D. C., & Fan, Y. 1998, ApJ, 508, L105 Brun, A. S, Antia, H. M., & Chitre, S. M. 2010, A&A 510, 33 Casas, R., Vaquero, J. M. & Vazquez, M. 2006, Sol. Phys., 234, 379 Charbonneau, P., Blais-Laurier, G., & St-Jean, C. 2004, ApJ, 616, L183 Charbonneau, P., Beaubien, G., & St-Jean, C. 2007, ApJ, 658, 657 Charbonneau, P. 2010, Liv. Rev. Sol. Phys., 7, 3 Chatterjee, P., & Choudhuri, A. R. 2006, Sol. Phys., 239, 29 Chatterjee, P., Nandy, D., & Choudhuri, A. R. 2004, A&A, 427, 1019 Choudhuri, A. R. 1989, Sol. Phys. 123, 217 Choudhuri, A. R. 1990, A&A, 239, 335 Choudhuri, A. R. 1992, A&A, 253, 277 Choudhuri, A. R. 2011, Pramana, 77, 77 Choudhuri, A. R., Chatterjee, P., & Jiang, J. 2007, Phys. Rev. Lett., 98, 1103 Choudhuri, A. R., & Gilman, P. A. 1987, ApJ, 316, 788 Choudhuri, A. R., & Karak, B. B. 2009, RAA, 9, 953 Choudhuri, A. R., & Karak, B. B. 2012, Phys. Rev. Lett., 109, 171103 (CK12) Choudhuri, A. R., Schüssler, M., & Dikpati, M. 1995, A&A, 303, L29 Dasi-Espuig, M., Solanki, S. K., Krivova, N. A., Cameron, R. & Peñuela, T. 2010, A&A, 518, 7 Dikpati, M., & Charbonneau, P. 1999, ApJ, 518, 508 Dikpati, M., & Choudhuri, A. R. 1994, A&A, 291, 575 Dikpati, M., & Choudhuri, A. R. 1995, Sol. Phys., 161, 9 D’Silva, S., & Choudhuri, A. R. 1993, A&A, 272, 621 Durney, B. R. 1995, Sol. Phys., 160, 213 Eddy, J. A. 1976, Science, 192, 1189 Fan, Y., Fisher, G. H., & Deluca, E. E. 1993, ApJ, 405, 390 Fligge, M., Solanki, S. K. & Beer, J. 1999 A&A, 346, 313 Giles, P. M., Duvall, T. L., Scherrer, P. H., & Bogart, R. S. 1997, Nature, 390, 52 Goel, A., & Choudhuri, A. R. 2009, RAA, 9, 115 Gómez, D. O., & Mininni, P. D. 2006, Adv. in Space Res., 38, 856 Gough, D., & Hindman, B. W. 2010, ApJ, 714, 960 González-Hernández, I., Komm, R., Hill, F., Howe, R., Corbard, T., & Haber, D. A. 2006, ApJ, 638, 576 Hazra, S., Passos, D. & Nandy, D. 2013, in preparation Hotta, H., & Yokoyama, T. 2010, ApJ, 714, L308 Hoyng, P. 1988, ApJ, 332, 857 Hoyt, D. V., & Schatten, K. H., 1996, Sol. Phys., 165, 181 Jiang, J., Chatterjee, P., & Choudhuri, A. R. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 1527 Jiang, J., Cameron, R. H., Schmitt, D. & Isik, E. 2013, A&A, 553, 128 2010, ApJ, 724, 1021 2011, MNRAS, 410, 1503 2012, Sol. Phys., 278, 137 Karak, B. B., & Nandy, D. 2012, *ApJ*, 761, L13 Karak B. B. & Choudhuri, A. R. 2013 [*IAU 294:Sol. and Astrophys. Dynamos and Magnetic Activity*]{} (arXiv:1211.0165) Karak, B. B., & Petrovay, K. 2013, Sol. Phys., 282, 321. Kitchatinov, L. L., & Rüdiger, G. 1995, A&A, 299, 446 Kitchatinov, L. L., & Olemskoy, S. V. 2011, Astron. Lett., 37, 656 Leighton, R. B. 1969, ApJ, 156, 1 Longcope, D., & Choudhuri, A. R. 2002, Sol. Phys., 205, 63 Miesch, M. S, Featherstone, N. A., Rempel, M. & Trampedach, R. 2012, ApJ, 757, 128 Miyahara, H., Masuda, K., Kyohei, K., Kentaro, N., Yusuke, Y., Hiroyuki, M., Kimiaki, M., Toshio, N., & Yasushi, M. 2010, Journal of Cosmology, 8, 1970 Miyahara, H., Masuda, K., Muraki, Y., Furuzawa, H., Menjo, H., & Nakamura, T. 2004, Sol. Phys., 224, 317 Miyahara, H., Masuda, K. Muraki, Y. Kitagawa, H. & Nakamura, T. 2006, JGR, 111, A03103, doi:10.1029/2005JA011016 Miyahara, H., Masuda, K., Nagaya, K., Kuwana, K., Muraki, Y., & Nakamura, T. 2007, Adv. Space Res., 40, 1060 Moss, D., Sokoloff, D., Usoskin, I. G., & Tutubalin, V. 2008, Sol. Phys., 250, 221 Muñoz-Jaramillo, A., Dasi-Espuig, M., Balmaceda, L. A. & DeLuca, E. E. 2013, *ApJ*, 767, L25 Nagaya, K., Kitazawa, K. Miyake, F., Masuda, K. Muraki, Y., Nakamura, T., Miyahara, H., & Matsuzaki, H. 2012, Sol. Phys., 280, 223 Nandy, D., & Choudhuri, A. R. 2002, Science, 296, 1671 Olemskoy, S. V., Choudhuri, A. R., & Kitchatinov, L. L. 2013 Astronomy Reports, 57, 458 Parker, E. N. 1955, ApJ, 122, 293 Passos, D., & Lopes, I. 2008, ApJ, 686, 1420 Passos, D., & Lopes, I. P. 2011, JASTP, 73, 191. Passos, D., & Lopes, I. P. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 1709. Passos, D., Charbonneau, P. & Beaudoin, P. 2012, Sol. Phys. 279, 1 Passos, D., Hazra, S. & Nandy, D. 2013, in preparation Passos 2010, PhD Thesis, INSTITUTO SUPERIOR TÉCNICO Rempel, M. 2005, ApJ, 631, 1286 Ribes, J. C., & Nesme-Ribes, E. 1993, A&A, 276, 549 Sokoloff, D., & Nesme-Ribes, E. 1994, A&A, 288, 293 Solanki, S. K., Usoskin, I. G., Kromer, B., Schussler, M. & Beer, J., 2004, Nature, 431, 28 Spruit, H. C. 1981, A&A, 98, 155 Steenbeck, M., Krause, F., & Rädler, K.-H. 1966, Z. Naturforsch., 21a, 1285 Steinhilber, F., Abreu, J. A., Beer, J., et al. 2012, PNAS, 109, 5967 Stenflo, J. O., & Kosovichev, A. G. 2012, ApJ, 745, 129 Usoskin, I. G., Mursula, K., & Kovaltsov, G. A. 2000, A&A, 354, L33 Usoskin, I. G., Sokoloff, D., & Moss, D. 2009a, Sol. Phys., 254, 345 Usoskin, I. G., Mursula, K., Arlt, R., & Kovaltsov, G. A. 2009b, ApJL, 700, L154 Usoskin, I. G., Solanki, S. K., & Kovaltsov, G. A. 2007, A&A, 471, 301 Vaquero, J. M., Gallego, M. C., Usoskin, I. G., & Kovaltsov, G. A. 2011, ApJ, 731, L24 Wang, Y.-M., Nash, A. G., & Sheeley, N. R. 1989, ApJ, 347, 529 Wang, Y.-M., Sheeley, N. R., & Nash, A. G. 1991, ApJ, 383, 431 Wang, Y.-M., & Sheeley, N. R. 2013, ApJ, 764, 90 Weiss, N. O., Cattaneo, F., Jones, C. A. 1984, Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn., 30, 305 Wilmot-Smith, A. L., Martens, P. C. H., Nandy, D., Priest, E. R., & Tobias, S. M. 2005, MNRAS, 363, 1167 Yeates, A. R., Nandy, D., & Mackay, D. H. 2008, ApJ, 673, 544 Zhao, J., Nagashima, K., Bogart, R. S., Kosovichev, A. G., & Duvall, T. L. 2012, ApJ, 749, L5
\[lastpage\]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- |
K Younsi$^1$, V Russier$^1$, L Bessais$^1$, J-C Crivello$^1$\
$^1$ ICMPE, UMR 7182 CNRS-Université Paris Est,\
2-8 Rue Henri Dunant F-94320 Thiais, France.\
russier@icmpe.cnrs.fr
title: 'Magnetic and structural properties of nanocrystalline PrCo$_3$. '
---
Introduction
============
The permanent magnetic materials with high performance require appropriate intrinsic hard magnetic properties [*i.e*]{} a high uniaxial magnetocrystalline anisotropy field, a high Curie temperature and a high saturation magnetization. Among nanocrystalline magnets based on rare earth and transition metal compounds the $R$Co$_3$ compounds ($R$ as a rare earth) have been the subject of many studies during the last decades. These ones crystallize in rhombohedral PuNi$_3$-type (space group: $R\bar3m$). The unit cell contains two non-equivalent crystallographic sites for $R$ ions, $3a$ and $6c$, and three sites for Co: $3b$, $6c$ and $18h$. $R$Co$_3$ alloys present excellent magnets properties such as large magnetocrystalline anisotropy and important saturation magnetization. These properties are resulting from to combination of the $3d$ itinerant magnetism of the Co sublattice and $4f$ localized magnetism of the sublattice.
In this study, we report the elaboration of nanocrystalline PrCo$_3$ by high-energy milling, and their structural and magnetic properties in amorphous state and after recrystallization. Hard magnetic properties of the as milled PrCo$_3$ have been improved by a controlled nanocrystallization, which optimize the grain size in order to obtain a high coercivity.
In addition to the experiments, results from simulation and microscopic calculations are presented. We have proposed a simple model for the system after annealing based on a lattice of crystallites embedded in an amorphous matrix. The simplest realization of such a model is considered here, in order to bring out at the qualitative level the microstructure effect on the magnetization curve. This model is treated in the framework of micromagnetism, [*i.e.*]{} through a continuous medium type of approach, and the calculations are performed by using the [@magpar] code based on the finite elements method. We also present the results of [*ab initio*]{} band structure calculations and magnetic properties based on the spin polarized local approximation of the density functional theory (DFT) of $R$Co$_x$, where $R$=(Y,Pr) and $x$=2,3 and 5 intermetallic compounds. We will focus on a quantitative analyse of the localized $4f$ states and itinerant $3d$ magnetism.
Experimental studies
====================
A polycrystalline PrCo$_3$ was prepared by melting high-purity starting elements ($>99.9\%$) in an induction furnace under an atmosphere of high purity Ar. The ingot was remelted five times to ensure homogeneity. These ingots were used as pre-alloys to manufacture samples by high-energy milling. Technique and conditions of milling has been described in [@yrb10]. After milling, the powder mixtures was wrapped in tantalum foil and sealed in silica tubes under a vacuum of 10$^{-6}$Torr, then annealed for 30min at temperature between 1023 K and 1323 K followed by quenching in water. X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns of as-cast, as-milled and annealed powders were carried out with Cu-K$\alpha $ radiation source on a Bruker diffractometer. The unit-cell parameters were measured with Si as the standard ($a$= 5.4308Å) leading to a unit-cell parameter accuracy of $\pm$1$\times $10$^{-3}$Å. The data treatment was made by Rietveld refinement with FULLPROF computer code in the assumption of Thompson–Cox-Hastings line profile alloying multiple-phase refinement. This refinement gives the weight percentage of each of the coexisting phases, the line broadening leads to the autocoherent domain size owing to Scherrer formula. The magnetic ordering temperatures $T_C$ were obtained on a differential sample magnetometer MANICS in a field of 1kOe on powder, in vacuum-sealed silica tube. Curie temperature was determinate by extra-polating the linear part of the M–T curve and extending the baseline: intersection point corresponds to the value of T$_C$. The $M-H$ curves (Magnetic hysteresis measurement) were plotted at T= 10 and 293K with a Physical Properties Measurement System (PPMS) Quantum Design equipment and a maximum applied field of 90kOe on sample in epoxy resin.
Structure analysis
------------------
Before milling, the ingot is analyzed by X-ray diffraction (XRD). The Fig. \[fig:1\] presents the analysis result of XRD pattern of PrCo$_3$ ingot using the Rietveld analysis. The PrCo$_3$ ingot is nearly single phase with the rhombohedral PuNi$_3$-type structure (space group: $R\bar3m$) and is an appropriate precursor for using as pre-alloys to manufacture samples by high-energy milling.
In order to check the crystalline structure of PrCo$_3$ powders, the XRD measurement of samples annealed at distinct temperature have been performed. The XRD patterns of both as-quenched and annealed PrCo$_3$ powder are shown in Fig.\[fig:2\]. It can be seen that as-quenched powder is essentially quasiamorphous. Such quasiamorphous matrix suggests the presence of various types of small crystallites. The diffraction peaks become more pronounced with increasing annealing temperature. The annealed samples at 773 and 1273K for 30min reveal the presence of PrCo$_3$ phases crystallized.
However, when the annealed is at temperature between 773 and 1023K, we observe in the low angles a large line around 32$^\circ$. The large peak widths points to a small grain size. When the powders are annealed at temperature higher than 1023K, the XRD patterns show the presence of PrCo$_3$ phases crystallized. We have observed a small amount (around 0.5wt$\%$) of Pr$_2$O$_3$ in all samples annealed after milling. The mean diffraction crystallite size of the powder after annealing at 1023 and 1273K for 30min obtained by fitting the XRD diagram with Rietveld method, ranges between 31 and 45nm respectively, this implies that synthesized materials are noncrystalline.
-0.5 cm
0.5 cm
The Curie temperature is determined by the exchange-coupling interaction between the nearest-neighbor Co-Co atoms, which is the origin of ferromagnetism. This interaction depends markedly on the interatomic distance. The Curie temperature of PrCo$_3$ compound is 349K, [@yrb10] this result is in agreement with the data given by Lemaire [@l66].
The low Curie temperature in PrCo$_3$ compounds is due to the short Co-Co interatomic distances at the sites $6c-18h$ and at $18h-18h$ [@yrb10], where the Co atoms couple antiparallel. In this structure, the $6c-18h$ and at $18h-18h$ interactions are strongly negative.
Isothermal magnetization curves $M-H$ obtained at 293K is represented in Fig. \[fig:3\] for PrCo$_3$. This figure shows that at 293K the saturation is not reached, which gives evidence for a magnetocrystalline anisotropy among the highest known in those kinds of systems. The pattern obtained on sample oriented under an external magnetic field, applied perpendicularly to the plane of the sample, shows only $(00l)$ Bragg peaks, which amount to suggest that the anisotropy strengthens the peaks of diffraction of type $(00l)$ and at room temperature the easy magnetization direction is parallel to the c-axis. A similar result is obtained for YCo$_{3-x}$Fe$_x$ by [@bgk00] obtained by oriented powder under extern field.
Extrinsic magnetic properties
-----------------------------
The best magnetic properties were reached after a treatment at 1023 K for 30min. Fig. \[fig:4\] show as an example the hysteresis loops measured at 10 and 293K. This sample exhibits the highest coercivities we have obtained, for $T= 10$K, $H_\mathrm{c}= 55$kOe, $M_\mathrm{R}= 56$emu/g and $M_\mathrm{R}/M_\mathrm{max}= 0.75$. For T= 293K, $H_\mathrm{c}= 12$kOe and $M_\mathrm{R}= 44$emu/g and $M_\mathrm{R}/M_\mathrm{max}= 0.60$ inherent to nanocrystalline state. The highest coercivity of 55kOe at 10K confirms the large magnetocrystalline anisotropy.
Computational studies
=====================
Micromagnetism simulation
-------------------------
In order to get a picture of the link between the structure at the nanometer scale and the extrinsic magnetic properties we have performed a micromagnetic simulation on a model for the system. The picture we have in mind is that the crystallization takes place locally on dispersed seeds in the amorphous matrix representing the as-milled sample. Hence we consider an assembly of crystallites presenting a uniaxial anisotropy comparable to what is expected in hard magnetic R-TM compounds. The saturation magnetization, $J_s$ of the crystallites is that of the bulk PrCo$_3$, namely $J_s~=~0.723~T$. We consider the simplest realization of the model, by using identical crystallites, located on the nodes of a simple cubic lattice. The crystallites are either spherical or cubic; however, the later case is likely to be closer to the experimental sample. We have chosen somewhat arbitrarily a volumic fraction occupied by the crystallites of $\phi~=~0.73$ (in the case of cubic crystallites) and the crystallite size corresponds to what has been estimated experimentally, namely, a cubic edge $a~=~35~nm$. The amorphous character of the matrix is translated by a zero valued anisotropy constant, while its saturation magnetization ($J_s^{(mat)}$) is a free parameter of the model. The value we get for $J_s^{(mat)}$, namely c.a. $J_s/5$ seems reasonable in our picture of an amorphous matrix. The important point is that we clearly get the signature of a two uncoupled phases behavior for $M(H)$; the amplitude of the kink at zero field being determined by $\phi$ and $J_s^{(mat)}$.
DFT calculations
----------------
### Methodology
Band structure spin polarized calculations were carried out by using the DFT scheme implemented in the projector-augmented wave (PAW) method, performed with the VASP package [@Kre96; @Kre99]. In the present study, the generalized gradient approximation (GGA) is used for the exchange and correlation energy functionals with the Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof (PBE) [@Per97] functional. A plane wave basis set with a cutoff energy of 600eV was used in all calculations converged within 0.1eV in total energy. Brillouin zone sampling using a mesh of 0.5k points for each primitive cell of $R$Co$_x$ compounds, described respectively in $Fd\bar{3}m$ space group for $x$=2, $R\bar{3}m$ for $x$=3 and $P6_3/mmm$ for $x$=5 compounds. Structural optimization were carried out under the condition that residual forces should be smaller than 0.1eV.Å$^{-1}$.
### Electronic structures
Figure \[fig:DOS\] shows the density of states (DOS) for the YCo$_x$ and PrCo$_x$ ($x$=2, 3 and 5) in the two directions of spin. For both series, the majority occupied states are dominated by the $3d$ states of Co, with a small electronic charge transfert of $R$ to Co, which is more important from $R$=Y to Co than from Pr to Co (calculated by Bader’s theory). The increase of $x$ leads to a distinct shift of the Co-$3d$ states in spin majority and minority DOS as expected in the rigid-band Stoner theory. Whereas $R$Co$_2$ shows the paramagnetic state as the most stable in energy, the ferromagnetic behavior is confirmed for $x$=3 and $x$=5 compounds, with an increase of the angular magnetic moment from 1.45 to 7.34 and 3.59 to 4.70$\mu_B$f.u.$^{-1}$ for $R$=Y and Pr respectively. The magnetic anisotropy has been confirmed for $R$Co$_{3}$ compounds, since non-collinear spin calculation along the $z$ axis has been found $\sim$0.2eVf.u.$^{-1}$ more stable than calculation along $x$ axis direction. Since the DOS at Fermi level is high enough for $x$=3 and 5, the itinerant magnetism properties of theses compounds can be explained by intra-atomic $3d-3d$ exchange. In contrast to YCo$_x$, PrCo$_x$ compounds present tiny and high density structures above the Fermi level, corresponding to localized empty $4f$ states of Pr. It is clear that the Co-$3d$ states are modified compared to YCo$_x$, due to the hybridization with the Pr-$4f$ states. As expected in $3d-5d$ hybridization compounds, the energy between the bonding and anti-bonding sub-bands becomes different for the two-direction of spins [@Ric98]. The consequence is a larger occupation of minority $5d$ states as compared to majority $5d$ of the rare earth, that means a ferrimagnetic coupling between $3d$ and $5d$ states occurs and increases with the increasing of $x$ composition.
\
Conclusion and outlook
======================
The PrCo$_3$ intermetallic compound crystallizes in rhombohedral PuNi$_3$-type structure and presents a very high uniaxial magnetocrystalline anisotropy. The coercivity of this compound, prepared by high energy milling followed by annealing (1023 K, 30 mn), takes a very high value, up to 55 kOe at 10 K. A micromagnetic simulation and atomic scale [*ab-initio*]{} calculations have been performed to understand on the one hand the way in which the electronic structure and especially the interplay between $3d$ and $4f$ electronic states, leads to the observed anisotropy and magnetic moment, and on the other hand the relation between the nanoscale structure and the extrinsic magnetic properties. DFT calculations will be improved with spin-orbit coupling considerations, and with Hubbard corrections in order to better describe cohesive properties of materials with strong electronic correlations.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
The numerical part of this work was performed using HPC resources from GENSI- CINES (Grant 2010-096180).
[1]{}
W. Scholz, T. Schrefl, D. Suess, R. Dittrich, H. Forster, and V. Tsiantos. , 28:366, 2003.
K. Younsi, V. Russier, and L. Bessais. , 107:083916, 2010.
R. Lemaire. , 33:201, 1966.
M. I. Bartashevich, Tsuneaki. Goto, and Katsuhiko. Koui. , 292(1-2):9, October 2000.
G. Kresse and J. Furthmüller. Efficient iterative schemes for ab initio total-energy calculations using a plane-wave basis set. , 54(16):11169–11186, Oct 1996.
G. Kresse and D. Joubert. From ultrasoft pseudopotentials to the projector augmented-wave method. , 59(3):1758, 1999.
John P. Perdew, Kieron Burke, and Matthias Ernzerhof. Generalized gradient approximation made simple \[phys. rev. lett. 77, 3865 (1996)\]. , 78(7):1396, Feb 1997.
Manuel Richter. Band structure theory of magnetism in 3d-4f compounds. , 31(9):1017, 1998.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Motivated by the recent work of Chigusa, Moroi, and Shoji [@Chigusa:2019wxb], we propose a new simple gradient flow equation to derive the bounce solution which contributes to the decay of the false vacuum. Our discussion utilizes the discussion of Coleman, Glaser, and Martin [@Coleman:1977th] and we solve a minimization problem of the kinetic energy while fixing the potential energy. The bounce solution is derived as a scale-transformed of the solution of this problem. We also show that the convergence of our method is robust against a choice of the initial configuration.'
author:
- Ryosuke Sato
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: Simple Gradient Flow Equation for the Bounce Solution
---
Introduction
============
The decay of the false vacua is an important topic in particle physics and cosmology. The decay rate of the false vacua can be calculated from “the imaginary part” of the Euclidean path integral [@Coleman:1977py][^1]. In the path integral formalism, we can see that the main contribution comes from the bounce solution $\phi_B$ which is a non-trivial solution of the equation of motion with the least action. Thus, the bounce solution plays a crucial role in the decay of the false vacua. To calculate the bounce solution, we have to solve the equation of motion with the boundary condition at infinity. In general, it is not easy to calculate the bounce solution, and this is particularly the case for models with multi scalar fields.
Several algorithms to calculate the bounce action have been discussed so far, *e.g.*, gradient flow with modifications [@Claudson:1983et; @Cline:1998rc; @Cline:1999wi], modified actions which have the bounce solution as a local minimum [@Kusenko:1995jv; @Kusenko:1996jn; @Moreno:1998bq; @John:1998ip], changing gradually a coefficient of the friction term (the second term on the LHS of Eq. (\[eq:EOM2\])) [@Konstandin:2006nd; @Park:2010rh], machine learning [@Jinno:2018dek; @Piscopo:2019txs] and so on. Also, public codes to calculate the bounce solution are available, such as `CosmoTransitions` [@Profumo:2010kp; @Wainwright:2011kj], `AnyBubble` [@Masoumi:2016wot], and `BubbleProfiler` [@Akula:2016gpl; @Athron:2019nbd]. Some works discuss the bounce solution/action avoiding the direct calculation, *e.g.*, some approximations [@Johnson:2008kc; @Masoumi:2017trx; @Guada:2018jek], upperbounds [@Dasgupta:1996qu; @Sarid:1998sn; @Brown:2017cca], lowerbounds, [@Aravind:2014aza; @Sato:2017iga; @Brown:2017cca], and an alternative formulation [@Espinosa:2018hue; @Espinosa:2018voj; @Espinosa:2018szu].
One of the reasons for the technical difficulty is that the bounce solution is a saddle point of the action, *i.e.*, the bounce is not a stable solution of a simple minimization problem. Recently, Chigusa, Shoji, and Moroi [@Chigusa:2019wxb] proposed a new method to obtain the bounce solution. They proposed a gradient flow equation whose fixed point is the bounce solution. Their flow equation has the gradient of the action and an additional term to lift up unstable direction around the bounce solution. Motivated by Ref. [@Chigusa:2019wxb], in this paper, we propose a new simple flow equation. Coleman, Glaser, and Martin (CGM) [@Coleman:1977th] showed that the calculation of the bounce solution is equivalent to the minimization of the kinetic energy ${\cal T}$ while fixing the potential energy ${\cal V} < 0$. This minimization problem can be naturally formulated in a flow equation. In the end, the bounce solution is obtained as a scale-transformed of the solution of this problem. In Sec. \[sec:formulation\], we describe our formulation to calculate the bounce solution. In Sec. \[sec:example\], we discuss numerical analysis on several examples by using our flow equation, and show that our flow equation works well.
Formulation {#sec:formulation}
===========
In this paper, we focus on the Euclidean action with $n$ scalar fields with the canonical kinetic term. $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal S}[\phi] &= {\cal T}[\phi] + {\cal V}[\phi], \\
{\cal T}[\phi] &= \sum_{i=1}^n \int d^d x \frac{1}{2} (\nabla \phi_i)^2, \\
{\cal V}[\phi] &= \int d^d x V(\phi).\end{aligned}$$ Here $d$ is the dimension of the space, and we assume $d$ is larger than 2. The scalar potential $V$ satisfies $V(0) = 0$, $\partial V/\partial\phi_i = 0$, all of the eigenvalues of the Hessian of $V$ at $\phi_i = 0$ are non-negative, and $V$ is somewhere negative.
The bounce solution which contributes to the decay of the false vacuum satisfies the equation of the motion and the boundary condition at infinity: $$\begin{aligned}
-\nabla^2\phi_i + \frac{\partial V}{\partial \phi_i} &= 0, \label{eq:EOM}\\
\lim_{|x|\to\infty} \phi_i(x) &= 0. \label{eq:boundary}\end{aligned}$$ Also, the bounce solution should be a non-trivial solution, *i.e.*, $\exists i,x,~\phi_i(x) \neq 0$. Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal T}[\phi] > 0, \quad
{\cal V}[\phi] < 0. \label{eq:nontrivial}\end{aligned}$$ Note that ${\cal V}[\phi] < 0$ is required in order for the bounce solution to be an extremum under the scale transformation: $\phi_i(x) \to \phi_i(\lambda x)$. See, *e.g.*, Ref. [@Coleman:1977th]. The bounce solution has the least action among configurations which satisfy the above conditions Eqs. (\[eq:EOM\], \[eq:boundary\], \[eq:nontrivial\]). It is known that the bounce solution has spherical symmetry [@Coleman:1977th; @lopes1996radial; @byeon2009symmetry; @Blum:2016ipp]. Therefore, Eq. (\[eq:EOM\]) can be simplified as $$\begin{aligned}
-\frac{d^2\phi_i}{dr^2} - \frac{d-1}{r} \frac{d\phi_i}{dr} + \frac{\partial V}{\partial \phi_i} = 0. \label{eq:EOM2}\end{aligned}$$
In order to discuss the bounce solution, CGM [@Coleman:1977th] introduced the reduced problem, which is defined as *the problem of finding a configuration vanishing at infinity which minimizes $\cal T$ for some fixed negative $\cal V$.* The existence of the solution of this problem is ensured by CGM’s theorem B in Ref. [@Coleman:1977th] and Ref. [@brezis1984minimum]. Also, CGM’s theorem A ensures that the bounce solution can be obtained as a scale-transformed of a solution of the reduced problem. See the Appendix. Here we solve the CGM’s reduced problem by using a gradient flow equation. We introduce functions $\varphi_i(r,\tau)$ and propose the following gradient flow equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau} \varphi_i(r,\tau) &= \nabla^2 \varphi_i - \lambda[\phi] \frac{\partial V(\varphi)}{\partial \varphi_i} \label{eq:gradient flow equation}, \\
\lambda[\varphi] &= \frac{\displaystyle\sum_i \int_0^\infty dr r^{d-1} \frac{\partial V(\varphi)}{\partial \varphi_i} \nabla^2 \varphi_i}
{\displaystyle\sum_i \int_0^\infty dr r^{d-1} \left(\frac{\partial V(\varphi)}{\partial \varphi_i}\right)^2}.
\label{eq:lambda}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\tau$ is “the time” for the flow of $\varphi$ and $\nabla^2 \varphi_i = \partial_r^2 \varphi_i + (d-1) (\partial_r \varphi)/r$. We take the initial $\varphi(r,0)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal V}[\varphi] |_{\tau=0} < 0.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\lim_{r\to\infty}\varphi_i(r,\tau) = 0$ should hold in order for ${\cal V}[\phi]$ to be finite. By using Eq. (\[eq:gradient flow equation\]) and Eq. (\[eq:lambda\]), we can show $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{d\tau}{\cal V}[\varphi] &= 0, \label{eq:dVds}\\
\frac{d}{d\tau}{\cal T}[\varphi] &\leq 0. \label{eq:dTds}\end{aligned}$$ To show Eq. (\[eq:dTds\]), we used the following Cauchy-Schwarz inequality:
$$\begin{aligned}
\left( \sum_i \int_0^\infty dr r^{d-1} (\nabla^2\varphi_i)^2\right)
\left( \sum_i \int_0^\infty dr r^{d-1} \left( \frac{\partial V(\varphi)}{\partial \varphi_i} \right)^2\right)
~\geq~
\left( \sum_i \int_0^\infty dr r^{d-1} \frac{\partial V(\varphi)}{\partial \varphi_i} \nabla^2\varphi_i \right)^2. \label{eq:Cauchy Schwarz}\end{aligned}$$
Also, we can see that the equalities of Eq. (\[eq:dTds\]) and Eq. (\[eq:Cauchy Schwarz\]) hold if and only if $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla^2\varphi_i = \lambda \frac{\partial V(\varphi)}{\partial \varphi_i}\end{aligned}$$ is satisfied. Eqs. (\[eq:dVds\], \[eq:dTds\]) tell us that ${\cal T}[\varphi]$ monotonously decreases while ${\cal V}[\varphi]$ is constant during the flow of $\varphi$. In the limit of $\tau\to\infty$, $\varphi$ converges to a configuration which satisfies $\nabla^2 \varphi_i - \lambda(\partial V(\varphi)/\partial\varphi_i) = 0$. The convergence of $\varphi$ is guaranteed by the existence of the minimizer [@Coleman:1977th; @brezis1984minimum]. Note that this fixed point cannot be the false vacuum $\varphi_i = 0$ because ${\cal V}[\varphi]$ in the neighborhood of the false vacuum is positive and ${\cal V}[\varphi]$ is always negative during the flow. As long as the initial condition is not fine-tuned, $\varphi$ at $\tau\to\infty$ should be stable solution under the small perturbation, *i.e.*, ${\cal T}[\varphi]$ should be a local minimum under the small perturbation such that ${\cal V}[\phi]$ is not changed. In principle, the reduced problem could have several local minima. Physically, this case happens if there exist several directions of tunneling. In this case, $\varphi$ at $\tau\to\infty$ depends on the initial condition, and we can find the global minimum among those local minima. The configuration which gives the smallest value of ${\cal T}$ is the solution of the CGM’s reduced problem.
Let $\phi_i(r) (\equiv \lim_{\tau\to\infty} \varphi_i(r,\tau) )$ be the solution of the reduced problem, and derive the bounce solution. The bounce solution $\phi_B(r)$ can be obtained by a scale transformation of $\phi$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_B(r) = \phi(\lambda^{1/2}r). \label{eq:bounce from gradient flow}\end{aligned}$$ The above $\lambda$ is calculated as $\lim_{\tau\to\infty}\lambda[\varphi]$. Although the CGM’s theorem A ensures that this $\phi_B$ is the bounce solution, let us see this more explicitly. We can immediately see that (i) $\phi_B$ satisfies the EOM (Eq. (\[eq:EOM\])) and (ii) $\lim_{r\to\infty} \phi_B(r) = 0$ because ${\cal V}[\phi_B]$ is finite. Also, we can see that (iii) ${\cal S}$ has only one unstable direction around $\phi_B$. Since $\phi_B$ is a scale-transformed of $\phi$, $\phi_B$ is the global minimum of the action ${\cal S}$ if the potential energy ${\cal V}$ is fixed. The direction in which ${\cal S}$ decreases is the direction which changes ${\cal V}[\phi]$, *i.e.*, the scale transformation. Therefore, $\phi_B$ which is defined in Eq. (\[eq:bounce from gradient flow\]) is the bounce solution.
An essential point of our method is that the negative eigenmode around the bounce solution can be related to the scale transformation. By fixing the potential energy ${\cal V}$, we freeze fluctuation in this direction. Note that a method which is proposed in Ref. [@Claudson:1983et] also utilizes this property.
Example {#sec:example}
=======
In the previous section, we have seen that the CGM’s reduced problem can be solved by the flow equation Eq. (\[eq:gradient flow equation\]) and Eq. (\[eq:lambda\]), and the bounce solution can be obtained from Eq. (\[eq:bounce from gradient flow\]). In this section, we discuss numerical results for several examples, and show that our method works well.
![ A flow of the field configuration with the potential Eq. (\[eq:single potential\]) with $d=4$ and the initial condition Eq. (\[eq:single initial condition\]). []{data-label="fig:singlefield evolution"}](singlefield_evol.pdf){width="0.9\hsize"}
![ Same as Fig. \[fig:singlefield evolution\] except for the initial configuration. []{data-label="fig:initial3"}](initial2.pdf){width="0.9\hsize"}
![ Same as Fig. \[fig:singlefield evolution\] except for the initial configuration. []{data-label="fig:initial3"}](initial3.pdf){width="0.9\hsize"}
![ The black line is obtained from Eq. (\[eq:bounce from gradient flow\]) in the limit of large $\tau$. The yellow dotted line is calculated by `CosmoTransitions`. []{data-label="fig:singlefield"}](singlefield.pdf){width="0.9\hsize"}
First, let us take the following single scalar potential in $d=4$ Euclidean space. $$\begin{aligned}
V(\phi) = \frac{1}{2} \phi^2 - \frac{1}{3}\phi^3. \label{eq:single potential}\end{aligned}$$ We take the initial configuration at $\tau=0$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi(r,0) =
\begin{cases}
5(1-r) & (0\leq r \leq 1) \\
0 & (r>1)
\end{cases}. \label{eq:single initial condition}\end{aligned}$$ The flow of this field configuration is shown in Fig. \[fig:singlefield evolution\]. We can see the convergence of the configuration. In Fig. \[fig:initial2\] and Fig. \[fig:initial3\], we show the flow of the configuration from different initial conditions. We can see that the convergence of the configuration is robust for different initial conditions. The final configuration depends only on the value of ${\cal V}[\varphi]$, and those different final results are connected with each other by an appropriate scale transformation. By using this result, we can obtain the bounce solution from Eq. (\[eq:bounce from gradient flow\]). We compare our bounce solution with the result by `CosmoTransitions` [@Wainwright:2011kj] in Fig. \[fig:singlefield\]. We can see that the two results agree well and our method works.
![ The bounce solution in the $r$-$\phi$ plane is shown by solid lines. The dashed lines are results of `CosmoTransitions`. We take the potential Eq. (\[eq:potential doublet scalar\]) with $c=2$ in $d=4$ space.[]{data-label="fig:doublescalar thickwall"}](doubletfield.pdf){width="0.9\hsize"}
![The same bounce solution as Fig. \[fig:doublescalar thickwall\] in $\phi_1$-$\phi_2$ plane.[]{data-label="fig:doublescalar thickwall 2"}](doubletfield_.pdf){width="0.9\hsize"}
![ The bounce solution in the $r$-$\phi$ plane is shown by solid lines. The dashed lines are results of `CosmoTransitions`. We take the potential Eq. (\[eq:potential doublet scalar\]) with $c=80$ in $d=4$ space.[]{data-label="fig:doublescalar thinwall"}](doubletfield2.pdf){width="0.9\hsize"}
![The same bounce solution as Fig. \[fig:doublescalar thinwall\] in $\phi_1$-$\phi_2$ plane.[]{data-label="fig:doublescalar thinwall 2"}](doubletfield2_.pdf){width="0.9\hsize"}
Next, let us discuss a case with two scalar fields. We take the following potential: $$\begin{aligned}
V =& (\phi_1^2 + 5 \phi_2^2) ( 5(\phi_1-1)^2 + (\phi_2-1)^2 ) \nonumber\\
& + c\left( \frac{1}{4}\phi_2^4 - \frac{1}{3}\phi_2^3 \right). \label{eq:potential doublet scalar}\end{aligned}$$ Again, we compare our bounce solutions with the results by `CosmoTransitions`. The case with $c=2$ is shown in Figs. \[fig:doublescalar thickwall\] and \[fig:doublescalar thickwall 2\], and the case with $c=80$ in Figs. \[fig:doublescalar thinwall\] and \[fig:doublescalar thinwall 2\]. We can see that our result agrees with that of `CosmoTransitions`.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, motivated by a recent work of Chigusa, Shoji, and Moroi [@Chigusa:2019wxb], we proposed a new simple gradient flow equation which is defined in Eq. (\[eq:gradient flow equation\]) and Eq. (\[eq:lambda\]). Our flow equation solves the CGM’s reduced problem [@Coleman:1977th], *i.e.*, the minimization problem of kinetic energy ${\cal T}$ while fixing potential energy ${\cal V}$. This minimization problem can be naturally formulated in a flow equation, and the bounce solution can be obtained as a scale-transformed of this solution as Eq. (\[eq:bounce from gradient flow\]). Since our flow equation solves the minimization problem and the existence of the minimizer is guaranteed by Refs. [@Coleman:1977th; @brezis1984minimum], the convergence of this method is robust against the choice of initial configuration as long as ${\cal V}[\varphi] < 0$ is satisfied. A numerical package using this method is presented in Ref. [@Sato:2019wpo][^2]. This package calculates the Euclidean bounce action in ${\cal O}(0.1)$ s with ${\cal O}(0.1)~\%$ accuracy for models with 1–8 scalar field(s), which is faster than `CosmoTransitions` [@Profumo:2010kp; @Wainwright:2011kj], `AnyBubble` [@Masoumi:2016wot], and `BubbleProfiler` [@Akula:2016gpl; @Athron:2019nbd].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The author thanks Takeo Moroi for useful discussions.
CGM’s theorem A {#sec:theorem A}
===============
In this Appendix, we briefly summarize the theorem A in Ref. [@Coleman:1977th]. We denote the solution of the reduced problem for given $\cal V$ as $\phi_{(\cal V)}$. This theorem ensures that the bounce solution is given by a scale transformation of $\phi_{(\cal V)}$.
$\phi_{({\cal V}_0)}$ is a stationary point of ${\cal T}[\phi] + \lambda ({\cal V}[\phi]-{\cal V}_0)$, where $\lambda$ is the Lagrange multiplier. Thus, $\phi_{({\cal V}_0)}$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
-\nabla^2 \phi_{({\cal V}_0)i} + \lambda \frac{\partial V}{\partial\phi_i} = 0. \label{eq:EOM reduced problem}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\lambda$ should be appropriately chosen for the value of ${\cal V}_0$. We define the following configuration $\phi_B$: $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_B(x) = \phi_{({\cal V}_0)}(\lambda^{1/2} x). \label{eq:bounce scale-transformed}\end{aligned}$$ We can see that this is the bounce solution. First, by using Eqs. (\[eq:EOM reduced problem\], \[eq:bounce scale-transformed\]), we can check that $\phi_B$ satisfies the EOM Eq. (\[eq:EOM\]). Next, let us show that the action of any non-trivial solution of Eq. (\[eq:EOM\]) is equal to or larger than ${\cal S}[\phi_B]$. Let $\tilde\phi$ be a non-trivial solution of Eq. (\[eq:EOM\]). The action of $\tilde\phi$ is extremized under the scale transformation of $\tilde\phi$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
(d-2) {\cal T}[\tilde\phi] + d {\cal V}[\tilde\phi] = 0. \label{eq:proof theoremA 1}\end{aligned}$$ There exists a solution of the reduced problem for ${\cal V} = {\cal V}[\tilde\phi]$, and the kinetic energy is not larger than ${\cal T}[\tilde\phi]$: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal T}[\phi_{({\cal V}[\tilde\phi])} ] \leq {\cal T}[\tilde\phi].\label{eq:proof theoremA 2}\end{aligned}$$ ${\cal T}[\phi_B]$ and ${\cal V}[\phi_B]$ are given as $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal T}[\phi_B] &= \lambda^{1-d/2} {\cal T}[\phi_{({\cal V}[\phi])} ], \label{eq:proof theoremA 3} \\
{\cal V}[\phi_B] &= \lambda^{-d/2} {\cal V}[\phi].\end{aligned}$$ Here $\lambda \geq 1$ because of $(d-2) {\cal T}[\phi_B] + d {\cal V}[\phi_B] = 0$ and Eqs. (\[eq:proof theoremA 1\], \[eq:proof theoremA 2\]). Thus, by using Eqs. (\[eq:proof theoremA 2\], \[eq:proof theoremA 3\]), we can show that $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal T}[\phi_B] \leq {\cal T}[\tilde\phi].\end{aligned}$$ ${\cal S} = (2/d){\cal T}$ is satisfied for solutions of Eq. (\[eq:EOM\]). Then, $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal S}[\phi_B] \leq {\cal S}[\tilde\phi].\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $\phi_B$ has the least action among the non-trivial solutions of the EOM.
[^1]: For earlier discussions, see, *e.g.,* Refs. [@Lee:1974ma; @Frampton:1976kf].
[^2]: See also <https://github.com/rsato64/SimpleBounce>.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We have employed the first-principles approach to compute the effective response of composites of graded spherical particles of arbitrary conductivity profiles. We solve the boundary-value problem for the polarizability of the graded particles and obtain the dipole moment as well as the multipole moments. We provide a rigorous proof of an [*ad hoc*]{} approximate method based on the differential effective multipole moment approximation (DEMMA) in which the differential effective dipole approximation (DEDA) is a special case. The method will be applied to an exactly solvable graded profile. We show that DEDA and DEMMA are indeed exact for graded spherical particles.'
address: |
$^1$Department of Physics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong,\
Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong\
$^2$Institute of Theoretical Physics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong,\
Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong\
$^3$College of Information Science and Technology, East China Normal University,\
Shanghai 200 062, China
author:
- 'K. W. Yu$^{1,2}$[^1] and G. Q. Gu$^{1,3}$'
title: Effective conductivity of composites of graded spherical particles
---
Introduction
============
In functionally graded materials (FGM), the materials properties can vary spatially. These materials have received considerable attention in various engineering applications [@Yamanouchi]. The variation in the composition yields material and microstructure gradients, and makes the FGM very different in behavior from the homogeneous materials and conventional composite materials [@Yamanouchi; @Holt]. The great advantage is that one can tailor the materials properties via the design of the gradients. Over the past few years, there have been a number of attempts, both theoretical and experimental, to study the responses of FGM to mechanical, thermal, and electric loads and for different microstructure in various systems [@Yamanouchi; @Holt; @Ilschner; @fgm1; @fgm2; @fgm3; @fgm4; @fgm5]. In Nature, graded morphogen profiles can exist in a cell layer [@fgm1]. In experiments, graded structure may be produced by using various approaches, such as a three-dimensional X-ray microscopy technique [@fgm4], deformation under large sliding loads [@fgm5], and adsorbate-substrate atomic exchange during growth [@fgm3]. Thus, gradation profiles exist in both natural materials and artificial FGM. Interestingly, gradation profiles may further be controlled according to our purpose, such as a specific power-law gradation profile and so on. It has reported recently that the control of a compatibility factor can facilitate the engineering of FGM [@fgm2].
There have been various different attempts to treat the composite materials of homogeneous inclusions [@Jackson] as well as multi-shell inclusions [@Gu1; @Fuhr; @Arnold; @Chan]. These established theories for homogeneous inclusions, however cannot be applied to graded inclusions. To this end, we have recently developed a first-principles approach for calculating the effective response of dilute composites of graded cylindrical inclusions [@GuYu] as well as graded spherical particles [@Dong2003]. The electrostatic boundary-value problem of a graded spherical particle has been solved for some specific graded profiles to obtain exact analytic results. Along this line, exact analytic results are available so far for the power-law graded profile [@GuYu; @Dong2003], linear profile [@GuYu], exponential profile [@Martin; @Gu] as well as some combination of the above profiles [@Wei]. For arbitrary graded profiles, we have developed a differential effective dipole approximation (DEDA) to estimate the effective response of graded composites of spherical particles numerically. The DEDA results were shown to be in excellent agreement with the exact analytic results [@Dong2003]. However, the excellent agreement is difficult to understand because DEDA method was based on an [*ad hoc*]{} approximation [@Yu02].
The object of the present investigation is two-fold. Firstly, we will extend the first-principles approach slightly to deal with graded particles of arbitrary profiles. We will solve the boundary-value problem for the polarizability of the graded particles and obtain the dipole moment as well as the multipole moments. Secondly, we will provide a rigorous proof of the [*ad hoc*]{} approximation from first-principles. To this end, we extend the proof to multipole polarizability and derive the differential effective multipole moment approximation. As an illustration of the method, application to the power-law profile will be made. Thus, both DEDA and DEMMA are indeed exact for graded spherical particles.
First-principles approach
=========================
In this work, we will focus on a model of a graded conducting particle, in which the conductivity of the particle varies continuously along the radius of the spherical particle. We consider the electrostatic boundary-value problem of a graded spherical medium of radius $a$ subjected to a uniform electric field $E_0$ applied along the $z$-axis. For conductivity properties, the constitutive relations read $\vec{J}=\sigma_{i}(r)\vec{E}$ and $\vec{J}=\sigma_{m}\vec{E}$ respectively in the graded spherical medium and the host medium, where $\sigma_{i}(r)$ is the conductivity profile of the graded spherical medium and $\sigma_{m}$ is the conductivity of the host medium. The Maxwell’s equations read $$\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{J}=0,\ \ \ \ \vec{\nabla} \times
\vec{E}=0.$$ To this end, $\vec{E}$ can be written as the gradient of a scalar potential $\Phi$, $\vec{E}=-\vec{\nabla}\Phi$, leading to a partial differential equation:
$$\vec{\nabla} \cdot [\sigma(r)\vec{\nabla} \Phi] = 0,$$
where $\sigma(r)$ is the dimensionless dielectric profile, while $\sigma(r)=\sigma_i(r)/\sigma_m$ in the inclusion, and $\sigma(r)=1$ in the host medium.
In spherical coordinates, the electric potential $\Phi$ satisfies $$\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial r} \left(r^2\sigma(r)
\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial r}\right)
+\frac{1}{r^2\sin\theta}\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}
\left(\sin\theta \sigma(r) \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial r}\right)
+\frac{1}{r^2\sin^2\theta}\frac{\partial}{\partial \varphi}
\left(\sigma(r)\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial \varphi}\right)=0.
\label{comm}$$ As the external field is applied along the $z$-axis, $\Phi$ is independent of the azimuthal angle $\varphi$. If we write $\Phi = f(r)\Theta(\theta)$ to achieve separation of variables, we obtain two distinct ordinary differential equations. For the radial function $f(r)$, $$\frac{d}{dr}\left(r^2 \sigma(r)
\frac{df(r)}{dr}\right)-l(l+1)\sigma(r)f(r)=0, \label{general}$$where $l$ is an integer, while $\Theta(\theta)$ satisfies the Legendre equation [@Jackson]. Eq.(\[general\]) is a homogeneous second-order differential equation; it admits two possible solutions: $f^{+}_l(r)$ and $f^{-}_l(r)$ being regular at the origin and infinity respectively. Exact analytic results can be obtained for a power-law profile [@GuYu; @Dong2003], linear profile [@GuYu], and exponential profile [@Martin]. The general solution for the potential in the spherical medium is thus given by $$\Phi_{i}(r,\theta) = \sum_{l=0}^{\infty} [A_{l} f^{+}_l(r) + B_{l}
f^{-}_l(r)] P_{l}(\cos\theta).$$In the host medium, the potential is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{m}(r,\theta) = \sum_{l=0}^{\infty} [C_{l} r^l + D_{l}
r^{-(l+1)}] P_{l}(\cos\theta).\end{aligned}$$Thus the problem can be solved by matching the boundary conditions at the spherical surface.
Boundary-value problem
======================
By virtue of the regularity of the solution at $r=0$, the general solution inside the particle becomes: $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{i}(r,\theta) = \sum_{l=0}^{\infty} A_{l} f^{+}_l(r)
P_{l}(\cos\theta),\ \ \ r \le a,\end{aligned}$$The external potential ($r\ge a$) is: $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{m}(r,\theta) = -E_0 r\cos \theta + \sum_{l=0}^{\infty} D_{l}
r^{-(l+1)} P_{l}(\cos\theta),\ \ \ r \ge a.\end{aligned}$$We can rewrite $r\cos \theta$ as $\sum_l \delta_{l1} r^l
P_{l}(\cos\theta)$. Thus $C_l=-E_0\delta_{l1}$ and no multipole moment will be induced in a uniform applied field. However, in a nonuniform applied field as in dielectrophoresis of graded particles, multipole moments will be induced. Matching boundary conditions at $r=a$, $$\Phi_i(a)=\Phi_m(a),\ \ \ \sigma(a)\Phi'_i(a)=\Phi'_m(a),$$ where prime denotes derivatives with respect to $r$, we obtain a set of simultaneous linear equations for the coefficients $$\begin{aligned}
A_l f^+_l(a) &=& -E_0 a^l \delta_{l1} + D_l a^{-(l+1)}, \\
\sigma(a) A_l f^{+\prime}_l(a) &=& -E_0 l a^{l-1} \delta_{l1} -
D_l (l+1) a^{-(l+2)}.\end{aligned}$$Solving these equations, $$\begin{aligned}
A_l &=& -{(2l+1)a^l E_0 \delta_{l1}\over a\sigma(a)
f^{+\prime}_l(a)+(l+1)f^{+}_l(a)} = -{(2l+1)a^l E_0 \delta_{l1}
\over f^+_l(a) [l(F_l+1)+1]},\\
D_l &=& {a^{2l+1} [a\sigma(a) f^{+\prime}_l(a)-lf^{+}_l(a)] E_0
\delta_{l1}\over a\sigma(a) f^{+\prime}_l(a)+(l+1)f^{+}_l(a)} =
{a^{2l+1} l(F_l-1)E_0 \delta_{l1} \over l(F_l+1)+1},\end{aligned}$$where $$F_l={\sigma_i(a)\over \sigma_m}{a f^{+\prime}_l(a) \over l
f^{+}_l(a)}.\label{equivalent}$$When the radial equation is solved for a specified graded profile, the potential distribution can generally be expressed in terms of $f^+_l(r)$ and $F_l$. For a uniform applied field, the potential becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{i}(r,\theta) &=& -{3a f^+_1(r) E_0 \over f^+_1(a) (F_1+2)}
\cos\theta,\
\ \ r\le a, \\
\Phi_{m}(r,\theta) &=& -E_0r \cos\theta + {a^3 (F_1-1)E_0 \over
r^2 (F_1+2)} \cos\theta,\ \ \ r\ge a.\end{aligned}$$The second term in the potential in Eq.(14) can be interpreted as the potential due to an induced dipole moment $p=\sigma_m b_1 a^3
E_0$. Thus we identify the dipole factor: $$b_1={F_1-1\over F_1+2},\ \ \ F_1={\sigma_i(a)\over \sigma_m}{a
f^{+\prime}_1(a) \over f^{+}_1(a)}.$$For a homogeneous (non-graded) particle, the well known result recovers: $$b_1={\sigma_i-\sigma_m\over \sigma_i+2\sigma_m}.$$ Thus, $F_1$ can be interpreted as the equivalent conductivity ratio of the graded spherical particle.
**Differential effective multipole moment approximation**
=========================================================
We should remark that in general $F_l$ is the equivalent conductivity ratio of the $l$th multipole moment. Let us extend the definition \[Eq.(\[equivalent\])\] slightly for a graded spherical particle of variable radius $r$: $$F_l(r)=\sigma(r){r f^{+\prime}_l(r) \over l f^{+}_l(r)}.\label{Fl}$$Thus, the multipole factor reads: $$b_l(r) = {l(F_l(r)-1)\over l(F_l(r)+1)+1}.$$Physically it means that we construct the graded particle by a multi-shell procedure [@Yu02]: we start out with a graded particle of radius $r$ and keep on adding conducting shell gradually. The change in $F_l$ and $b_l$ can be assessed. In this regard, it is instructive to derive differential equations for $F_l(r)$ and $b_l(r)$. Let us consider (ignoring the superscript $+$ and subscript $l$ in $f^+_l(r)$ for simplicity): $${d\over dr}[rF_l(r)] = {1\over l}{d\over
dr}\left[r^2\sigma(r){f^{\prime}(r) \over f(r)}\right] = {1\over
lf(r)}{d\over
dr}[r^2\sigma(r)f^{\prime}(r)]-{r^2\sigma(r)f^{\prime}(r)^2\over l
f(r)^2}.$$ From Eq.(\[general\]) and Eq.(\[Fl\]), we obtain the differential equation: $${d\over dr}[rF_l(r)] = (l+1)\sigma(r) - {lF_l(r)^2\over
\sigma(r)},$$which is just the generalized Tartar formula [@Milton]. From Eq.(17) and Eq.(18), we obtain the DEMMA: $$\begin{aligned}
{d b_l(r)\over dr} &=& -\frac{1}{(2l+1)r\sigma(r)}
[(b_l(r)+l+b_l(r)l)+(b_l(r)-1)l\sigma(r)] \nonumber \\ & &\times
[(b_l(r)+l+b_l(r)l)-(b_l(r)-1)(l+1)\sigma(r)]. \label{DEMMA}\end{aligned}$$When $l=1$, we recover the Tartar formula and DEDA [@Yu02]: $${d\over dr}[rF_1(r)] = 2\sigma(r) - {F_1(r)^2\over \sigma(r)},$$$$\begin{aligned}
{d b_1(r)\over dr} &=& -\frac{1}{3r\sigma(r)}
[(2b_1(r)+1)+(b_1(r)-1)\sigma(r)] \nonumber \\ & &\times
[(2b_1(r)+1)-2(b_1(r)-1)\sigma(r)]. \label{DEMA}\end{aligned}$$ Let us consider a graded particle in which the conductivity profile has a power-law dependence on the radius, $\sigma(r)=cr^k$, with $k \ge 0$ where $0 < r \le a$. Then the radial equation becomes $$\frac{d^2
f}{dr^{2}}+\frac{k+2}{r}\frac{df}{dr}-\frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}f=0.
\label{Re}$$As Eq.(\[Re\]) is a homogeneous equation, it admits a power-law solution [@Dong2003], $$f(r)=r^{s}.$$\[f(r)\] Substituting it into Eq.(\[Re\]), we obtain the equation $s^{2}+s(k+1)-l(l+1)=0$ and the solution is $$s^{k}_{\pm}(l)=\frac{1}{2}\left[-(k+1)\pm\sqrt{(k+1)^{2}+4l(l+1)}
\right]. \label{sp}$$ There are two possible solutions: $$f^{+}_l(r)=r^{s^{k}_{+}(l)},\ \ \ \ f^{-}_l(r)=r^{s^{k}_{-}(l)}.$$ Thus the $l$-th order equivalent conductivity becomes: $$F_l = {\sigma_i(a)\over \sigma_m}{af^{+\prime}_l(a) \over
l f^{+}_l(a)} = \frac{s^k_+(l)}{l}ca^k. \label{power}$$When $k \to 0$, $s^k_{+}(l) \to l$, $F_l \to c$, the result for a homogeneous sphere recovers.
Discussion and conclusion
=========================
Here a few comments are in order. We have employed the first-principles approach to compute the multipole polarizability of graded spherical particles of arbitrary conductivity profiles and provided a rigorous proof of the differential effective dipole approximation.
We are now in a position to propose some applications of the present method. We may attempt the similar calculation of the multipole response of a graded matallic sphere in the nonuniform field of an oscillating point dipole at optical frequency. The graded Drude dielectric function will be adopted [@APL]. The similar approach may also be extended to anisotropic medium with different radial and tangential conductivities [@Dong2004]. Similar work can be extended to ac electrokinetics of graded cells [@Huang2004]. We can also study the interparticle force between graded particles [@Yu].
In summary, we have solved the boundary-value problem for the polarizability of the graded particles and obtained the dipole moment as well as the multipole moments. We provided a rigorous proof of the differential effective multipole moment approximation. We showed that DEDA and DEMMA are indeed exact for graded spherical particles. Note that an exact solution is very few in composite research and to have one yields much insight. Such solutions should be useful as benchmarks. Finally, we should remark that the exact derivation of DEDA and DEMMA is for graded spherical particles only. For graded nonspherical particles, these [*ad hoc*]{} approaches may only be approximate.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by the Research Grants Council Earmarked Grant of the Hong Kong SAR Government, under project number CUHK 403004. G.Q.G. acknowledges support by Natiaonal Sciene Foundation of China, under Grant No. 10374026. K.W.Y. acknowledges useful discussion and fruitful collaboration with L. Dong, J. P. Huang, Joseph Kwok, J. J. Xiao and C. T. Yam.
M. Yamanouchi, M. Koizumi, T. Hirai, and I. Shioda, in [*Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Functionally Graded Materials*]{}, edited by M. Yamanouchi, M. Koizumi, T. Hirai, and I. Shioda (Sendi, Japan, 1990). J. B. Holt, M. Koizumi, T. Hirai, and Z. A. Munir, Ceramic transaction: functionally graded materials, Vol. [**34**]{}, Westerville, OH: The American Ceramic Society, 1993. B. Ilschner and N. Cherradi, [*Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Structural and Functionally Graded Materials*]{}, Lausanne, Switzerland: Presses Polytechniquies et Universititaires Romands, 1994.
T. Bollenbach, K. Kruse, P. Pantazis, M. Gonzalez-Gaitan, and F. Julicher, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 018103 (2005). G. J. Snyder and T. S. Ursell, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 148301 (2003). D. S. Lin, J. L. Wu, S. Y. Pan, and T. C. Chiang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 046102 (2003). B. C. Larson, W. Yang, G. E. Ice, J. D. Budai, and J. Z. Tischler, Nature (London) [**415**]{}, 887 (2002). D. A. Hughes and N. Hansen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 135503 (2001).
J. D. Jackson, [*Classical Electrodynamics*]{} (Wiley, New York, 1975). G. Q. Gu and K. W. Yu, Acta Physica Sinica [**40**]{}, 709 (1991). G. Fuhr and P. I. Luzmin, Biophys. J. [**50**]{}, 789 (1986). W. M. Arnold and U. Zimmermann, Z. Naturforsch. [**37c**]{}, 908 (1982). K. L. Chan, P. R. C. Gascoyne, F. F. Becker, and P. Pethig, Biochim. Biophys. Acta [**1349**]{}, 182 (1997). G. Q. Gu and K. W. Yu, J. Appl. Phys. [**94**]{}, 3376 (2003). L. Dong, G. Q. Gu, and K. W. Yu, Phys. Rev. B [**67**]{}, 224205 (2003).
P. A. Martin, J. Eng. Math. [**42**]{}, 133 (2002). G. Q. Gu and K. W. Yu, J. Compos. Mater. [**39**]{}, 127 (2005). E. B. Wei, J. B. Song, and J. W. Tian, Phys. Lett. A [**319**]{}, 401 (2004). K. W. Yu, G. Q. Gu, and J. P. Huang, cond-mat/0211532. G. W. Milton, [*The Theory of Composites*]{}, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002), p. 121.
J. P. Huang and K. W. Yu, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**85**]{}, 94 (2004). L. Dong, J. P. Huang, K. W. Yu, and G. Q. Gu, J. Appl. Phys. [**95**]{}, 621 (2004). J. P. Huang, Mikko Karttunen, K. W. Yu, L. Dong, and G. Q. Gu, Phys. Rev. E [**69**]{} 051402 (2004). K. W. Yu and J. T. K. Wan, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**129**]{}, 177 (2000).
[^1]: Corresponding author. Electronic mail: kwyu@phy.cuhk.edu.hk
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
Some aspects of quantum properties of $\mathcal{N}=8$ supergravity in four dimensions are discussed for non-practitioners.
At perturbative level, they include the Weyl trace anomaly as well as composite duality anomalies, the latter being relevant for perturbative finiteness. At non-perturbative level, we briefly review some facts about extremal black holes, their Bekenstein-Hawking entropy and attractor flows for single- and two- centered solutions.
---
\
[ ]{}
[$1$ *Physics Department,Theory Unit, CERN,\
CH 1211, Geneva 23, Switzerland\
`sergio.ferrara@cern.ch`\
`Alessio.Marrani@cern.ch`*]{}
[$2$ *INFN - Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati,\
Via Enrico Fermi 40,00044 Frascati, Italy*]{}
*Contribution to the Proceedings of the International School of Subnuclear Physics,\
48th Course: “What is Known and Unexpected at LHC",\
Erice, Italy, 29 August – 7 September 2010,\
Based on Lectures given by S. Ferrara*
Lecture IOn “Quantum” $\mathcal{N}=8$, $d=4$ Supergravity
=========================================================
$\mathcal{N}=8$, $d=4$ “quantum” supergravity may be defined by starting with the Einstein-Hilbert action, and setting “perturbative” Feynman rules as a *bona fide* gauge theory of gauge particles of spin $2$, the gravitons. In supersymmetric gravity theories with $\mathcal{N}$-extended supersymmetry in $d=4$ space-time dimensions, the massless particle content is given by $$\binom{\mathcal{N}}{k}\equiv \frac{\mathcal{N}!}{k!\left( \mathcal{N}-k\right) !}\text{ particles~of~\textit{helicity}~}\lambda =2-\frac{k}{2},$$ where $k_{\max }=\mathcal{N}$, and $\mathcal{N}\leqslant 8$ if $\left|
\lambda \right| \leqslant 2$ is requested (namely, no higher spin fields in the massless spectrum).
One possible approach to “quantum” supergravity is to consider it as it comes from $M$-theory restricted to the massless sector. The problem is that this theory, even if preserving maximal $\mathcal{N}=8$ supersymmetry in $d=4 $ space time dimensions (corresponding to $32=8\times 4$ supersymmetries), is *not* uniquely defined, because of the multiple choice of internal compactification manifolds and corresponding duality relations: $$\begin{array}{ll}
\begin{array}{l}
\mathbf{I}.~M_{11}\longrightarrow M_{4}\times T_{7} \\
~
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{l}
\text{(}GL^{+}(7,\mathbb{R})\text{ and }SO\left( 7\right) ~\text{manifest);}
\\
~
\end{array}
\\
\begin{array}{l}
\mathbf{II}.~M_{11}\longrightarrow AdS_{4}\times S^{7} \\
~
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{l}
\text{(}SO\left( 8\right) ~\text{manifest,~\textit{gauged});} \\
~
\end{array}
\\
\mathbf{III}.~M_{11}\longrightarrow M_{4}\times T_{7,\mathcal{R}} & \text{(}SL(8,\mathbb{R})\text{ and }SO\left( 8\right) ~\text{manifest),}
\end{array}
\label{various-N=8,d=4}$$ where $T_{7}$ is the $7$-torus and $S^{7}$ is the $7$-sphere. $T_{7,\mathcal{R}}$ denotes the case in which, according to Cremmer and Julia [@CJ], the dualization of $21$ vectors and $7$ two-forms makes $SL(8,\mathbb{R})$ (in which $GL^{+}(7,\mathbb{R})$ is maximally embedded) manifest as maximal non-compact symmetry of the Lagrangian. Note that in case $\mathbf{III}$ one can further make $E_{7\left( 7\right) }$ (and its maximal compact subgroup $SU\left( 8\right) $) manifest *on-shell*, by exploiting a Cayley transformation supplemented by a rotation through $SO\left( 8\right) $ gamma matrices on the vector $2$-form field strengths [@CJ; @HW]. As we discuss further below, $E_{7\left( 7\right) }$ can be promoted to a Lagrangian symmetry if one gives up manifest diffeomorphism invariance, as given by treatment in [@Hillmann], then used in the anomaly study of [@BHN].
It is worth remarking that $\mathcal{N}=8$, $d=4$ *gauged* supergravity with gauge group $SO(8)$ cannot be used for electroweak and strong interactions model building, because $$SO\left( 8\right) \nsupseteq SU\left( 3\right) \times SU\left( 2\right)
\times U\left( 1\right) .$$ Furthermore, also the cosmological term problem arises out: the vacuum energy in anti De Sitter space $AdS_{4}$ is much higher than the vacuum energy in Standard Model of non-gravitational interactions (see *e.g.* the discussion in [@Slansky]). However, by exploiting the $AdS_{4}/CFT_{3}$ correspondence, theory $\mathbf{II}$ of (\[various-N=8,d=4\]) recently found application in $d=3$ condensed matter physics (see *e.g.* [@Hartnoll] for a review and list of Refs.). Furthermore, the recently established fluid-gravity correspondence was object of many studies (see *e.g.* [@Rangamani] for recent reviews and lists of Refs.).
The fundamental massless fields (and the related number $\sharp $ of degrees of freedom) of $M$-theory in $d=11$ flat space-time dimensions are $$\begin{array}{lll}
\begin{array}{l}
g_{\mu \nu }~\text{(\textit{graviton})}: \\
~
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{l}
\sharp =\frac{\left( d-1\right) \left( d-2\right) }{2}-1, \\
~
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{l}
\text{in~}d=11:\sharp =44; \\
~
\end{array}
\\
\begin{array}{l}
\Psi _{\mu \alpha }~\text{(\textit{gravitino})}: \\
~
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{l}
\sharp =(d-3)2^{(d-3)/2}, \\
~
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{l}
\text{in~}d=11:\sharp =128; \\
~
\end{array}
\\
A_{\mu \nu \rho }~\text{(\textit{three-form})}: & \sharp =\frac{\left(
d-2\right) \left( d-3\right) \left( d-4\right) }{3!}, & \text{in~}d=11:\sharp =84.
\end{array}$$ Because a $\left( p+1\right) $-form (“Maxwell-like” gauge field) $A_{p+1}$ couples to $p$-dimensional extended objects, and its “magnetic” dual $B_{d-p-3}$ couples to $\left( d-p-4\right) $-dimensional extended objects, it follows that the fundamental (massive) objects acting as sources of the theory are $M2$- and $M5$-branes.
In general, a compactification on an $n$-torus $T_{n}$ has maximal manifest non-compact symmetry $GL^{+}\left( n,\mathbb{R}\right) \sim \mathbb{R}^{+}\times SL\left( n,\mathbb{R}\right) $. The metric $g_{IJ}$ of $T_{n}$ parametrizes the $n\left( n+1\right) /2$-dimensional coset $\mathbb{R}^{+}\times \frac{SL\left( n,\mathbb{R}\right) }{SO\left( n\right) }$, whereas the Kaluza-Klein vectors $g_{\widehat{\mu }}^{I}$ are in the $\mathbf{n}^{\prime }$ irrep. of $GL^{+}\left( n,\mathbb{R}\right) $ itself. By reducing $M$-theory on $T_{7}$ a $d=4$ theory with maximal ($\mathcal{N}=8 $) local supersymmetry arises. By splitting the $d=11$ space-time index $\mu =0,1,...,10$ as $\mu =\left( \widehat{\mu },I\right) $, where $\widehat{\mu }=0,1,...3$ is the $d=4$ space-time index, and $I=1,...,7$ is the internal manifold index, the bosonic degrees of freedom of $M$-theory split as follows (below (\[c\]), for simplicity’s sake we will then refrain from hatting the $d=4$ curved indices): $$\begin{aligned}
g_{\mu \nu } &\longrightarrow &\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\begin{array}{l}
g_{\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\nu }}~\text{(}d=4~\text{\textit{graviton})}, \\
~
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{l}
\mathbf{1}+\mathbf{1}; \\
~
\end{array}
\\
\begin{array}{l}
g_{\widehat{\mu }}^{I}~\text{(\textit{vectors})}, \\
~
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{l}
\mathbf{7}^{\prime }; \\
~
\end{array}
\\
g_{IJ}~\text{(\textit{scalars})}, & \mathbf{28};
\end{array}
\right. \\
&& \notag \\
A_{\mu \nu \rho } &\longrightarrow &\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\begin{array}{l}
A_{\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\nu }\widehat{\rho }}~\text{(}d=4~\text{\textit{domain~wall})}, \\
~
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{l}
\sharp =0; \\
~
\end{array}
\\
\begin{array}{l}
A_{\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\nu }I}~\text{(\textit{antisymmetric tensors :
strings})}, \\
~
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{l}
\mathbf{7}; \\
~
\end{array}
\\
\begin{array}{l}
A_{\widehat{\mu }IJ}~\text{(\textit{vectors})}, \\
~
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{l}
\mathbf{21}; \\
~
\end{array}
\\
A_{IJK}~\text{(\textit{scalars})}, & \mathbf{35},
\end{array}
\right. \label{c}\end{aligned}$$ where the indicated irreps. pertain to the maximal manifest non-compact symmetry $GL^{+}(7,\mathbb{R})$, whose maximal compact subgroup is $SO\left(
7\right) $. The $28$ scalars $g_{IJ}$ (metric of $T_{7}$) parametrize the coset $\mathbb{R}^{+}\times \frac{SL\left( 7,\mathbb{R}\right) }{SO\left(
7\right) }$.
By switching to formulation $\mathbf{III}$ of (\[various-N=8,d=4\]) [@CJ], the $7$ antisymmetric rank-$2$ tensors $A_{\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\nu }I}$ (sitting in the $\mathbf{7}$ of $GL^{+}\left( 7,\mathbb{R}\right) $ can be dualized to scalars $\phi ^{I}$ (in the $\mathbf{7}^{\prime }$ of $GL^{+}\left( 7,\mathbb{R}\right) $), and therefore one obtains $35+28+7=70$ scalar fields. It is worth remarking that in Cremmer and Julia’s [@CJ] theory the gravitinos $\psi _{I}$ and the gauginos $\chi _{IJK}$ respectively have the following group theoretical assignment[^1] ($I$ in $\mathbf{8}$ of $SU\left( 8\right) $): $$\text{theory }\mathbf{III~}\text{\cite{CJ}}:\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\psi _{I}:\underset{\mathbf{8}}{~SO\left( 7\right) }\subset \underset{\mathbf{8}_{s}}{SO\left( 8\right) }\subset \underset{\mathbf{8}}{SU\left(
8\right) }; \\
\\
\chi _{IJK}:\underset{\mathbf{8}+\mathbf{48}}{~SO\left( 7\right) }\subset
\underset{\mathbf{56}_{s}}{SO\left( 8\right) }\subset \underset{\mathbf{56}}{SU\left( 8\right) }.
\end{array}
\right. \label{fermions-III}$$ Thus, in this theory the $70$ scalars arrange as $$\text{theory }\mathbf{III~}\text{\cite{CJ}}:\underset{\left( \sharp
=70\right) }{s=0\text{~\textit{dofs}}}:~\underset{\mathbf{1}+\mathbf{7}+\mathbf{21}+\mathbf{35}}{SO\left( 7\right) }\subset \underset{\mathbf{35}_{v}+\mathbf{35}_{c}}{SO\left( 8\right) }\subset \underset{\mathbf{70}}{SU\left( 8\right) }, \label{scalars-III}$$ where $\mathbf{70}$ is the rank-$4$ completely antisymmetric irrep. of $SU\left( 8\right) $, the maximal compact subgroup of the $U$-duality group $E_{7\left( 7\right) }$ (also called $\mathcal{R}$-symmetry).
On the other hand, also the vector fields $A_{\widehat{\mu }IJ}$ (sitting in the $\mathbf{21}$ of $GL^{+}(7,\mathbb{R})$) can be dualized to $A_{\widehat{\mu }}^{IJ}$ (sitting in the $\mathbf{21}^{\prime }$ of $GL^{+}(7,\mathbb{R}) $). Together with $g_{\widehat{\mu }}^{I}$, the “electric” and “magnetic” vector degrees of freedom can thus be arranged as follows: $$\underset{\left( \sharp =56\right) }{s=1\text{~\textit{dofs}}}:~\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\underset{\mathbf{7}^{\prime }+\mathbf{21}^{\prime }+\mathbf{7}+\mathbf{21}}{GL^{+}\left( 7,\mathbb{R}\right) }\subset \underset{\mathbf{28}^{\prime }+\mathbf{28}}{SL\left( 8,\mathbb{R}\right) }\subset \underset{\mathbf{56}}{E_{7(7)}}; \\
\\
\underset{\mathbf{7}+\mathbf{21}+\mathbf{7}+\mathbf{21}}{SO\left( 7\right) }\subset \underset{\mathbf{28}+\mathbf{28}}{SO\left( 8\right) }\subset
\underset{\mathbf{28}+\overline{\mathbf{28}}}{SU\left( 8\right) }.
\end{array}
\right. \label{vectors}$$
The counting of degrees of freedom is completely different in the *gauged* maximal supergravity theory $\mathbf{II}$ of (\[various-N=8,d=4\]), based on the $AdS_{4}\times S^{7}$ solution of $d=11$, $\mathcal{N}=1$ $M$-theory field equations; in this framework, rather than using torus indices as in theories $\mathbf{I}$ and $\mathbf{III}$ of (\[various-N=8,d=4\]), Killing vector/spinor techniques are used (for a discussion, see *e.g.* [@BEdWN], and the lectures [@DP], and Refs. therein). However, the $70$ scalars still decompose[^2] as $\mathbf{35}_{v}+\mathbf{35}_{c}$ of $SO\left(
8\right) $ but, with respect to the chain of branchings (\[scalars-III\]), they lack of any $SO\left( 7\right) $ interpretation. It is worth recalling that a formulation of this theory directly in $d=4$ yields to the de Wit and Nicolai’s $\mathcal{N}=8$, $d=4$ *gauged* supergravity [@dWN].
Since the $70$ scalar fields fit into an unique irrep. of $SU(8)$, it follows that they parameterize a non-compact coset manifold $\frac{G}{SU\left( 8\right) }$. Indeed, the $SU\left( 8\right) $ under which both the scalar fields and the fermion fields transform is the *“local”* $SU\left( 8\right) $, namely the stabilizer of the scalar manifold. On the other hand, the $SU\left( 8\right) $ appearing in the second line of (\[vectors\]), *i.e.* the one under which the vector $2$-form self-dual/anti-self-dual field strengths transform, is the *“global”* $SU\left( 8\right) $ ($\mathcal{R}$-symmetry group). Roughly speaking, the physically relevant group $SU\left( 8\right) $ is the diagonal one in the product $SU_{\text{local}}\left( 8\right) \times SU_{\text{global}}\left(
8\right) $ (see also discussion below).
Remarkably, there exists an *unique* simple, non-compact Lie group with real dimension $70+63=133$ and which embeds $SU\left( 8\right) $ as its maximal compact subgroup: this is the real, non-compact split form $E_{7\left( 7\right) }$ of the exceptional Lie group $E_{7}$, thus giving rise to the symmetric, rank-$7$ coset space $$\frac{E_{7\left( 7\right) }}{SU\left( 8\right) /\mathbb{Z}_{2}},$$ which is the scalar manifold of $\mathcal{N}=8$, $d=4$ supergravity ($\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ is the kernel of the $SU\left( 8\right) $-representations of even rank; in general, spinors transform according to the double cover of the stabilizer of the scalar manifold; see *e.g.* [@Yokota; @AFZ-rev]).
$E_{7\left( 7\right) }$ acts as electric-magnetic duality symmetry group [@GZ], and its maximal compact subgroup $SU\left( 8\right) $ has a chiral action on fermionic as well as on (the vector part of the) bosonic fields. While the chiral action of $SU\left( 8\right) $ on fermions directly follows from the chirality (complex nature) of the relevant irreps. of $SU\left( 8\right) $ (as given by Eq. (\[fermions-III\])), the chiral action on vectors is a crucial consequence of the electric-magnetic duality in $d=4$ space-time dimensions. Indeed, this latter allows for “self-dual/anti-self-dual” complex combinations of the field strengths, which can then fit into complex irreps. of the stabilizer $H$ of the coset scalar manifold $G/H$ itself. For the case of maximal $\mathcal{N}=8$ supergravity, the relevant chiral complex irrep. of $H=SU\left( 8\right) $ is the rank-$2$ antisymmetric $\mathbf{28}$, as given by Eq. (\[vectors\]).
Note that if one restricts to the $SL\left( 8,\mathbb{R}\right) $-covariant sector, the chirality of the action of electric-magnetic duality is spoiled, because the maximal compact subgroup of $SL\left( 8,\mathbb{R}\right) $, namely $SO\left( 8\right) $, has not chiral irreps.
Composite (sigma model $G/H$) anomalies can arise in theories in which $G$ has a maximal compact subgroup with a *chiral* action on bosons and/or fermions (see *e.g.* [@DFG; @Marcus; @BHN]). Surprising cancellations among the various contributions to the composite anomaly can occur as well. An example is provided by $\mathcal{N}=8$, $d=4$ supergravity itself, in which standard anomaly formulæ yield the remarkable result [@Marcus; @BHN] $$3Tr_{\mathbf{8}}X^{3}-2Tr_{\mathbf{28}}X^{3}+Tr_{\mathbf{56}}X^{3}=\left(
3-8+5\right) Tr_{\mathbf{8}}X^{3}=0, \label{(caN=8)=0}$$ where $X$ is any generator of the Lie algebra $\frak{su}(8)$ of the *rigid* (*i.e.* *global)* $SU(8)$ group ($\mathcal{R}$-symmetry). In light of the previous considerations, the first and third contributions to (\[(caN=8)=0\]) are due to fermions: the $8$ gravitinos $\psi _{A}$ and the $56$ spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ fermions $\chi _{ABC}$, respectively, whereas the second contribution is due to the $28$ chiral vectors. Note that, for the very same reason, the *local* $SU(8)$ (stabilizer of the non linear sigma-model of scalar fields), under which only fermions do transform[^3], would be *anomalous* [@DFG].` `In an analogous way, in [@Marcus] it was discovered that $\mathcal{N}=6$ and $\mathcal{N}=5$ “pure” supergravities are *composite* *anomaly-free*, whereas $\mathcal{N}\leqslant
4 $ theories are not.
A crucial equivalence holds at the homotopical level: $$E_{7\left( 7\right) }\cong \left( SU\left( 8\right) /\mathbb{Z}_{2}\right)
\times \mathbb{R}^{70},$$ implying that the two group manifolds have the same De Rham cohomology. This is a key result, recently used in [@BHN] to show that the aforementioned absence of $SU(8)$ current anomalies yield to the absence of anomalies for the non-linearly realized $E_{7\left( 7\right) }$ symmetry, thus implying that the $E_{7\left( 7\right) }$ continuous symmetry of classical $\mathcal{N}=8$, $d=4$ supergravity is preserved at all orders in perturbation theory (see *e.g.* [@4-loop; @K-1; @BFK-1; @BFK-2; @Vanhove; @Dixon; @K-2; @Freedman]). This implies the perturbative finiteness of supergravity at least up to seven loops; Bern, Dixon *et al.* explicitly checked the finiteness up to four loops included [@4-loop] (computations at five loops, which might be conclusive, are currently in progress; for a recent review, see *e.g.* [@Bern-last]).
In order to achieve the aforementioned result on the anomalies of $E_{7\left( 7\right) }$, in [@BHN] the manifestly $E_{7\left( 7\right) }$-covariant Lagrangian formulation of $\mathcal{N}=8$, $d=4$ supergravity [@Hillmann] was exploited, by using the ADM decomposition of the $d=4$ metric, namely[^4]: $$g_{\mu \nu }dx^{\mu }dx^{\nu }=-N^{2}dt^{2}+h_{ij}\left(
dx^{i}+N^{i}dt\right) \left( dx^{j}+N^{j}dt\right) ,$$ with lapse $N$ and shift $N^{i}$ ($h_{ij}$ is the metric on the spatial slice). Within this approach [@Henneaux-T; @Hillmann], the diffeomorphism symmetry is not realized in the standard way on the vector fields: the $28$ vector fields $A_{\mu }^{\Lambda }$ of the original formulation [@CJ; @dWN] are replaced by $56$ vector fields $A_{i}^{\mathbb{B}}$ ($\mathbb{B}=1,...,56 $) with only spatial components, which recover the number of physical degrees of freedom by switching to an Hamiltonian formulation. Besides the $56\times 56$ symplectic metric $\Omega $: $$\Omega ^{T}=-\Omega ,~\Omega ^{2}=-\mathbb{I},$$ a crucial quantity is the scalar field-dependent $56\times 56$ symmetric matrix $\mathcal{M}$ (see Eq. (\[M-expl\]) below), which is symplectic (see *e.g.* [@CDF-rev]): $$\mathcal{M}\Omega \mathcal{M}=\Omega , \label{M}$$ and negative definite due to the positivity of the vector kinetic terms (see also discussion below). $\mathcal{M}$ allows for the introduction of a symplectic, scalar field-dependent complex structure: $$\mathcal{J}\equiv \mathcal{M}\Omega \Rightarrow \mathcal{J}^{2}=\mathcal{M}\Omega \mathcal{M}\Omega =-\mathbb{I}. \label{J}$$ Thus, the equations of motion of the $56$ vector fields $A_{i}^{\mathbb{B}}$ can be expressed as a twisted self-duality condition[^5] [@CJ] for their super-covariant fields strengths $\hat{F}_{\mu \nu }^{\mathbb{A}}$, namely (see [@Hillmann; @BHN] for further elucidation) $$\hat{F}_{\mu \nu }^{\mathbb{A}}=-\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\left| g\right| }}\epsilon
_{\mu \nu }^{~~\rho \sigma }\mathcal{J}_{~\mathbb{B}}^{\mathbb{A}}\hat{F}_{\mu \nu }^{\mathbb{B}}.$$ Although the time components $A_{0}^{\mathbb{B}}$ do not enter the Lagrangian, they appear when solving the equations of motion for the spatial components $A_{i}^{\mathbb{B}}$, and diffeomorphism covariance is recovered on the solutions of the equations of motion [@Hillmann; @BHN].
From power counting arguments in quantum gravity, an $n$-loop counterterm contains $2n+2$ derivatives, arranged such that it does not vanish *on-shell*. In $\mathcal{N}=8$ supergravity the first (non-BPS) full superspace integral which is $E_{7\left( 7\right) }$-invariant is the *super-Vielbein* superdeterminant, which may contain as last component a term $\sim \partial ^{8}R^{4}$ (see *e.g.* [@Howe-Lindstrom], and also [@BG]), then possibly contributing to a divergence in the four-graviton amplitude. However, in [@K-2] R. Kallosh argued that, by exploiting the light-cone formulation, candidate counterterms can be written in chiral, but *not* in real, light-cone superspace. This would then imply the ultraviolet finiteness of $\mathcal{N}=8$, $d=4$ supergravity, *if* supersymmetry and $E_{7\left( 7\right) }
$ symmetry are non-anomalous. Recently, in [@Kallosh-proof] the latter symmetry was advocated by the same author to imply ultraviolet finiteness of the theory to all orders in perturbation theory.
A puzzling aspect of these arguments is that string theory certainly violates continuous $E_{7\left( 7\right) }$ symmetry at the perturbative level, as it can be easily realized by considering the dilaton dependence of loop amplitudes (see *e.g.* [@Freedman]). However, this is not the case for $\mathcal{N}=8$ supergravity. From this perspective, two (perturbatively finite) theories of quantum gravity would exist, with $32$ local supersymmetries; expectedly, they would differ at least in their non-perturbative sectors, probed *e.g.* by black hole solutions. String theorists [@GOS; @Ark; @Banks] claim that $\mathcal{N}=8$, $d=4$ supergravity theory is probably not consistent at the non-perturbative level. From a purely $d=4$ point of view, their arguments could be overcome by excluding from the spectrum, as suggested in [@BFK-1], black hole states which turn out to be singular or ill defined if interpreted as purely four-dimensional gravitational objects. Inclusion of such singular states (such as $\frac{1}{4}$-BPS and $\frac{1}{2}$-BPS black holes) would then open up extra dimensions, with the meaning that a non-perturbative completion of $\mathcal{N}=8$ supergravity would lead to string theory [@GOS]. Extremal black holes with a consistent $d=4$ interpretation may be defined as having a Bertotti-Robinson [@bertotti] $AdS_{2}\times S^{2}$ near-horizon geometry, with a non-vanishing area of the event horizon. In $\mathcal{N}=8$ supergravity, these black holes are[^6] $\frac{1}{8}$-BPS or non-BPS (for a recent review and a list of Refs., see *e.g.* [@ICL-1]). The existence of such states would in any case break the $E_{7\left( 7\right) }\left( \mathbb{R}\right) $ continuous symmetry, because of Dirac-Schwinger-Zwanziger dyonic charge quantization conditions. The breaking of $E_{7\left( 7\right) }\left( \mathbb{R}\right) $ into an arithmetic subgroup $E_{7\left( 7\right) }\left( \mathbb{Z}\right) $ would then manifest only in exponentially suppressed contributions to perturbative amplitudes (see *e.g.* the discussion in [@BHN], and Refs. therein), in a similar way to instanton effects in non-Abelian gauge theories.
The composite anomaly concerns the gauge-scalar sector of the supergravity theories. Another anomaly, originated in the gravitational part of the action is the so-called *gravitational anomaly*, which only counts the basic degrees of freedom associated to the field content of the theory itself [@D-VN; @DCGR] (see also [@Duff-rev] for a review): $$g_{\mu \nu }\left\langle T^{\mu \nu }\right\rangle _{1-loop}=\frac{\mathcal{A}}{32\pi ^{2}}\int d^{4}x\sqrt{\left| g\right| }\left( R_{\mu \nu \lambda
\rho }^{2}-4R_{\mu \nu }^{2}+R^{2}\right) , \label{ga}$$ where $\left\langle T^{\mu \nu }\right\rangle _{1-loop}$ is the $1$-loop *vev* of the gravitational stress-energy tensor. In general, this trace anomaly is a total derivative and therefore it can be non-vanishing only on topologically non-trivial $d=4$ backgrounds. Furthermore, as found long time ago by Faddeev and Popov [@FP], $\left( p+1\right) $-form gauge fields have a complicated quantization procedure, due to the presence of ghosts; thus, their contribution to the parameter $\mathcal{A}$ appearing in the formula (\[ga\]) vary greatly depending on the field under consideration. This is because at the quantum level different field representations are generally inequivalent [@D-VN]. Consequently, one may expect that different formulations of $\mathcal{N}=8$, $d=4$ supergravity (\[various-N=8,d=4\]), give rise to different gravitational anomalies. This is actually what happens:
- in the formulation $\mathbf{III}$ of (\[various-N=8,d=4\]) [@CJ], with maximal manifest compact symmetry $SO\left( 8\right) $, the antisymmetric tensors $A_{\mu \nu I}$ are dualized to scalars, and $\mathcal{A}\neq 0$.
- in the formulation $\mathbf{I}$ of (\[various-N=8,d=4\]) [@CJ], with maximal manifest compact symmetry $SO\left( 7\right) $, obtained by compactifying $d=11$ $M$-theory on $T_{7}$, the antisymmetric tensors $A_{\mu \nu I}$ are not dualized, and, as found some time ago in [@D-VN], the gravitational anomaly vanishes: $\mathcal{A}=0$. Recently, a wide class of models has been shown to have $\mathcal{A}=0$, by exploiting *generalized mirror symmetry* for seven-manifolds [@DF-last-1].
- in the formulation $\mathbf{II}$ of (\[various-N=8,d=4\]) [@dWN; @DCGR] (see also [@BEdWN; @DP] and the discussion above), with maximal manifest compact *gauged* symmetry $SO\left( 8\right) $, the gravitational anomaly is the sum of two contributions: one given by (\[ga\]), and another one related to the non-vanishing cosmological constant $\Lambda $, given by $$\frac{\mathcal{B}}{12\pi ^{2}}\int d^{4}x\sqrt{\left| g\right| }\Lambda ^{2},
\label{ga-Lambda}$$ where $\mathcal{B}$, through the relation $\Lambda \sim -e^{2}$ [@DCGR], vanishes whenever the charge $e$ normalization beta function[^7] [@Curtright] $$\beta _{e}\left( s\right) =\frac{\hbar }{96\pi ^{2}}e^{3}C_{s}\left(
1-12s^{2}\right) \left( -1\right) ^{2s}$$ vanishes, namely in $\mathcal{N}>4$ supergravities (compare *e.g.* Table II of [@DCGR] with Table 1 of [@Curtright]). The contribution to the coefficients $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ of (\[ga\]) and (\[ga-Lambda\]) depends on the spin $s$ of the *massless* particle, but also, as mentioned above, on the its field representation ( [@DCGR]; see also *e.g.* Table 1 of [@DF-last-1]): $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\begin{array}{cccccccc}
\begin{array}{c}
s: \\
~
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{c}
0~\left( \phi \right) \\
~
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{c}
0~\left( A_{\mu \nu \rho }\right) \\
~
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{c}
\frac{1}{2} \\
~
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{c}
1~\left( A_{\mu }\right) \\
~
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{c}
1~\left( A_{\mu \nu }\right) \\
~
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{c}
\frac{3}{2} \\
~
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{c}
2 \\
~
\end{array}
\\
\begin{array}{c}
360\mathcal{A}: \\
~
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{c}
4 \\
~
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{c}
-720 \\
~
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{c}
7 \\
~
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{c}
-52 \\
~
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{c}
364 \\
~
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{c}
-233 \\
~
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{c}
848 \\
~
\end{array}
\\
60\mathcal{B}: & -1 & 0 & -3 & -12 & 0 & 137 & -522.
\end{array}
\notag \\
&&\end{aligned}$$
Lecture II(Multi-Center) Black Holes and Attractors
===================================================
If $E_{7\left( 7\right) }$ is a continuous non-anomalous symmetry of $\mathcal{N}=8$ supergravity, then it is likely that non-perturbative effects are exponentially suppressed in perturbative amplitudes.
Black holes (BHs) are examples of non-perturbative states which, in presence of Dirac-Schwinger-Zwanziger dyonic charge quantization, would break $E_{7\left( 7\right) }\left( \mathbb{R}\right) $ to a suitable (not unique) arithmetic subgroup of $E_{7\left( 7\right) }\left( \mathbb{Z}\right) $ (see *e.g.* [@Sen-E7-Z; @Duff-Freud-1; @BFK-2; @ICL-1], and Refs. therein).
Here we confine ourselves to recall some very basic facts on extremal BHs (for further detail, see *e.g.* [@Haya-rev], and Refs. therein), and then we will mention some recent developments on multi-center solutions.
For simplicity’s sake, we consider the particular class of *extremal* BH solutions constituted by static, asymptotically flat, spherically symmetric solitonic objects with dyonic charge vector $\mathcal{Q}$ and scalars $\phi $ describing trajectories (in the radial evolution parameter $r $) with[^8] *fixed points* determined by the *Attractor Mechanism* [@AM-Refs]:
$$\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\lim_{r\rightarrow r_{H}^{+}}\phi (r)=\phi _{H}(\mathcal{Q}); \\
\\
\lim_{r\rightarrow r_{H}^{+}}\frac{d\phi (r)}{dr}=0.
\end{array}
\right.$$
At the horizon, the scalars lose memory of the initial conditions (*i.e.* of the asymptotic values $\phi _{\infty }\equiv \lim_{r\rightarrow
\infty }\phi (r)$), and the fixed (attractor) point $\phi _{H}^{a}(\mathcal{Q})$ only depends on the BH charges $\mathcal{Q}$. In the supergravity limit, for $\mathcal{N}>2$ superymmetry, the attractor behavior of such BHs is now completely classified (see *e.g.* [@ADFT-rev; @K-rev] for a review and list of Refs.).
The classical BH entropy is given by the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy-area formula [@BH]
$$S\left( \mathcal{Q}\right) =\frac{A_{H}\left( \mathcal{Q}\right) }{4}=\pi
V_{BH}(\phi _{H}(\mathcal{Q}),\mathcal{Q})=\pi \sqrt{\left| \mathcal{I}_{4}\left( \mathcal{Q}\right) \right| }. \label{sunday0}$$
where $V_{BH}$ is the effective BH potential [@FGK] (see Eq. (\[eff\]) below).
The last step of (\[sunday0\]) holds[^9] for those theories admitting a quartic polynomial invariant $\mathcal{I}_{4}$ in the (symplectic) representation of the electric-magnetic duality group in which $\mathcal{Q}$ sits. This is the case *at least* for the *“groups of type* $E_{7}$*”* [@Brown], which are the electric-magnetic duality groups of supergravity theories in $d=4$ with *symmetric* scalar manifolds (see *e.g.* [@FD-1] for recent developments, and a list of Refs.). These include all $\mathcal{N}\geqslant 3$ supergravities as well as a broad class of $\mathcal{N}=2$ theories in which the vector multiplets’ scalar manifold is a *special Kähler* symmetric space (see *e.g.* [@magnific-7; @CVP; @GST; @dWVVP], and Refs. therein). In the $D$-brane picture of type $IIA$ supergravity compactified on Calabi-Yau threefolds $CY_{3}$, charges can be denoted by $q_{0}$ ($D0$), $q_{a}$ ($D2$), $p^{a}$ ($D4$) and $p^{0}$ ($D6$), and the quartic invariant polynomial $\mathcal{I}_{4}\mathcal{\ }$is given by [@FG1] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{I}_{4} &=&-\left( p^{0}q_{0}+p^{a}q_{a}\right) ^{2}+4\left( -p^{0}\mathcal{I}_{3}\left( q\right) +q_{0}\mathcal{I}_{3}\left( p\right) +\frac{\partial \mathcal{I}_{3}\left( p\right) }{\partial p^{a}}\frac{\partial
\mathcal{I}_{3}\left( q\right) }{\partial q_{a}}\right) ; \\
\mathcal{I}_{3}\left( p\right) &\equiv &\frac{1}{3!}d_{abc}p^{a}p^{b}p^{c};~~\mathcal{I}_{3}\left( q\right) \equiv \frac{1}{3!}d^{abc}q_{a}q_{b}q_{c},\end{aligned}$$ where $d_{abc}$ and $d^{abc}$ are completely symmetric rank-$3$ invariant tensors of the relevant electric and magnetic charge irreps. of the $U$-duality group in $d=5$. A typical (single-center) BPS configuration is $\left( q_{0},p^{a}\right) $, with all charges positive (implying $\mathcal{I}_{4}>0$), while a typical non-BPS configuration is $\left(
p^{0},q_{0}\right) $ (implying $\mathcal{I}_{4}<0$), see *e.g.* the discussion in [@CFM1] (other charge configurations can be chosen as well). In the dressed charge basis, manifestly covariant with respect to the $\mathcal{R}$-symmetry group, the charges arrange into a complex skew-symmetric central charge matrix $Z_{AB}$. This latter can be skew-diagonalized to the form [@BMZ-Refs] $$Z_{AB}=\text{diag}\left( z_{1},z_{2},z_{3},z_{4}\right) \otimes \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & -1 \\
1 & 0
\end{array}
\right) ,$$ and the quartic invariant can be recast in the following form [@Kallosh-Kol]: $$\mathcal{I}_{4}=\sum_{i=1}^{4}\left| z_{i}\right|
^{4}-2\sum_{i<j=1}^{4}\left| z_{i}\right| ^{2}\left| z_{j}\right|
^{2}+4\prod_{i=1}^{4}z_{i}+4\prod_{i=1}^{4}\overline{z}_{i}.$$ In such a basis, a typical BPS configuration is the one pertaining to the Reissner-Nördstrom BH, with charges $z_{1}=\left( q+ip\right) $ and $z_{2}=z_{3}=z_{4}=0$ (implying $\mathcal{I}_{4}=\left( q^{2}+p^{2}\right)
^{2}>0$), whereas a typical non-BPS configuration has (at the event horizon) $z_{i}=\rho e^{i\pi /4}$ $\forall i=1,...,4$ (implying $\mathcal{I}_{4}=-16\rho ^{4}<0$); see *e.g.* the discussion in [@FK-N=8; @Gnecchi-2; @CFGn-1].
The simplest example of BH metric is the Schwarzschild BH:
$$ds^{2}=-\,\left( {1-\frac{{2}M}{r}}\right) dt^{2}+\left( {1-\frac{{2}M}{r}}\right) ^{-1}dr^{2}+r^{2}d\Omega ^{2}, \label{Schw1}$$
where $M$ is the ADM mass [@ADM], and $d\Omega {^{2}=}d\theta {^{2}+}sin{^{2}}\theta d\psi {^{2}}$. This BH has no *naked singularity*, *i.e.* the singularity at $r=0$ is *covered* by the event horizon at $r_{H}=2M$.
The metric (\[Schw1\]) can be seen as the neutral $q,p\rightarrow 0$ limit of the Reissner-Nordström (RN) BH:
$$ds_{RN}^{2}=-\;\left( {1-\frac{{2}M}{r}+\frac{q^{2}+p^{2}}{r{{}^{2}}}}\right) dt^{2}+\;\left( {1-\frac{{2}M}{r}+\frac{q^{2}+p^{2}}{r{{}^{2}}}}\right) ^{-1}dr^{2}+r^{2}d\Omega ^{2}. \label{RN-RN-1}$$
Such a metric exhibits two horizons, with radii $$r_{\pm }=M\pm \sqrt{M^{2}-q^{2}-p^{2}}. \label{sunday-Night-1}$$ In the *extremal* case $r_{+}=r_{-}$, and it holds that $$M^{2}=q^{2}+p^{2}, \label{extr-RN-cond}$$ thus a unique event horizon exists at $r_{H}=M$. Notice that for RN BHs the extremality condition coincides with the saturation of the *BPS bound* [@BPS] $$M^{2}\geqslant q^{2}+p^{2}.$$
By defining $\rho \equiv r-M=r-r_{H}$, the extremal RN metric acquires the general static Papapetrou-Majumdar [@papapetrou] form $$ds_{RN,extr}^{2}=-\,\left( {1+\frac{M}{\rho }}\right) ^{-2}dt^{2}+\left( {1+\frac{M}{\rho }}\right) ^{2}\left( {d\rho ^{2}+\rho ^{2}d\Omega ^{2}}\right)
=-\,e^{2U}dt^{2}+e^{-2U}d\vec{x}^{2}, \label{extr-RN-1}$$ where $U=U\left( \overrightarrow{x}\right) $ is an harmonic function satisfying the $d=3$ Laplace equation $$\Delta e^{-U\left( \overrightarrow{x}\right) }=0.$$
In order to determine the near-horizon geometry of an extremal RN BH, let us define a new radial coordinate as $\tau =-\frac{1}{\rho }=\frac{1}{r_{H}-r}$. Thus, after a further rescaling $\tau \rightarrow \frac{\tau }{M^{2}}$, the near-horizon limit $\rho \rightarrow 0^{+}$ of extremal metric (\[extr-RN-1\]) reads $$\lim_{\rho \rightarrow 0^{+}}ds_{RN,extr}^{2}=\frac{M^{2}}{\tau ^{2}}\left(
-dt^{2}+{d\tau ^{2}+\tau ^{2}d\Omega ^{2}}\right) , \label{BR-BR-1}$$ which is nothing but the ${AdS_{2}\times S}^{2}$ Bertotti-Robinson metric [@bertotti], both *flat* and *conformally flat*.
In presence of scalar fields coupled to the BH background, the BPS bound gets modified, and in general extremality does not coincide with the saturation of BPS bound (and thus with supersymmetry preservation) any more. Roughly speaking, the charges $\mathcal{Q}$ gets “dressed” with scalar fields $\phi $ into the central extension of the local $\mathcal{N}$-extended supersymmetry algebra, which is an antisymmetric complex matrix $Z_{AB}\left( \phi ,\mathcal{Q}\right) $, named *central charge matrix* ($A,B=1,...,\mathcal{N}$): $$\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\left\{ \mathbf{Q}_{\alpha A},\overline{\mathbf{Q}}_{\dot{\alpha}}^{B}\right\} =\delta _{A}^{B}\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha}}^{\mu }P_{\mu };
\\
\\
\left\{ \mathbf{Q}_{\alpha A},\mathbf{Q}_{\beta B}\right\} =\epsilon
_{\alpha \beta }Z_{AB}\left( \phi ,\mathcal{Q}\right) .
\end{array}
\right.$$ In general $$Z_{AB}\left( \phi ,\mathcal{Q}\right) =L_{AB}^{\mathbb{A}}\left( \phi
\right) \mathcal{Q}_{\mathbb{A}},$$ where $L_{AB}^{\mathbb{A}}\left( \phi \right) $ are the scalar field-dependent symplectic sections of the corresponding *(generalized) special geometry* (see *e.g.* [@CDF-rev; @FK-N=8; @FD-1], and Refs. therein).
In the BH background under consideration, the general *Ansätze* for the vector $2$-form field strengths $F_{\mu \nu }^{\Lambda }$ of the $n_{V}$ vector fields ($\Lambda =1,\ldots ,n_{V}$) and their duals $G_{\Lambda \mu \nu }=\frac{\delta \mathcal{L}}{\delta F_{\mu \nu }^{\Lambda }}$ are given by [@FGK] $$\begin{aligned}
F &=&e^{2U}\mathbb{C}\mathcal{M}(\phi )\mathcal{Q}dt\wedge d\tau +\mathcal{Q}\sin {\theta }d\theta \wedge d\psi \,; \\
F &=&\left(
\begin{array}{c}
F_{\mu \nu }^{\Lambda } \\
\\
G_{\Lambda \mu \nu }
\end{array}
\right) \frac{dx^{\mu }dx^{\nu }}{2}\,,\end{aligned}$$ and electric and magnetic charges $\mathcal{Q}\equiv \left( p^{\Lambda
},q_{\Lambda }\right) ^{T}$ are defined by $$q_{\Lambda }\equiv \frac{1}{4\pi }\int_{S_{\infty }^{2}}G_{\Lambda
}\,,\qquad p^{\Lambda }\equiv \frac{1}{4\pi }\int_{S_{\infty
}^{2}}F^{\Lambda }\,,$$ where $S_{\infty }^{2}$ is the $2$-sphere at infinity. $\mathcal{M}(\phi )$, already discussed in Sec. 1, is a $2n_{V}\times 2n_{V}$ real symmetric $Sp(2n_{V},\mathbb{R})$ matrix (see Eq. (\[M\])) whose explicit form reads [@CDF-rev] $$\mathcal{M}(\phi )=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
I+RI^{-1}R & -RI^{-1} \\
-I^{-1}R & I^{-1}
\end{array}
\,\right) , \label{M-expl}$$ with $I\equiv $Im$\,\mathcal{N}_{\Lambda \Sigma }$ and $R\equiv $Re$\,\mathcal{N}_{\Lambda \Sigma }$, where $\mathcal{N}_{\Lambda \Sigma }$ is the (scalar field dependent) kinetic vector matrix entering the $d=4$ Lagrangian density $$\mathcal{L}=-\frac{R}{2}+\frac{1}{2}g_{ij}(\phi )\partial _{\mu }\phi
^{i}\partial ^{\mu }\phi ^{j}+I_{\Lambda \Sigma }F^{\Lambda }\wedge ^{\ast
}F^{\Sigma }+R_{\Lambda \Sigma }F^{\Lambda }\wedge F^{\Sigma }\,.$$
The black hole effective potential [@AM-Refs] is given by $$V_{BH}\left( \phi ,\mathcal{Q}\right) =-\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{Q}^{T}\mathcal{M}\left( \phi \right) \mathcal{Q}, \label{eff}$$ This is the effective potential which arises upon reducing the general $d\geqslant 4$ Lagrangian on the BH background to the $d=1$ almost geodesic action describing the radial evolution of the $n_{V}+1$ scalar fields $(U(\tau ),\phi ^{i}(\tau ))$ [@BreitGM]: $$S=\int {\mathcal{L}d\tau }=\int (\dot{U}+g_{ij}\dot{\phi}^{i}\dot{\phi}^{j}+e^{2U}V_{BH}(\phi (\tau ),p,q)d\tau .$$ In order to have the same equations of motion of the original theory, the action must be complemented with the Hamiltonian constraint, which in the extremal case reads [@FGK] $$\dot{U}^{2}+g_{ij}\dot{\phi}^{i}\dot{\phi}^{j}-e^{2U}V_{BH}(\phi (\tau
),p,q)=0\,.$$
The black hole effective potential $V_{BH}$ can generally be written in terms of the superpotential $W(\phi )$ as $$V_{BH}=W^{2}+2g^{i{j}}\partial _{i}W\partial _{j}W\,\,. \label{VW}$$ This formula can be viewed as a differential equation defining $W$ for a given $V_{BH}$, and it can lead to multiple choices, one corresponding to BPS solutions, and the others associated to non-BPS ones. $W$ allows to rewrite the ordinary second order supergravity equations of motion $$\begin{aligned}
\ddot{U} &=&e^{2U}V_{BH}; \\
\ddot{\phi}^{i} &=&g^{ij}\frac{\partial V_{BH}}{\partial \phi _{j}}e^{2U}\,,\end{aligned}$$ as first order flow equations, defining the radial evolution of the scalar fields $\phi ^{i}$ and the warp factor $U$ from asymptotic (radial) infinity towards the black hole horizon [@Ceresole:2007wx] : $$\dot{U}=-e^{U}W\,,\qquad \qquad \dot{\phi}^{i}=-2e^{U}g^{i{j}}\partial
_{j}W\,. \label{1.18}$$ At the prize of finding a suitable *“fake”* first order superpotential $W$, one only has to deal with these first order flow equations even for non-supersymmetric solutions, where one does not have Killing spinor equations [@Ceresole:2007wx; @Andrianopoli:2007gt].
For $\frac{1}{\mathcal{N}}$-BPS supersymmetric BHs in $\mathcal{N}\geqslant 2
$ supergravity theories (with central charge matrix $Z_{AB}$), $\mathcal{W}$ is given by the square root[^10] $\sqrt{\lambda _{h}}$ of the largest of the eigenvalues of $Z_{AB}Z^{\dag BC}$ [@Ceresole:2007wx; @Andrianopoli:2007gt]. Furthermore, $\mathcal{W}$ has a known analytical expression for all $\mathcal{N}\geqslant 2$ charge configurations with $\mathcal{I}_{4}>0$ (for $\mathcal{N}=2$, this applies to special Kähler geometry based on symmetric spaces, see *e.g.* [@dWVVP]) [@Andrianopoli:2007gt]. For $\mathcal{I}_{4}<0$, $\mathcal{W}^{2}$ has an analytical expression for rank-$1$ and rank-$2$ cosets [@CDFY-1; @BMP-1; @CDFY-2], while it is known to exist in general as a solution of a sixth order algebraic equation [@BMP-1; @CDFY-2; @FMO-1].
The Bekenstein-Hawking BH entropy [@BH] (\[sunday0\]) can be written in terms of $W$ as follows: $$S\left( \mathcal{Q}\right) =\pi \left. W^{2}\right| _{\partial W=0},$$ where the critical points of the suitable $W$ reproduce a class of critical points of $V$ itself. It is worth remarking that the value of the superpotential $W$ at radial infinity also encodes other basic properties of the extremal black hole, namely its $ADM$ mass [@ADM], given by ($\phi
_{\infty }^{i}\equiv \lim_{r\rightarrow \infty }\phi ^{i}\left( r\right) $) $$M_{ADM}(\phi _{\infty },\mathcal{Q})=\dot{U}(\tau =0)=W(\phi _{\infty },\mathcal{Q}),$$ and the scalar charges $$\Sigma ^{i}\left( \phi _{\infty },\mathcal{Q}\right) =2g^{ij}(\phi _{\infty
})\frac{\partial W}{\partial \phi ^{i}}(\phi _{\infty },\mathcal{Q}).$$
*Multi-center* BHs are a natural extension of single-center BHs, and they play an important role in the dynamics of quantum theories of gravity, such as superstrings and $M$-theory.
In fact, interesting multi-center solutions have been found for BPS BHs in $d=4$ theories with $\mathcal{N}=2$ supersymmetry, in which the *Attractor Mechanism* [@AM-Refs; @FGK] is generalized by the so-called *split attractor flow* [@D-1]. This name comes from the existence, for $2$-center solutions, of a co-dimension one region (named *marginal stability (MS) wall)* in the scalar manifold, where in fact a stable $2$-center BH configuration may decay into two single-center constituents, whose scalar flows then separately evolve according to the corresponding attractor dynamics.
The study of these phenomena has recently progressed in many directions. By combining properties of $\mathcal{N}=2$ supergravity and superstring theory, a number of interesting phenomena, such as split flow tree, entropy enigma, bound state recombination walls, and microstate counting have been investigated (see *e.g.* [@BD-1; @Split-Refs; @WC-2; @MS-FM-1]).
The MS wall is defined by the condition of stability for a marginal decay of a $2$-center BH compound solution with charge $\mathcal{Q}=\mathcal{Q}_{1}+\mathcal{Q}_{2}$ into two single-center BHs (respectively with charges $\mathcal{Q}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{Q}_{2}$): $$M\left( \phi _{\infty },\mathcal{Q}_{1}+\mathcal{Q}_{2}\right) =M\left( \phi
_{\infty },\mathcal{Q}_{1}\right) +M\left( \phi _{\infty },\mathcal{Q}_{2}\right) . \label{MS-cond}$$ As mentioned, after crossing the MS wall each flow evolves towards its corresponding attractor point, and the classical entropy of each BH constituent follows the Bekenstein-Hawking formula (\[sunday0\]). It should be noted that the entropy of the original compound (conceived as a *single-center* BH with total charge $\mathcal{Q}=\mathcal{Q}_{1}+\mathcal{Q}_{2}$) can be smaller, equal, or larger than the sum of the entropies of its constituents: $$S\left( \mathcal{Q}_{1}+\mathcal{Q}_{2}\right) \gtreqless S\left( \mathcal{Q}_{1}\right) +S\left( \mathcal{Q}_{2}\right) .$$
For $\mathcal{N}=2$ BPS compound and constituents in $\mathcal{N}=2$, $d=4$ supergravity (in which $Z_{AB}=\epsilon _{AB}Z$), (\[MS-cond\]) can be recast as a condition on the central charge ($Z_{i}\equiv M\left( \phi
_{\infty },\mathcal{Q}_{i}\right) $, $i=1,2$, and $Z_{1+2}\equiv Z\left(
\phi _{\infty },\mathcal{Q}_{1}+\mathcal{Q}_{2}\right) =Z_{1}+Z_{2}$): $$\left| Z_{1}+Z_{2}\right| =\left| Z_{1}\right| +\left| Z_{2}\right| .
\label{MS-1}$$ Furthermore, before crossing the MS wall, the relative distance $\left|
\overrightarrow{x_{1}}-\overrightarrow{x_{2}}\right| $ of the two BH constituents with *mutually non-local* charges $\left\langle \mathcal{Q}_{1},\mathcal{Q}_{2}\right\rangle \neq 0$ is given by [@BD-1] $$\left| \overrightarrow{x_{1}}-\overrightarrow{x_{2}}\right| =\frac{1}{2}\frac{\left\langle \mathcal{Q}_{1},\mathcal{Q}_{2}\right\rangle \left|
Z_{1}+Z_{2}\right| }{\text{Im}\left( Z_{1}\overline{Z_{2}}\right) },
\label{N=2}$$ where $$2\left| \text{Im}\left( Z_{1}\overline{Z_{2}}\right) \right| =\sqrt{4\left|
Z_{1}\right| ^{2}\left| Z_{2}\right| ^{2}-\left( \left| Z_{1}+Z_{2}\right|
^{2}-\left| Z_{1}\right| ^{2}-\left| Z_{2}\right| ^{2}\right) ^{2}}.
\label{N=2--}$$ Correspondingly, the 2-center BH has an intrinsic (orbital) angular momentum, given by [@BD-1] $$\overrightarrow{J}=\frac{1}{2}\left\langle \mathcal{Q}_{1},\mathcal{Q}_{2}\right\rangle \frac{\overrightarrow{x_{1}}-\overrightarrow{x_{2}}}{\left| \overrightarrow{x_{1}}-\overrightarrow{x_{2}}\right| }.$$
Note that when the charge vectors $\mathcal{Q}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{Q}_{2}$ are *mutually local* (*i.e.* $\left\langle \mathcal{Q}_{1},\mathcal{Q}_{2}\right\rangle =0$), $\left| \overrightarrow{x_{1}}-\overrightarrow{x_{2}}\right| $ is not constrained at all, and $J=0$. Actually, this is always the case for the scalarless case of extremal Reissner-Nördstrom double-center BH solutions in $\mathcal{N}=2$ *pure* supergravity. Indeed, in this case the central charge simply reads (see also discussion above) $$Z_{RN}\left( p,q\right) =q+ip,$$ and it is immediate to check that the marginal stability condition (\[MS-1\]) implies $\left\langle \mathcal{Q}_{1},\mathcal{Q}_{2}\right\rangle
=q_{1}p_{2}-p_{1}q_{2}=0$.
It is here worth observing that Im$\left( Z_{1}\overline{Z_{2}}\right) =0$ both describes marginal and *anti-marginal* stability [@WC-2]. *Marginal stability* further requires $$\text{Re}\left( Z_{1}\overline{Z_{2}}\right) >0\Leftrightarrow \left|
Z_{1}+Z_{2}\right| ^{2}>\left| Z_{1}\right| ^{2}+\left| Z_{2}\right| ^{2}.
\label{MS-branch}$$ The other (unphysical) branch, namely $$\text{Re}\left( Z_{1}\overline{Z_{2}}\right) <0\Leftrightarrow \left|
Z_{1}+Z_{2}\right| ^{2}<\left| Z_{1}\right| ^{2}+\left| Z_{2}\right| ^{2},
\label{AMS-branch}$$ pertains to *anti-marginal stability*, reached for $\left|
Z_{1}+Z_{2}\right| =\left| \left| Z_{1}\right| -\left| Z_{2}\right| \right| $.
Eq. (\[N=2\]) implies the stability region for the $2$-center BH solution to occur for $$\left\langle \mathcal{Q}_{1},\mathcal{Q}_{2}\right\rangle \text{Im}\left(
Z_{1}\overline{Z_{2}}\right) >0,$$ while it is forbidden for $\left\langle \mathcal{Q}_{1},\mathcal{Q}_{2}\right\rangle $Im$\left( Z_{1}\overline{Z_{2}}\right) <0$. The scalar flow is directed from the stability region towards the instability region, crossing the MS wall at $\left\langle \mathcal{Q}_{1},\mathcal{Q}_{2}\right\rangle $Im$\left( Z_{1}\overline{Z_{2}}\right) =0$. This implies that the stability region is placed *beyond* the MS wall, and *on the opposite side* of the split attractor flows.
By using the fundamental identities of $\mathcal{N}=2$ special Kähler geometry in presence of two (mutually non-local) symplectic charge vectors $\mathcal{Q}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{Q}_{2}$ (see *e.g.* [@D-1; @BFM-1; @FK-N=8]), one can compute that at BPS attractor points of the centers $1$ *or* $2$: $$\left\langle \mathcal{Q}_{1},\mathcal{Q}_{2}\right\rangle =-2\text{Im}\left(
Z_{1}\overline{Z_{2}}\right) \Rightarrow 2\left\langle \mathcal{Q}_{1},\mathcal{Q}_{2}\right\rangle \text{Im}\left( Z_{1}\overline{Z_{2}}\right)
=-\left\langle \mathcal{Q}_{1},\mathcal{Q}_{2}\right\rangle ^{2}<0.
\label{N=2-1}$$ By using (\[N=2\]) and (\[N=2-1\]), one obtains $\left| \overrightarrow{x_{1}}-\overrightarrow{x_{2}}\right| <0$: this means that, as expected, the BPS attractor points of the centers $1$ *or* $2$ do not belong to the stability region of the $2$-center BH solution. Furthermore, the result (\[N=2-1\]) also consistently implies: $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\begin{array}{l}
\text{stability region}: \\
\left\langle \mathcal{Q}_{1},\mathcal{Q}_{2}\right\rangle \text{Im}\left(
Z_{1}\overline{Z_{2}}\right) =\left| \left\langle \mathcal{Q}_{1},\mathcal{Q}_{2}\right\rangle \right| \sqrt{4\left| Z_{1}\right| ^{2}\left| Z_{2}\right|
^{2}-\left( \left| Z_{1}+Z_{2}\right| ^{2}-\left| Z_{1}\right| ^{2}-\left|
Z_{2}\right| ^{2}\right) ^{2}}>0;
\end{array}
\notag \\
&&\text{~} \label{stab-region} \\
&&
\begin{array}{l}
\text{instability region}: \\
\left\langle \mathcal{Q}_{1},\mathcal{Q}_{2}\right\rangle \text{Im}\left(
Z_{1}\overline{Z_{2}}\right) =-\left| \left\langle \mathcal{Q}_{1},\mathcal{Q}_{2}\right\rangle \right| \sqrt{4\left| Z_{1}\right| ^{2}\left|
Z_{2}\right| ^{2}-\left( \left| Z_{1}+Z_{2}\right| ^{2}-\left| Z_{1}\right|
^{2}-\left| Z_{2}\right| ^{2}\right) ^{2}}<0,
\end{array}
\notag \\
&& \label{split-flow-region}\end{aligned}$$ where a particular case of (\[split-flow-region\]), holding at the attractor points, is given by (\[N=2-1\]).
As shown in [@MS-FM-1], by exploiting the theory of *matrix norms*, all above results can be extended *at least* to $\mathcal{N}=2$ non-BPS states with $\mathcal{I}_{4}>0$, as well as to BPS states in $\mathcal{N}>2$ supergravity.
For two-center BHs, by replacing $\left| Z\right| $ with$\sqrt{\lambda _{h}}$, the generalization of (\[N=2\]) *e.g.* to $\mathcal{N}=8$ maximal supergravity reads $$\left| \overrightarrow{x_{1}}-\overrightarrow{x_{2}}\right| =\frac{\left|
\left\langle \mathcal{Q}_{1},\mathcal{Q}_{2}\right\rangle \right| \sqrt{\lambda _{1+2,h}}}{\sqrt{4\lambda _{1,h}\lambda _{2,h}-\left( \lambda
_{1+2,h}-\lambda _{1,h}-\lambda _{2,h}\right) ^{2}}}, \label{N=8-gen}$$ where $\lambda _{1+2,h}\equiv \lambda _{h}\left( \phi _{\infty },\mathcal{Q}_{1}+\mathcal{Q}_{2}\right) $ and $\lambda _{i,h}\equiv \lambda _{h}\left(
\phi _{\infty },\mathcal{Q}_{i}\right) $.
Analogously, also result (\[N=2-1\]) can be generalized *e.g.* to suitable states in $\mathcal{N}=8$ supergravity. Indeed, by exploiting the $\mathcal{N}=8$ generalized special geometry identities [@FK-N=8] ($\mathbf{Z}_{i}\equiv Z_{AB}\left( \phi _{\infty },\mathcal{Q}_{i}\right) $) $$\left\langle \mathcal{Q}_{1},\mathcal{Q}_{2}\right\rangle =-\text{Im}\left(
Tr\left( \mathbf{Z}_{1}\mathbf{Z}_{2}^{\dag }\right) \right) ,
\label{N=8-Ids}$$ one can compute that at the $\frac{1}{8}$-BPS attractor points of the centers $1$ *or* $2$ it holds $$\left| \left\langle \mathcal{Q}_{1},\mathcal{Q}_{2}\right\rangle \right| =\sqrt{4\lambda _{h,1}\lambda _{h,2}-\left( \lambda _{1,h}+\lambda
_{2,h}-\lambda _{1+2,h}\right) ^{2}}. \label{N=8-gen-1}$$ Analogously to the $\mathcal{N}=2$ case treated above, note that $\frac{1}{8}
$-BPS attractor points of the centers $1$ *or* $2$ do not belong to the stability region of the two-center BH solution, but instead they are placed, with respect to the stability region, on the opposite side of the MS wall.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The work of S. F. is supported by the ERC Advanced Grant no. 226455, *“Supersymmetry, Quantum Gravity and Gauge Fields”* (*SUPERFIELDS*).
[99]{} E. Cremmer and B. Julia, *The* $\mathit{SO(8)}$* Supergravity*, Nucl. Phys. **B159**, 141 (1979).
C. M. Hull and N. P. Warner, *The Structure of the Gauged* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=8}$* Supergravity Theories*, Nucl. Phys. **B253**, 650 (1985). C. M. Hull and N. P. Warner, *The Potentials of the Gauged* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=8}$* Supergravity Theories*, Nucl. Phys. **B253**, 675 (1985).
C. Hillmann, $E_{7\left( 7\right) }$ *Invariant Lagrangian of* $\mathit{d=4}$* *$\mathcal{N}\mathit{=8}$*Supergravity*, JHEP **1004**, 010 (2010), `arXiv:0911.5225 [hep-th]`.
G. Bossard, C. Hillmann and H. Nicolai, $E_{7\left( 7\right)
} $ *Symmetry in Perturbatively Quantised* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=8}$* Supergravity*, JHEP **1012**, 052 (2010), `arXiv:1007.5472 [hep-th]`.
R. Slansky, *Group Theory for Unified Model Building*, Phys. Rep. **79**, 1 (1981).
S. A. Hartnoll, *Lectures on Holographic Methods for Condensed Matter Physics*, Class. Quant. Grav. **26**, 224002 (2009), `arXiv:0903.3246 [hep-th]`.
M. Rangamani, *Gravity & Hydrodynamics : Lectures on Fluid-Gravity Correspondence*, Class. Quant. Grav. **26**, 224003 (2009), `arXiv:0905.4352 [hep-th]`.
B. Biran, F. Englert, B. de Wit and H. Nicolai, *Gauged* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=8}$* Supergravity and its Breaking from Spontaneous Compactification*, Phys. Lett. **B124**, 45 (1983); erratum ibidem, **B128**, 461 (1983).
M. J. Duff and C. N. Pope, *Kaluza-Klein Supergravity and the Seven Spher*e, Lectures given at September School on Supergravity and Supersymmetry, ICTP Trieste (Italy), 1982.
B. de Wit and H. Nicolai, $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=8}$*Supergravity*, Nucl. Phys. **B208**, 323 (1982).
I. Yokota, *Subgroup* $SU\left( 8\right) /\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ *of compact simple Lie group* $E_{7}$ *and non-compact simple Lie group* $E_{7\left( 7\right) }$ *of type* $E_{7}$, Math. J. Okoyama Univ. **24**, 53 (1982).
P. Aschieri, S. Ferrara and B. Zumino, *Duality Rotations in Nonlinear Electrodynamics and in Extended Supergravity*, Riv. Nuovo Cim. **31**, 625 (2008), `arXiv:0807.4039 [hep-th]`.
M. K. Gaillard and B. Zumino, *Duality Rotations for Interacting Fields*, Nucl. Phys. **B193**, 221 (1981).
P. Di Vecchia, S. Ferrara and L. Girardello, *Anomalies of Hidden Local Chiral Symmetries in Sigma Models and Extended Supergravities*, Phys. Lett. **B151**, 199 (1985).
N. Marcus, *Composite Anomalies in Supergravity*, Phys. Lett. **B157**, 383 (1985).
Z. Bern, J. J. Carrasco, L. J. Dixon, H. Johansson and R. Roiban, *The Ultraviolet Behavior of* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=8}$* Supergravity at Four Loops*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **103**, 081301 (2009), `arXiv:0905.2326 [hep-th]`.
R. Kallosh, *On UV Finiteness of the Four Loop* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=8}$* Supergravity*, JHEP **0909**, 116 (2009), `arXiv:0906.3495 [hep-th]`.
M. Bianchi, S. Ferrara and R. Kallosh, *Perturbative and Non-Perturbative* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=8}$* Supergravity*, Phys. Lett. **B690**, 328 (2010), `arXiv:0910.3674 [hep-th]`.
M. Bianchi, S. Ferrara and R. Kallosh, *Observations on Arithmetic Invariants and* $\mathit{U}$*-Duality Orbits in* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=8}$* Supergravity*, JHEP **1003**, 081 (2010), `ArXiv:0912.0057 [hep-th]`.
P. Vanhove, *The Critical Ultraviolet Behaviour of* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=8}$* Supergravity Amplitudes*, `arXiv:1004.1392 [hep-th]`.
L. J. Dixon, *Ultraviolet Behavior of* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=8}$* Supergravity*, Lectures presented at ISSP 2009, Aug 29 - Sep 7 ’09, Erice (Italy), `arXiv:1005.2703 [hep-th]`.
R. Kallosh, *The Ultraviolet Finiteness of* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=8}$ *Supergravity*, JHEP **1012**, 009 (2010), `arXiv:1009.1135 [hep-th]`.
N. Beisert, H. Elvang, D. Z. Freedman, M. Kiermaier, A. Morales and S. Stieberger, $E_{7\left( 7\right) }$ *Constraints on Counterterms in* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=8}$ *Supergravity*, Phys. Lett. **B694**, 265 (2010), `arXiv:1009.1643 [hep-th]`.
Z. Bern, J. J. Carrasco, L. Dixon, H. Johansson and R. Roiban, *Amplitudes and Ultraviolet Behavior of* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=8}$* Supergravity*, `arXiv:1103.1848 [hep-th]`.
M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, *Dynamics of chiral (selfdual)* $\mathit{p}$*-forms*, Phys. Lett. **B206**, 650 (1988).
A. Ceresole, R. D’Auria and S. Ferrara, *The Symplectic Structure of* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=2}$* Supergravity and its Central Extension*, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. **46**, 67 (1996), `hep-th/9509160`.
C. Brunster and M. Henneaux, *The Action of Twisted Self-Duality*, `arXiv:1103.3621 [hep-th]`.
P. S. Howe and U. Lindström, *Higher Order Invariants in Supergravity*, Nucl. Phys. **B181**, 487 (1981).
J. Björnsson and M. B. Green, $\mathit{5}$* Loops in* $\mathit{24/5}$* Dimensions*, JHEP **1008**, 132 (2010), `arXiv:1004.2692 [hep-th]`.
R. Kallosh, $E_{7\left( 7\right) }$*Symmetry and Finiteness of* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=8}$* Supergravity*, `arXiv:1103.4115 [hep-th]`.
M. Green, H. Ooguri and J. H. Schwarz, *Nondecoupling of Maximal Supergravity from the Superstring*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **99**, 041601 (2007), `arXiv:0704.0777 [hep-th]`.
N. Arkani-Hamed, F. Cachazo and J. Kaplan, *What is the Simplest Quantum Field Theory?*, JHEP **09**, 016 (2010), `arXiv:0808.1446 [hep-th]`.
T. Banks, *Why I don’t Believe* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=8}$* SUGRA is Finite*, talk at the Workshop *“Supergravity versus Superstring Theory in the Ultraviolet”*, PennState Univ, PA USA, August 27-30 2009.
B. Bertotti, *Uniform Electromagnetic Field in the Theory of General Relativity*, Phys. Rev. **116**, 1331 (1959). I. Robinson, *A solution of the Maxwell-Einstein equations*, Bull. Acad. Pol. Sci. Ser. Sci. Math. Astron. Phys. **7**, 351 (1959).
L. Borsten, D. Dahanayake, M. J. Duff, S. Ferrara, A. Marrani and W. Rubens, *Observations on Integral and Continuous* $\mathit{U}$*-Duality Orbits in* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=8}$*Supergravity*, Class. Quant. Grav. **27**, 185003 (2010), `arXiv:1002.4223 [hep-th]`.
L. Borsten, D. Dahanayake, M. J. Duff and W. Rubens, *Black Holes admitting a Freudenthal Dual*, Phys. Rev. **D80**, 026003 (2009), `arXiv:0903.5517 [hep-th]`.
S. Ferrara, A. Marrani and A. Yeranyan, *Freudenthal Duality and Generalized Special Geometry*, `arXiv:1102.4857 [hep-th]`.
M. J. Duff and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, *Quantum Inequivalence of Different Field Representations*, Phys. Lett. **B94**, 179 (1980).
S. M. Christensen, M. J. Duff, G. W. Gibbons and M. Rocek, *Vanishing One-Loop Beta Function in Gauged* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{>4}$* Supergravity*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **45**, 161 (1980).
M. J. Duff, *Twenty Years of the Weyl Anomaly*, Class. Quant. Grav. **11**, 1387 (1994), `hep-th/9308075`.
L. D. Faddeev and V. N. Popov, *Feynman Diagrams for the Yang-Mills Field*, Phys. Lett. **B25**, 29 (1967).
M. J. Duff and S. Ferrara, *Generalized Mirror Symmetries and Trace Anomalies*, Class. Quant. Grav. **28**, 065005 (2011), `arXiv:1009.4439 [hep-th]`.
T. L. Curtright, *Charge Renormalization and High Spin Fields*, Phys. Lett. **B102**, 17 (1981).
A. Sen, *Arithmetic of* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=8}$* Black Holes*, JHEP **1002**, 090 (2010), `arXiv:0908.0039 [hep-th]`.
S. Ferrara, K. Hayakawa and A. Marrani, *Lectures on Attractors and Black Holes*, Fortsch. Phys. **56**, 993 (2008), `arXiv:0805.2498 [hep-th]`.
S. Ferrara, R. Kallosh and A. Strominger, $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=2}$* extremal black holes*, Phys. Rev. **D52**, 5412 (1995), `hep-th/9508072`. A. Strominger, *Macroscopic entropy of* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=2}$* extremal black holes*, Phys. Lett. **B383**, 39 (1996), `hep-th/9602111`. S. Ferrara and R. Kallosh, *Supersymmetry and attractors*, Phys. Rev. **D54**, 1514 (1996), `hep-th/9602136`. S. Ferrara and R. Kallosh, *Universality of supersymmetric attractors*, Phys. Rev. **D54**, 1525 (1996), `hep-th/9603090`.
L. Andrianopoli, R. D’Auria, S. Ferrara and M. Trigiante, *Extremal Black Holes in Supergravity*, Lect. Notes Phys. **737**, 661 (2007), `hep-th/0611345`.
S. Bellucci, S. Ferrara, R. Kallosh and A. Marrani, *Extremal Black Holes and Flux Vacua Attractors*, Lect. Notes Phys. **755**, 115 (2008), `arXiv:0711.4547 [hep-th]`.
S. W. Hawking: *Gravitational Radiation from Colliding Black Holes*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **26**, 1344 (1971). J. D. Bekenstein: *Black Holes and Entropy*, Phys. Rev. **D7**, 2333 (1973).
S. Ferrara, G. W. Gibbons and R. Kallosh, *Black Holes and Critical Points in Moduli Space*, Nucl. Phys. **B500**, 75 (1997), `hep-th/9702103`.
R. B. Brown, *Groups of Type* $\mathit{E}_{7}$, J. Reine Angew. Math. **236**, 79 (1969).
E. Cremmer, J. P. Derendinger, B. de Wit, S. Ferrara, L. Girardello, C. Kounnas and A. Van Proeyen, *Vector Multiplets Coupled to* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=2}$* Supergravity : SuperHiggs Effect, Flat Potentials and Geometric Structure*, Nucl. Phys. **B250**, 385 (1985).
E. Cremmer and A. Van Proeyen, *Classification of Kähler Manifolds in* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=2}$* Vector Multiplet Supergravity Couplings,* Class. Quant. Grav. **2**, 445 (1985).
M. Günaydin, G. Sierra and P. K. Townsend, *Exceptional Supergravity Theories and the Magic Square*, Phys. Lett. **B133**, 72 (1983). M. Günaydin, G. Sierra and P. K. Townsend, *The Geometry of* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=2}$* Maxwell-Einstein Supergravity and Jordan Algebras*, Nucl. Phys. **B242**, 244 (1984).
S. Ferrara and M. Günaydin, *Orbits of Exceptional Groups, Duality and BPS States in String Theory*, Int. J. Mod. Phys. **A13**, 2075 (1998), `hep-th/9708025`.
A. Ceresole, S. Ferrara and A. Marrani, $\mathit{4d}$*/*$\mathit{5d}$* Correspondence for the Black Hole Potential and its Critical Points*, Class. Quant. Grav. **24**, 5651 (2007), `arXiv:0707.0964 [hep-th]`.
L. K. Hua, *On the Theory of Automorphic Functions of a Matrix Variable. I: Geometrical Basis*, Amer. J. Math. **66**, 470 (1944). C. Bloch and A. Messiah, *The Canonical Form of an Antisymmetric Tensor and its Application to the Theory of Superconductivity,* Nucl. Phys. **B39**, 95 (1962). B. Zumino, *Normal Forms of Complex Matrices*, J. Math. Phys. **3**, 1055 (1962).
R. Kallosh and B. Kol, $E_{7}$* Symmetric Area of the Black Hole Horizon*, Phys. Rev. **D53**, 5344 (1996), hep-th/9602014.
S. Ferrara and R. Kallosh, *On* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=8}$* Attractors*, Phys. Rev. **D73**, 125005 (2006), `hep-th/0603247`.
A. Ceresole, S. Ferrara, A. Gnecchi and A. Marrani, *More on* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=8}$* Attractors*, Phys. Rev. **D80**, 045020 (2009), `arXiv:0904.4506 [hep-th]`.
A. Ceresole, S. Ferrara and A. Gnecchi, $5d$*/*$4d$* *$U$*-Dualities and* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=8}$*Black Holes*, Phys. Rev. **D80**, 125033 (2009), `arXiv:0908.1069 [hep-th]`.
R. Arnowitt, S. Deser and C. W. Misner: *Canonical Variables for General Relativity*, Phys. Rev. **117**, 1595 (1960).
G.W.Gibbons and C.H.Hull: *A Bogomol’ny bound for general relativity and solitons in* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=2}$*supergravity*, Phys. Lett. **B109**, 190 (1982).
A. Papapetrou, Proc. R. Irish Acad. **A51**, 191 (1947). S. D. Majumdar, Phys. Rev. **72**, 930 (1947).
P. Breitenlohner, D. Maison and G. W. Gibbons, *Four-Dimensional Black Holes from Kaluza-Klein Theories*, Commun. Math. Phys. **120**, 195 (1988).
A. Ceresole and G. Dall’Agata, *Flow Equations for non-BPS Extremal Black Holes*, JHEP **0703**, 110 (2007), `hep-th/0702088`.
L. Andrianopoli, R. D’Auria, E. Orazi and M. Trigiante, *First Order Description of Black Holes in Moduli Space*, JHEP **0711**, 032 (2007), `arXiv:0706.0712 [hep-th]`.
B. de Wit, F. Vanderseypen and A. Van Proeyen, *Symmetry Structure of Special Geometries*, Nucl. Phys. **B400**, 463 (1993), `hep-th/9210068`.
A. Ceresole, G. Dall’Agata, S. Ferrara and A. Yeranyan, *First Order Flows for* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=2}$* Extremal Black Holes and Duality Invariants*, Nucl. Phys. **B824**, 239 (2010), `arXiv:0908.1110 [hep-th]`.
G. Bossard, Y. Michel and B. Pioline, *Extremal Black Holes, Nilpotent Orbits and the True Fake Superpotential*, JHEP **1001**, 038 (2010), `arXiv:0908.1742 [hep-th]`.
A. Ceresole, G. Dall’Agata, S. Ferrara and A. Yeranyan, *Universality of the Superpotential for* $\mathit{d=4}$*Extremal Black Holes*, Nucl. Phys. **B832**, 358 (2010), `arXiv:0910.2697 [hep-th]`.
S. Ferrara, A. Marrani and E. Orazi, *Maurer-Cartan Equations and Black Hole Superpotentials in* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=8}$* Supergravity*, Phys. Rev. **D81**, 085013 (2010), `arXiv:0911.0135 [hep-th]`.
F. Denef, *Supergravity flows and D-brane stability*, JHEP **0008**, 050 (2000), `hep-th/0005049`. F. Denef, B. R. Greene and M. Raugas, *Split attractor flows and the spectrum of BPS D-branes on the quintic*, JHEP **0105**, 012 (2001), `hep-th/0101135`.
B. Bates and F. Denef, *Exact solutions for supersymmetric stationary black hole composites*, `arXiv:hep-th/0304094`.
R. Kallosh, N. Sivanandam, and M. Soroush, *Exact Attractive Non-BPS STU Black Holes*, Phys. Rev. **D74**, 065008 (2006), `hep-th/0606263`. F. Denef and G. W. Moore, *Split States, Entropy Enigmas, Holes and Halos*, `hep-th/0702146`. F. Denef, D. Gaiotto, A. Strominger, D. Van den Bleeken and X. Yin, *Black Hole Deconstruction*, `hep-th/0703252`. F. Denef and G. W. Moore, *How many black holes fit on the head of a pin?*, Gen. Rel. Grav. **39**, 1539 (2007), `arXiv:0705.2564 [hep-th]`. D. Gaiotto, W. W. Li and M. Padi, *Non-Supersymmetric Attractor Flow in Symmetric Spaces*, JHEP **0712**, 093 (2007), `arXiv:0710.1638 [hep-th]`. M. C. N. Cheng and E. P. Verlinde, *Wall Crossing, Discrete Attractor Flow, and Borcherds Algebra*, SIGMA **4**, 068 (2008), `arXiv:0806.2337 [hep-th]`. E. G. Gimon, F. Larsen and J. Simon, *Constituent Model of Extremal non-BPS Black Holes*, JHEP **0907**, 052 (2009), `arXiv:0903.0719 [hep-th]`. A. Castro and J. Simon, *Deconstructing the* $\mathit{D0}$*-*$\mathit{D6}$* system*, JHEP **0905**, 078 (2009), `arXiv:0903.5523 [hep-th]`. J. R. David, *On walls of marginal stability in* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=2}$* string theories*, JHEP **0908**, 054 (2009), `arXiv:0905.4115 [hep-th]`. J. Manschot, *Stability and Duality in* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=2}$* Supergravity*, Commun. Math. Phys. **299**, 651 (2010), `arXiv:0906.1767 [hep-th]`. P. Galli and J. Perz, *Non-supersymmetric extremal multicenter black holes with superpotentials*, JHEP **1002**, 102 (2010), `arXiv:0909.5185 [hep-th]`. A. Sen, *Walls of Marginal Stability and Dyon Spectrum in* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=4}$* Supersymmetric String Theories*, JHEP **0705**, 039 (2007), `hep-th/0702141`. A. Sen, *Two Centered Black Holes and* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=4}$* Dyon Spectrum*, JHEP **0709**, 045 (2007), `arXiv:0705.3874 [hep-th]`. A. Sen, $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=8}$* Dyon Partition Function and Walls of Marginal Stability*, JHEP **0807**, 118 (2008), `arXiv:0803.1014 [hep-th]`. A. Sen, *Wall Crossing Formula for* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=4}$* Dyons: A Macroscopic Derivation*, JHEP **0807**, 078 (2008), `arXiv:0803.3857`. S. Ferrara, A. Marrani and E. Orazi, *Split attractor Flow in* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=2}$* Minimally Coupled Supergravity*, Nucl. Phys. **B846**, 512 (2011), `arXiv: 1010.2280 [hep-th]`. J. Manschot, B. Pioline and A. Sen, *Wall Crossing from Boltzmann Black Holes*, `arXiv:1011.1258 [hep-th]`. S. Ferrara, A. Marrani, E. Orazi, R. Stora and A. Yeranyan, *Two-Center Black Holes Duality-Invariants for* $\mathit{stu}$* Model and its lower-rank Descendants*, `arXiv: 1011.5864 [hep-th]`. L. Andrianopoli, R. D’Auria, S. Ferrara, A. Marrani and M. Trigiante, *Two-Centered Magical Charge Orbits*, `arXiv.1101.3496 [hep-th]`.
E. Andriyash, F. Denef, D. L. Jafferis and G. W. Moore, *Wall-crossing from supersymmetric galaxies*, `arXiv:1008.0030 [hep-th]`. E. Andriyash, F. Denef, D. L. Jafferis and G. W. Moore, *Bound state transformation walls*, `arXiv:1008.3555 [hep-th]`.
S. Ferrara and A. Marrani, *Matrix Norms, BPS Bounds and Marginal Stability in* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=8}$*Supergravity*, JHEP **1012**, 038 (2010), `arXiv:1009.3251 [hep-th]`.
S. Bellucci, S. Ferrara and A. Marrani, *On some properties of the attractor equations*, Phys. Lett. **B635**, 172 (2006), `hep-th/0602161`.
[^1]: As evident from (\[fermions-III\]), we use a different convention with respect to [@Slansky] (see *e.g.* Table 36 therein). Indeed, we denote as $\mathbf{8}_{v}$ of $SO\left( 8\right) $ the irrep. which decomposes into $\mathbf{7}+\mathbf{1}$ of $SO\left( 7\right) $, whereas the two spinorial irreps. $\mathbf{8}_{s}$ and $\mathbf{8}_{c}$ both decompose into $\mathbf{8}$ of $SO\left( 7\right) $. The same change of notation holds for $\mathbf{35}$ and $\mathbf{56}$ irreps..
[^2]: There are three distinct $35$-dimensional $SO\left( 8\right) $ irreps., usually denoted as $\mathbf{35}_{v}$, $\mathbf{35}_{s}$ and $\mathbf{35}_{c\text{ }}$, obeying the relations: $$\left( ab\right) \leftrightarrow \left[ ABCD\right] _{+};~\left[ abcd\right]
_{+}\leftrightarrow \left[ ABCD\right] _{-};~\left[ abcd\right]
_{-}\leftrightarrow \left( AB\right) ,$$ where $a,b=1,...,8$ are in $\mathbf{8}_{v}$, $A,B,C,D=1,...,8$ are in $\mathbf{8}_{s}$ (or in $\mathbf{8}_{c}$), and “$\pm $” denotes self-dual/anti-self-dual irreps.. For a discussion, see *e.g.* [@CJ] and [@DP].
[^3]: Also scalar fields transform under *local* $SU\left( 8\right) $, but they do not contribute to the composite anomaly, because they sit in the *self-real* (and thus *non-chiral*) rank-$4$ antisymmetric irrep. $\mathbf{70}$ of $SU\left( 8\right) $.
[^4]: We use* *units in which the Newton gravitational constant $G$ and the speed of light in vacuum $c$ are all put equal to $1$.
[^5]: For interesting recent developments on twisted self-duality, see [@Brunster-Henneaux].
[^6]: We also remark that these are the only black holes for which the *Freudenthal duality* [@Duff-Freud-1; @FD-1] is well defined.
[^7]: $C_{s}$ is the appropriate (positive) *quadratic invariant* for the gauge group representation in which the particle of spin $s$ sits (see *e.g.* Table 1 of [@Curtright], and Refs. therein).
[^8]: The subscript “$H$” denotes the evaluation at the BH event horizon, whose radial coordinate is $r_{H}$ (see treatment below).
[^9]: Incidentally, the last step of (\[sunday0\]) also holds for arbitrary cubic scalar geometry if particular charge configurations are chosen.
[^10]: The subscript “$h$” stands for “the highest”.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The photon magnetic moment for radiation propagating in magnetized vacuum is defined as a pseudo-tensor quantity, proportional to the external electromagnetic field tensor. After expanding the eigenvalues of the polarization operator in powers of $k^2$, we obtain approximate dispersion equations (cubic in $k^2$), and analytic solutions for the photon magnetic moment, valid for low momentum and/or large magnetic field. The paramagnetic photon experiences a red shift, with opposite sign than the gravitational one, which differs for parallel and perpendicular polarizations. It is due to the drain of photon transverse momentum and energy by the external field. By defining an effective transverse momentum, the constancy of the speed of light orthogonal to the field is guaranteed. We conclude that the propagation of the photon non-parallel to the magnetic behaves as if there is a quantum compression of vacuum or warp of space-time in an amount depending on its angle with regard to the field.'
author:
- 'H. Pérez Rojas'
- 'E. Rodríguez Querts'
date: 'Received: date / Accepted: date'
title: The photon magnetic moment problem revisited
---
[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
Introduction
============
We have shown in [@EliPRD] that for a photon moving in a magnetic field $\mathbf{B}$, assumed constant and homogeneous (and for definiteness, taken along the $x_3$ axis, thus $|B_3|=B$, $B_1=B_2=0$ [^1]), an anomalous magnetic moment defined as $\mu_{\gamma}=-\partial \omega/\partial
B$ arises. This quantity *has meaning, and can be defined only* when the photon mass shell includes the radiative corrections, i.e., the magnetized photon self-energy, and calculated explicitly only *after* obtaining the solution of the photon dispersion equations [@shabad2]. It was shown that it is paramagnetic ($\mu_{\gamma}>0$), since it arises physically when the photon propagates, as due to the magnetic response of the virtual electron-positron pairs of vacuum, or vacuum polarization, under the action of $\mathbf{B}$, leading to vacuum magnetization. Thus, the photon embodies both properties of the free photon and of a magnetic dipole, which leads to consider it more as a quasi-photon, in analogy with the polariton of condensed matter physics [@polariton]. Such properties are valid in the whole region of transparency, which is the region of momentum space where the photon self-energy, and in consequence, its frequency $\omega$, is real. This region is defined for transverse momentum $(\omega^2-k_{\parallel}^2)^{1/2}\leq 2m$, where $\omega$, $k_{\parallel}$, are the photon frequency and momentum components along $\mathbf{B}$, and $m$ is the electron mass. In [@shabad2] it is shown that the quantities $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1}
z_1&=&(\mathbf{k} \cdot
\mathbf{B})^2/\mathbf{B}^2-\omega^2=k_\parallel^2-\omega^2,\\
\nonumber z_2&=&(\mathbf{B} \times {\mathbf{k}})^2/\mathbf{B}^2\\
\nonumber &=&\mathbf{k}^2-(\mathbf{k} \cdot
\mathbf{B})^2/\mathbf{B}^2=k_\perp^2,\end{aligned}$$ are relativistic invariant variables for the photon propagating in the magnetic field $\mathbf{B}$, where $z_1 + z_2 =k^2$ is the square of the four-momentum vector $k_\mu$. In what follows we will use equally $z_2$ and $k_{\perp}^2$ when referring to the transverse momentum squared.
As pointed out in [@EliPRD], beyond that region, as the photon becomes unstable [@shabad2] for frequencies $\omega\geq 2m$ (and has a significant probability of decaying in electron-positron pairs), the photon magnetic moment loses meaning if considered independent of the magnetic moment produced by the electron-positron background. Let us remark that the case studied in [@EliPRD], [@shabad2] is based on the hypothesis of a constant and homogeneous magnetic field defined by the invariants $\textsf{F}={\cal F}_{\mu \nu}^2=2(B^2-E^2)=const>0$, $\textsf{G}
=\mathbf{E}\cdot \mathbf{B}=0$ (as pointed out earlier, we will refer to the set of frames for which the external field $\bf{E}=0$). Expressions for physical quantities as the polarization operator $\Pi_{\mu \nu}$ depend on scalar quantities such as $\textsf{F} =
2B^2$, $k^2$ (the total four-momentum squared) and $k_\mu {\cal
F_{\mu \nu}}^2 k_\nu$. Being scalars, they do not depend on the direction of the coordinate axis, although in a specific problem a direction for $\mathbf{B}$ must be chosen. Such a direction breaks the spatial symmetry, and for simplicity, it is chosen as coinciding with one of the coordinate axes. In [@EliPRD] we found the expressions of the photon magnetic moment keeping in mind that the exact photon self-energy is an even function of $B$, as it is demanded by Furry’s theorem [@Fradkin]).
Also in [@EliPRD] the dynamical results obtained have general validity in the subset of Lorentz frames moving parallel to the magnetic field pseudovector $\mathbf{B}$, independently of the orientation of the coordinate axes, since 3D scalars (as $\mathbf{k}^2$) and pseudoscalars (as $\mathbf{B}\cdot \mathbf{k}$) are invariant under proper rotations. The reduced Lorentz symmetry for a specified chosen field direction $\mathbf{B}$ is obviously described by the group of Lorentz translations along $\mathbf{B}$ multiplied by the group of spatial rotations around $\mathbf{B}$. In [@Selym], [@SelymShabad] a “perpendicular component" for the photon magnetic moment, orthogonal to $\mathbf{B}$, was reported to exist as a non-zero vector, but as was recognized by the authors, it does not contribute to the photon energy and can not be deduced from the photon dispersion equation, as we will show in Section 2.
In Section 2 it is shown in a neat way that the photon magnetic moment introduced in [@EliPRD] can be defined as a quantity linear in the external electromagnetic field tensor ${\cal{F}_{\mu
\nu}}$, from which a pseudovector photon magnetic moment ${\mathbf{\mu}}_{\gamma}^{(i)}\parallel \mathbf{B}$ can be written for each Lorentz frame parallel to $\textbf{B}$. Physical reasons are given later in support to this fact. We focus mainly in the case in which the dispersion law is a small deviation of the light cone case. We shall introduce a cubic in $k^2$ approximation for the dispersion curve, whose region of validity cover most of the region of transparency for fields very near the critical $B \lesssim B_c$, (where $B_c =m^2/e \sim 4.14 \times 10^{13}$ G is the Schwinger critical field) but decreases for supercritical fields, and they can be compared to the exact curves, drawn numerically for fields of order and greater than $B_c$. We conclude that in the region of transparency the paramagnetic photon behavior is maintained for supercritical fields. In Section 3 we discuss the interesting consequence of photon paramagnetism, which leads to a decrease of the frequency with increasing magnetic field. The effect is polarization-dependent. We interpret that in such region the speed of light does not change, but the dispersion law must be reinterpreted by defining an effective transverse momentum which decreases with $B$. This leads to space-time consequences: vacuum orthogonal to the field behaves as compressed; time, measured by the period of an electromagnetic wave, run faster for increasing $B$ and is direction-dependent.
In Section 4 we deal in a more detailed way with the red shift effect in a magnetic field (already reported in [@ElizabethPROC]), which acts in an opposite way than the gravitational red shift in the whole range of the transparency region. We discuss also the arising of an effective transverse momentum orthogonal to the field (also polarization-dependent), from which the photon dispersion curves are obtained in a wide range of frequencies characterized by the condition $z_1 <<m^2$.
Photon magnetic moment from tensor and pseudovector expressions
===============================================================
In [@EliPRD] the quantity $\partial \omega/\partial B$ was introduced as the modulus of a vector parallel to $\mathbf{B}$. The definition of photon magnetic moment was a generalization of the usual definition of this quantity for electrons and positrons, as is done in [@Johnson]. Then $\mu_{\gamma}=-\partial \omega/\partial B$ is understood as the modulus of a vector along $\mathbf{B}$ since we have $\partial
B/\partial \mathbf{B}=\mathbf{n}_{\parallel}$, where $\mathbf{n}_{\parallel}$ is a unit vector parallel to $\mathbf{B}$.
Let us consider the expression for the vector ${\mathbf{\mu}}_{\gamma}=-\partial \omega/\partial \mathbf{B}$ in the most general case. For any value of $B$ and independently of the order considered in the loop expansion for the polarization operator, the photon anomalous magnetic moment will be shown to be a vector parallel to $\mathbf{B}$. This can be easily deduced from the photon dispersion equations. Initially we have seven independent variables: the four components of $k_\mu$ plus the three components of $\mathbf{B}$ in an arbitrary system of reference. By choosing the field along a fixed axis, say, $x_3$, its three components are reduced to one $B= \sqrt{\textsf{F}/2}$ (in components it is $B_{\mu}= \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon_{\mu \lambda \nu}{\cal F}_{\lambda
\nu}$). Each of the dispersion equations for the eigenvalues of the polarization operator $\kappa^{(i)}$ ($i=1,2,3$) imposes an additional constraint, reducing the independent variables to four, $B$ plus the three components of $\mathbf{k}$ which are $k_1, k_2$ and $k_3\equiv k_{\parallel}$, but cylindrical symmetry around $\bf{B}$ makes $k_1,k_2$ to appear always as $k_1^2 + k_2^2=z_2$, reducing one independent variable. As $\kappa^{(i)}$ depends on the photon momentum components in terms of the invariant variables $z_1,
z_2$, the dispersion equations, obtained as the zeros of the photon inverse Green function $D^{-1}_{\mu\nu}=0$, after diagonalizing the polarization operator, are
$$k^2=\kappa_{i}(z_2,z_1,B) \hspace{1cm} i=1,2,3.$$
which can be written [@shabad2] as $$z_1 + z_2=\kappa^{(i)}(z_1,z_2,B),\hspace{1cm}i=1,2,3.
\label{dispeq}$$ There are three non vanishing eigenvalues and three eigenvectors, since $i=1,2,3$, corresponding to three photon propagation modes. One additional eigenvector is the photon four momentum vector $k_{\nu}$ whose eigenvalue is $\kappa_{4}=0$. [@shabad2]. However, in a specific direction only two, out of the three modes, propagate in vacuum, which manifests the property of bi-refringence.
The independent variables in (\[dispeq\]) are reduced to two, for instance, $z_2$ and $B$, if (\[dispeq\]) is solved as $z_1=f(z_2,
B)$ [@shabad2]. But as $k_{\parallel}$ is a component of the photon momentum, the dependence of $z_1$ on $z_2$ and $B$ in specific calculations is assumed as being contained on the photon energy $\omega$. Thus we usually write $\omega^2=
k_{\parallel}^2-f^{(i)}(z_2, B)$. In other words, in the solution of each of the dispersion equations one assumes $\omega^2$ as a function of the independent variables $z_2, k_{\parallel}$ and $B$. After solving the dispersion equations for $\omega$ in terms of $k_{\parallel}$ and $z_2$ we get $$\omega^{(i)2}=\vert\textbf{k}\vert^2+ f\left(z_2,m^2,
B\right)^{(i)}. \label{eg2}$$ It can be shown [@shabad2] that for propagation orthogonal to $B$ the mode $i=2$ is polarized along $B$ and the $i=3$ is polarized perpendicular to $B$.
We will define from (\[eg2\]) the tensor $$\begin{aligned}
M_{\mu \nu}^{(i)}&=&\partial z_1/\partial \cal{F}_{\mu
\nu}\\%\nonumber &=&\frac{\partial f^{i}(z_2,B)}{\partial
%\cal{F}_{\mu \nu}}\\
\nonumber &=&\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial f^{i}(z_2,B)}{\partial
B^2}\cal{F}_{\mu \nu},\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $$-\frac{\partial \omega}{\partial {\cal{F}_{\mu
\nu}}}=\frac{1}{2\omega}\frac{\partial z_1}{\partial {\cal{F}_{\mu
\nu}}}= \frac{1}{2\omega} M_{\mu
\nu}^{(i)}=\frac{1}{4\omega}\frac{\partial z_1}{\partial B^2}
{\cal{F}_{\mu \nu}}.$$ Then the photon magnetic moment can be defined as a quantity proportional to the pseudovector $$M_{\lambda}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial z_1}{\partial
B^2}
\varepsilon_{\lambda \mu \nu } {\cal{F}_{\mu \nu}}.$$ The proportionality factor $1/2\omega$ is not Lorentz invariant, and for each frame moving parallel to $\mathbf{B}$ we define for each mode the photon magnetic moment as a $3d$ pseudo-vector ${\mathbf{\mu}}_{\gamma}^{(i)}=\frac{1}{2\omega}\mathbf{M}$, where $\mathbf{M}||\mathbf{B}$.
This can also be seen directly from (\[dispeq\]) by writing $$\label{der1}
\frac{\partial z_1}{\partial B} =\frac{\partial
\kappa^{(i)}}{\partial z_1}\frac{\partial z_1}{\partial
B}+\frac{\partial \kappa^{(i)}}{\partial B},$$ which leads to $$\label{der2}
\frac{\partial z_1}{\partial B}=-2\omega
\frac{\partial\omega}{\partial B} =\frac{\frac{\partial
\kappa^{(i)}}{\partial B}}{1-\frac{\partial \kappa^{(i)}}{\partial
z_1}}.$$ Finally we get the $3d$ pseudo-vector photon anomalous magnetic moment as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{magneticmom}
{\mathbf{\mu}}_{\gamma}^{(i)}& \equiv & -\frac{\partial \omega}{\partial
\mathbf{B}}\\% \nonumber &=& -\frac{\partial \omega}{\partial B}\frac{\partial B}{\partial
%\mathbf{B}}\\ \nonumber &=& -\frac{\partial \omega}{\partial B}\mathbf{n}_{\parallel} \\
&=&\frac{1}{2\omega}\frac{\frac{\partial \kappa^{(i)}}{\partial B}}
{1-\frac{\partial \kappa^{(i)}}{\partial
z_1}}\mathbf{n}_{\parallel}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $|M|=\frac{\partial \kappa^{(i)}}{\partial B}/
(1-\frac{\partial \kappa^{(i)}}{\partial
z_1})$. It has been proved in the most general case that ${\mathbf{\mu}}_{\gamma}=-\partial \omega/\partial
\mathbf{B}=-(\partial \omega/\partial B)\mathbf{n}_{\parallel}$ is a vector parallel to $\mathbf{B}$.
Conserved electron-positron and photon angular momentum
-------------------------------------------------------
For the transparency region, ($\omega<2m$) the photon magnetic moment is a consequence of the vacuum magnetization produced by the electron-positron virtual pairs. The dynamics of observable electrons and positrons was discussed in [@Johnson], and these results are valid for virtual pairs of vacuum. All symmetry and conservation properties are valid for vacuum pairs, in agreement to the content of a basic theorem due to Coleman [@Coleman] which states that *the invariance of the vacuum is the invariance of the world*.
As stated earlier, for electrons and positrons physical quantities are invariant only under rotations around $x_3$ or displacements along it [@Johnson]. This means that conserved quantities (whose operators commute with the Dirac Hamiltonian), are all parallel to $\mathbf{B}$, as angular momentum and spin components $\mathbf{J}_3$,$\mathbf{L}_3$,$\mathbf{s}_3$ and the linear momentum $\mathbf{p}_3$. We must emphasize here that *the electron-positron momentum orthogonal to $\textbf{B}$ is not conserved*. *It implies that for the photon dispersion equation, which includes the self-energy tensor, momentum $k_{\perp}$ orthogonal to the field is neither conserved*. Also, eigenvalues $J_{1,2}$, $L_{1,2}$, $s_{1,2}$ do not correspond to any observable. By using units $\hbar=c=1$, the energy eigenvalues are $E_{n,p_3}=\sqrt{p_3^2+m^2+ eB(2n+1+s_3)}$ where $s_3=\pm 1$ are the spin eigenvalues along $x_3$ and $n=0,1,2..$ are the Landau quantum numbers. In other words, the transverse squared Hamiltonian $\mathbf{H}_t^2$ eigenvalues are $E_{n,p_3}^2-p_3^2-m^2=eB(2n+1+s_3)$, it is quantized as integer multiples of $eB$. It can be written $\mathbf{H}^2_t=2eB(\mathbf{J}_z + eB \mathbf{r}_0^2/2)$, where $\mathbf{r}_0^2$ is the squared center of the orbit coordinates operator, with eigenvalues $(2l+1)/eB$, and the eigenvalues of $J_z$ are $n-l + s_3/2$. Thus, the energy is degenerate with regard to the quantum number $l$, or either, with regard to the momentum $p_y$ or the orbit’s center coordinate $x_0=p_y/eB$.
The magnetic moment operator $\mathbf{M}$ is the sum of two terms one of which [@Johnson] is not a constant of motion but its *quantum average* vanishes. Its expectation value is $\bar
M=-<\partial \mathbf{H}/\partial B>=-\partial E_{n,p_3}/\partial B$ [@Pauli]. Then $$\bar M(p_3,n)=-(E^2-p_3^2-m^2)/2B E \label{epMM},$$ is the modulus of a vector parallel to $\mathbf{B}$ for negative energy states, antiparallel to $\mathbf{B}$ for positive energy states, and $\mathbf{B}= M\mathbf{n}_{\parallel}$.
The expression (\[epMM\]) for the magnetic moment behaves as *diamagnetic*, but the magnetization, obtained from the energy density of vacuum has otherwise a *paramagnetic* behavior. This is because, due to the degeneracy of energy eigenvalues with regard to the orbit’s center coordinates, the density of states depends linearly on the magnetic field (returning momentarily to units $\hbar, c$) through the factor $eB/4\pi^2\hbar^2c^2$. Thus (\[epMM\]) is not enough for calculating the vacuum magnetization since we must start actually from the energy eigenvalues, and taking the density of states factor, proceed to sum over Landau states $\sum_n$ and to integrate on $\int c dp_3$. Then, for obtaining the energy density, we must note that the factor $(1/\hbar c)\int c dp_3 $ provides energy per unit length whereas the factor $(eB/\hbar c)$, having inverse square of length dimensions and coming from the orbit’s center degeneracy, is necessary to provide energy per unit volume. By recalling that $\phi_0=\hbar c/e$ is the magnetic flux quantum, the term in parenthesis can be written as $B/\phi_0$ and it is (up to a factor $1/4\pi^2$) the number of flux quanta per unit area orthogonal to the field in vacuum. Thus, we see that due to this factor the Landau ground state $n=0$, whose energy eigenvalue is independent of $B$, has however, an important contribution to vacuum magnetization.
Notice that, although $<\mathbf{M}>$ and $\mathbf{J}_3$ are parallel vectors, and these quantities are closely related dynamically, there is no a linear relation between their moduli $\bar M$ and $J_3$ as it is in non-relativistic quantum mechanics. On the opposite $\bar
M$ is a nonlinear function of the $J_3$ and and $r_0^2$ eigenvalues. There is no room for an electron magnetic moment component orthogonal to $\mathbf{B}$, which would provide a physical basis to that of the photons.
To obtain the expression for the vacuum energy density $\Omega$ we start from $$\Omega
=(eB/4\pi^2\hbar^2 c)\sum_n \int dp_3 \alpha_n E(p_3, n,
eB),$$ where $\alpha_n=2- \delta_{0n}$, is a degeneracy factor. Such expression is divergent, and after subtracting the divergences, one is left with the Euler-Heisenberg expression for the vacuum energy (returning to units $\hbar =c=1$), $\Omega_{EH}=\frac{\alpha B^2}{8\pi^2}\int_0^{\infty}e^{-B_c
x/B}\left[\frac{coth x}{x} -\frac{1}{x^2}-\frac{1}{3}\right]\frac{d
x}{x}$ which is an even function of $B$ and $B_c$,where $B_c=m^2/e\simeq 4.4\times 10^{13}$G is the Schwinger critical field. The main conclusion is that magnetized vacuum is paramagnetic ${\cal M}_V=-\partial \Omega_{EH}/\partial B>0$ and is an odd function of $B$ [@Elizabeth]. For $B<<B_c$ it is ${\cal
M}_V=\frac{2\alpha}{45 \pi}\frac{B^{3}}{B_c^2}$, where $\alpha$ is the fine structure constant.
![ Solutions of the dispersion equations for the second mode, for different magnetic field values (with continuous lines we represent the approximate solution and with discontinuous lines the exact ones). Note that the light cone curve is the straight line $-z_1=z_2$. The behavior for $(z_1+z_2)/m^2$ is drawn in the upper right figure, in a logarithmic scale, to allow depict the three curves. []{data-label="fig:mb2"}](DEmode2.eps){width="60.00000%"}
We conclude that no component of ${\mathbf{\mu}}_{\gamma}$ perpendicular to $\mathbf{B}$ arises in our problem. But the main conclusion according to [@EliPRD], after explicit calculations, is the photon paramagnetic behavior ${\mathbf{\mu}}_{\gamma}>0$.
Photon anomalous magnetic moment in the one loop approximation
==============================================================
We want to give explicit expressions for the photon magnetic moment, starting from the renormalized eigenvalues of the polarization operator in the one-loop approximation, given in [@shabad2] $$\label{op-pol2}
\kappa_{i}=\frac{2 \alpha}{\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty}dt
\int_{-1}^{1}d\eta e^{-\frac{t}{b} }\left[\frac{\rho_{i}}{\sinh t}
e^{\zeta}+\frac{k^2 \bar{\eta}^2}{2t} \right],$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\zeta(z_1,z_2,B)&=&-\frac{z_{2}}{eB}\frac{\sinh (\eta_+ t)\sinh
(\eta_-
t)}{\sinh t}-\frac{z_1 }{eB}\bar{\eta}^2t,\\
\rho_1(z_1,z_2)&=&-\frac{k^2}{2}\frac{\sinh (\eta_+ t)\cosh (\eta_+t)}{\sinh
t}\eta_-,
\\
\rho_2(z_1,z_2)&=&-\frac{z_1}{2}\bar{\eta}^2 \cosh t-\frac{z_2}{2}
\frac{\sinh (\eta_+ t)\cosh (\eta_+t)}{\sinh t}\eta_-,
\\
\rho_3(z_1,z_2)&=&-\frac{z_2}{2}\frac{\sinh (\eta_+ t)\sinh (\eta_- t)}
{\sinh^{2} t}\\& &\hspace{2cm} -\frac{z_1}{2}\frac{\sinh (\eta_+ t)\cosh (\eta_+
t)}{\sinh t} \eta_-,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the notation $b=\frac{eB}{m^2}=\frac{B}{B_c}$, $\eta_{\pm}=\frac{1 \pm \eta}{2}$, $\bar{\eta}=\sqrt{\eta_+\eta_-}$.
As we discussed in [@EliPRD], an explicit expression for a photon magnetic moment $\mu_{\gamma}^{2,3}>0$ in the regions $-z_1\leq 4m^2$ can be obtained from (\[op-pol2\]). To that end we differentiate with regard to $B$ the dispersion equation $z_{1}+z_{2}=\kappa_{i}$ and get $$\label{FAMM1} \nonumber
\frac{ \partial z_{1}}{\partial B} = \frac{\partial \kappa_{i}}{\partial
B} =\frac{2 \alpha}{\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty}dt
\int_{-1}^{1}d\eta e^{-\frac{t}{b}}\left[ \phi_{i} +\frac{\partial
z_{1}}{\partial B}\varphi_{i }\right],$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{i}&=& \frac{1}{m^2}\left[\frac{\rho_{i}e^{\zeta}}{\sinh t}
\left(\frac{t}{b} -\zeta\right)+ \frac{k^2}{b}\frac{\bar{\eta}
^2}{2}\right] ,
\\ \varphi_{i }&=&
\frac{e^{\zeta}}{\sinh t} \left(\frac{\partial \rho_{i}}{\partial
z_{1}}-\frac{ \rho_{i}}{eB}\bar{\eta }^2t \right)+\frac{\bar{\eta
}^2}{2t},\end{aligned}$$ and, taking in mind that $\frac{\partial z_{1}}{\partial B}=-2\omega
\frac{\partial \omega}{\partial B}$ in (\[FAMM1\]), we obtain a general expression for the photon anomalous magnetic moment $$\label{FAMM2} \nonumber
\mu_{\gamma}^i=-\frac{\partial \omega}{\partial B} = \frac{m^2}{2 \omega B}\frac{\frac{2 \alpha}{\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty}dt
\int_{-1}^{1}d\eta e^{-\frac{t}{b} } \phi_{i}}{1-\frac{2
\alpha}{\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty}dt \int_{-1}^{1}d\eta e^{-\frac{t }{b}}
\varphi_{i }}.$$
It is easy to see that for propagation along $B$ the vacuum behaves as in the limit $B=0$ for all eigenmodes. For that reason, we are mainly interested in studying perpendicular photon propagation case $k_{\parallel}=0$, for which the first mode is non physical. In [@EliPRD] we solved numerically the system of equations (\[FAMM2\]) and (\[dispeq\]), in the interval $0<B<B_c$ and confirmed that the paramagnetic behavior is maintained throughout the region of transparency. We stress here that the photon magnetic moment has a maximum on the photon dispersion curve [@EliPRD] near the threshold for pair creation $z_1 = -4m^2 + \epsilon$.
The limit $k^2=z_1 +z_2<<eB$
----------------------------
There is wide range of frequencies characterized by the condition $k^2=z_1 +z_2<<eB$, which corresponds to small deviations from the light cone $k^2=0$. For such frequencies the photon magnetic moment behavior is well described by the following approximate expression (see the Appendix for details) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{FAMM2} \nonumber
\mu_{\gamma}&=&-\frac{\partial \omega}{\partial B} \\
&=& \displaystyle \frac{1}{2 \omega}\frac{\frac{\partial \chi_{i}^{(0)}}{\partial
B} +\frac{\partial \chi_{i}^{(1)}}{\partial
B}k^{2}+\frac{\partial \chi_{i}^{(2)}}{\partial
B}k^{4}+\frac{\partial \chi_{i}^{(3)}}{\partial
B}k^{6}}{1-\chi_{i}^{(1)}-\frac{\partial \chi_{i}^{(0)}}{\partial
z_1}-Xk^{2}-Yk^{4}-\frac{\partial \chi_{i}^{(3)}}{\partial
z_1 }k^{6}},\\ \nonumber
X&=&\frac{\partial \chi_{i}^{(1)}}{\partial
z_1}+2 \chi_{i}^{(2)},\\ \nonumber
Y&=&\frac{\partial \chi_{i}^{(2)}}{\partial
z_1}+3 \chi_{i}^{(3)},
\end{aligned}$$ where the $\chi_{i}^{(l)}$ are functions of $z_1$ and $B$ $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{i}^{(l)} &=&\frac{2\alpha}{\pi} \int_{0}^{\infty}dt
\int_{-1}^{1}d\eta e^{-\frac{t}{b} }\psi_i^l , \\
\nonumber
\psi_{i}^{(0)} &=& \frac{\rho_{0i}}{\sinh
t}e^{\zeta_{0}} , \\ \label{chi} \nonumber
\psi_{i}^{(1)}
&=& \left[\frac{\rho_{0i}\xi+
\theta_i}{\sinh t}e^{\zeta_{0}} +\frac{1-\eta ^2}{8t} \right], \\
\nonumber \psi_{i}^{(l)} &=& \frac{e^{\zeta_{0}}}{\sinh
t}\left[\frac{\rho_{0i}\xi^{l}}{l!}+
\frac{\theta_i\xi^{l-1}}{(l-1)!} \right], \hspace{1cm} l=2,3,... ,\end{aligned}$$ and $\omega$, $k^{2}$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
k^2&=&\frac{\sqrt[3]{R
+\sqrt{\frac{Q^3}{\left(\chi_{i}^{(3)}\right)^2}+R}}+\sqrt[3]{R
-\sqrt{\frac{Q^3}{\left(\chi_{i}^{(3)}\right)^2}+R}}}{\sqrt[3]{\left(\chi_{i}^{(3)}\right)^{2}}}\\
\label{sol} & &\hspace{5.6cm}-\frac{\chi_{i}^{(2)}}{3\chi_{i}^{(3)}},\\
\nonumber
R &=& -\frac{1}{2}\left[\chi_{i}^{(0)}\chi_{i}^{(3)}-
\frac{1}{3}\left(\chi_{i}^{(1)}-1\right)\chi_{i}^{(2)}+\frac{2}{27}\left(\chi_{i}^{(2)}\right)^{2}\right],
\\ \nonumber
Q &=& \frac{1}{3}\left[
\left(\chi_{i}^{(1)}-1\right)\chi_{i}^{(3)}-\frac{1}{3}\left(\chi_{i}^{(2)}\right)^{2}\right].\end{aligned}$$
![ Photon anomalous magnetic moment for the second mode. []{data-label="fig:MM"}](MMmode2_6.eps){width="55.00000%"}
We have found a cubic-in-$k^2$ approximation for the dispersion curve, which as we see in Fig. \[fig:mb2\], is valid in the whole region of transparency for small deviations from the light cone dispersion equation. The approximate curves can be compared to the exact ones, which in both cases were drawn numerically. We conclude from Fig. \[fig:MM\] that in the region of transparency the paramagnetic photon behavior is maintained for supercritical fields: by fixing $z_2$, we observe that the quantity $-z_1$, and in consequence $\omega$, decreases with increasing $B$.
The decrease of frequency with increasing field
===============================================
In [@EliPRD] we showed that in the region of transparency $\mu_{\gamma}^{i}=-\partial \omega^{i}/\partial B>0$, which means that $\partial \omega^{i}/\partial B<0$. This means that the frequency decreases with increasing field, that is, the incoming photon is red-shifted. (In the case of a gravitational field, for the incoming photon the frequency increases with increasing the modulus of the field [@gravredshift]). We will give below detailed expressions, especially for the small departure from the light cone case.
It is very important to consider at this point two limits for the dispersion equations: the low frequency quasi-photon limit $\omega
\ll 2m$ (small departure from the light cone), and the high frequency quasi-pair limit, which occurs for the second mode when $z_1 \lesssim -4m^2$. In this case $\kappa^{2}$ has a inverse square root divergence, and the solution of the dispersion equation shows a very strong departure from the light cone. In the first case, the expansion of $\kappa^{i}$ in the low frequency, low magnetic field $b=B/B_c < 1$ limit, and the resulting dispersion equations, was discussed in [@EliPRD]. The dispersion equation, written as $\omega^2=|{\bf{k}}^2| + \kappa^{(i)}(z_2, eB)$ is such that $\kappa^{(i)}(z_2, eB)\ll \omega^2$. Thus, as said earlier, the photon self-energy acts as a small perturbation to the light cone equation. The high frequency limit was discussed in [@shabad2]. In that case, for instance, for the second mode, near the first resonance frequency $z_1\lesssim -4m^2$, it is $\kappa^{(2)}(z_2,
eB)\gg \omega^2$, (in other words, for Landau quantum numbers $n,
n^{\prime}=0,1,2,.. $ the polarization tensor has an infinite set of branching points at values $z_1= (E_{0n} +E_{0n^{\prime}})^2 $, where $E_{0n}=\sqrt{m^2 +2eBn}$ and $E_{0n^{\prime}}=\sqrt{m^2
+2eBn^{\prime}}$). The polarization operator diverges and it is not strictly a “perturbation" but becomes the dominant term. It leads to a quasi-particle which behaves as a massive vector boson, and we name it quasi-pair. Its phase and group velocities are smaller than $c$.
For the quasi-photon limit, by taking the first two terms in the $\kappa^{(i)(0)}$ series expansion in powers of $b^2$, and up to fields very close to $B_c$ (for instance, $B\sim 0.4 B_c$), in the series expression for the functions $f^{(2,3)}$, defined in Sec. 2, one can neglect terms from the power $b^4$ on. One has $f^{(2,3)}/k_{\perp}^2 =-\frac{C^{i} \alpha b^2}{45 \pi }\ll 1$, and as a good approximation the dispersion equations for these modes we have, $$\omega^{i2}-k^2_{\parallel}=k_{\perp}^2 \left(1- \frac{C^{i} \alpha
b^2}{45 \pi }\right) \label{Dispeq}$$ where $C^{i}=7,4$ for $i=2,3$. Eq. (\[Dispeq\]) must be interpreted as the dispersion equation in presence of the magnetic field for an incoming photon which initially, far from the magnetized region, satisfied the usual light cone equation $\omega_0^2=k^2_{\parallel} + k_{\perp}^2$. In other words, the dispersion equation before the magnetic field was switched on. The effect of the magnetic field is to decrease the incoming transverse momentum squared by a factor $g(B)^{(i)}=1- f(B)^{(i)}/k_{\perp}^2
<1$ , to the effective value $k_{eff \perp}^2=k_{\perp}^2 g(B)^{(i)}
<k_{\perp}^2$ (and in consequence, the initial photon energy decreased from $\omega_0 \to \omega$, where $\omega
=\sqrt{k^2_{\parallel}+k_{eff \perp}^2 }$. Thus, as stated previously, the transverse momentum is not conserved in the magnetic field, and $k_{eff \perp}$ is the effective transverse momentum measured by an observer located in the region where the magnetic field is $\mathbf{B}$. For propagation orthogonal to $\mathbf{B}$, it is $\omega= \omega_0\sqrt{g(B)^{(i)}} $, since $\omega_0=k_{\perp}$. The non conservation of momentum leads to the decrease of the photon energy, which is red-shifted for incoming photons.
The magnetic field drains (gives) momentum (and energy) to the incoming (outgoing) photon. The case is just the opposite of the gravitational case, in which the gravitational field increases (decreases) the incoming (outgoing) photon momentum (and energy).
Let us devote some space to remind the gravitational field case (we shall use in this paragraph the speed of light as $c$). The last statements can be seen by starting from the Hamilton-Jacobi equation in the massless limit (the action function $S$ becomes the eikonal). [@Landau]. For a photon moving in a centrally symmetric gravitational field the constants of motion are the energy $\omega_0$ and angular momentum $L$ with regard to its center. The linear momentum is not a constant of motion. Very far from the massive body, the total energy is $\omega_0$, its linear momentum is $k_0= \omega_0/c$. Near the massive body of mass $M$, for $r>r_G$, by calling $e^{\nu}= 1- r_G/r$, where $r_G=2GM/c^2$ is the gravitational radius of the body, we can write for a massless particle whose squared effective radial momentum defined by $k_r^2=
e^{\nu}(\partial S/\partial r)^2$ as $$k_r^2 + \frac{L^2}{r^2}= e^{-\nu}k_0^2 ,$$ which expresses the total effective squared momentum as the effective squared energy $\omega_G^2 =e^{-\nu}\omega_0^2$ divided by $c^2$. The observed photon energy (frequency) has been increased from $\omega_0$ to $\omega_G= e^{-\nu/2}\omega_0$. Notice that for $r_G \ll r$, one may write, by taking approximately $\omega_G \simeq
(1+ r_G/2r) \omega_0$, $$c\sqrt{k_r^2 + (L^2/r^2)} - \frac{r_G \omega_0}{2r} = \omega_0
\label{conservE}$$ which expresses in a transparent way the energy conservation, and that the observed (kinetic) energy for the approaching photon is $\omega_G>\omega_0$ [@Landau], whereas its interaction energy with the body of mass $M$ is negative. For very large $r$, (\[conservE\]) leads back to $k_0 c = \omega_0$.
Speed of light orthogonal to $\mathbf{B}$ and vacuum compression
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorentz transformations in non-parallel directions change the magnetic field to $\mathbf{B}^{\prime}$ and leads to the arising of an electric field $\textbf{E}^{\prime}$, preserving the invariance of ${\cal F}=2B^2 =2(B^{\prime 2} -
E^{\prime 2})$, but leading to inequivalent solutions of the equations of motion. However, they are physically good. Lorentz frames parallel to $\mathbf{B}$ are preferred to preserve the simplicity of the case $\mathbf{B}\neq 0$, $\mathbf{E}=0$. In all of them the photon propagation have equivalent dynamics. It is easy to see that $\partial\omega/\partial k_{\parallel}=1$ in these frames.
As the transverse momentum is not conserved, the speed of light orthogonal to $\mathbf{B}$, if taken as $$\partial \omega^i/\partial
k_{\perp}<1 \label{nonc}$$ seems to lead to a sub-luminal speed of photons. This interpretation, however, is logically unsatisfactory: one starts from a relativistic invariant theory (Quantum Electrodynamics) and from results obtained perturbatively in the context of this theory in a magnetized medium, concludes that the cornerstone of the relativistic invariance is violated. We maintain the relativistic principle of constancy of the speed of light in vacuum as valid, and claim that (\[nonc\]) expresses the fact that the non-conserved momentum transverse to the field $\textbf{B}$ has an effective value smaller than $k_{\perp}$. In doing that, we state that due to the non-conservation of transverse momentum $k_{\perp}$, both its initial value $k_{\perp}$ and energy $\omega_0$ have been decreased to $k_{eff\perp}$, $\omega^i$ and the transverse speed of light must be expressed by the equation $\partial \omega^i/\partial k_{eff
\perp}=1$, in full analogy to the gravitational field case. That is, local observers would find the transverse speed of light as unity. For them, from (\[Dispeq\]), the light cone equation can be written in coordinate space as $$\left[\frac{\partial^2 }{\partial x_1^{2i\prime}} + \frac{\partial^2
}{\partial x_2^{2i\prime}}+ \frac{\partial^2}{\partial
x_3^2}-\frac{\partial^2 }{\partial x_0^2}\right]\Psi^{i}=0$$ where $x_{1,2}^{i\prime}=x_{1,2}^{i}/\sqrt{g(B)^{(i)}}>x_{1,2}^{i}$. This means that the local observer measures, for instance, longer wavelengths, since any rule for measuring lengths if placed in magnetized vacuum, is compressed in the direction orthogonal to $\mathbf{B}$ in the amount $\sqrt{g(B)^{(i)}}$. The longer wavelength is in correspondence to the observed smaller frequencies $\omega^{i} < \omega_0$. The vacuum compression is due to the negative pressure effect of magnetized vacuum in the direction perpendicular to the field $\mathbf{B}$ discussed in [@Elizabeth]. Such compression is related to the following facts: the quantity $S_B=c\hbar/eB$ can be considered as the quantum of area corresponding to a flux quantum for a field intensity $\mathbf{B}$. Thus, by increasing $B$, $S_B$ decreases. As a consequence, the spread of the electron and positron wave functions decreases exponentially with $B$ in the direction orthogonal to the field since they depend on the transverse coordinates as $e^{-\xi^2}$ where $\xi^2=x_{\perp}^2/S_B$.
These results mean space-time consequences which bear some analogy to general relativity: we have seen that the vacuum orthogonal to the field behaves as compressed; and also that the red shift means shorter frequencies. But this, in turn, leads to the fact that if time is measured by the wave modes periods $T^{(i)}=2
\pi/\omega^{(i)}$, it runs faster for increasing $B$ and do it in a polarization-dependent way and for waves propagating non parallel to $\bf{B}$.
The previous discussion is valid for the low frequency $\omega \ll
2m$, low magnetic field limit, $B \ll B_c$, when the spacing between Landau levels is small compared to $2m$. As the field intensity increases the quantity $g(B)$ decreases. The role of the separation between Landau levels of virtual pairs becomes more and more significant as one approaches the first threshold of resonance, which is the quasi-pair region, where $B \lesssim B_c$. For frequencies $\omega \simeq 2m$ and $k_{\parallel}< \omega$, the dispersion equation for the second mode may be written [@shabad2], since the polarization operator is expressed as a sum over Landau levels $n, n^{\prime}$ of the virtual electron-positron pairs, in terms of the dominant term $n
=n^{\prime}=0$, as $$\label{expDE}
z_1 + z_2 =\frac{2\alpha eB m e^{-z_2/2 eB}}{\sqrt{z_1 + 4m^2}}.$$ This equation is valid in a neighborhood of $z_1 \lesssim -4m^2$. Notice that its limit for $\bf{k} \to 0$ is $\omega \neq 0$. Actually, it describes a massive vector boson particle closely related to the electron-positron pair (see below). This is not in contradiction with the gauge invariance property of the photon self energy. Eq. (\[expDE\]) has solutions found by Shabad [@shabad2] as those of a cubic equation. One can estimate its behavior very near $z_1 =-4m^2$, by assuming $z_1 =-4m^2 + \epsilon$ and $z_2 =4m^2 - \epsilon$, the initial energy and transverse momentum where $\epsilon$ is a small quantity. One can obtain the solution approximately as $(z_1 + 4m^2)^{3/2}=2\alpha eB m e^{-z_2/2
eB}$, from which $z_1=-4m^2 +(2\alpha eB m e^{-z_2/2 eB})^{2/3} $. This means approximately $\omega^2= \sqrt{k_{\parallel}^2 + 4m^2 -
(2\alpha eB m e^{-2m^2/ eB})^{2/3}}$. Thus, the transverse momentum of the original photon is trapped by the magnetized medium, the resulting quasi-particle being deviated to move along the field as a vector boson of mass $\omega_t= \sqrt{4m^2 -m^2(2\alpha b
e^{-2/b})^{2/3}}$. Our approach is approximate. A more complete discussion would be made by following the method of [@shabad2]. This quasi-pair is obviously paramagnetic, as can be checked easily. It differs totally from photons originally propagating parallel to $\mathbf{B}$. For slightly larger energies such that $z_1 \lesssim
-4m^2$, and $b$ of order unity, that is $B \sim B_c$, they decay in observable electron-positron pairs, and the polarized vacuum becomes absorptive (see [@shabad2]). Thus, near the critical field $B_c$ our problem bears some analogy to the gravitational singularity effects on light. For light passing near a black hole, if $r \simeq
r_G$, the light is deviated enough to be absorbed by the black hole. Among other differences in both cases, it must be remarked that the gravitational field in black holes is usually centrally symmetric, whereas our magnetic field is axially symmetric.
The red-shift of the paramagnetic photon
========================================
For the specific case of the magnetic field produced by a star, we assume that it has axial symmetry and that it decreases with increasing distance along the plane orthogonal to it. In place of assuming an explicit dependence $\mathbf{B}=\mathbf{B}(\textbf{r})$, we assume a partition in concentric shells, in which the magnetic field is considered as constant inside each one. Then $B$ increases to $B + \Delta B$ when passing from a shell to its inner neighbor, and decreases $B - \Delta B$ when passing to the outer one.
From (\[Dispeq\]), the frequency is red shifted when passing from a region of magnetic field $B$ to another of increased field $B +
\Delta B$. In the same limit it is, $$\Delta \omega^{(2)}=- \frac{14 \alpha z_2 b \Delta b}{45 \pi
|\textbf{k}|}<0,\label{si}$$ and
$$\Delta \omega^{(3)}= -\frac{8 \alpha z_2 b \Delta b}{45 \pi
|\textbf{k}|}<0. \label{M3}$$
Here $\Delta b =\Delta B/B_c$. Thus, the red shift, consequence of the photon paramagnetism, differs for longitudinal and transverse polarizations.
To give an order of magnitude, for instance, for photons of frequency $10^{20}$ Hz, and magnetic fields of order $10^{12}$ G, $|\Delta \omega| \sim 10^{-6}\omega$.
For the quasi-pair case, from [@EliPRD], when $z_1 \to -4m^2 +
\epsilon$ the photon redshift can be written approximately, by calling $P=4m^2 + z_1$. $U=\alpha m^3 e^{-z_2/2eB}$, as $$\Delta \omega^{(2)}= -\frac{PU}{\omega B_c (P^{3/2}+
bU)}\left(1+\frac{z_2}{2eB}\right)\Delta B<0,\label{FRR1}$$
The coefficient of $\Delta B$ at the right, which is minus the photon magnetic moment, has a maximum located on the dispersion curve near the threshold for pair creation $z_1 = -4m^2 + \epsilon$. In terms of $$\omega_t=\sqrt{4m^2 - m^2[2\alpha
b\exp{(-2/b)}]^{2/3}},$$ this maximum is $$\label{FAMMaprox1}
\mu_{\gamma}^{(2)}= \frac{e(1+2b)}{3\omega_t b}\left[2\alpha
b\exp{(-2/b)}\right]^{2/3}$$ which for $b \sim 1$ is about $13 \mu^{\prime}$, where $\mu^{\prime}$ is the anomalous electron magnetic moment.
For supercritical fields $B \to B_c/4 \alpha$, $\mu_{\gamma}^{(2)}$ (given by the expression (\[FAMMaprox1\])) may become arbitrarily large. But this formula is not valid in the mentioned limit $B \to
B_c/4 \alpha$, for which the condition $z_1\ll4m^2$ is also satisfied when $z_2\approx4m^2$. In that case, according to [@Shabad3], the right approximate dispersion equation is $$\label{dispeqaprox2}
z_1=-\frac{z_2}{1+\frac{\alpha}{3\pi}b},$$ and, as a consequence, the photon anomalous magnetic moment (for perpendicular photon propagation) looks like $$\label{FAMMaprox2}
\mu_{\gamma}^{(2)}= \frac{\alpha e}{6\pi
m^2}\frac{\sqrt{z_2}}{1+\frac{\alpha}{3\pi}b}.$$ It is easy to see from (\[FAMMaprox2\]) that $\mu_{\gamma}^{(2)}$ uniformly tends to zero when the magnetic field grows $b\rightarrow\infty$.
Notice that (\[si\]),(\[M3\]) are the analog of the gravitational red shift [@gravredshift] $$\Delta \omega_g = -\frac{ \Delta \phi}{c^2}\omega,$$ where $\Delta \phi= -GM/r_2 + GM/r_1$ and $r_2>r_1$. However since the gravitational field is negative, $\Delta \phi>0$ corresponds to a decrease in the absolute value of $\phi$, as opposite to $\Delta B
> 0$. But as pointed out earlier, the magnetic red shift is produced with opposite sign than the gravitational red shift. For $r_2 \to \infty$ the photon gravitational red shift is $\Delta
\omega_g = -r_G/2r$; this is what is observed for the light coming from a star of mass $M$. For a neutron star of mass $M \sim
M_{\bigodot}$, and star radius $r_1\sim 10$ Km, $\omega_g/\omega
\sim 10^{-1}$. The magnetic red shift for the same star, at frequencies of order $\omega=2m$ and field $B \sim B_c$ is $\Delta
\omega_B/\omega = \int_0^B \mu_{\gamma}^{i}dB/\omega \sim 10^{-5}$. This implies that the magnetic red shift is a small correction to the gravitational red shift up to critical fields.
Conclusions
===========
We have shown that the photon magnetic moment ${\mathbf{\mu}}_{\gamma}^{(i)}$ can be understood as as a pseudovector quantity, which is linear in the electromagnetic field tensor ${\cal{F}_{\mu \nu}}$. A cubic in $k^2$ approximation for the polarization operator was obtained, from which analytic solutions of the photon dispersion equations and anomalous magnetic moment are easily deduced. These approximate expressions are valid in a very wide range of photon momentum and magnetic fields, whenever the condition $k^2/eB\ll 1$ is satisfied. In the whole region of transparency the paramagnetic photon behavior is maintained, even for supercritical fields $B > B_c$.
In the region of transparency and for magnetic fields $B\ll B_c$ and frequencies $\omega \ll 2m$ photons propagate in magnetized vacuum with energies and transverse momentum decreasing for increasing fields, and vice-versa: it behaves as a tiny dipole moving at the speed of light in magnetized vacuum. For larger magnetic fields $B\simeq B_c$ and frequencies $\omega \lesssim 2m$, the resulting quasi–particle behaves as a massive vector boson moving parallel to the field **B**, its mass being $m_q \lesssim 2m$. The last behavior extends to all the region of transparency for supercritical fields $B\gg B_c$. It has been discussed the analogy between the photon propagation in a magnetic field and in a gravitational field. Red shift is produced also in the magnetic field case, but with opposite sign than the gravitational one, leading also to space-time deformations.
The presented results, related to the photon propagation in a uniform magnetic field, may be applied to the study of photons in an axially symmetric magnetic field $B= B(x_{\perp})$, by considering concentric shells in which the field is taken as uniform, but varying from shell to shell. This can be made whenever the variation of $B$ over the length $l= \sqrt{\hbar c/eB} $ is negligibly small. We have found a that the photon magnetic moment has a maximum on the dispersion curve, in the region close to the electron-positron pair creation threshold.
The study of photon properties in an external magnetic field [@Adler]-[@ShabadUsov] is very important in the astrophysical context, where high magnetic fields have been estimated to exist [@GRB]-[@magnAstroph2]; and can be considered as an important part of a more general problem: the theoretical study of high energy processes of elementary particles in strong external electromagnetic fields. Nowadays, this issue has also attracted the interest of several experimental researchers, due to the development of high power lasers and ion accelerators (see [@tev],[@Muller] and references therein).
The authors thank A.E. Shabad for some comments, and especially to OEA-ICTP for support under Net-35. E.R.Q. also thanks ICTP for hospitality.
Series expansion of the polarization operator
=============================================
$k^2=z_1 +z_2<<eB$ limit
------------------------
The functions $\zeta$ and $\rho_i$ ($i=1,2,3$), linear in $z_1$ and $z_2$, may also be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\zeta(z_1,-z_1+k^2,B)&=&\zeta_{0}(z_1,B)+k^2\xi(B),\\
\rho_i(z_1,-z_1+k^2)&=& \rho_{0i}(z_1)+k^2 \theta_i,\end{aligned}$$ where $\zeta_{0}=\zeta(z_1,-z_1,B)$, $ \xi=\zeta(0,k^2,B)/k^2$ and $\rho_{0i}=\rho_{i}(z_1,-z_1)$, $\theta_i=\rho_{i}(0,k^2)/k^2$. We can express then (\[op-pol2\]) as $$\label{series-op-pol}
\kappa_{i}=\sum_{l=0}^{\infty} \chi_{i}^{(l)}k^{2l},$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{i}^{(l)} &=&\frac{2\alpha}{\pi} \int_{0}^{\infty}dt
\int_{-1}^{1}d\eta e^{-\frac{t}{b} }\psi_i^l , \\
\nonumber
\psi_{i}^{(0)} &=& \frac{\rho_{0i}}{\sinh
t}e^{\zeta_{0}} , \\ \nonumber
\psi_{i}^{(1)}
&=& \left[\frac{\rho_{0i}\xi+
\theta_i}{\sinh t}e^{\zeta_{0}} +\frac{1-\eta ^2}{8t} \right], \\
\nonumber \psi_{i}^{(l)} &=& \frac{e^{\zeta_{0}}}{\sinh
t}\left[\frac{\rho_{0i}\xi^{l}}{l!}+
\frac{\theta_i\xi^{l-1}}{(l-1)!} \right], \hspace{1cm} l=2,3,... .\end{aligned}$$
We retain only the first four terms in the series expansion (\[series-op-pol\]) $$\label{PolOp}
\kappa_{i}\approx
\chi_{i}^{(0)}+\chi_{i}^{(1)}k^{2}+\chi_{i}^{(2)}k^{4}+\chi_{i}^{(3)}k^{6},$$ and explicitly solve the resulting approximate dispersion equation, cubic-in-$k^2$, $$\label{DE}
0=
\chi_{i}^{(0)}+(\chi_{i}^{(1)}-1)k^{2}+\chi_{i}^{(2)}k^{4}+\chi_{i}^{(3)}k^{6}.$$ The solutions are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
k^2&=&\frac{\sqrt[3]{R
+\sqrt{\frac{Q^3}{\left(\chi_{i}^{(3)}\right)^2}+R}}+\sqrt[3]{R
-\sqrt{\frac{Q^3}{\left(\chi_{i}^{(3)}\right)^2}+R}}}{\sqrt[3]{\left(\chi_{i}^{(3)}\right)^{2}}}\\\label{sol}
& &\hspace{5.2cm}-\frac{\chi_{i}^{(2)}}{3\chi_{i}^{(3)}},\\
\nonumber
R &=& -\frac{1}{2}\left[\chi_{i}^{(0)}\chi_{i}^{(3)}-
\frac{1}{3}\left(\chi_{i}^{(1)}-1\right)\chi_{i}^{(2)}+\frac{2}{27}\left(\chi_{i}^{(2)}\right)^{2}\right],
\\ \nonumber
Q &=& \frac{1}{3}\left[
\left(\chi_{i}^{(1)}-1\right)\chi_{i}^{(3)}-\frac{1}{3}\left(\chi_{i}^{(2)}\right)^{2}\right].\end{aligned}$$
We differentiate with regard to $B$ the dispersion equation (\[DE\]) and, by using $\frac{\partial z_{1}}{\partial
B}=-2\omega \frac{\partial \omega}{\partial B}$ , we obtain finally an expression for the photon anomalous magnetic moment $$\begin{aligned}
\label{FAMM2} \nonumber
\mu_{\gamma}&=&-\frac{\partial \omega}{\partial B} \\
&=& \displaystyle \frac{1}{2 \omega}\frac{\frac{\partial \chi_{i}^{(0)}}{\partial
B} +\frac{\partial \chi_{i}^{(1)}}{\partial
B}k^{2}+\frac{\partial \chi_{i}^{(2)}}{\partial
B}k^{4}+\frac{\partial \chi_{i}^{(3)}}{\partial
B}k^{6}}{1-\chi_{i}^{(1)}-\frac{\partial \chi_{i}^{(0)}}{\partial
z_1}-Xk^{2}-Yk^{4}-\frac{\partial \chi_{i}^{(3)}}{\partial
z_1 }k^{6}},\\ \nonumber
X&=&\frac{\partial \chi_{i}^{(1)}}{\partial
z_1}+2 \chi_{i}^{(2)},\\ \nonumber
Y&=&\frac{\partial \chi_{i}^{(2)}}{\partial
z_1}+3 \chi_{i}^{(3)},
\end{aligned}$$ with $\omega$ and $k^{2}$ given by (\[sol\]) and $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \chi_{i}^{(l)}}{\partial
B}&=&-\frac{2\alpha}{\pi B} \int_{0}^{\infty}dt
\int_{-1}^{1}d\eta e^{-\frac{t}{b} } \frac{e^{\zeta_{0}}}{\sinh
t}\vartheta_{i}^{(l)}\\ \nonumber
\vartheta_{i}^{(0)}&=& \rho_{0i}\left[-\frac{t}{b}+\zeta_{0}\right] , \\ \nonumber
\vartheta_{i}^{(1)} &=& \left[\left(\rho_{0i}\xi+
\theta_i \right)\left(-\frac{t}{b}+\zeta_{0}\right)%\right.\\
%&& \hspace{2cm}\left.
+\rho_{0i}\xi\right]-\frac{\sinh
t}{e^{\zeta_{0}}}\frac{1-\eta ^2}{8b}, \\
\nonumber \vartheta_{i}^{(2)}&=&
\left[\left(\frac{\rho_{0i}\xi^{2}}{2}+
\theta_{i}\xi\right)\left(-\frac{t}{b}+\zeta_{0}\right)%\right.\\
%\nonumber && \hspace{7.8cm}\left.
+\rho_{0i}\xi^{2}+ \theta_{i}\xi
\right],\\
\nonumber \vartheta_{i}^{(3)}&=&
\left[\left(\frac{\rho_{0i}\xi^{3}}{6}+
\theta_{i}\frac{\xi^2}{2}\right)\left(-\frac{t}{b}+\zeta_{0}\right)%\right.\\
%\nonumber && \hspace{7.8cm}\left.
+\rho_{0i}\frac{\xi^{3}}{3}+
\theta_{i}\xi^2 \right],\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \chi_{i}^{(l)}}{\partial
z_1}&=&-\frac{2\alpha}{\pi z_1} \int_{0}^{\infty}dt
\int_{-1}^{1}d\eta e^{-\frac{t}{b} }\upsilon_{i}^{(l)}\\ \nonumber
\upsilon_{i}^{(0)}&=&\frac{\rho_{0i}}{\sinh
t}e^{\zeta_{0}}\left(\zeta_{0}+1\right) , \\ \nonumber
\upsilon_{i}^{(1)}&=& \frac{e^{\zeta_{0}}}{\sinh
t}\left[\left(\rho_{0i}\xi+
\theta_i \right)\zeta_{0}+\rho_{0i}\xi\right], \\
\nonumber \upsilon_{i}^{(2)}&=& \frac{e^{\zeta_{0}}}{\sinh
t}\left[\left(\frac{\rho_{0i}\xi^{2}}{2}+
\theta_{i}\xi\right)\zeta_{0}+\rho_{0i}\frac{\xi^{2}}{2}
\right],\\
\nonumber \upsilon_{i}^{(3)}&=& \frac{e^{\zeta_{0}}}{\sinh
t}\left[\left(\frac{\rho_{0i}\xi^{3}}{6}+
\theta_{i}\frac{\xi^2}{2}\right)\zeta_{0}+\rho_{0i}\frac{\xi^{3}}{6}
\right].\end{aligned}$$
H. Pérez Rojas and E. Rodríguez Querts, Phys. Rev. D **79**, 093002 (2009) A. E. Shabad, Ann. Phys. **90**, 166 (1975). Ch. Kittel, *Introduction to Solid State Physics*, John Wileys and Sons, New York (1996). S. Villalba, Phys. Rev. D **81**, 105019, (2010) S. Villalba-Chavez,A.E. Shabad, Phys.Rev. D **86**, 105040, (2012) H. Pérez Rojas, E. Rodriguez Querts and J. Helayel Netto, Jour. of Mod. Phys. E 20 (2011) M.H. Johnson, B.A. Lippmann, Phys. Rev. **76**, 828 (1949) S. Coleman, Jour. of Math. Physics, **7**, (1966), 787. E. S. Fradkin, ZhETF, **29**, 121, (1955)(JETP, **2**,121 (1956)) W. Pauli, Handbuch der Physik, 24, **1**,161 (1933). W. Heisenberg and H. Euler, Zeits. fur Phys. **38**, 714 (1936) H. Pérez Rojas and E. Rodríguez Querts, Int. J. Mod. Phys. **A 21**3761, (2006). T.P. Cheng, Relativity, *Gravitation and Cosmology*, Oxford University Press, New York, (2005). L. D. Landau, E. M. Lifshitz, *The Classical Theory of Fields*, Pergamon Press (1971). A. E. Shabad, in *Proc. of the Int. Workshop on Strong Magn. Fields and Neutron Stars*, Havana 2003. Edited by Univ. de Porto Alegre, Brazil S.L. Adler, Annals Phys. **67**, 599-647, (1971) 599-647 V.N. Baier, V.M. Katkov, Phys.Rev. **D75**, 073009, (2007). A. E. Shabad, V.V. Usov, Phys. Rev. **D 81**, 125008, (2010).
T. Piran, *AIP Conf. Proc.* **784** 164-174 (2005). V.V. Usov, Astrophys.J. **572**, L87 (2002). M. Ruderman, *The Electromagnetic Spectrum of Neutron Stars*, NATO ASI Proceedings , Springer, New York, (2004). R. C. Duncan and C. Thompson, Astrophys. J. **392**, L9 (1992). J. Ambjorn, P. Olesen, *Nucl. Phys.* **B 330**, 193 (1990). A. Di Piazza, C. Muller, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, C. H. Keitel, Rev. Mod. Phys. **84**, 1177 (2012).
[^1]: Our statements below are valid for all frames of reference moving parallel to $\mathbf{B}$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We compute the topological entropy of the toric code models in arbitrary dimension at finite temperature. We find that the critical temperatures for the existence of full quantum (classical) topological entropy correspond to the confinement-deconfinement transitions in the corresponding $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ gauge theories. This implies that the thermal stability of topological entropy corresponds to the stability of quantum (classical) memory. The implications for the understanding of ergodicity breaking in topological phases are discussed.'
author:
- Dalimil Mazáč
- Alioscia Hamma
title: 'Topological order, entanglement, and quantum memory at finite temperature'
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Topologically ordered (TO) states are ground states of certain quantum many-body systems that exhibit an order which does not rely on symmetry-breaking mechanism, and thus cannot be characterized by a non vanishing local order parameter [@wenbook]. They possess a ground state degeneracy which depends on the topology of the underlying space and which can not be lifted by local perturbations of the Hamiltonian, and a pattern of long-range entanglement.
For pure states, we say they possess topological order if they span a degenerate ground space with a gap, and such that distinct ground states are locally indistinguishable, i.e. the reduced density matrix over any topologically trivial region does not depend on the choice of the state within the ground space [@hamma_05; @bravyi; @symm]. This property implies a topological robustness under local perturbations, which has made this kind of order interesting for quantum computation [@Kitaev; @tcreview]. This robustness property means that topological order is a property of a whole phase, and one is interested in some quantity that can label and detect this kind of order. It turns out that TO states are characterized by specific entanglement properties. First, they posses an area law with a finite universal correction [@hiz1; @hiz2; @Kitaev2006a; @Levin2006]. This correction, called [*Topological Entropy*]{} (TE), has been shown to be constant within the whole TO phase of the toric code [@hamma_08], and therefore can be used as an order parameter to label the TO phases. It has been shown that this quantity is also characteristic of other TO phases like the Kitaev honeycomb model [@qi; @honey], topological dimer phases, fractional quantum Hall liquids [@Haque2007; @dimer], and TO phases with finite correlation length [@tefinite], or other quantum states that are defined in group theoretic terms [@hiz3]. Also, these properties show up in the entanglement spectrum. To what extent which TO phases can be classified using the full entanglement spectrum is still an open problem [@renyi; @haas; @Li2008a]. Moreover, quantum phases break in domains of quasi adiabatic continuity, namely the set of those states that can be connected by means of evolution with a local Hamiltonian without closing a gap [@quasiadiabatic]. If we ignore symmetry, all the non TO states are in the same phase as the completely factorized state. In this sense, non TO states have trivial entanglement, while TO states belong to different classes of non trivial, long-range entanglement [@chen_gu_wen_10].
However, a real physical system is always found at some finite temperature $T$ by coupling to a thermal environment and so does not occupy solely the ground state. If topological order is to be a physical phenomenon, it must therefore exist in thermal states at nonzero temperature too. We should then seek generalizations of the above characterizations of topological order to $T>0$. The given definition, in terms of mass gap and ground-state degeneracy, fails to generalize straightforwardly as we can not speak about locally indistinguishable distinct states at $T>0$ simply because the thermal state is unique. Nevertheless, we can generalize this definition through its physical implications. At zero temperature, it implies that a TO system can support long-lived quantum memory. Indeed, if we add a local perturbation to a Hamiltonian of such system of linear size $L$, we must go to $O(L)$-th order in perturbation theory to connect orthogonal ground states. Hence, the tunnelling amplitude between distinct ground states is $O(\exp(-L))$, in which case we obtain a quantum memory register with lifetime $\tau=O(\exp(L))$, which we call [*stable*]{} quantum memory. Similarly, a stable classical memory is a system in which we can reliably encode classical information for exponentially long times. We can generalize this viewpoint to finite temperature by defining a topologically ordered system to be one which supports quantum memory with lifetime that scales exponentially with the size of the system. As an example, the toric code in 2D [@Kitaev] does not support any kind of memory, quantum or classical at any finite temperature $T>0$, while the Ising model in 2D and the toric code in 3D both have a critical temperature $T_c$ below which classical memory is stable [@bt; @yoshida; @castelnovo08-3d].
The notion of TE generalizes to $T>0$ immediately[@castelnovo08-3d]. Scaling of the von Neumann entropy with subsystem proportions is more complicated then the area law at zero temperature, but one may take a suitable linear combination of von Neumann entropies of different subsystems and isolate the universal constant piece coming from structured entanglement [@Kitaev2006a; @Levin2006]. For the toric code in 2D and 3D, the calculation of TE at finite temperature was performed in [@castelnovo07-2d] and [@castelnovo08-3d]. In 2D there is no TE at any finite temperature, just like there is no stable information. In 3D, there is a stable TE of completely classical origin, just like there is a stable classical memory. This fact strongly pushes the question whether the stability of TE and memory at finite temperature are always related, and if yes, why.
Moreover, the characterization of TO as states with non trivial entanglement (NT) has recently been generalized to finite temperature by Hastings [@hastings_11], by considering equilibrium states that cannot be connected by means of a quantum circuit of finite range to a mixed state which is made of product states in the energy eigenbasis. Non TO states at finite temperature do possess trivial entanglement (FAC).
In this paper, we investigate the important question whether these three characterizations of topological order are still equivalent at $T>0$. We study the simplest model with TO, the Toric Code -in arbitrary $D$ spatial dimensions- introduced by Kitaev [@Kitaev], which in the low energy sector realizes the $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ lattice gauge theory. We analyze the stability of quantum memory, calculate the TE and compare these results also with the presence of NT or FAC as indicators of topological order. The calculation of TE at arbitrary temperature in the thermodynamic limit is made possible by decomposition into contributions from the two kinds of defects [@castelnovo08-3d] and a mapping to the $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ lattice gauge theory. We find the critical temperatures for the stability of TE, corresponding to the confinement-deconfinement transitions of the underlying gauge theory [@fradkin].
We find that the value of TE contains all the information about stability of quantum and classical memory in these models (and about the triviality of entanglement) and hence that all define the same notion of topological order. So, at least in the toric code models, we see that [*quantum TE means stable quantum memory, while classical TE means stable classical memory*]{}. We are also able to elucidate that the same physical mechanism is responsible for destruction of quantum memory and quantum TE.
The toric codes examined in this paper depend on two couplings $\lambda$ and $\mu$. We find there are two critical temperatures $T_\lambda$ and $T_\mu$, such that the stability of memory and TE are connected as follows.
- quantum memory stable and ${S_{top}}(T)={S_{top}}(0)$ for $T\in[0,\min(T_\lambda,T_\mu))$, and NT
- classical memory stable and ${S_{top}}(T)={S_{top}}(0)/2$ for $T\in(\min(T_\lambda,T_\mu),\max(T_\lambda,T_\mu))$, and FAC
- no stable memory and ${S_{top}}(T)=0$ for $T\in(\max(T_\lambda,T_\mu),\infty)$, and FAC,
where ${S_{top}}(T)$ is the topological entropy at temperature $T$.
As usual in statistical mechanics, the existence of finite critical temperature depends on the dimensionality of the system, where low dimensional systems are less likely to have finite-temperature phase transitions. As particular cases, we recover the results of Castelnovo and Chamon [@castelnovo07-2d; @castelnovo08-3d] in two and three dimensions. This precise correspondence leads us to conjecture that it holds in general TO systems and hence that we may define topological order at $T>0$ as follows: A thermal state is TO at $T>0$ if ${S_{top}}(T)={S_{top}}(0)>0$.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:model\], the general toric codes are described, together with their dualities and connections to lattice gauge theory. Statistics of defects is then used to analyse the stability of quantum and classical memory in the toric codes in Section \[sec:memory\]. Decomposition of the topological entropy, duality of the toric codes and a map to $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ lattice gauge theory lead to the calculation of TE in Section \[sec:entropy\]. Our results are discussed and compared to Hastings’s circuit definition in Section \[sec:discussion\], together with suggestions for further work.
General toric codes {#sec:model}
===================
The models {#the-models .unnumbered}
----------
The toric codes considered in this paper are labelled by a pair $(D,k)$, where $D$ is the dimension of the lattice and $k\in{\{1,\ldots,D-1\}}$. The toric code labelled by $(D,k)$ will be denoted $\mathcal{T}^{(D,k)}$ and is defined as follows. Let $\Lambda$ be a $D$-dimensional cubic lattice of linear size $L$ with periodic boundary conditions and let us refer to its elementary $k$-dimensional blocks as $k$-cells. Let us denote $P_{k}(\Lambda)$ the set of $k$-cells and $N=L^D$ the total number of 0-cells in our lattice, so that $|P_{k}(\Lambda)| = \binom{D}{k}N$. To obtain $\mathcal{T}^{(D,k)}$, put a spin-$1/2$ degree of freedom on each $k$-cell and associate the star operator $A_a = \otimes_{i|a\in\partial i}X_i$ with each $(k-1)$-cell $a$, where the product runs over all $k$-cells neigbouring $a$, and plaquette operator $B_b = \otimes_{i\in\partial b}Z_i$ with each $(k+1)$-cell $b$, where the product runs over the $k$-cells contained in $b$. $X_i, Z_i$ are the local Pauli spin operators. The Hamiltonian of $\mathcal{T}^{(D,k)}$ is $$\label{eqn:hamiltonian0}
H^{(D,k)}(\lambda,\mu) = -\lambda \sum_{a\in P_{k-1}(\Lambda)} A_a - \mu \sum_{b\in P_{k+1}(\Lambda)} B_b\,,$$ where $\lambda,\mu>0$.
$A_a$ and $B_b$ overlap only if $a$ is contained in $b$, but then they share precisely $2$ $k$-cells, so that $[A_a,B_{b}] = [A_a,A_{a'}] = [B_b,B_{b'}] = 0$. Hence the ground state subspace is $\mathcal{H}_g = \{{\left | {\psi} \right \rangle }: A_a{\left | {\psi} \right \rangle } = B_b{\left | {\psi} \right \rangle } = {\left | {\psi} \right \rangle }\;\forall a,b\}$. Denote the dual lattice by $\Lambda^*$. The algebra $\mathcal{A}_c$ of operators commuting with the Hamiltonian is generated by products of $X$ over closed $(D-k)$-chains in $\Lambda^*$ and products of $Z$ over closed $k$-chains in $\Lambda$. The algebra $\mathcal{A}_t = \{\mathcal{O}:\mathcal{O}{\left | {\psi} \right \rangle } = {\left | {\psi} \right \rangle }\;\forall{\left | {\psi} \right \rangle }\in\mathcal{H}_g\}$ is generated by $A$ and $B$ operators and hence consists of products of $X$ over boundary $(D-k)$-chains in $\Lambda^*$ and products of $Z$ over boundary $k$-chains in $\Lambda$. Hence the algebra of operators acting on the ground state $\mathcal{A}_g=\mathcal{A}_c/\mathcal{A}_t$ is generated by products of $X$ over $(D-k)$-homologies of $\Lambda^*$ and products of $Z$ over $k$-homologies of $\Lambda$. The $k$th $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ homology group of the $D$-dimensional torus is $H_k(T^D,\mathbb{Z}_{2}) = (\mathbb{Z}_{2})^{\binom{D}{k}}$. It is not hard to see that there is a canonical one-to-one correspondence between the $(D-k)$-homologies of $\Lambda^*$ and $k$-homologies of $\Lambda$, so that if we define the logical operators $\bar{X}_\alpha, \bar{Z}_\alpha$ for $\alpha=1,\ldots,\binom{D}{k}$ to be the described products over homology representatives, we can choose the $\alpha$ labels so that $$\label{eq:gsalgebra}
\bar{X}_\alpha\bar{Z}_\alpha=-\bar{Z}_\alpha\bar{X}_\alpha,\quad
[\bar{X}_\alpha,\bar{Z}_\beta] = 0\quad\textrm{if }\alpha\neq\beta$$ The algebra of Eq. is just the algebra of $\binom{D}{k}$ independent spin-$1/2$ particles, so we find $\dim\mathcal{H}_g = 2^{\binom{D}{k}}$.
The information stored in the ground space is topologically protected since only products of $X$ and $Z$ over surfaces with nontrivial homology act nonidentically on $\mathcal{H}_g$. Considering a local perturbation at $T=0$, we would have to go to the $O(L)$-th order in perturbation theory to get a nonvanishing matrix element between orthogonal ground states, i.e. the tunnelling amplitude is exponentially small in the size of the system. The situation is very different at $T>0$ where stability of TO depends on the energy barrier for these defects to wind around the torus.
Duality {#duality .unnumbered}
-------
The $\mathcal{T}^{(D,k)}$ model is exactly dual to the $\mathcal{T}^{(D,D-k)}$ model on the dual lattice, which will prove very useful in the following. To obtain this result, note first that each $j$-cell in $\Lambda$ intersects precisely one $(D-j)$-cell of $\Lambda^*$, so if $a\in P_j(\Lambda)$, let $a^*$ be the corresponding $(D-j)$-cell in $\Lambda^*$. Hence the spins naturally live on the $(D-k)$-cells of $\Lambda^*$. We now observe that if $e\in P_{j}(\Lambda)$ and $f\in P_{j+1}(\Lambda)$, then $$e\in\partial f\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad f^*\in\partial e^*,$$ where $\partial$ denotes the boundary operator. Define $U$ to be the unitary operator swapping globally the $x$ and $z$ computational bases. Denoting $A^*_c$, $B^*_d$ the analogous $A$, $B$ operators on the dual lattice, where $c\in P_{D-k-1}(\Lambda^*)$ and $d\in P_{D-k+1}(\Lambda^*)$, we find $$UA_{a}U^{\dagger} = B^*_{a^*},\quad UB_{b}U^{\dagger} = A^*_{b^*}.$$ Consequently, if $$H_{*}^{(D,D-k)}(\lambda,\mu) = -\lambda \sum_{c\in P_{D-k-1}(\Lambda^*)} A^*_c - \mu \sum_{d\in P_{D-k+1}(\Lambda^*)} B^*_d$$ is the Hamiltonian of the $\mathcal{T}^{(D,D-k)}$ on the dual lattice, the duality is expressed through the equation $$UH^{(D,k)}(\lambda,\mu)U^{\dagger} = H^{(D,D-k)}_{*}(\mu,\lambda).$$ It follows that any thermal expectation values calculated in the $\mathcal{T}^{(D,k)}$ and $\mathcal{T}^{(D,D-k)}$ at the same temperature are connected by swapping $\lambda$ and $\mu$ since the two density matrices are conjugate.
The unique toric code in two dimension is the well-known $\mathcal{T}^{(2,1)}$ model with star and plaquette operators, which is self-dual. It also follows that there is only one kind of a toric code in $3$D, since $\mathcal{T}^{(3,1)}$ is dual to $\mathcal{T}^{(3,2)}$, and so we need to go to at least $4$D to find distinct models with equal $D$. It will become clear that the most interesting $4$D toric code is the self-dual $\mathcal{T}^{(4,2)}$.
$\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ lattice gauge theory {#mathbbz_2-lattice-gauge-theory .unnumbered}
-------------------------------------
In the limit $\lambda\rightarrow\infty$, the condition $$\label{eq:gauge_constraint}
A_a{\left | {\psi} \right \rangle }={\left | {\psi} \right \rangle }\;\forall a\in P_{k-1}$$ is enforced on all physical states ${\left | {\psi} \right \rangle }$ projecting $\mathcal{T}^{(D,k)}$ onto the corresponding $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ pure lattice gauge theory [@wegner_71; @kogut_79; @fradkin] with the Hamiltonian $$H^{(D,k)}_{g} = - \mu \sum_{b\in P_{k+1}(\Lambda)} B_b\,,$$ and gauge constraints . Let us denote this theory by $\mathcal{GT}^{(D,k)}$. Spin flips cause excitations, which take the form of boundary $(D-k-1)$-chains in $\Lambda^*$. A boundary $(D-k-1)$-chain $C$ defines the $(k+1)$-chain $C^*$ of $(k+1)$-cells such that $B_b=-1$ for $b\in C^*$. Such $(k+1)$-cells will be called “flipped cells” and $C^*$ the “flipped chain” in the following.
Duality of $\mathcal{GT}^{(D,k)}$ and $\mathcal{GT}^{(D,D-k-2)}$ for $k\in{\{0,\ldots,D-2\}}$ can be used to show that $\mathcal{GT}^{(D,k)}$ for this range of $k$s is a two-phase system [@wegner_71], where the Elitzur’s theorem forbids existence of a local order parameter. In the low-temperature phase, defects, which are necessarily at least 1-dimensional for $k<D-1$, are confined, and become deconfined at a finite critical temperature. $\mathcal{GT}^{(D,D-1)}$ contains $0$-dimensional defects, which become deconfined already at $T=0$, and thus the system only has the disordered phase.
Quantum and classical memory in the toric codes {#sec:memory}
===============================================
General discussion {#general-discussion .unnumbered}
------------------
As noted in Section \[sec:model\], the primary interest in the toric codes stems from the capacity of the ground-state subspace to store qubits which are stable under local perturbations at zero temperature[@dklp_02]. The problem of the stability of quantum memory at finite temperature is much more delicate and of great importance for both theoretical implications and practical reasons. In the view that the resilience of quantum memory at finite temperature is a property of the phase, one would expect that it is necessary to have a critical temperature below which memory is stable [@autocorrelations]. A remarkable fact of the memory encoded in the ground space of the toric codes is that their thermal stability can be studied through the confinement-deconfinement transition of the $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ lattice gauge theory [@dklp_02; @castelnovo08-3d]. In this discussion, it is important to distinguish between classical and quantum memory, which are defined as follows. A qubit is prepared in a superposition ${\left | {\psi} \right \rangle } = \sum_{i}c_i{\left | {i} \right \rangle }$, and coupling with a thermal bath is switched on. Let $\tau_{q}$ be the time scale at which the off-diagonal elements of the density matrix go to zero in some basis, i.e. the time at which the quantum correlations disappear. Similarly, let $\tau_{c}$ be the time scale when the diagonal elements change significantly, or equivalently when one loses even the classical probabilities. We say that our system posesses quantum memory if $\tau_q=O(\exp(L))$, where $L$ is the size of the system, and only classical memory if $\tau_q=O(1)$ and $\tau_c=O(\exp(L))$. Finally, the system has no memory if both $\tau_q,\tau_c=O(1)$ in the size of the system.
The ground state subspace of $\mathcal{T}^{(D,k)}$ is isomorphic to the Hilbert space of $\binom{D}{k}$ $2$-level systems, and its algebra of logical operators is generated by $\bar{X}_\alpha,\bar{Z}_\alpha$ for $\alpha\in{\{1,\ldots,\binom{D}{k}\}}$, which satisfy . The different $\alpha$ sectors are equivalent and independent and we will restrict to $\alpha=1$ in the following and drop the indices. Let us choose a basis $\{{\left | {0} \right \rangle },{\left | {1} \right \rangle }\}$ for this tensor factor of $\mathcal{H}_g$ such that $\bar{Z}{\left | {0} \right \rangle }={\left | {0} \right \rangle }$, $\bar{Z}{\left | {1} \right \rangle }=-{\left | {1} \right \rangle }$, $\bar{X}{\left | {0} \right \rangle }={\left | {1} \right \rangle }$ and $\bar{X}{\left | {1} \right \rangle }={\left | {0} \right \rangle }$, prepare qubit in a superposition ${\left | {\psi} \right \rangle } = c_0{\left | {0} \right \rangle } + c_1{\left | {1} \right \rangle }$ and turn on coupling with a thermal bath at temperature $T$. The coupling is assumed local and so $T>0$ will produce local defects of $A_a$ and $B_b$. Quantum memory is destroyed when the thermal defects can change the eigenvalue of either $\bar{X}$ or $\bar{Z}$, while classical memory is preserved when the eigenvalue of either $\bar{X}$ or $\bar{Z}$ is robust under the thermal defects [@alicki_07; @alicki_09]. We have seen that $\bar{X}$ is a product of $X$ over a $(D-k)$-homology in $\Lambda^*$ and $\bar{Z}$ a product of $Z$ over the dual $k$-homology in $\Lambda$. Hence the eigenvalue $\bar{X}$ is fragile when the $B_b$ defects can wind around the torus. In turn, the deconfinement of these defects can be seen as the deconfined phase of the corresponding gauge theory, i.e. the deconfined phase of $\mathcal{GT}^{(D,k)}$ with coupling $\mu$. Similarly, the eigenvalue of $\bar{X}$ is fragile when the $A_a$ defects can conspire to produce surfaces with nontrivial homology. The $\lambda\leftrightarrow\mu$ duality tells us this happens precisely when $\mathcal{GT}^{(D,D-k)}$ with coupling $\lambda$ is deconfined. We can now summarize these results in the following table
----------------------- ------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quantum memory $\Leftrightarrow$ both $\mathcal{GT}^{(D,D-k)}(T/\lambda)$ and $\mathcal{GT}^{(D,k)}(T/\mu)$ confined
only classical memory $\Leftrightarrow$ either $\mathcal{GT}^{(D,D-k)}(T/\lambda)$ or $\mathcal{GT}^{(D,k)}(T/\mu)$ deconfined
no memory $\Leftrightarrow$ both $\mathcal{GT}^{(D,D-k)}(T/\lambda)$ and $\mathcal{GT}^{(D,k)}(T/\mu)$ deconfined
----------------------- ------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Quantum and classical memory in $\mathcal{T}^{(D,k)}$[]{data-label="tab:memory"}
Examples {#examples .unnumbered}
--------
The lattice gauge theory $\mathcal{GT}^{(2,1)}(T/\mu)$ has phase transition at $T/\mu=0$, and so the 2D toric code has neither quantum nor classical memory at any finite temperature [@alicki_07]. $\mathcal{GT}^{(3,2)}(T/\lambda)$ also deconfines at $T/\lambda=0$, but $\mathcal{GT}^{(3,1)}(T/\mu)$ has a nontrivial low-temperature phase, so that the 3D toric code loses quantum memory at $T=0$, but preserves classical memory up to a finite critical temperature, which is proportional to the coupling of the plaquette operators. The simplest toric code with quantum memory at finite temperature is the $\mathcal{T}^{(4,2)}$ model [@dklp_02], whose stability is controlled by $\mathcal{GT}^{(4,2)}(T/\mu)$ [@alicki_09].
Topological entropy {#sec:entropy}
===================
Definition {#definition .unnumbered}
----------
In this section, the topological entropy of $\mathcal{T}^{(D,k)}$ will be calculated for general couplings at any $T$ in the thermodynamic limit and shown to correspond precisely to the behaviour of quantum and classical memory as discussed in the previous section.
At $T=0$, topological entropy ${S_{top}}(0)$ is defined as the universal part of bipartite entanglement entropy $S_{e}$, which does not scale with the subsystem boundary $$S_{e} = \alpha|\partial| - {S_{top}}(0).$$ As opposed to $\alpha$, it is robust under local perturbations [@hamma_08] and also ${S_{top}}(0)\geq0$, so that it represents an order of entanglement.
At $T>0$, the scaling of $S_{e}$ is more complicated and we need to extract the universal term ${S_{top}}(T)$ by taking a linear combination [@Kitaev2006a; @Levin2006] $${S_{top}}(T) = \sum_{i}\sigma(i)S_{e}(T,C_i),$$ where $\sigma(i)$ are the signs of partitions $C_i\sqcup D_i = P_{k}(\Lambda)$, which are chosen so that the linear combination of the bulk and boundary chains of $C_i$ of any dimensionality are zero, and we are left with the topological contributions only. Here we generalize to arbitrary $D$ the clever construction of [@castelnovo08-3d]. For a general $\mathcal{T}^{(D,k)}$, we will define the $C_i^{(D)}$, $i\in{\{1,\ldots,4(D-1)\}}$ by induction on $D$ as follows. For $D=2$, we choose the four partition as in Figure \[fig:2dpartitions\], with $\sigma(2)=\sigma(3)=-\sigma(1)=-\sigma(4) = 1$, where the outer, inner squares in $C_4^{(2)}$ have sidelengths $a$, $a/3$ respectively. Having constructed all $C_i^{(D)}$, we define $C_{4D}^{(D+1)}$ to be the $(D+1)$-dimensional cube of side $a$ missing a $(D+1)$-dimensional cube of side $a/3$ from its middle. Analogously to Fig.\[fig:2dpartitions\], we define $C_{4D-1}^{(D+1)}$, $C_{4D-2}^{(D+1)}$ as the upper and lower two-thirds of $C_{4D}^{(D+1)}$, upper and lower meant in the last dimension, and $C_{4D-3}^{(D+1)} = C_{4D-1}^{(D+1)}\cap C_{4D-2}^{(D+1)}$. For $i\in{\{1,\ldots,4(D-1)\}}$, construct $C_i^{(D+1)} = C_i^{(D)}\times I_{a/3}$, where the interval $I_{a/3}$ of length $a/3$ is added in the last dimension so that $C_{4D-4}^{(D+1)}=C_{4D-3}^{(D+1)}$. Finally, choose $\sigma(i)$ $$\sigma(i) = \begin{cases}
-1\quad\textrm{if }i\equiv 0,1\!\mod 4\\
+1\quad\textrm{if }i\equiv 2,3\!\mod 4
\end{cases}.$$
![Partitions for the $D=2$ model[]{data-label="fig:2dpartitions"}](2d_bipartitions.eps){width="\textwidth"}
As an example, for $D=3$ and $D=4$ we have the partitions of Fig.\[fig:3dpartitions\] and \[fig:4dpartitions\]. The fourth dimension is represented by the green segments in Fig. \[fig:4dpartitions\], while the blue and red are 3-boundaries living in the first three dimensions. This choice of partitions was motivated by the requirement that the signed bulk and boundary chains add up to zero. Indeed, they clearly do for $D=2$, and hence by induction on $D$, $$\sum_{i=1}^{4(D-1)}\sigma(i)C^{(D+1)}_i = 0,$$ since $C_i^{(D+1)} = C_i^{(D)}\times I_{a/3}$ for $i\in{\{1,\ldots,4(D-1)\}}$. Moreover, it follows straight from the definition that $$\sum_{i=4D-3}^{4D}\sigma(i)C_i^{(D+1)} = 0,$$ and hence the full set of partitions gives zero net bulk chain $$\sum_{i=1}^{4D}\sigma(i)C_i^{(D+1)} = 0.$$ The same argument also works for the non oriented boundaries with signs $\sigma(i)$. When choosing the partitions, we also required that their collection is symmetric under the exchange $C_i\leftrightarrow D_i$, besides the global torus topology. For example, $C^{(D)}_1$ has $2$ connected components and so in $D$ dimensions, we are forced to introduce the $i=4(D-1)$ partition, where $D^{(D)}_{4(D-1)}$ also has two connected components. Finally, if we also demand that for each $d\in{\{0,\ldots,D-1\}}$, there is an $i$ such that $C_i$ has nontrivial homology of dimension $d$, our choice is a very natural one. In the thermodynamic limit, we scale both $L,a\rightarrow\infty$.
![Partitions for the $D=3$ model[]{data-label="fig:3dpartitions"}](3d_bipartitions.eps){width="\textwidth"}
![Partitions $i=1,5,12$ for the $D=4$ model[]{data-label="fig:4dpartitions"}](4d_bipartitions.eps){width="\textwidth"}
Zero temperature {#zero-temperature .unnumbered}
----------------
Let us first calculate ${S_{top}}$ at zero temperature as this result forms the core of the calculation at $T>0$. Define the groups of spin flips $G=\langle A_a|\,a\in P_{k-1}\rangle$, $G_i = \{g\in G|\, g_{D_i} = 1_{D_i}\}$ and $H_i = \{g\in G|\, g_{C_i} = 1_{C_i}\}$, where $g_{D_i}$ denotes restriction of $g$ to $D_i$ and $1_{D_i}$ is the identity transformation on $D_i$. Since any ground state is a uniform superposition over the group $G$, the entanglement entropy of partition $i$ is [@hamma_05] $$S^{(D,k)}_i = \log\left(\frac{|G|}{|G_i||H_i|}\right).$$ Hence the TE is $$\label{eq:st01}
{S_{top}}^{(D,k)}(0) = -\sum_{i=1}^{4(D-1)}\sigma(i)\log\left(|G_i||H_i|\right),$$ because there is an equal number of positive and negative partitions. Now we turn to the calculation of $|G_i|$ and $|H_i|$. The contribution from the global topology of $\Lambda$ to $\log(|H_i|)$ is the same for all $i$ and therefore cancels in . It will therefore be omitted in some of the following equalities, which we will write as $\doteq$ for that reason. $G_i$ consists of those closed $(D-k)$-chains in $C_i^{*}$, which are also boundaries of $(D-k+1)$-chains in $\Lambda^*$. The elements of $G_i$ which are not boundaries of chains in $C_i$ must arise from nontrivial $(k-1)$-homologies of $D_i^*$, so that $$\log(|G_i|) \doteq \log(|H_{k-1}(D_i^{*})|) + \log(|B_{D-k}(C_i^{*})|),$$ where $H_{d}$, $B_{d}$ are the $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ homology, boundary groups respectively. Let $X_d$ and $Z_d$ be respectively the groups of all, and closed $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ $d$-chains in $C_i$. In other words, $Z_d = \ker(\partial_d)$, $B_{d} = {\textrm{im}}(\partial_{d+1})$, where $\partial_d: X_d{{\rightarrow}}X_{d-1}$ is the boundary homomorphism. Then the $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ homology groups are defined by $$H_d = Z_d/B_d.$$ By the first isomorphism theorem applied iteratively to $\partial_d$ for $d\in{\{D-k+1,\ldots,D\}}$, we obtain $$\log_2(|G_i|) \doteq b_{k-1}(D_i^{*}) + \sum_{j=1}^{k}(-1)^j[b_{D-(k-j)}(C_i^{*})- |P_{D-(k-j)}(C_i^{*})|],$$ where $b_{j}$ is the $j$-th Betti number. Similar analysis holds for $|H_i|$ and we arrive at the result $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:st02}
\frac{{S_{top}}(0)}{\log 2} &= -\sum_{i}\sigma(i)\left\{b_{k-1}(D_i) + b_{k-1}(C_i) +\vphantom{\sum_{j=1}^{k}}\right.\nonumber\\
&\left.+\sum_{j=1}^{k}(-1)^j[b_{D-(k-j)}(C_i) + b_{D-(k-j)}(D_i)]\right\},\end{aligned}$$ where the terms containing the $j$-cell numbers $|P_j|$ subtracted since the bulks of signed partitions add up to zero, and the stars were dropped since $C_i$, $D_i$ have the same topology as $C_i^{*}$, $D_i^{*}$. Our task is reduced to calculating the Betti numbers of $C_i$ and $D_i$. Define reduced Betti numbers $b'_0 = b_0-1$ and $b'_i = b_i$ for $i>0$. They are $$\begin{aligned}
b'_i(C_{4j}) &= \begin{cases}
1\quad\textrm{if }i=j\\
0\quad\textrm{otherwise}
\end{cases}\\
b'_i(C_{4j+1}) &= \begin{cases}
1\quad\textrm{if }i=j\\
0\quad\textrm{otherwise}
\end{cases}\\
b'_i(C_{4j+2}) &= b'_i(C_{4j+3}) = 0\\
b'_i(D_{4j}) &\doteq \begin{cases}
1\quad\textrm{if }i=D-j-1\\
0\quad\textrm{otherwise}
\end{cases}\label{eq:bettiD1} \\
b'_i(D_{4j+1}) &\doteq \begin{cases}
1\quad\textrm{if }i=D-j-1\\
0\quad\textrm{otherwise}
\end{cases}\label{eq:bettiD2}\\
b'_i(D_{4j+2}) &= b'_i(D_{4j+3}) \doteq 0.\label{eq:bettiD3}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting these values into , we find that $${S_{top}}^{(D,k)}(0) = 2\log 2,$$ independently of $D$ and $k$, which also reproduces the known results for 2D and 3D [@castelnovo07-2d; @castelnovo08-3d]. Had we separated the contribution from $|G_i|$ and $|H_i|$, we would have found $$\label{eq:gisum}
-\sum_{i=1}^{4(D-1)}\sigma(i)\log\left(|G_i|\right) = -\sum_{i=1}^{4(D-1)}\sigma(i)\log\left(|H_i|\right) = \log 2.$$
Finite Temperature {#finite-temperature .unnumbered}
------------------
Let us now proceed by calculating ${S_{top}}^{(D,k)}(T,\lambda,\mu)$ for general $T$. To perform this calculation, we will use the key property found in [@castelnovo08-3d], where it was shown that the entanglement entropy in general toric codes decomposes into a sum of two terms, with the first coming from the star operators and depending only on $T/\lambda$ and the second from plaquette operators depending on $T/\mu$. Thus we may write $$S^{(D,k)}_{e}(T,\lambda,\mu) = Q_{e}^{(D,D-k)}(T/\lambda) + R_{e}^{(D,k)}(T/\mu),$$ where the reason for notation $Q_e^{(D,j)}$, $R_e^{(D,j)}$ will become clear shortly. TE is linear in von Neumann entropies, so the same factorization applies $${S_{top}}^{(D,k)}(T,\lambda,\mu) = Q_{top}^{(D,D-k)}(T/\lambda) + R_{top}^{(D,k)}(T/\mu).$$ We have seen in Section \[sec:model\] that $\mathcal{T}^{(D,k)}$ with couplings $(\lambda,\mu)$ is equivalent to the $\mathcal{T}^{(D,D-k)}$ with couplings $(\mu,\lambda)$ on the dual lattice. Since $C_i$, $D_i$ have the same topology as $C_i^{*}$, $D_i^{*}$, the same duality holds for TE $${S_{top}}^{(D,k)}(T,\lambda,\mu) = {S_{top}}^{(D,D-k)}(T,\mu,\lambda).$$ It follows that $Q_{top}^{(D,j)}$ and $R_{top}^{(D,j)}$ can be chosen to coincide $$Q_{top}^{(D,j)}(x) = R_{top}^{(D,j)}(x)$$ and we can write $$\label{eq:stT1}
{S_{top}}^{(D,k)}(T,\lambda,\mu) = Q_{top}^{(D,D-k)}(T/\lambda) + Q_{top}^{(D,k)}(T/\mu).$$ We have thus reduced our problem to finding the functions $Q_{top}^{(D,j)}(x)$ for $j\in{\{1,\ldots,D-1\}}$. The zero-temperature result tells us that we must have $Q_{top}^{(D,j)}(0) = \log 2$. The $\lambda\rightarrow\infty$ limit of equation then yields $$\label{eq:qtop0}
Q_{top}^{(D,k)}(T/\mu) = \lim_{\lambda\rightarrow\infty}{S_{top}}^{(D,k)}(T,\lambda,\mu) - \log 2.$$ But $\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow\infty}{S_{top}}^{(D,k)}(T,\lambda,\mu)$ is nothing but the topological entropy in the gauge theory $\mathcal{GT}^{(D,k)}(T/\mu)$ since $\lambda\rightarrow\infty$ imposes the gauge constraints $A_a = 1$.
Topological entropy in the gauge theory {#topological-entropy-in-the-gauge-theory .unnumbered}
---------------------------------------
In order to compute $S_{gtop}^{(D,k)}(T/\mu)\equiv\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow\infty}{S_{top}}^{(D,k)}(T,\lambda,\mu)$, introduce the projection operator $P$ onto the states of the gauge theory $$P = \frac{1}{|G|}\sum_{g\in G}g.$$ The thermal density matrix of our model is $$\rho(T/\mu) = \frac{1}{Z}\exp\left(-\beta\mu\sum_{b\in P_{k+1}(\Lambda)}B_b\right)P,$$ where (in the computational $z$-basis) $$\begin{aligned}
Z &= {{\mbox{Tr\,}}}\left[\exp\left(-\beta\mu\sum_{b\in P_{k+1}(\Lambda)}B_b\right)P\right]= \nonumber\\
&= \frac{1}{|G|}\sum_{\substack{g\in G\\f\in F}}{\left \langle {0} \right | }fgf{\left | {0} \right \rangle }e^{-\beta\mu M(f)} \nonumber\\
&= \frac{1}{|G|}\sum_{f\in F}e^{-\beta\mu M(f)}\end{aligned}$$ is the partition function of $\mathcal{GT}^{(D,k)}(T/\mu)$, where $F$ is the group of all spin flips on $P_{k}(\Lambda)$ and $M(f) = {\left \langle {f} \right | }\sum_{b\in P_{k+1}(\Lambda)}B_b{\left | {f} \right \rangle }$ is the total plaquette magnetization of $f$. Let us also define the groups $F_i = \{f\in F|\, f_{D_i} = 1_{D_i}\}$ and $E_i = \{f\in F|\, f_{C_i} = 1_{C_i}\}$ that act nontrivially only on $C_i$, $D_i$ respectively. The reduced density matrix of subsystem $C_i$ is then $$\label{eq:rg}
\rho_{i}(T/\mu) = \frac{\sum_{\substack{g\in G_i\\f\in F}} e^{-\beta\mu M(f)}\left(g{\left | {f} \right \rangle }{\left \langle {f} \right | }\right)|_{C_i}}{|G|Z},$$ where $\mathcal{O}|_{C_i}$ denotes the projection of operator $\mathcal{O}$ onto the Hilbert space of $C_i$. Let us use the replica tric to find the entanglement entropy of $C_i$ in the gauge theory $$\label{eq:replica}
S_{gi}^{(D,k)}(T/\mu) = -\left.\frac{{\textrm{d}}}{{\textrm{d}}n}\right|_{n=1}{{\mbox{Tr\,}}}\left[\rho_{i}^{n}(T/\mu)\right].$$ The trace of the $n$-th power of $\rho_{i}^n$ is found from to be $${{\mbox{Tr\,}}}\left[\rho_{C_i}^{n}(T/\mu)\right] = \frac{|G_{i}|^{n-1}}{|G|^nZ^n} \sum_{f_1,\ldots,f_n\in F} e^{-\beta\mu \sum_{m=1}^{n}M(f_m)}\delta_{C_i}(f_1,\ldots,f_n),$$ where $$\delta_{C_i}(f_1,\ldots,f_n) = \begin{cases}
1\quad\textrm{iff }f_1|_{C_i} = \ldots =f_n|_{C_i}\\
0\quad\textrm{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ We can trivialize the delta constraint through substitution $f_m = fe_m$, where $f\in F_i$ and $e_m\in E_i$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:trr}
{{\mbox{Tr\,}}}\left[\rho_{i}^{n}(T/\mu)\right] &= \frac{|G_{i}|^{n-1}}{|G|^nZ^n} \sum_{f\in F_i}\sum_{e_1,\ldots,e_n\in E_i} \exp\left[-\beta\mu \sum_{m=1}^{n}M(fe_m)\right] \nonumber\\
&= \frac{|G_{i}|^{n-1}}{|G|^nZ^n} \sum_{f\in F_i}[q_i(f)]^n,\end{aligned}$$ where $$q_i(f) = \sum_{e\in E_i}e^{-\beta\mu M(fe)}.$$ Expression is ready to be used in the replica tric , with the result $$S_{gi}^{(D,k)}(T/\mu) = -\log(|G_i|) + \log(|G|Z) - \frac{1}{|G|Z}\sum_{f\in F_i}q_i(f)\log q_i(f).$$ Observe that $q_i$ defines a probability distribution $$p_i(f)\equiv\frac{q_i(f)}{|G|Z}$$ on the group $F_i$. Indeed, $\sum_{f\in F_i}q_i(f) = |G|Z$. Taking now the linear combination over the signed partitions $C_i\sqcup D_i$, the $i$-independent terms cancel and we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
S_{gtop}^{(D,k)}(T/\mu) &= -\sum_{i=1}^{4(D-1)}\sigma(i)\log\left(|G_i|\right) -\sum_{i=1}^{4(D-1)}\sigma(i)\left[\sum_{f\in F_i}p_i(f)\log p_i(f)\right] =\nonumber\\
&=\log 2 - \sum_{i=1}^{4(D-1)}\sigma(i)\left[\sum_{f\in F_i}p_i(f)\log p_i(f)\right],\end{aligned}$$ where was used in the second equality. The first term is just the contribution of $|G_i|$ to the zero temperature result . Returning back to $Q_{top}^{(D,k)}(T/\mu)$, we find from equation $$\label{eq:qtop}
Q_{top}^{(D,k)}(T/\mu) = - \sum_{i=1}^{4(D-1)}\sigma(i)\left[\sum_{f\in F_i}p_i(f)\log p_i(f)\right].$$
Isolating gauge redundancy {#isolating-gauge-redundancy .unnumbered}
--------------------------
Expression still includes some gauge redundancy. Define the groups of spin flips $\mathcal{G} = G\times\langle\bar{X}_{\alpha}|\alpha=1,\ldots,\binom{D}{k}\rangle$, $\mathcal{G}_i = \{g\in \mathcal{G}|\, g_{D_i} = 1_{D_i}\}$ and $\mathcal{H}_i = \{g\in \mathcal{G}|\, g_{C_i} = 1_{C_i}\}$ analogous to $G$, $G_i$ and $H_i$, but this time also containing the noncontractible flips. Magnetization $M(f)$ is invariant under $f\mapsto gf$ for $g\in\mathcal{G}$, so that for $f\in F_i$ $$p_i(f) = \frac{|\mathcal{H}_{i}|}{|G|Z}\sum_{e\in \tilde{E}_i} e^{-\beta\mu M(fe)},$$ where $\tilde{E}_i\equiv E_i/\mathcal{H}_i$. Moreover, if we define the group $K_i = \{f\in F_i|\,\exists e\in E_i : fe\in\mathcal{G}\}$, we find that $p_i(f)$ only depends on the coset $[f]\in \tilde{F}_i\equiv F_i/K_i$. Note that $|K_i| = |\mathcal{G}|/|\mathcal{H}_i|$, and hence $$\sum_{f\in F_i}p_i(f)\log p_i(f) = \log(|\mathcal{H}_{i}|) - \log(|\mathcal{G}|) + \sum_{f\in \tilde{F}_i}\tilde{p}_i(f)\log \tilde{p}_i(f),$$ where $\tilde{p}_i(f)$ is the non-redundant probability distribution over $\tilde{F}_i$ given by $$\tilde{p}_i(f) \equiv \frac{1}{W} \sum_{e\in \tilde{E}_i} e^{-2\beta\mu \Phi(fe)},$$ where $\Phi(f)$ is the number of flipped $(k+1)$-cells in configuration $f$ and $$W = \sum_{f\in \tilde{F}}e^{-2\beta\mu\Phi(f)},$$ $\tilde{F}\equiv F/\mathcal{G}$. Elements of $\tilde{F}$ are precisely the physically distinct configurations of the gauge theory, and elements of $\tilde{F}_i$ are those configurations of $(k+1)$-cells inside $C_i$ which can be extended to consistent global configurations of the gauge theory, i.e. to boundary $(D-k-1)$-chains in $\Lambda^*$. Similarly, one should regard $\tilde{E}_i$ as containing distinct ways to complete the boundary $(D-k-1)$-chains inside $D_i^*$. We have now completely removed the gauge redundancy from our expressions.
Observe that by $$-\sum_{i=1}^{4(D-1)}\sigma(i)\log\left(|\mathcal{H}_i|\right) =
-\sum_{i=1}^{4(D-1)}\sigma(i)\log\left(|H_i|\right) = \log2,$$ and consequently $$\label{eq:qtop2}
Q_{top}^{(D,k)}(T/\mu) = \log2 - \sum_{i=1}^{4(D-1)}\sigma(i)\left[\sum_{f\in \tilde{F}_i}\tilde{p}_i(f)\log \tilde{p}_i(f)\right].$$ In other words, the gauge redundancy contributes the factor $\log2$ to TE. This factor can be identified with the $|H_i|$ part of .
Phase transition {#phase-transition .unnumbered}
----------------
At this point, we are finally ready to show the mechanism that produces a phase transition at a certain temperature $T=T_c$ for the topological entropy. To this end, we investigate the second term in Eq. and show that it leads to a phase transition in $Q_{top}^{(D,k)}(T/\mu)$. First notice that at $T=0$, only $f=1\in\tilde{F}_i$ produces nonzero probability $\tilde{p}_i$, since all other configurations contain flipped $(k+1)$-cells. But then $\tilde{p}_i(1)=1$, and so indeed $$Q_{top}^{(D,k)}(0) = \log 2,$$ as required by self-consistency. Let us rewrite the square bracket in as $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{f\in \tilde{F}_i}\tilde{p}_i(f)\log \tilde{p}_i(f) &= \sum_{\substack{f\in \tilde{F}_i\\e\in\tilde{E}_i}} \frac{1}{W}e^{-2\beta\mu \Phi(fe)}\log\left[\sum_{e'\in\tilde{E}_i}\frac{1}{W}e^{-2\beta\mu \Phi(fe')}\right] =\nonumber\\
&= \sum_{f\in \tilde{F}} \frac{1}{W}e^{-2\beta\mu \Phi(f)}\log\left[\sum_{e''\in\tilde{E}_i}\frac{1}{W}e^{-2\beta\mu \Phi(fe'')}\right],\end{aligned}$$ where we used $\tilde{F}=\tilde{F}_i\times\tilde{E}_i$ and the fact that multiplication by $e^{-1}\in\tilde{E}_i$ produces a mere permutation within $\tilde{E}_i$. All the dependence on $i$ is now inside the logarithm and thus $$\label{eq:qtop3}
Q_{top}^{(D,k)}(T/\mu) = \log 2 - \sum_{f\in\tilde{F}}r(f)\log\left[\frac{s_+(f)}{s_-(f)}\right],$$ where $$r(f) = \frac{1}{W}e^{-2\beta\mu \Phi(f)}$$ and $$s_{\pm}(f) = \prod_{i|\sigma(i)=\pm1}\left[\sum_{e_i\in\tilde{E_i}}\exp(-2\mu\beta \Phi(fe_i))\right].$$
Let us suppose that $\mathcal{GT}^{(D,k)}(T/\mu)$ is in the confined phase. Big membranes of defects are suppressed, i.e. $r(f)$ is exponentially small in the defect extent. In particular, defects can not detect the topology of $C_i$. When we expand $s_\pm(f)$ for fixed $f\in\tilde{F}$, we can see it is a sum over overlapping configurations of the gauge theory, differing from $f$ only in $D_i$s. For $f=1$, the allowed multiplicity of a defect at a given $b\in P_{k+1}(\Lambda)$ in a term of $s_\pm(f)$ is equal to $|\{i|\sigma(i)=\pm1\wedge b^*\in P_{D-k-1}(D_i^*)\}|$, for the plus and minus sign respectively. Since all contributing defects are local and the partitions satisfy the chain equation $\sum_{i|\sigma(i)=1}C_i = \sum_{j|\sigma(j)=-1}C_j$, we find that there is one-to-one correspondence between contributing terms in $s_{+}(f)$ and $s_{-}(f)$, and hence that $$s_{+}(f)=s_{-}(f)$$ for any $f\in\tilde{F}$. Therefore, for $T/\mu<(T/\mu)_{crit}$ $$Q_{top}^{(D,k)}(T/\mu) = \log 2.$$
On the other hand, when $\mathcal{GT}^{(D,k)}(T/\mu)$ is deconfined, $T/\mu>(T/\mu)_{crit}$, a typical configuration will contain many topological defects, i.e. $(D-k-1)$-branes (which are boundaries). By -, the only $D^*_i$s with nontrivial $(D-k-1)$-homology are those with $i = 4k$, $4k + 1$, where the later only exists if $k<D-1$ (the global toric topology does not count as nontrivial here as it contributes to all bipartitions in the same manner). Let $l\in\tilde{F}$ be a membrane which wraps around $C^*_{4k}$, i.e. a nontrivial $(D-k-1)$-homology in $D^*_{4k}$. Then $l\in\tilde{E}_i$ precisely for $i<4k$, hence $$|\{i|\sigma(i)=1\wedge l\in\tilde{E}_i\}| = |\{i|\sigma(i)=-1\wedge l\in\tilde{E}_i\}|+1.$$ When $k=D-1$, every term in $s_{+}(f)$, after expanding the product over $i|\sigma(i)=1$, can be obtained by twice as many ways as the same term in $s_{-}(f)$. This is because $D^{*}_{4(D-1)}$ must contain an even number of topological defects (i.e. an even number of point-like defects inside the smaller hypercube), whereas any parity is allowed for $i<4(D-1)$. For general $k$, remember that above $T_c$ there is an infinite number of defects in the thermodynamic limit, and therefore on average again there are twice as many ways of distributing the topological defects among the positive partitions with respect to the negative ones. Moreover, the variance of this distribution is zero in the thermodynamic limit [@footnote]. Hence, in the thermodynamic limit, above $T_c$, we have $$\frac{s_{+}(f)}{s_{-}(f)} = 2$$ for any $f\in\tilde{F}$. To illustrate this point, consider the $\mathcal{T}^{(2,1)}$, where the defects are $0$-boundaries, i.e. pairs of points virtually connected by a line. Terms of $s_{-}(1)$ containing an odd number of endpoints inside the small square must all come from $i=1$, whereas in $s_{+}(1)$, they can come from both $i=2,3$. Similar reasoning applies when $f\neq 1$. Consequently, if $T/\mu>(T/\mu)_{crit}$, we obtain $$\sum_{f\in\tilde{F}}r(f)\log\left[\frac{s_+(f)}{s_-(f)}\right] = \log 2$$ and the two terms in precisely cancel. Hence $$Q_{top}^{(D,k)}(T/\mu) = \begin{cases}
\log2\quad&\textrm{if }\mathcal{GT}^{(D,k)}(T/\mu)\textrm{ confined}\\
0\quad&\textrm{if }\mathcal{GT}^{(D,k)}(T/\mu)\textrm{ deconfined},
\end{cases}$$ i.e. $Q_{top}^{(D,k)}(T/\mu)$ experiences a phase transition at the same $T/\mu$ as the lattice gauge theory. We can finally substitute into to find the behaviour of TE as in Table \[tab:entropy\]. The similarity with Table \[tab:memory\] is striking.
------------------------------------------- ------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
${S_{top}}^{(D,k)}(T,\lambda,\mu)=2\log2$ $\Leftrightarrow$ both $\mathcal{GT}^{(D,D-k)}(T/\lambda)$ and $\mathcal{GT}^{(D,k)}(T/\mu)$ confined
${S_{top}}^{(D,k)}(T,\lambda,\mu)=\log2$ $\Leftrightarrow$ either $\mathcal{GT}^{(D,D-k)}(T/\lambda)$ or $\mathcal{GT}^{(D,k)}(T/\mu)$ deconfined
${S_{top}}^{(D,k)}(T,\lambda,\mu)=0$ $\Leftrightarrow$ both $\mathcal{GT}^{(D,D-k)}(T/\lambda)$ and $\mathcal{GT}^{(D,k)}(T/\mu)$ deconfined
------------------------------------------- ------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Topological entropy in $\mathcal{T}^{(D,k)}$[]{data-label="tab:entropy"}
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
We have shown that the topological entropy is a good order parameter for topological order in general toric codes at finite temperature. If we denote $t^{(D,k)}_{crit} = (T/\mu)_{crit}$ the critical coupling in the $\mathcal{GT}^{(D,k)}(T/\mu)$, we can conclude that the topological entropy of $\mathcal{T}^{(D,k)}$ experiences two phase transitions at $T_{\lambda} = \lambda\,t^{(D,D-k)}_{crit}$ and $T_{\mu} = \mu\,t^{(D,k)}_{crit}$, such that $${S_{top}}^{(D,k)}(T,\lambda,\mu) = \begin{cases}
2\log2\quad&\textrm{for }T<\min(T_\lambda,T_\mu)\\
\log2\quad&\textrm{for }\min(T_\lambda,T_\mu)<T<\max(T_\lambda,T_\mu)\\
0\quad&\textrm{for }\max(T_\lambda,T_\mu)<T.
\end{cases}$$ $t^{(D,k)}_{crit}=0$ if $k=D-1$ and $t^{(D,k)}_{crit}>0$ otherwise. Thus in models with $k=1,D-1$, TE has its maximal value $S_0=2\log 2$ only at zero temperature. The well known $\mathcal{T}^{(2,1)}$ model is the only one for which ${S_{top}}(T,\lambda,\mu) = 0$ for all $T>0$. Models with $1<k<D-1$ have a nontrivial low-temperature phase, in the sense that ${S_{top}}^{(D,k)}(T,\lambda,\mu) = S_0$ for all $0\leq T<T_c$, $T_c = \min(T_\lambda,T_\mu)>0$. Such models only exist in $D\geq4$, the simplest example being the Kitaev’s four-dimensional toric code [@dklp_02] ($\mathcal{T}^{(4,2)}$).
The temperature dependence of ${S_{top}}$ follows the same pattern as the properties of quantum and classical memory in our systems. Indeed, if we combine Tables \[tab:memory\] and \[tab:entropy\], we discover the promised connection between TE and robustness of memory in the toric codes
------------------ ------------------- -------------------------------------------
quantum memory $\Leftrightarrow$ ${S_{top}}^{(D,k)}(T,\lambda,\mu)=2\log2$
classical memory $\Leftrightarrow$ ${S_{top}}^{(D,k)}(T,\lambda,\mu)=\log2$
no memory $\Leftrightarrow$ ${S_{top}}^{(D,k)}(T,\lambda,\mu)=0$
------------------ ------------------- -------------------------------------------
: Memory and $S_{top}$ in $\mathcal{T}^{(D,k)}$[]{data-label="tab:mement"}
In the introduction, we mentioned the recent formulation by Hastings for topological order at $T>0$ [@hastings_11]. A thermal state $\rho_{eq}$ has TO if it can not be transformed arbitrarily close to a ‘classical’ state by means of local unitaries, even if we are allowed to tensor in additional local degrees of freedom. By a classical state is meant a thermal state of a local Hamiltonian which is diagonal in a product basis. In [@hastings_11], it is argued that a thermal state is topologically ordered if one can efficiently perform quantum error correction, in the sense of [@dklp_02], since one can then thicken the logical operators $\bar{X}$, $\bar{Z}$ while preserving their algebraic properties. These then prevent local unitaries from conjugating the state $\rho_{eq}$ arbitrarily close to a classical state. In $\mathcal{T}^{(D,k)}$, efficient correction of defects of both kinds is possible if and only if both $\mathcal{GT}^{(D,D-k)}(T/\lambda)$ and $\mathcal{GT}^{(D,k)}(T/\mu)$ are in the confined phase. Hastings’s circuit definition, the presence of stable quantum memory and the behavior of TE all agree in predicting topological order in the toric codes:
*A system has TO at $T>0$ if ${S_{top}}(T)={S_{top}}(0)>0$.*
We remark again that the mere presence of non-vanishing TE is not enough to ensure TO. Indeed, there are situations for classical states in the sense of [@hastings_11] in which one can encode stable classical memory, for instance the toric code in 3D $\mathcal T^{(3,1)} $, in which ${S_{top}}>0$ see also [@classicalte]. In order to assess TO, TE must have the full value that it has at zero temperature. In fact, up to half of that value can be of classical origin and therefore not related to quantum TO [@castelnovo08-3d].
We want to discuss the meaning of stable classical and quantum memories from the statistical mechanics point of view. The stability of classical memory corresponds to ergodicity breaking. The phase space breaks into domains in which the evolution is confined for exponentially long (in the system size) times. These domains become disconnected in the thermodynamic limit. One can encode classical information in the system by knowing in which domain the system is confined. A stable quantum memory means that there is a manifold of metastable quantum states. The breaking of ergodicity here is more dramatic, because there is an infinite number of states that are disconnected, and that have arbitrarily large overlap between each other. We find that this property is accompanied by a particular pattern of long-range entanglement, being it TE or the non triviality of entanglement (NT) criterion. We asked ourselves: Why is that? Why should the entanglement properties be related in such a strict way to the way the system approaches equilibrium? We think that answering this question is crucial to the understanding of the notions of quantum memory, ergodicity breaking, and the statistical mechanics of topological phases.
In this paper, we have proven that the mechanism leading to the destruction of TE is given by the confinement-deconfinement transition in the corresponding gauge theory (here the $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ lattice gauge theory) and therefore to a critical temperature $T_c$ for the stability of ${S_{top}}$. Moreover, we have proven that the same mechanism is responsible for the transition $NT\rightarrow FAC$ that describes topological order in terms of patterns of non trivial long-range entanglement. The confinement-deconfinement mechanism though, is [*also*]{} the one responsible for the destruction of quantum (or classical) memory [@dklp_02]. We can then establish that TO is a property of the way ergodicity is broken, or, in information-theoretic terms, is a property of how information encoded in the system is resilient. This is important since the entanglement criteria, or other non local order parameters [@diagnosing] are hardly experimentally accessible, so we need to find other properties of TO that can characterize it.
This work leaves many open questions, the most natural of all is whether these results extend to general quantum double models and the corresponding discrete gauge theories. Another generalization is to investigate this transition in general string-net models [@wenbook; @Levin2005a], though these do not correspond to a gauge theory. Moreover, we have seen why we obtain a sharp phase transition when we consider partitions of infinite size. For the finite system, there are exponentially suppressed branes that are able to see the topology of the partitions and therefore to give exponentially suppressed corrections to ${S_{top}}$. With this in mind, we ask ourselves what is the final size scaling in order to find the critical behaviour of ${S_{top}}$ near $T_c$ (scaling behaviour for the mutual information in TO was examined in [@scaling]). Would the critical exponents for ${S_{top}}$ be related to other information-theoretic quantities, that we can perhaps measure? Moreover, in the 3D case, we see that a TE of classical origin corresponds to the existence of classical memory. Again, we wonder, what is the connection? Is there a kind of TE in all the classical phases which host a stable classical memory? A fourth question is related to the very interesting class of models whose quantum memory at finite temperature is stable for only polynomial (in the system size) lifetimes. These models are obtained by coupling with a bosonic system [@hamma_09] or with other long range interactions [@loss] or with Hamiltonians whose excitations have fractal geometric properties [@haah1; @haah2; @cc]. What kind of TO do these models have? What happens to their TE? And what about the Hastings’ criterion for such systems?
Along with thermal stability, the question of whether TE in itself is stable in the whole TO phase is still an open question in its generality, thought TE is known to be stable in the $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ lattice gauge theory [@hamma_08]. We know that the TO phase at $T=0$ is stable because the gap will not close for arbitrary perturbations (within a range)[@stability]. If TE or NT are the hallmark of TO, one needs to prove they are stable too, for the same range. We hope that the results shown in this work can also be helpful for this important question.
To finish, we want to mention that another important form of stability is dynamical stability after a quantum quench, that is a sudden dramatic change in the system Hamiltonian. It has been shown [@quench] that TE is stable in the quench scenario for some particular quenches in the toric code in 2D while quantum memory is not [@stray]. Therefore the dynamical scenario is different, and there are no results in higher dimensions. Our results in the mapping to the lattice gauge theory may prove useful to study also these scenarios.
All these questions constitute an exciting challenge for the study of novel quantum phases of matter, statistical mechanics paradigms, and quantum information theory.
acknowledgments
===============
Research at Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics is supported in part by the Government of Canada through NSERC and by the Province of Ontario through MRI.
[99]{}
X.-G. Wen, [*Quantum Field Theory of Many-Body Systems*]{} (Oxford University Press,USA, 2004).
A. Hamma, R. Ionicioiu, P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. A **71**, 022315 (2005).
S. Bravyi, M. B. Hastings, F. Verstraete, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 050401 (2006) Z. Nussinov, and G. Ortiz, Annals of Physics [**324**]{}, 977 (2009) A. Y. Kitaev, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.) **303**, 2 (2003).
C. Nayak, S.H. Simon, A. Tern, M. Freedman, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**80**]{}, 1083 (2008)
A. Hamma, R. Ionicioiu, P. Zanardi, Phys. Lett. A [**337**]{}, 22 (2005)
A. Hamma, R. Ionicioiu, and P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. A [**71**]{}, 022315 (2005).
A. Kitaev and J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 110404 (2006).
M. Levin and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 110405 (2006).
A. Hamma, W. Zhang, S. Haas, D. A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. B **77**, 155111 (2008).
A. Kitaev, Annals of Physics [**321**]{}, 2 (2006)
H. Yao. X.-L. Qi, Phys. Rev. Lett., [**105**]{}, 080501 (2010)
M. Haque, O. Zozulya, and K. Schoutens, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 060401 (2007).
S. Furukawa and G. Misguich, Phys. Rev. B [**75**]{}, 214407 (2007).
S. Papanikolaou, K. S. Raman, and E. Fradkin Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 224421 (2007)
A. Hamma, R. Ionicioiu, P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. A [**72**]{}, 012324 (2005)
S. T. Flammia, A. Hamma, T. L. Hughes, X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 261601 (2009).
H. Li and F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 010504 (2008).
N. Bray-Ali, L. Ding, and S. Haas, Phys. Rev. B [**80**]{}, 180504(R) (2009)
M. B. Hastings, X.-G. Wen , 045141 (2005)
X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B **82**, 155138 (2010).
B. Yoshida, Annals of Physics [**326**]{}, 2566, (2011)
S. Bravyi, B. Terhal, New J. Phys. 11, 043029 (2009)
C. Castelnovo, C. Chamon, Phys. Rev. B **78**, 155120 (2008). C. Castelnovo, C. Chamon, Phys. Rev. B **76**, 184442 (2007).
M. Hastings, e-print quant-ph 1106.6026.
E. Fradkin, L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D [**17**]{}, 2637 (1978)
F. Wegner, AIP **12**, 2259-2272 (1971).
J. Kogut, Rev. Mod. Phys. **51**, 659-713 (1979).
E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, J. Preskill, AIP **43**, 4452-4505 (2002).
Z. Nussinov, and G. Ortiz, Physical Review B [**77**]{}, 064302 (2008)
R. Alicki, M. Fannes, M. Horodecki, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. **40**, 6451 (2007).
R. Alicki, M. Fannes, M. Horodecki, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. **42**, 065303 (2009).
C. Castelnovo, C. Chamon, Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 174416 (2007)
K. Gregor, David A. Huse, R. Moessner, S. L. Sondhi, New J. Phys. [**13**]{}, 025009 (2011)
M. A. Levin and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B [**71**]{}, 045110 (2005).
S. Iblisdir, D. Pérez-García, M. Aguado, and J. Pachos, Phys. Rev. B [**79**]{}, 134303 (2009)
A. Hamma, C. Castelnovo, C. Chamon, Phys. Rev. B **79**, 245122 (2009).
S. Chesi, D. Loss, B. Röthlisbergerand, Phys. Rev. A [**82**]{}, 022305 (2010).
J. Haah, Phys. Rev. A [**83**]{}, 042330 (2011)
J. Haah, and S. Bravyi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 150504 (2011)
C. Castelnovo, C. Chamon, Philosophical Magazine (2011)
S. Bravyi, M. B. Hastings, and S. Michalakis, J. Math. Phys. [**51**]{}, 093512 (2010)
D.I. Tsomokos, A. Hamma, W. Zhang, S. Haas, R. Fazio, Phys. Rev. A [**80**]{}, 060302 (2009)
A. Kay, Phys. Rev. Lett [**102**]{}, 070503 (2009).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
We present a detailed analysis of 2-complete stable homotopy groups, both in the classical context and in the motivic context over ${\mathbb{C}}$. We use the motivic May spectral sequence to compute the cohomology of the motivic Steenrod algebra over ${\mathbb{C}}$ through the 70-stem. We then use the motivic Adams spectral sequence to obtain motivic stable homotopy groups through the 59-stem. In addition to finding all Adams differentials in this range, we also resolve all hidden extensions by $2$, $\eta$, and $\nu$, except for a few carefully enumerated exceptions that remain unknown. The analogous classical stable homotopy groups are easy consequences.
We also compute the motivic stable homotopy groups of the cofiber of the motivic element $\tau$. This computation is essential for resolving hidden extensions in the Adams spectral sequence. We show that the homotopy groups of the cofiber of $\tau$ are the same as the $E_2$-page of the classical Adams-Novikov spectral sequence. This allows us to compute the classical Adams-Novikov spectral sequence, including differentials and hidden extensions, in a larger range than was previously known.
address: |
Department of Mathematics\
Wayne State University\
Detroit, MI 48202, USA
author:
- 'Daniel C. Isaksen'
title: Stable Stems
---
[^1]
[^1]: The author was supported by NSF grant DMS-1202213.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
The [*Solar Orbiter*]{} is the next solar physics mission of the European Space Agency, ESA, in collaboration with NASA, with a launch planned in 2018. The spacecraft is designed to approach the Sun to within 0.28AU at perihelion of a highly eccentric orbit. The proximity with the Sun will also allow its observation at uniformly high resolution at EUV and visible wavelengths. Such observations are central for learning more about the magnetic coupling of the solar atmosphere. At a later phase in the mission the spacecraft will leave the ecliptic and study the enigmatic poles of the Sun from a heliographic latitude of up to 33$^\circ$.
A central instrument of [*Solar Orbiter*]{} is the Polarimetric and Helioseismic Imager, SO/PHI. It will do full Stokes imaging in the Landé $g=2.5$ FeI617.3nm line. It is composed of two telescopes, a full-disk telescope and a high-resolution telescope, that will allow observations at a resolution as high as 200km on the solar surface. SO/PHI will also be the first solar polarimeter to leave the Sun-Earth line, opening up new possibilities, such as stereoscopic polarimetry (besides stereoscopic imaging of the photosphere and stereoscopic helioseismology). Finally, SO/PHI will have a unique view of the solar poles, allowing not just more precise and exact measurements of the polar field than possible so far, but also enabling us to follow the dynamics of individual magnetic features at high latitudes and to determine solar surface and sub-surface flows right up to the poles.
In this paper an introduction to the science goals and the capabilities of SO/PHI will be given, as well as a brief overview of the instrument and of the current status of its development.
---
Introduction {#se:intro}
============
[*Solar Orbiter*]{} is the first medium-class (M1) mission of the European Space Agency’s (ESA’s) Cosmic Vision program and is expected to fly in 2018. In addition to ESA, significant contributions will be provided by NASA. Within the overall theme of “How does the Sun create and control the heliosphere?" the [*Solar Orbiter*]{} will address the following four top-level science questions:
- How and where do the solar wind plasma and magnetic field originate in the corona?
- How do solar transients drive heliospheric variability?
- How do solar eruptions produce energetic particle radiation that fills the heliosphere?
- How does the solar dynamo work and drive connections between the Sun and the heliosphere?
The Polarimetric and Helioseismic Imager aboard [*Solar Orbiter*]{} (SO/PHI) will provide the magnetograms and helioseismic data needed by the mission to reach three of its four top-level science goals. It is a very challenging instrument to build. No space magnetograph has ever flown in such a difficult environment, with the spacecraft following a strongly elliptical trajectory, leading to huge thermal changes in the course of an orbit.
Here we present a first description of the science goals of SO/PHI as well as providing a brief description of the instrument and of its current status.
Science goals {#se:goals}
=============
Among the four top-level science questions to be addressed by the [*Solar Orbiter*]{} mission, SO/PHI will be crucial to answering three of them, namely the first, the second, and the fourth mentioned in the Introduction. These global questions flow down to three main scientific requirements on [*Solar Orbiter*]{}:
1. investigate the links between the solar surface, corona, and inner heliosphere,
2. explore, at all latitudes, the energetics, dynamics and fine-scale structure of the Sun’s magnetized atmosphere
3. probe the solar dynamo by observing the Sun’s high-latitude field, flows and seismic waves.
The coupling among the different parts of the solar atmosphere and the inner heliosphere roots in the magnetic field. Any dynamic analysis of the solar structures —either magnetic or not— needs to know the plasma velocities. So does a study of flows and seismic waves. Therefore, to fulfill those scientific requirements, SO/PHI is designed to measure the vector magnetic field and the line-of-sight (LOS) velocity in the solar photosphere. The extrapolation of the measured magnetic field to the corona and the inner heliosphere will help to fulfill requirement ([*a*]{}). This task will be performed partly with high-resolution data, partly with low resolution data (see next Section). Requirement ([*b*]{}) will be undertaken with the help of both magnetic and velocity measurements, mainly by using high-resolution data. While the investigations related to these two first requirements will profit from the complementary information of the other remote-sensing and in-situ instruments aboard the spacecraft, requirement ([*c*]{}) will benefit almost exclusively from the time series of LOS velocity and magnetic field measurements provided by SO/PHI, so that this instrument will be paramount for addressing the fourth top-level science question of [*Solar Orbiter*]{}.
A number of specific current scientific problems are expected to be addressed in a unique way by SO/PHI. Some with SO/PHI working alone; many of them after the combined action of SO/PHI with the other instruments. Thus SO/PHI will provide the first maps of the polar vector magnetic fields from a vantage point well above the ecliptic. It will also profit from a reduced solar apparent rotation when following solar features, which will help in mitigating foreshortening effects that especially harm the plasma velocity measurements. Joint measurements with other [*Solar Orbiter*]{} instruments will address the questions related to linkage science. SO/PHI will also be able to provide the magnetic context to NASA’s [*Solar Probe Plus*]{}. Due to its unique vantage point, SO/PHI will also be capable of carrying out stereoscopic imaging of brightness, magnetic fields and velocities in combination with ground-based or near-Earth, space-borne instruments. Getting rid of the 180$^{\circ}$ ambiguity inherent to the Zeeman effect will then be achievable. An improved view of the vector velocity field can also be expected from stereoscopy. Last, but not least, when in opposition to the Earth, a complete 4$\pi$ view of the Sun’s magnetic field will be obtained, which will allow testing techniques such as far-side imaging. Solar high-latitude science is still in its infancy because optical measurements can only be carried out from the ecliptic. Seen from there the solar pole never deviates by more than $7^{\circ}$ from the plane of the sky, with the consequent strong foreshortening of features close to the pole. Tsuneta et al. (2008) obtained the best view so far of the polar magnetic fields with the [*Hinode*]{} satellite. SO/PHI is expected to do considerably better and will help unravel the solar rotation and the meridional flow at high latitudes. Accurate measurements of the distribution and evolution of polar magnetic fields are important to test current ideas about magnetic polarity reversals. Specifically, we need to know how much magnetic flux is transported to high latitudes in the course of a solar cycle (Wilson 1990, Hoeksema 2006). Studies of the origin of the fast solar wind in polar coronal holes (e.g., Tu 2005) are expected to benefit from the vector magnetometry to be performed by SO/PHI from up to 33$^\circ$ above the ecliptic. The coverage of the whole range of solar latitudes will allow us to investigate whether or not phenomena such as convection (granulation and supergranulation) and quiet-Sun magnetoconvection (e.g., Requerey , 2014, and Kaithakkal , 2015)), are the same at the poles as near the equator.
The existence of a solar polar vortex was proposed theoretically by Gilman (1976) and the first negative observational results were reported by Beckers (1978). However, in recent years this phenomenon has become a matter of debate again. Thus, Ye & Livingston (1998) found indications of a singularity that might be a vortex within 1$^{\circ}$ of the pole. Benevolenskaya (2007) observed a sharp decrease of solar rotation at high latitudes, although some other works seem to disagree and show a slow decrease of the solar rotation rate close to the poles (e.g., Liu & Zhao 2009 and references therein). SO/PHI will provide clear views of the poles and thus will help to settle this debate.
Corbard & Thompson (2002) reported evidence for a strong gradient of the solar differential rotation in a layer close to the surface and of its possible reversal at high latitudes. The possible effects of this near-surface radial shear on flux-transport model dynamos is discussed by Dikpati et al. (2002). SO/PHI measurements promise to be of considerable relevance for determining the true level of shear at high latitudes.
New insights into the migrational flow pattern known as torsional oscillations, first discovered by Howard & LaBonte (1980), have been obtained whenever new instruments, such as those of the Global Oscillations Network Group (Harvey et al. 1996), the Michelson Doppler Imager (Scherrer et al. 1995), and the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (Scherrer et al. 2012) have been used. Howe et al. (2013) have combined results from all these three instruments to find changes in the high-latitude branch of the torsional oscillations from one solar cycle to the next, as modeled by Rempel (2012). A confirmation of such variations by SO/PHI would definitively settle their existence, which has consequences for the rotation pattern at high latitudes. Verification of the results of Hathaway & Upton (2014) on the variation of the meridional circulation over a cycle and from one cycle to another is also needed, since they may have a bearing on the strength of the following solar cycle.
The SO/PHI instrument
=====================
SO/PHI makes use of the Doppler and Zeeman effects in a single spectral line of neutral iron at 617.3nm. The physical information is decoded from two-dimensional filtergrams at six wavelength points within this line, while four polarization states at each wavelength point are measured.
In order to obtain the abovementioned observables, SO/PHI is a diffraction limited, wavelength tunable, quasi-monochromatic, polarization sensitive imager with two telescopes, which (alternatively) feed a common filtergraph and focal plane array:
The High Resolution Telescope (HRT) provides a restricted FOV of 16.8arcmin squared and achieves a spatial resolution that, near the closest perihelion pass, will correspond to about 200km on the Sun. It is designed as a decentered Ritchey-Chrétien telescope with a pupil of 140mm diameter. The two free-form aspheric mirrors are lightweight and made from ZERODUR, mounted in mirror cells from hardened INVAR and titanium.
The all-refractive Full Disk Telescope (FDT), with a FOV of 2$^\circ$ in diameter and a pixel size corresponding to 725km (at 0.28AU), provides a complete view of the full solar disk during all orbital phases. The FDT has an entrance pupil of 17.5mm and an effective focal length of 579mm. The FDT aluminium tube is mounted fixed in position to the back panel of the SO/PHI Optical Unit (OU) structure, while the front end of the tube is attached to the front panel using flex blades to allow thermal expansion in the axial direction.
These two telescopes are used alternatively and their selection is made by a feed selection mechanism.
The optics unit structure is common for both telescopes and consists of a combination of AlBeMet (an aluminum-beryllium alloy) and low expansion carbon-fibre reinforced plastic.
Both telescopes are protected from the intense solar flux by special heat-rejecting entrance windows, which are part of the heat-shield assembly of the spacecraft. These multilayer filters have more than 80% transmittance in a narrow notch around the science wavelength, while effectively blocking the remaining parts of the spectrum from 200nm to the far infrared by reflection. Only a fraction of the total energy is absorbed in the window, which acts as a passive thermal element by emitting part of the thermal radiation to cold space; emission of infrared radiation into the instrument cavity is minimized by a low emissivity coating on the backside of the window (acting at the same time as an anti-reflection coating for the science wavelength). Thus the heat load into the instruments can be substantially reduced, while preserving the high photometric and polarimetric accuracy of SO/PHI.
The filtergraph (FG) uses two key technologies with heritage from the Imaging Magnetograph eXperiment (IMaX, Martínez Pillet et al. 2011) onboard the successful Sunrise balloon-borne stratospheric solar observatory (Solanki et al. 2010; Barthol et al. 2011): a LiNbO$_3$ solid state etalon in a telecentric configuration selects a passband of 100mÅ width. Applying a high voltage across the crystal allows changing the refractive index and the thickness of the material, and thus tuning the passband in wavelength across the spectral line. A 3Å wide prefilter acts as an order sorter for the Fabry-Perot channel spectrum.
Inherited as well from IMaX, the polarimetric analysis is perfomed by a Polarization Modulation Package (PMP) in each of the telescopes. Each PMP consists of two nematic liquid crystal retarders, followed by a linear polarizer as an analyzer. The liquid crystal variable retarders have been successfully qualified for the use in [*Solar Orbiter*]{} (see Alvarez-Herrero et al. 2011).
Both, the FG and the PMPs, are thermally insulated from the Optics Unit and actively temperature stabilized to within 0.045 and 0.5K, respectively. The opto-mechanical arrangement is designed to operate in a wide temperature range ($-20$ to $+50^{\circ}$C).
An internal image stabilization system in the HRT channel acts on the active secondary mirror, which greatly reduces residual pointing error by the spacecraft to levels compatible with high resolution polarimetry. The error signal for the piezo-driven mirror support is derived from a correlation tracker camera inside the HRT.
The focal plane assembly is built around a 2048 by 2048 pixel Active Pixel Sensor (APS), which is especially designed and manufactured for the instrument. It delivers 10 frames per second, which are read out in synchronism with the switching of the polarization modulators.
The extremely limited telemetry rate and the large amount of scientific information retrieved from the SO/PHI instrument demand a sophisticated on-board data reduction. The measurement technique of SO/PHI, i.e. the determination of the full Stokes vector at several wavelengths, is well suited to apply a robust and reliable procedure to obtain maps of the three components of the vector magnetic field, the LOS velocity, and the continuum intensity. To retrieve them, a non-linear, least-squares fitting technique is used on board to numerically invert the radiative transfer equation for polarized light. This non-linear and thus irreversible on-board data analysis is facilitated by a powerful and adaptive Data Processing Unit (see Fiethe 2012). Although the variable thermal environment along the orbit requires SO/PHI to retain full flexibility regarding the level of reduction of its data products, the on-board data processing and the subsequent image compression are necessary steps to achieving a reduction in data volume in line with the limited telemetry.
Status and outlook
==================
The SO/PHI instrument has passed its critical design review and is currently in the qualification phase. Flight model delivery is foreseen in 2016. After integration into the spacecraft and launch foreseen for 2018, a cruise phase of over three years will follow. At its end [*Solar Orbiter*]{} will be in its nominal science orbit with a perihelion at around 0.28AU close to the orbit of Mercury and in resonance with Venus. The nominal mission is set to last for four years, at the end of which, [*Solar Orbiter*]{} will have started to leave the ecliptic. It will move to still higher latitudes in the extened phase of the mission, finally reaching 33$^\circ$. SO/PHI will carry out intensive observations of the Sun during three observing windows in each orbit and will provide lower cadence synoptic data between these windows.
2011, *Proc. SPIE 8160: Polarization Science and Remote Sensing V*, J.A. Shaw, J.S. Tyo, (eds), doi: 10.1117/12.892732
2011, *Sol. Phys.* 268, 1
1978, *ApJ*, 224, L143
2007, *Astron. Nach.*, 328, 1016
2002, *Sol. Phys.*, 205, 211
2002, *ApJ*, 575, L41
2012, *Proc. 2012 NASA/ESA Conference on Adaptive Hardware and Systems (AHS 2012), IEEE Proceedings, Curran Associates, Inc.*
1976, *Bull. Am. Astron. Soc.*, 8, 299
1996, *Science* 272, 1284
2014, *JGRA*, 119, 3316
2006, *Bull. Am. Astron. Soc.*, 38, 228
1980, *ApJ*, 239, L33
2013, in: K. Jain et al. (eds.), *Fifty Years of Seismology of the Sun and Stars*, *ASP Conf. Ser.* 478, 303
2015, *ApJ*, in press
2009, *Sol. Phys.* 260, 289
2011, *Sol. Phys.* 268, 57
2012, *ApJ*, 750, L8
2014, *ApJ*, 789, 6
1995, *Sol. Phys.*, 162, 129
2012, *Sol. Phys.*, 275, 207
2010, *ApJL*, 723, L127
2008, *ApJ*, 688, 1374
2005, *Science*, 308, 519
1990, *Sol. Phys.*, 127, 1
1998, *Sol. Phys.*, 179, 1
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
Fine-grained action recognition datasets exhibit environmental bias, where multiple video sequences are captured from a limited number of environments. Training a model in one environment and deploying in another results in a drop in performance due to an unavoidable domain shift. Unsupervised Domain Adaptation (UDA) approaches have frequently utilised adversarial training between the source and target domains. However, these approaches have not explored the multi-modal nature of video within each domain. In this work we exploit the correspondence of modalities as a self-supervised alignment approach for UDA in addition to adversarial alignment (Fig. \[fig:motivation\]).
We test our approach on three kitchens from our large-scale dataset, EPIC-Kitchens [@damen2018scaling], using two modalities commonly employed for action recognition: RGB and Optical Flow. We show that multi-modal self-supervision alone improves the performance over source-only training by 2.4% on average. We then combine adversarial training with multi-modal self-supervision, showing that our approach outperforms other UDA methods by $3\%$.
author:
- |
Jonathan Munro\
University of Bristol\
[jonathan.munro@bristol.ac.uk]{}
- |
Dima Damen\
University of Bristol\
[dima.damen@bristol.ac.uk]{}
bibliography:
- 'egbib.bib'
title: 'Multi-Modal Domain Adaptation for Fine-Grained Action Recognition'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
![Our proposed UDA approach for multi-modal action recognition. Improved target domain performance is achieved via multi-modal self-supervision on source and target domains simultaneously, jointly optimised with multiple domain discriminators, one per-modality.[]{data-label="fig:motivation"}](images/motivation-jonny2.pdf){width="1\linewidth"}
Fine-grained action recognition is the problem of recognising actions and interactions such as “cutting a tomato” or “tightening a bolt” compared to coarse-grained actions such as “preparing a meal”. This has a wide range of applications in assistive technologies in homes as well as in industry. Supervised approaches rely on collecting a large number of labelled examples to train discriminative models. However, due to the difficulty in collecting and annotating such fine-grained actions, many datasets collect long untrimmed sequences. These contain several fine-grained actions from a single [@rohrbach15ijcv; @stein2013combining] or few [@damen2018scaling; @sigurdsson2016hollywood] environments.
Figure \[fig:datasets\_compare\] shows the recent surge in large-scale fine-grained action datasets. Two approaches have been attempted to achieve scalability: crowd-sourcing scripted actions [@goyal2017something; @sigurdsson2016hollywood; @sigurdsson2018actor], and long-term collections of natural interactions in homes [@damen2018scaling; @rohrbach15ijcv; @pirsiavash2012detecting]. While the latter offers more realistic videos, many actions are collected in only a few environments. This leads to learned representations which do not generalise well [@torralba2011unbiased]. Transferring a model learned on a labelled source domain to an unlabelled target domain is known as Unsupervised Domain Adaptation (UDA). Recently, significant attention has been given to deep UDA in other vision tasks [@sun2016deep; @ghifary2014domain; @long2015learning; @long2017deep; @ganin2016domain; @tzeng2017adversarial]. However, very few works have attempted deep UDA for video data [@jamaldeep; @Chen_2019_ICCV]. Surprisingly, none have tested on videos of fine-grained actions and all these approaches only consider the video as images ( RGB modality). This is in contrast with self-supervised approaches that have successfully utilised multiple modalities within video when labels are not present during training [@arandjelovic2017look].
![Fine-grained action datasets [@goyal2017something; @sigurdsson2016hollywood; @sigurdsson2018actor; @damen2018scaling; @Pirsiavash2012; @Kuehne2014; @Stein2013; @Li_2018_ECCV; @Rohrbach2012], *x-axis:* number of action segments per environment (ape), *y-axis:* dataset size divided by ape. EPIC-Kitchens [@damen2018scaling] offers the largest ape relative to its size.[]{data-label="fig:datasets_compare"}](images/datasets.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
Up to our knowledge, no prior work has explored the **multi-modal** nature of video data for UDA in action recognition. We summarise our contributions as follows:
- We show that multi-modal self-supervision, applied to both source and unlabelled target data, can be used for domain adaptation in video.
- We propose a multi-modal UDA strategy, which we name MM-SADA, to adapt fine-grained action recognition models to unlabelled target environments, using both adversarial alignment and multi-modal self-supervision.
- We test our approach on three domains from EPIC-Kitchens [@damen2018scaling], trained end-to-end using I3D [@Carreira_2017_CVPR], and providing the first benchmark of UDA for fine-grained action recognition. Our results show that outperforms source-only generalisation as well as alternative domain adaptation strategies such as batch-based normalisation [@li2018adaptive], distribution discrepancy minimisation [@long2015learning] and classifier discrepancy [@saito2018maximum].
Related Works
=============
This section discusses related literature starting with general UDA approaches, then supervised and self-supervised learning for action recognition, concluding with works on domain adaptation for action recognition.
**Unsupervised Domain Adaptation (UDA) outside of Action Recognition.** UDA has been extensively studied for vision tasks including object recognition [@sun2016deep; @ghifary2014domain; @long2015learning; @long2017deep; @ganin2016domain; @tzeng2017adversarial], semantic segmentation [@Zou_2018_ECCV; @Huang_2018_ECCV; @Zhang_2017_ICCV] and person re-identification [@Sohn_2017_ICCV; @Zhong_2018_CVPR; @Deng_2018_CVPR]. Typical approaches adapt neural networks by minimising a discrepancy measure [@sun2016deep; @ghifary2014domain], thus matching mid-level representations of source and target domains. Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) [@ghifary2014domain; @long2015learning; @long2017deep] minimises the distance between the means of the projected domain distributions in Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Space. More recently, domain adaptation has been influenced by adversarial training [@ganin2016domain; @tzeng2017adversarial]. Simultaneously learning a domain discriminator, whilst maximising its loss with respect to the feature extractor, minimises the domain discrepancy between source and target. In [@tzeng2017adversarial], a GAN-like loss function allows separate weights for source and target domains, while in [@ganin2016domain] shared weights are used, efficiently removing domain specific information by inverting the gradient produced by the domain discriminator with a Gradient Reversal Layer (GRL).
Utilising multiple modalities (image and audio) for UDA has been recently investigated for bird classification [@qi2018unified]. Multiple adversarial discriminators are trained on a single modality as well as mid-level fusion and a cross-modality attention is learnt. The work shows the advantages of multi-modal domain adaptation in contrast to single-modality adaptation, though in their work both modalities demonstrate similar robustness to the domain shift.
Very recently, self-supervised learning has been proposed as a domain adaptation approach for semantic segmentation and object recognition [@sun2019unsupervised]. For object recognition, self-supervision on tasks, such as rotation and translation, replaces adversarial training. For semantic segmentation, self-supervision was shown to benefit adversarial training when jointly trained. Both tasks only use a single image. Our work utilises the multiple modalities offered by video, showing that self-supervision can be used to adapt action recognition models to target domains.
{width="1\linewidth"}
\[fig:architecture\]
**Supervised Action Recognition.** Convolutional networks are state of the art for action recognition, with the first seminal works using either 3D [@ji20133d] or 2D convolutions [@karpathy2014large]. Both works utilise a single modality—appearance information from RGB frames. Simonyan and Zisserman [@NIPS2014_5353] address the lack of motion features captured by these architectures, proposing two-stream late fusion that learns separate features from the Optical Flow and RGB modalities, outperforming single modality approaches. Recent architectures have focused on modelling longer temporal structure, through consensus of predictions over time [@TSN2016ECCV; @Zhou_2018_ECCV; @Lin_2019_ICCV] as well as inflating traditional CNNs to 3D convolutions [@Carreira_2017_CVPR], all using the two-stream approach of late-fusing RGB and Flow. The latest architectures have focused on reducing the high computational cost of 3D convolutions [@Feichtenhofer_2019_ICCV; @Jiang_2019_ICCV; @ZhaoCVPR2019], yet still show improvements when reporting results of two-stream fusion [@ZhaoCVPR2019].
**Self-supervision for Action Recognition.** Self-supervision methods learn representations from the temporal [@fernando2017self; @wei2018learning] and multi-modal structure of video [@arandjelovic2017look; @korbar2018cooperative], leveraging pretraining on a large corpus of unlabelled videos. Methods exploiting the temporal consistency of video have predicted the order of a sequence of frames [@fernando2017self] or the arrow of time [@wei2018learning]. Alternatively, the correspondence between multiple modalities has been exploited for self-supervision, particularly with audio and RGB [@arandjelovic2017look; @korbar2018cooperative; @Owens_2018_ECCV]. Works predicted if modalities correspond or are synchronised. We test both approaches for multi-modal self-supervision in our UDA approach.
**Domain Adaptation for Action Recognition.** Of the several domain shifts in action recognition, only one has received significant research attention, that is the problem of cross-viewpoint (or viewpoint-invariant) action recognition [@rahmani2015learning; @kong2017deeply; @liu2017enhanced; @sigurdsson2018actor; @li2018unsupervised]. These works focus on adapting to the geometric transformations of a camera but do little to combat other shifts, like changes in environment. Works utilise supervisory signals such as skeleton or pose [@liu2017enhanced] and corresponding frames from multiple viewpoints [@sigurdsson2018actor; @kong2017deeply]. Recent works have used GRLs to create a view-invariant representation [@li2018unsupervised]. Though several modalities (RGB, flow and depth) have been investigated, these were aligned and evaluated independently.
On the contrary, UDA for changes in environment has received limited recent attention. Before deep-learning, UDA for action recognition used shallow models to align source and target distributions of handcrafted features [@cao2010cross; @faraji2011domain; @zhu2013enhancing]. Two recent works have attempted deep UDA for action recognition [@jamaldeep; @Chen_2019_ICCV]. Both apply adversarial training using GRLs [@ganin2016domain] to either C3D [@tran2015learning] or TRN [@Zhou_2018_ECCV] architectures using RGB only. Jamal [@jamaldeep] conclude that their approach outperforms shallow methods that use subspace alignment and Chen [@Chen_2019_ICCV] show that attending to the temporal dynamics of videos can improve alignment. In [@Chen_2019_ICCV], the method is evaluated on 4 pairs of source/target domains, while [@jamaldeep] evaluate their method on 6 pairs of domains from subsets of coarse-grained action datasets such as UCF [@reddy2013recognizing], Olympics [@niebles2010modeling] and the KMS dataset [@jamaldeep].We also evaluate our method on 6 pairs of domains, however, our domains are larger than [@jamaldeep]. On average, we use 3.8$\times$ more training and 2$\times$ more testing video clips. Additionally, we focus on fine-grained actions previously unexplored for UDA.
The EPIC-Kitchens [@damen2018scaling] dataset for fine-grained action recognition released two distinct test sets—one with seen and another with unseen/novel kitchens. In the 2019 challenges report, all participating entries exhibit a drop in action recognition accuracy of 12-20% when testing their models on novel environments compared to seen environments [@damen2019technical]. Up to our knowledge, there has been no previous effort to apply UDA on this or any other fine-grained action recognition dataset. **In this work,** we present the first approach to multi-modal UDA for action recognition, tested on fine-grained actions. We combine adversarial training on multiple modalities with a modality correspondence self-supervision task. This utilises the differing robustness to domain shifts between the modalities. We show that jointly training for both objectives outperforms adversarial or self-supervision alignment solely. Our method is detailed next.
Proposed Method
===============
This section outlines our proposed action recognition domain adaptation approach, which we call *Multi-Modal Self-Supervised Adversarial Domain Adaptation (MM-SADA)*. In Fig. \[fig:architecture\], we visualise MM-SADA for two-stream action recognition using two modalities: and , although any modalities could be used. We incorporate a self-supervision alignment classifier, $C$, that determines whether modalities are sampled from the same or different actions to learn modality correspondence. This takes in the concatenated features from both modalities, without any labels. Learning the correspondence on and encourages features that generalise to both domains. Aligning the domain statistics is achieved by adversarial training, with a domain discriminator per modality that predicts which domain a given example is sampled from. A Gradient Reversal layer (GRL) reverses and backpropagates the gradient to the features. Both alignment techniques are trained on and data whereas the action classifier is only trained with labelled data.
We next detail MM-SADA, generalised to any two or more modalities. We start by revisiting the problem of *domain adaptation* and outlining multi-stream late fusion, then we describe our adaptation approach.
Unsupervised Domain Adaptation (UDA)
------------------------------------
A domain is a distribution over the input population **X** and the corresponding label space **Y**. The aim of supervised learning, given labelled samples $\{(x, y)\}$, is to find a representation, $G(\cdot)$, over some learnt features, $F(\cdot)$, that minimises the empirical risk, $\mathop{E_\mathbf{S}}[\mathcal{L}_y(G(F(x)),y)]$. The empirical risk is optimised over the labelled source domain, $\mathbf{S}=\{X^s,Y^s,\mathcal{D}^s\}$, where $\mathcal{D}^s$ is a distribution of source domain samples. The goal of domain adaptation is to minimise the risk on a target domain, $\mathbf{T}=\{X^t,Y^t,\mathcal{D}^t\}$, where the distributions in the source and target domains are distinct, ${\mathcal{D}^s \neq \mathcal{D}^t}$. In UDA, the label space $Y^t$ is unknown, thus methods minimise both the source risk and the distribution discrepancy between the source and target domains [@NIPS2006_2983].
Multi-modal Action Recognition
------------------------------
When the input is multi-modal, ${X = (X^1, \cdots, X^M)}$ where $X^m$ is the $m^{th}$ modality of the input, fusion of modalities can be employed. Most commonly, late fusion is implemented, where we sum prediction scores from modalities and backpropagate the error to all modalities, :
$$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{L}_y = \sum_{x \in \{\textbf{S}\}} -y \log P(x) \\
\text{where: } P(x) = \sigma\big(\sum^M_{m=1}G^m(F^m(x^m))\big)
\label{eq:mmClassify}\end{gathered}$$ where $G^m$ is the modality’s task classifier, and $F^m$ is the modality’s learnt feature extractor. The consensus of modality classifiers is trained by a cross entropy loss, $\mathcal{L}_y$, between the task label, $y$, and the prediction, $P(x)$. $\sigma$ is defined as the softmax function. Training for classification expects the presence of labels and thus can only be applied to the labelled source input.
Within-Modal Adversarial Alignment
----------------------------------
Both generative and discriminative adversarial approaches have been proposed for bridging the distribution discrepancy between source and target domains. Discriminative approaches are most appropriate with high-dimensional input data present in video. Generative adversarial requires a huge amount of training data and temporal dynamics are often difficult to reconstruct. Discriminative methods train a discriminator, $D(\cdot)$, to predict the domain of an input ( source or target), from the learnt features, $F(\cdot)$. By maximising the discriminator loss, the network learns a feature representation that is invariant to both domains.
For aligning multi-modal video data, we propose using a domain discriminator per modality that penalises domain specific features from each modality’s stream. Aligning modalities separately avoids the easier solution of the network focusing only on the less robust modality in classifying the domain. Each separate domain discriminator, $D^m$, is thus used to train the modality’s feature representation $F^m$. Given a binary domain label, $d$, indicating if an example $x \in \textbf{S}$ or $x \in \textbf{T}$, the domain discriminator, for modality $m$, is defined as,
$$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{L}^m_{d} = \sum_{x \in \{\textbf{S}, \textbf{T}\}} -d \log(D^m(F^m(x))) - \\
(1-d) \log(1-D^m(F^m(x)))
\label{eq:adv}\end{gathered}$$
Multi-Modal Self-Supervised Alignment
-------------------------------------
Prior approaches to domain adaptation have mostly focused on images and thus have not explored the multi-modal nature of the input data. Videos are multi-modal, where corresponding modalities are present in both source and target. We thus propose a multi-modal self-supervised task to align domains. Multi-modal self-supervision has been successfully exploited as a pretraining strategy [@arandjelovic2017look; @arandjelovic2018objects]. However, we show that self-supervision for both source and target domains can also align domains. We learn the temporal correspondence between modalities as a self-supervised task. For positive examples, we sample modalities from the same action randomly at different temporal locations. For negative examples, each modality is sampled from a different action. The network is thus trained to determine if the modalities correspond. This is optimised over both domains. A self-supervised correspondence classifier head, $C$, is used to predict if modalities correspond. This shares the same modality feature extractors, $F^m$, as the action classifier. It is important that $C$ is as shallow as possible so that most of the self-supervised representation is learned in the feature extractors. Given a binary label defining if modalities correspond, $c$, and concatenated features of the multiple modalities, we calculate the multi-modal self-supervision loss as follows: $$\mathcal{L}_c = \sum_{x \in \{\textbf{S,T}\}} -c \log C(F^0(x), ..., F^M(x)) \label{eq:mmSelf}$$
Proposed MM-SADA
----------------
We define the Mutli-Modal Self-Supervised Adversarial Domain Adaptation (MM-SADA) approach as follows. The classification loss, $\mathcal{L}_y$, is jointly optimised with the adversarial and self-supervised alignment losses. The within-modal adversarial alignment is weighted by $\lambda_d$, and the multi-modal self-supervised alignment is weighted by $\lambda_c$. Optimising both alignment strategies achieves benefits in matching source and target statistics and learning cross-modal relationships transferable to the target domain. $$\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}_y + \lambda_d \sum_m \mathcal{L}_d^m + \lambda_c \mathcal{L}_c
\label{eq:mmLoss}$$ Note that the first loss $\mathcal{L}_y$ is only optimised for labelled source data, while the alignment losses $\forall m:\mathcal{L}_d^m$ and $\mathcal{L}_c$ are optimised for both unlabelled source and target data.
Experiments and Results
=======================
This section first discusses the dataset, architecture, and implementation details in Sec. \[sec:implementation\]. We compare against baseline methods noted in Sec. \[sec:baselines\]. Results are presented in Sec. \[sec:results\], followed by an ablation study of the method’s components in Sec. \[sec:ablation\] and qualitative results including feature space visualisations in Sec. \[sec:qualitative\].
Implementation Details {#sec:implementation}
----------------------
[**Dataset.**]{} Our previous work, EPIC Kitchens [@damen2018scaling], offers a unique opportunity to test domain adaptation for fine-grained action recognition thanks to its large number of domains and classes. Similar to previous works for action recognition [@ganin2016domain; @jamaldeep], we evaluate on pairs of domains. We select the three largest kitchens, in number of training action segments from [@damen2018scaling], to form our domains. These are P01, P22, P08, which we refer to as D1, D2 and D3, respectively (Fig. \[fig:class\_proportions\]). We analyse the performance for the 8 largest action classes: (‘put’, ‘take’, ‘open’, ‘close’, ‘wash’, ‘cut’, ‘mix’, and ‘pour’), which form 80% of the training action segments for these domains. This ensures sufficient examples per domain and class, without balancing the training set. The label imbalance of these 8 classes is depicted in Fig. \[fig:class\_proportions\] (middle) which also shows the differing distribution of classes between the domains. Most domain adaptation works evaluate on balanced datasets [@10.1007/978-3-642-15561-1_16; @ganin2016domain; @gong2012geodesic] with few using imbalanced datasets [@venkateswara2017deep]. EPIC-Kitchens has a large class imbalance offering additional challenges for domain adaptation. The number of action segments in each domain are specified in Fig. \[fig:class\_proportions\] (bottom), where a segment is a labeled start/end time, with an action label.
{width="1\linewidth"} {width="1\linewidth"}
Domain D1 D2 D3
-------------------------- ------ ------ ------
Ref. EPIC Kitchen P08 P01 P22
Training Action Segments 1543 2495 3897
Test Action Segments 435 750 974
\[fig:class\_proportions\]
D2$\rightarrow$ D1 D3$\rightarrow$ D1 D1$\rightarrow$ D2 D3$\rightarrow$ D2 D1$\rightarrow$ D3 D2$\rightarrow$ D3 Mean
------------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- ---------- --
MM Source-only 42.5 44.3 42.0 **56.3** 41.2 46.5 45.5
AdaBN [@li2018adaptive] 44.6 47.8 47.0 54.7 40.3 48.8 47.2
MMD [@long2015learning] 43.1 48.3 46.6 55.2 39.2 48.5 46.8
MCD [@saito2018maximum] 42.1 47.9 46.5 52.7 43.5 51.0 47.3
MM-SADA **48.2** **50.9** **49.5** 56.1 **44.1** **52.7** **50.3**
Supervised target 62.8 62.8 71.7 71.7 74.0 74.0 69.5
\[tab:Compare\]
[**Architecture.**]{} We train all our models end-to-end. We use the inflated 3D convolutional architecture (I3D) [@Carreira_2017_CVPR] as our backbone for feature extraction, one per modality ($F^m$). In this work, $F$ convolves over a temporal window of 16 frames. In training, a single temporal window is randomly sampled from within the action segment each epoch. In testing, as in [@TSN2016ECCV], we use an average over 5 temporal windows, equidistant within the segment. We use the RGB and Optical Flow frames provided publicly [@damen2018scaling]. The output of $F$ is the result of the final average pooling layer of I3D, with 1024 dimensions. $G$ is a single fully connected layer with softmax activation to predict class labels. Each domain discriminator $D^m$ is composed of 2 fully connected layers with a hidden layer of 100 dimensions and a ReLU activation function. A dropout rate of 0.5 was used on the output of $F$ and $1e-7$ weight decay for all parameters. Batch normalisation layers are used in $F^m$ and are updated with target statistics for testing, as in AdaBN [@li2018adaptive].
The self-supervised correspondence function $C$ (Eq. \[eq:mmSelf\]) is implemented as 2 fully connected layers of 100 dimensions and a ReLU activation function. The features from both modalities are concatenated along the channel dimension and used as input to $C$.
[**Training and Hyper-parameter Choice.**]{} Training occurs in two stages. First the network is trained with only the classification and self supervision losses $\mathcal{L}_{y}+\lambda_c \mathcal{L}_c$ at a learning rate of $1e-2$ for 3K steps. Then, the overall loss function (Eq. \[eq:mmLoss\]) is optimised, applying the domain adversarial losses $\mathcal{L}^m_{d}$, and reducing the learning rate to $2e-4$ for a further 6K steps. The self-supervision hyper-parameter, $\lambda_{c}=5$ was chosen by observing the performance on the labelled **source domain** only, this has not been optimised for the target domain. Note that while training with self-supervision, half the batch contains corresponding modalities and the other non-corresponding modalities. Only examples with corresponding modalities are used to train for action classification. The domain adversarial hyper-parameter, $\lambda_d=1$, was chosen arbitrarily; we show that the results are robust to some variations in this hyper-parameter in an ablation study.
Batch size was set to 128, split equally for source and target samples. All models were trained using the Adam optimiser [@adam_citation], on an NVIDIA DGX-1 with 8 V100 GPUs. On average, training takes 9 hours. We report the top-1 target accuracy averaged over the last 9 epochs of training, for robustness. We also show that the performance is consistent over training epochs, through accuracy curves.
[0.32]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} {width="\textwidth"}
Baselines {#sec:baselines}
---------
We first evaluate the impact of domain shift between source and target by testing using a multi-modal source-only model (MM source-only), trained with no access to unlabelled target data. Additionally, we compare to 3 baselines for unsupervised domain adaptation as follows:
- *AdaBN* [@li2018adaptive]: Batch Normalisation layers are updated with target domain statistics.
- *Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD)*: The multiple kernel implementation of the commonly used domain discrepancy measure MMD is used as a baseline [@long2015learning]. This directly replaces the adversarial alignment with separate discrepancy measures applied to individual modalities.
- *Maximum Classifier Discrepancy (MCD)* [@saito2018maximum]: Alignment through classifier disagreement is used. We use two multi-modal classification heads as separate classifiers. The classifiers are trained to maximise prediction disagreement on the target domain, implemented as L1 loss, finding examples out of support from the source domain. We use a GRL to optimise the feature extractors.
Additionally, as an upper limit, we also report the supervised target domain results. This is a model trained on labelled target data and only offers an understanding of the upper limit of various approaches. We highlight these results in the tables to avoid confusion.
Results {#sec:results}
-------
First we compare our proposed method MM-SADA to the various domain alignment techniques in Table \[tab:Compare\]. We show that our method outperforms batch-based [@li2018adaptive] (by 3.1%), classifier discrepancy [@saito2018maximum] (by 3%) and discrepancy minimisation alignment [@long2015learning] (by 3.5%) methods. The improvement is consistent for all pairs of domains. Additionally, it significantly improves on the source-only baseline by up to 7.5% in 5 out of 6 cases. For a single pair, $D3\rightarrow D2$, all baselines under-perform compared to source-only. Ours has a slight drop (-0.2%) but outperforms other alignment approaches. We will revisit this case in the ablation study.
![Robustness of the average top-1 accuracy over all pairs of domains for various $\lambda_d$ on the target domain.[]{data-label="fig:robustness"}](images/robustness.png){width="\linewidth"}
Figure \[fig:training\] shows the top-1 accuracy on the target during training (solid lines) vs source-only training without domain adaptation (dotted lines). Training without adaptation has consistently lower accuracy, except for our failure case $D3\rightarrow D2$, showing the stability and robustness of our method during training, with minimal fluctuations due to stochastic optimisation on batches. This is essential for UDA as no target labels can be used for early stopping.
[0.9]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.9]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.45]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.45]{} {width="\textwidth"}
\[fig:feature\_plots\]
Ablation Study {#sec:ablation}
--------------
Next, we compare the individual contributions of different components of MM-SADA. We report these results in Table \[tab:Ablation\]. The self-supervised component on its own gives a $2.4\%$ improvement over no adaption. This shows that self-supervision can learn features common to both source and target domains, adapting the domains. Importantly, this on average outperforms the three baselines in Table \[tab:Compare\]. Adversarial alignment per modality gives a further $2.4\%$ improvement as this encourages the source and target distributions to overlap, removing domain specific features from each modality. Compared to adversarial alignment only, our method improves in 5 of the 6 domains and by up to 3.2%.
For the single pair noted earlier, $D3 \rightarrow D2$, self-supervision alone outperforms ‘source-only’ and all other methods reported in Table \[tab:Compare\] by 1.1%. However when combined with domain adaptation using $\lambda_d = 1$, the overall performance of MM-SADA reported in Table \[tab:Compare\] cannot beat the baseline. In Table \[tab:Ablation\], we show that when halving the contribution of adversarial component to $\lambda_d=0.5$, MM-SADA can achieve 56.9% outperforming the source-only baseline. Therefore self-supervision can improve performance where marginal alignment domain adaptation techniques fail. Figure \[fig:robustness\] plots the performance of MM-SADA as $\lambda_d$ changes. Note that $\lambda_c$ can be chosen by observing the performance of self-supervision on source-domain labels, while $\lambda_d$ requires access to target data. We show that our approach is robust to various values of $\lambda_d$, with even higher accuracy at $\lambda_d=0.75$ than those reported in Table \[tab:Ablation\].
We also compare two approaches for multi-modal self-supervision (Table \[tab:AblatSynch\]). The first, which has been used to report all results above, learns the correspondence of RGB and Flow within the same action segment. We refer to this as *‘Seg. Corr.’*. The second learns time-synchronised RGB and Flow data, which we call *‘Sync’*. The two approaches are comparable in performance overall, with no difference on average over the domain pairs. This shows the potential of the self-supervision to utilise a number of possible tasks for training.
Qualitative Results {#sec:qualitative}
-------------------
Figure \[fig:qualitative\] shows qualitative results of our method relative to source-only performance, with three success cases and one failure case for two pairs of domains. Without adaptation, models cannot utilise appropriate visual cues in the target environment, appearance of chopping board and knife or sink and tap, therefore the model fails to predict cut and wash. Both adapted and non-adapted models struggle with ambiguous examples where different actions are occurring using both hands.
Figure \[fig:feature\_plots\] shows the t-SNE [@vanDerMaaten2008] visualisation of the RGB (left) and Flow (right) feature spaces $F^m$. Several observations are worth noting from this figure. First, Flow shows higher overlap between source and target features pre-alignment (first row). This shows that Flow is more robust to environmental changes. Second, self-supervision alone (second row) changes the feature space by separating the features into clusters, that are potentially class-relevant. This is most evident for $D3 \rightarrow D1$ on the RGB modality (second row third column). However, alone this feature space still shows domain gaps, particularly for RGB features. Third, our proposed MM-SADA (third row) aligns the marginal distributions of source and target domains.
Conclusion and Future Work
==========================
We proposed a multi-modal domain adaptation approach for fine-grained action recognition utilising multi-modal self-supervision and adversarial training per modality. We show that the self-supervision task of predicting the correspondence of multiple modalities is an effective domain adaptation method. On its own, this can outperform domain alignment methods [@long2015learning; @saito2018maximum], by jointly optimising for the self-supervised task over both domains. Together with adversarial training, the proposed approach outperforms non-adapated models by $4.8\%$. We conclude that aligning individual modalities whilst learning a self-supervision task on source and target domains can improve the ability of action recognition models to transfer to unlabelled environments.
Future work will focus on utilising more modalities, such as audio, to aid domain adaptation as well as exploring additional self-supervised tasks for adaptation, trained individually as well as for multi-task self-supervision.
**Acknowledgement** Research supported by EPSRC LOCATE (EP/N033779/1) and EPSRC Doctoral Training Partnershipts (DTP). The authors acknowledge and value the use of the ESPRC funded Tier 2 facility, JADE.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |